At 9/11/16 01:16 AM, zornuzkull wrote: Whatever happens ya'll are in some deep shit both candidates are incredibly unpopular...
Nobody wants to see either of them win... It's just how this whole thing has turned out...
International relations improved with Obama and it did give the world a sigh of relief especially after the bush administration and his war on anything that resembles a stable country in the middle east... I doubt anyone could do quite as much to fuck up the world than that simpleton did be it trump or hillary... One thing is for certain though next time get somebody in who doesn't make half of your country want to kill the other half this could quite easily turn into a massive cluster fuck whoever gets in charge... Simply because everyone is so convinced the other candidate is the spawn of Satan...

At this point I fear it's already too late. Republicans have been branding people RINOs (Republican In Name Only) for most of a decade now. And with the rise of the Tea Party in the same time, that "I will not reach across the aisle or compromise" mentality is pretty damn ingrained. I find very few self professed GOP supporters who don't border on narcissistic in their fervor that all of the left are the devil's army. On the flip side, the left especially has been turning the same way and I'm sure we're a year away from being equally matched in that regard.

Personally, I'm an independent moderate currently leaning left on more issue than right so while I wont die (hopefully) if Hillary loses. I still feel all scandals and conspiracies aside, she's the better pick based her experience in our government. She was a lawyer so she's educated in law. She was there with Bill and whether credit goes to him or his congress (cant they learn to share?), he ended his time in office with a great economy, so I'm assuming she was privy to some of how that was accomplished. She's been a Senator and thus know first hand the interactions that take place between the executive and legislative branches. She was a Cabinet member which essentially is a proving ground in it's own right since she's had to make decisions there that almost none of the rest of us will ever have to make in our lives. I just cant say Trump is better suited than this on any of his merits. It's like the assistant manager at Starbucks wants to take over the store, but instead they give the store manager's job to the guy that sells them the coffee beans. It just makes no sense to me.

At 9/11/16 04:35 PM, Doge2 wrote: NY times poll.

Trump 41% Hillary 43%

He's gonna win. She is a mess : 3

You literally just quoted a poll putting Hilary in the lead and deduced from that that Trump will win.

Thankyou for confirming that all Trump supporters are Olympic level mental gymnasts indulging in post-factual politics.

Or, decent hardworking commonfolk who make up the salt of American earth, but don't have the time left over to read in between media-bullshit and Trump's blatant lies to realise who's fucking them harder: the politician who plays the game or the billionaire playboy who set the bullshit rules in the first place

At 9/9/16 11:50 PM, Feoric wrote: But first, maybe we should define what "propaganda" means in this context? Considering that the only actual types of sources which were seriously "reporting" the laughably bullshit claim that Reuters cut the video feed of Trump's Detroit photo-op were sites like Infowars, maybe "propaganda" means "any journalistic institution with the remotest shred of credibility?" I totally believe him if that's the case.

Given the levels of truth and realness in this post, I can only describe it as trill af

At 8/26/16 07:09 AM, Doge2 wrote:

Ay fuck it, talk is cheap though. I'll happily bet you $50 you'll be seeing a second President Clinton inaugurated on November.

Wanna put your money where your mouth is?

At 9/12/16 05:52 PM, AxTekk wrote:

At 8/26/16 07:09 AM, Doge2 wrote:

Ay fuck it, talk is cheap though. I'll happily bet you $50 you'll be seeing a second President Clinton inaugurated on November.

Wanna put your money where your mouth is?

Love your music dude. No bet there... pray for the best, plan for the worst. Now where do I apply for an exit visa....

As a disclaimer: 1. The more intelligent the person, the more convinced they are, that their political party is the best... not many choices :\ 2. The richest people in the world used to be split 50/50, conservative/liberal, but that has been changing to favor the left these past few years (shame I can't find the article, was quite compelling).. and these are the people who really run the world, by buying influence of elected officials, government employees, educational associations and the good ol' MSM. 3. Google has been spending money for political aims across the globe, and they are pros at information aggregation (and damn them for permanently black-listing NG). And guess who wuvs Hilly?

To stay on topic: I'd rather vote for Trump and take my chances, than Clinton, who has tons of favors to repay, to the worst sorts, across the globe.

At 9/12/16 08:33 PM, VicariousE wrote: Love your music dude.

BAKA! I-i-it's not like complimenting my music makes me like you! BAKA!

As a disclaimer: 1. The more intelligent the person, the more convinced they are, that their political party is the best... not many choices :\ 2. The richest people in the world used to be split 50/50, conservative/liberal, but that has been changing to favor the left these past few years (shame I can't find the article, was quite compelling).. and these are the people who really run the world, by buying influence of elected officials, government employees, educational associations and the good ol' MSM. 3. Google has been spending money for political aims across the globe, and they are pros at information aggregation (and damn them for permanently black-listing NG). And guess who wuvs Hilly?

Idk, Google might like Hilary Clinton, but even if there was evidence they were favouring her that wouldn't balance out the giant target the press has on her back.

To stay on topic: I'd rather vote for Trump and take my chances, than Clinton, who has tons of favors to repay, to the worst sorts, across the globe.

Trump has plenty of favours to repay as well, to the banks, to his buddies on wall-street, to judges who've favoured him in his vast litany of tedious lawsuits, to Vladimir Putin, to Fox News & Reuters whose employees can now walk straight into direct employment for him...

Don't get me wrong, Hilary plays the game too. And I don't like that at all about her either. But, while this was a valid complaint when she was running against Bernie Sanders, I don't think it is when she's running against Trump. Half a dozen of one, six of the other. Giant douche/ turd sandwich.

At 9/13/16 03:33 PM, AxTekk wrote: Idk, Google might like Hilary Clinton, but even if there was evidence they were favouring her that wouldn't balance out the giant target the press has on her back.

Still, that target is invisible to democrats who tow the line, for better or worse, or because their parents voted that way and they aren't going to change.

To stay on topic: I'd rather vote for Trump and take my chances, than Clinton, who has tons of favors to repay, to the worst sorts, across the globe.

Trump has plenty of favours to repay as well, to the banks, to his buddies on wall-street, to judges who've favoured him in his vast litany of tedious lawsuits, to Vladimir Putin, to Fox News & Reuters whose employees can now walk straight into direct employment for him...

Is Trump's company listed on the NYSExchange? Either way, any business has to bow to the banksters, don't they? Kinda neat Woolsey former CIA spook for Bubba Clintion has gone over to Trump's side, mainly over security integrity.... think Donny can hold his tongue? At least the appointed under Trump would be a new batch of would-be crooks, it's good to shake things up as often as possible.

Don't get me wrong, Hilary plays the game too. And I don't like that at all about her either. But, while this was a valid complaint when she was running against Bernie Sanders, I don't think it is when she's running against Trump. Half a dozen of one, six of the other. Giant douche/ turd sandwich.

Shame that Obama had to carry on Bush's legacy of consolidating power at the top of the executive branch, as well as violating our privacy... and who guessed that he'd be more secretive than Baby Bush (who failed more at business than Trump ever did)? Google says do no evil, Obama says the gov't would be transparent... should've made both of those 'individuals' sign a paper to back up those hollow words.

At 9/13/16 04:00 PM, VicariousE wrote: Still, that target is invisible to democrats who tow the line, for better or worse, or because their parents voted that way and they aren't going to change.

Do you mean there are Democrats who are so polarised a literal donkey could stand for President and get votes for wearing a blue rosette? Yeah, absolutely. Plenty the other side too.

But that doesn't change the fact Clinton isn't getting any favours in her press-coverage. If anything she gets a much harder time than Trump, despite being much much more truthful in what she says to the public.

Is Trump's company listed on the NYSExchange? Either way, any business has to bow to the banksters, don't they? Kinda neat Woolsey former CIA spook for Bubba Clintion has gone over to Trump's side, mainly over security integrity.... think Donny can hold his tongue? At least the appointed under Trump would be a new batch of would-be crooks, it's good to shake things up as often as possible.

I don't know. I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference between the two - Well, actually, I think Trump's worse because whereas Clinton schmoozes as part of her bipartisan style of politics, Trump's been playing the game purely for personal gain. And he'll be a horrible bipartisan, that even half of the Republicans won't want to do deals with, negating any gain the US would get from him being a bit slippery.

Shame that Obama had to carry on Bush's legacy of consolidating power at the top of the executive branch, as well as violating our privacy... and who guessed that he'd be more secretive than Baby Bush (who failed more at business than Trump ever did)? Google says do no evil, Obama says the gov't would be transparent... should've made both of those 'individuals' sign a paper to back up those hollow words.

Well, tbf, Obama has done a lot to increase transparency in government. He has also failed on a lot of his promises, but we should be mad at him for selling himself as a lot more than he was, not for doing the opposite of what he said he'd do.

As for accusations he's overused his veto power & executive orders (which I assume you refer to by "consolidating power") he really hasn't used his veto that much more than any other president, and most the time on things people from both sides will agree were veto-worthy. As for his executive orders, well, congress & the house of reps have for a long time been committed to blocking him on every turn. They've admitted to this. If Obama wanted to get anything done, he had to use executive orders.

At 9/13/16 04:46 PM, AxTekk wrote: Do you mean there are Democrats who are so polarised a literal donkey could stand for President and get votes for wearing a blue rosette? Yeah, absolutely. Plenty the other side too.

Yup, and that's what dooms us. If you don't change the political di(polar)aper across the board every chance you get, you get a stinky mess that, unchanged, will eventually kill baby America. Both parties do what big corps/wall street want these days. Used to be they'd pick and choose who to represent. But when you bet on both sides of the isle, you'll come up a winner either way... and the Clinton Foundation is the least picky about who they take money from, and are quite stingy about putting those bucks to work (aside from desk jobs and lavish charity events to raise even more capital, it's the not-for-profit tax dodge/influence peddling scheme)

But that doesn't change the fact Clinton isn't getting any favours in her press-coverage. If anything she gets a much harder time than Trump, despite being much much more truthful in what she says to the public.

Considering there's over 20 years of heavy dirt on her, and possibly many homicides on the Clinton's behalf, I think they've gone exceptionally easy on her. The administrative branch sets policy so deep, that the other branches bend to their will, for fear of reprisal (firings, cut funding, dirt exposed), and that influnence is channeled through MSM, education, etc. That's kinda what I meant about a consoldiation of power... this pres hardly ever speaks to anyone in either house, just dictates policy, and lets them stew about it without compromise/going through the traditional motions.

Is Trump's company listed on the NYSExchange? Either way, any business has to bow to the banksters, don't they? Kinda neat Woolsey former CIA spook for Bubba Clintion has gone over to Trump's side, mainly over security integrity.... think Donny can hold his tongue? At least the appointed under Trump would be a new batch of would-be crooks, it's good to shake things up as often as possible.

I don't know. I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference between the two - Well, actually, I think Trump's worse because whereas Clinton schmoozes as part of her bipartisan style of politics, Trump's been playing the game purely for personal gain. And he'll be a horrible bipartisan, that even half of the Republicans won't want to do deals with, negating any gain the US would get from him being a bit slippery.

It's all about personal gain, and it would do our 2 shit-functional houses good to have a bulwark in the hot seat, same with the supreme court (hopefully). All goes back to how a 2 party system is about as long lasting as a Wankel engine |: it's a rigged game, might as well send the riggers a message, and hope Trump can be humbled and thoughtful enough to stay out of trouble, while the institutional devils are exorcised (politely) from the govt payroll.

Shame that Obama had to carry on Bush's legacy of consolidating power at the top of the executive branch, as well as violating our privacy... and who guessed that he'd be more secretive than Baby Bush (who failed more at business than Trump ever did)? Google says do no evil, Obama says the gov't would be transparent... should've made both of those 'individuals' sign a paper to back up those hollow words.

Well, tbf, Obama has done a lot to increase transparency in government. He has also failed on a lot of his promises, but we should be mad at him for selling himself as a lot more than he was, not for doing the opposite of what he said he'd do.

It's likely the consolidation of 2 dozen agencies into Homeland had an effect on how much, an even good natured guy, would want to release...

As for accusations he's overused his veto power & executive orders (which I assume you refer to by "consolidating power") he really hasn't used his veto that much more than any other president, and most the time on things people from both sides will agree were veto-worthy. As for his executive orders, well, congress & the house of reps have for a long time been committed to blocking him on every turn. They've admitted to this. If Obama wanted to get anything done, he had to use executive orders.

Anything, is the problem, without public representation to at least have a say so... fiat currency fiat government :p So many old governmental traditions (due process, legal precedence checking) have been stripped away, to favor a highly reactionary system, and leaves the President as the tie breaker and branch-lord.

You made some sane arguments, but the truth behind the facts points to fucking civil war, no matter who's elected... and I still believe, Trump will jump ship, maybe Hilly too, and God help us which puppets they'll pony up this time around.

And yeah I'm over 40, but still believe in diversity, something you don't see much anymore in politics or business... just in SJW circles, despite the fact America's grown by leaps and bounds. My 1st pres vote was for Clinton in '92, but didnt for vote for him the 2nd time around, because 1 term for anyone should be enough.

At 9/29/16 12:01 AM, Korriken wrote: I maintain my stance that the camera was shut off intentionally so the PR moment was not broadcast.

That's why you're an idiot.

At 9/29/16 01:05 AM, Korriken wrote: *shrug* You can go back to licking Clinton's crusty vagina now, stooge.

You can go back to not responding to this post and/or not making even the faintest effort of backing up your shitposts. Well, you haven't actually stopped stopped doing that, so you wouldn't exactly be "going back" to those things, pussy.

At 9/11/16 06:37 PM, MasterStalker wrote:

Why are we still pounding on the emails? Colin Powell did the same thing, and wasn't it reported that thousands of emails were retroactively made classified? Retroactively obviously meaning after they'd been sent. How can you say someone was sending confidential info out when It wasn't confidential at the time it was sent?

he did not. he did use private email, but he turned everything over. he did not have private servers, nor did he delete information confidential in nature and belonging to the government and/or the people, he did not destroy multiple devices. he was also under less strict guidelines.

retroactive confidential classification is one of many reasons she wasn't supposed to do what she did. bellow classified, there's sensitive information, which is also not supposed to be sent and received outside of government systems. all information sent is subject to retroactive classification depending on the changing situations around the world.

she broke many many laws, but it's apparently ok.

At 10/2/16 12:56 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: she broke many many laws, but it's apparently ok.

Trump has face fines and penalties for his breaking of the law, yet people seem to think the person who's never been convicted of anything and always exonerated is somehow worse. I don't get it. The only people who make any sense to me are the ones that try to say they're both law breakers (although that usually comes off like "Hillary did 50 things wrong....Trump did 1" which no, not even close....but it's better then people that just want to let the guy ice skate away while they howl about Hillary.

Also, I've been watching how Gary Johnson has been getting grilled and self-destructing lately and I cannot understand why the media isn't taking the same tact with Trump? I mean, Johnson at least HAS held office, yet they've taken every opportunity to treat him like the guy who runs the ferris wheel at the county fair (and in all honesty, he hasn't really done anything to deserve treatment above that by falling into these traps), but yet Trump continues to be allowed to blow up and still get covered like a serious candidate? How does this make sense?

At 10/2/16 12:56 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: she broke many many laws, but it's apparently ok.

Actually, she didn't, but whatever lol

At 10/2/16 11:01 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 10/2/16 12:56 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: she broke many many laws, but it's apparently ok.

Actually, she didn't, but whatever lol

actually, she did.

At 10/2/16 07:45 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 10/2/16 12:56 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: she broke many many laws, but it's apparently ok.

Trump has face fines and penalties for his breaking of the law, yet people seem to think the person who's never been convicted of anything and always exonerated is somehow worse. I don't get it. The only people who make any sense to me are the ones that try to say they're both law breakers (although that usually comes off like "Hillary did 50 things wrong....Trump did 1" which no, not even close....but it's better then people that just want to let the guy ice skate away while they howl about Hillary.

shady buisiness dealings ≠ using the state department to hire donors who have no experience for jobs, taking donations for foundation then steering US world politics, destruction of public record, basically handing confidential information to anyone smart enough to hack a poorly secured server, etc.

Also, I've been watching how Gary Johnson has been getting grilled and self-destructing lately and I cannot understand why the media isn't taking the same tact with Trump? I mean, Johnson at least HAS held office, yet they've taken every opportunity to treat him like the guy who runs the ferris wheel at the county fair (and in all honesty, he hasn't really done anything to deserve treatment above that by falling into these traps), but yet Trump continues to be allowed to blow up and still get covered like a serious candidate? How does this make sense?

trump? try hilary. trump at least answers questions and speaks to the press.

and that gary johnson thing in general, it's just kinda sad.

At 10/3/16 08:04 AM, billybobthwarten wrote: actually, she did.

oh, ok

At 10/3/16 08:04 AM, billybobthwarten wrote:

At 10/2/16 11:01 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 10/2/16 12:56 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: she broke many many laws, but it's apparently ok.

Actually, she didn't, but whatever lol

actually, she did.

Which laws? Benghazi has no laws broken from her, E-mails were not considered worth pursuing by the FBI (though yes, they DID state that she mishandled the confidential information), her foundation didn't break any laws (unless you can provide which she DID break - all I've found are incoherent ramblings about various "special interests" and no prosecutable points), her campaign hasn't broken laws (DNC is debatable, but not her campaign).

Do it. Tell us specifically which laws were broken by her. Either put up or shut up.

At 10/3/16 11:31 AM, Gario wrote:

know anyone with security clearances? go speak with them.

At 10/3/16 01:59 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: know anyone with security clearances? go speak with them.

Do you? No? Then under this horrible line of arguing, you equally have no right to definitively claim she broke any laws.

At 10/3/16 03:12 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 10/3/16 01:59 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: know anyone with security clearances? go speak with them.

Do you? No? Then under this horrible line of arguing, you equally have no right to definitively claim she broke any laws.

i don't? some of my family and many friends have a minimum of secret clearance.

if you know similar people, go ask them about agreements and penalties for violating them.

At 10/3/16 03:57 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: i don't? some of my family and many friends have a minimum of secret clearance.

if you know similar people, go ask them about agreements and penalties for violating them.

Or you could, you know, back up your assertion that she broke the law, instead of using this pathetic cop out.

At 10/3/16 04:05 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 10/3/16 03:57 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: i don't? some of my family and many friends have a minimum of secret clearance.

if you know similar people, go ask them about agreements and penalties for violating them.

Or you could, you know, back up your assertion that she broke the law, instead of using this pathetic cop out.

nothing i would say could convince any of you lot. go speak to someone you know and trust.

At 10/3/16 03:57 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: i don't? some of my family and many friends have a minimum of secret clearance.

if you know similar people, go ask them about agreements and penalties for violating them.

Anecdotal evidence is not proof. Anecdotal evidence that you can't possibly back up? Well...

Also, you're bar for Trump is frighteningly low. "At least he talks to the media and answers questions". Yes, but when he talks, he lies. When he answers questions, he makes shit up or says patently inflammatory things that are dangerous because they are blatantly untrue, but play into bias, prejudice, and are also occassionally viewable as calls to some sort of threatening or illegal action on the part of supporters.

So you know, if that's all a candidate can do or say when they open their mouth....shutting up and saying nothing might be the more responsible alternative.

At 10/3/16 04:06 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: nothing i would say could convince any of you lot. go speak to someone you know and trust.

I'm speaking to you, the guy who said Hillary broke the law. Which law?

At 10/3/16 04:06 PM, billybobthwarten wrote:

At 10/3/16 04:05 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 10/3/16 03:57 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: i don't? some of my family and many friends have a minimum of secret clearance.

if you know similar people, go ask them about agreements and penalties for violating them.

Or you could, you know, back up your assertion that she broke the law, instead of using this pathetic cop out.

nothing i would say could convince any of you lot. go speak to someone you know and trust.

Links to credible sources would convince me. I don't trust you, so word of mouth will get you nowhere. Post a credible source that agrees with you and I have to consider what you say, trust or not. It's not hard to do, unless no credible sources exist, in which case you should consider "what you heard" as a lie.

It's why I link when I can - read those, don't take my word for it.