Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2016 9:39:09 GMT -5
Well now that nearly every newspaper in America has suddenly found legions of women wronged by Donald Trump -- and apparently all were just too traumatized by their ordeals to even file complaints afterward, or tell others about it -- perhaps the Left will trot these liars out at the site of the last debate!
After all, that worked out just fine a week ago, when Trump brought out women who'd actually made credible assault claims against Bill Clinton, didn't it? The press immediately championed these ladies as trailblazing pioneers against the scourge of female oppression.
Didn't they?
They were lauded as a new vanguard of empowered, fearless feminists who simply would not be silenced!
Weren't they?
After all we've been force-fed feminist propaganda about this for decades now: stand up to patriarchal exploitation, speak truth to power, an attack against one is an attack against all....right?
I'll be watching the final chapter of this freak show Wednesday, although I wouldn't blame others for skipping it. About 60% of the country isn't paying attention already....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2016 10:19:50 GMT -5
I'll be watching.
Lookin like Drudge is coming to Trump's aid in the media gun fight. Tweeting that Hillary is going to "get hers" regarding "Sex". All these folks speculating that it outs her as a lesbian.
And then listening to some morons babble about how that would guarantee her win. LoL. You engaged in THAT LEVEL of deception while trying to be a leader? Stayed in a loveless marriage where your husband was fucking everyone but you, for what? Oh. Political power? So you were willing to lie about everything it took, including who you actually are as a person, for power? Fuck.
I watched an interesting video this morning, some small market news anchor who went live on FB as he was out for his morning jog. Basically said that the media wasn't trying to "kill" Trump because "they know they can't". But he said what the media was trying to kill was the resolve of Trump's supporters. Said they were trying to wear us down so we stop talking, stop supporting him publicly, stop having anything to say about Trump at all.
And I thought he was spot on. I'm tired of defending.
But I'm going to be watching, and I hope for a change that the bombshell that was dropped was fired at Hillary's side before the debate. I'm happy that Fox is hosting this last one, because maybe Trump gets to fight on a level playing field for the first time.
If she wins this shit, I'm gonna be rip shit. That doubles the taxes I'll be paying while waiting for her to unhatch her strategy for sparking WWIII.
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Oct 16, 2016 10:56:53 GMT -5
I want to hear her answer as to why 5 members of her staff were given immunity deals by the FBI. If that again gets left off the table I will be pissed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2016 11:03:32 GMT -5
Still hoping for the meteor...
Seriously though, WTF is going on?
Barely anyone paying attention to any of the Podesta emails that were leaked. Granted, the topics aren't as flashy as "HE TOUCHED MY VAGINA THROUGH MY UNDAPANTS" but they are important.
I also have an incredibly hard time respecting women who suffered some kind of assault and took no action AT THE TIME, but now want to talk about it, when it is actually nothing more than he said she said at the time. This is what women face if they don't speak up immediately.
I don't doubt that the Donald is a lech. The guy cheated on wives, made skeevy comments, etc... But to come forward with stories a decade or more AFTER THE FACT? You know what that means? If someone had reported, he could have been stopped and it wouldn't have happened to the next person, etc... If the allegations are true, of course.
I am normally inclined to believe women when they talk about these things, because as a survivor, it's unfathomable to me that a woman would make this stuff up. But waiting all this time? It hurts credibility in my eyes. And I know that makes me a so called crappy woman in the feminist crowd, but it's the truth.
This 3rd debate is going to be nuts. Like a rubber match or something, which is particularly funny because Trump is suggesting that Clinton is on PEDS and wants them both to be drug tested prior to the depate.
*facepalm*
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Oct 16, 2016 11:20:33 GMT -5
Anyone been reading the Goldman Sachs speeches that Hillary did? She in one of them basically said that the government needs to deregulate the banking sector.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2016 12:54:27 GMT -5
Still hoping for the meteor... Seriously though, WTF is going on? Barely anyone paying attention to any of the Podesta emails that were leaked. Granted, the topics aren't as flashy as "HE TOUCHED MY VAGINA THROUGH MY UNDAPANTS" but they are important. I also have an incredibly hard time respecting women who suffered some kind of assault and took no action AT THE TIME, but now want to talk about it, when it is actually nothing more than he said she said at the time. This is what women face if they don't speak up immediately. I don't doubt that the Donald is a lech. The guy cheated on wives, made skeevy comments, etc... But to come forward with stories a decade or more AFTER THE FACT? You know what that means? If someone had reported, he could have been stopped and it wouldn't have happened to the next person, etc... If the allegations are true, of course. I am normally inclined to believe women when they talk about these things, because as a survivor, it's unfathomable to me that a woman would make this stuff up. But waiting all this time? It hurts credibility in my eyes. And I know that makes me a so called crappy woman in the feminist crowd, but it's the truth. This 3rd debate is going to be nuts. Like a rubber match or something, which is particularly funny because Trump is suggesting that Clinton is on PEDS and wants them both to be drug tested prior to the depate. *facepalm* It's crazy how many people are so fixated on "grab em by the pussy". Which, while a crude thing to say, has NOTHING on these leaks, years of corruption and lies, years of nothing being done, Bills own bullshit, etc. But "grab em by the pussy" has got people up in arms.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2016 16:49:12 GMT -5
Tony,
Do you still believe Trump has any chance?
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Oct 16, 2016 17:11:54 GMT -5
Grab 'em by the pussy is this cycle's binders of women.
This is what we do, apparently. Latch-on to some term that goes weirdly viral and decide a popular election based on dank meme battles. Think about 2012 for a second. A completely ethical, respected, brilliant business guru who literally made hundreds of millions of dollars buying failing companies and fixing them, saving money, making smart decisions, etc. . . . got thumped by a lazy community organizer with four years of broken promises already under his belt because . . . binders of women was funny??? . . . and that smug comment about horses and bayonets when Romney said our old foe Russia was a threat. Remember that? And we all laughed and laughed. Silly old Romney, stuck in the 1980s. LOLOLOL. Except, he was right about everything, Obama was wrong, the snarky one-liners were all incorrect and reckless, but damn, did he look good in that suit. And they flooded the polls with bussed-in voters, and the media came out lock-step, and hollywood did their job, and we all ate it up.
Have you ever tried to help a drug addict or alcoholic who wasn't ready for help? Who hadn't hit rock bottom? Yeah, it doesn't fucking work.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Oct 16, 2016 17:17:01 GMT -5
Tony, Do you still believe Trump has any chance? I know you aren't asking me, but, Yes. He's taking a hit in the public polls. However in the worst case of internals / non-push polls he's at -4 with 4pt margin of error. Given the trends though, I certainly give the edge to Hillary, probably a +2 come general election day (and assuming actual election day follows the general vote). However if mainstream media starts seriously questioning her based on the leaks, Trump will probably clean up with a 6+ victory in the general vote.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Oct 16, 2016 19:37:23 GMT -5
Challenge: You're the Adviser
In a SHORT blurb, tell us how you'd advise Trump and/or Clinton in this final debate and why?
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Oct 16, 2016 19:52:27 GMT -5
Challenge: You're the Adviser In a SHORT blurb, tell us how you'd advise Trump and/or Clinton in this final debate and why? Advising Hillary: 1. Attack Trump on foreign affairs. Use your years of security briefings as a foundation. 2. Push the view that Trump will be a do-nothing President as nobody even in his own party wants to work with him. 3. When Trump brings up her Husband, say that she is filing for divorce (that will win her the election regardless of all the other dirt they find on her). 4. Go into statistician mode in regards to immigration in the US. Attack Trump on the actual crime numbers of immigrants in the US. 5. "Trumped Up Economics" as a buzzword phrase. Advising Trump: 1. If questioned on Russia, bring up the various Clinton deals, especially the uranium deal, with Russia. Also admit to dealings with them, for American business benefits though. 2. Avoid grandstanding, promoting yourself as a person. 3. If questioned about border/immigration policy. Avoid likening them to criminals, admit that the #1 resource to preventing radical Islamic attacks in the US have been Muslim immigrants. Instead pivot and focus on making it a hard vetting process to prevent the ones trying to sneak through who, and admit, are the exception the rare ones. 4. Re-iterate in detail how you want to close tax loopholes that you yourself have used, and how Clinton wants to keep available. 5. Give the non dumbed down version of why your tax plan works and Hillary doesn't. Just saying it is better doesn't work, the average person doesn't understand it. The whys should be obvious.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Oct 16, 2016 21:28:43 GMT -5
That's pretty solid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2016 10:33:10 GMT -5
Tony, Do you still believe Trump has any chance? Oh fuck yes I do. I think he's got more of a chance today than he had last week. I think his base is completely galvanized and are disregarding this "grab them by the pussy" bullshit for what it is. Not important. I don't think Romney ever had the kind of passion behind him that Trump has, because Romney lacked the ability to generate that kind of passion by talking real. Romney also didn't have the benefit of 8 years of Obama's shit spurring the country to scream loud for sweeping change. And I don't know that Romney could have even credibly made a case that he'd bring the change that people are craving. Not saying Trump has made any kind of a case for himself, but people are believing him, probably just because of his conviction when he speaks. I keep seeing the crazy numbers he's pulling at his rallies and compare them to Hillary's. It isn't even close. Facts as I see them are that the only places saying Hillary is "winning" are the MSM's polls. Every other place where there is any kind of measuring metric, he's destroying her. Given the current % of people who say they trust the MSM is only 6%, I think that should put their polls in the proper perspective. I'm in a blue state. I still believe Hillary is going to take all of New England because of nothing but history, but I will tell ya something else too. So far in Maine I have seen (no exaggeration) 1 Hillary campaign sign. 1 solitary sign that was surrounded by other signs that want to : Keep marijuana illegal, and force background checks on every single gun sale that occurs within the state. Par for her course. I believe that the media is trying to convince everyone that he stands no chance and are trying to manipulate sheep who need to vote for the winner, that the winner has already been declared. I don't think the majority are buying it even a little. And so far, the only reason I've heard anyone give in person as to why they are voting for Hillary is "Because she's a woman." And that also happens to be the only person who's said in person that they are even thinking about voting for her. She changed her tune when I showed her how different her taxes look under Trump.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Oct 17, 2016 10:44:08 GMT -5
Trump campaign HQ in North Carolina fire-bombed and tagged with "Nazi" graffiti.
Been reading through some Wikileaks this a.m.
More Wikileaks showing media guys (CNBC) kicking around "gotcha" questions with Leon Podesta before a Trump interview, then he goes on TV the following day and recites the question they came up with word-for-word.
Imagine doing live interviews knowing your interviewer, the objective media, has been emailing with your opponent for a few days to come up with a strategy to humiliate you on live TV.
One of the Clinton guys asking the FBI to make certain emails disappear in exchange for promotions and coveted appointments. Then the Clinton staffers get a bunch of immunity deals and no charges are filed. This is Putin 101.
Just outright, Russian-style corruption, bribery, collusion with the media, with law enforcement, etc.
Now Assange's internet is cut off?!!? LOL to death. This thing has become a complete fucking circus.
If you're still voting for Hitlary, and I really mean this, fuck you.
If you don't want to vote for Trump and you can articulate a rational justification for that, I get it. He's authoritarian, a hot head, contradicts himself, there are some real issues that have nothing to do with faux outrage over him being a billionaire playboy in the 1990s. That's fine. But if you're actively supporting Hitlary, you've chosen an indefensible position. This is ushering the doom of a nation in through the front door. The secrecy and misinformation and corruption you think exists . . . give this bitch and her team and her sycophant media and her bought-off FBI and her fake quid pro quo charity 4-8 years of unchecked executive power. We'll never be the same. And you'll have cast a vote in FAVOR of that.
|
|
|
Post by Elissa on Oct 17, 2016 11:16:59 GMT -5
If you're still voting for Hitlary, and I really mean this, fuck you. If you don't want to vote for Trump and you can articulate a rational justification for that, I get it. He's authoritarian, a hot head, contradicts himself, there are some real issues that have nothing to do with faux outrage over him being a billionaire playboy in the 1990s. That's fine. But if you're actively supporting Hitlary, you've chosen an indefensible position. This is ushering the doom of a nation in through the front door. The secrecy and misinformation and corruption you think exists . . . give this bitch and her team and her sycophant media and her bought-off FBI and her fake quid pro quo charity 4-8 years of unchecked executive power. We'll never be the same. And you'll have cast a vote in FAVOR of that. I'll start with a caveat: I think you guys are damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Both of the people running to fill the position of "Leader of the Free World" aren't fit to run a small daycare, neverfuckingmind an entire country. I honestly feel bad for y'all, because your choices suck. However, what I'm curious about, is this insistence that Hilary is so bad that she will lead the globe into WW3. I see her as rather status quo, that she'll just continue along the track set for her in the last 100+ years of American politics. From where I sit, I don't see her doing anything of consequence for 4 years (if elected, of course). Not to say that is a good thing necessarily, but I fail to see this demon that everyone else sees.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Oct 17, 2016 11:26:59 GMT -5
Nobody, that I'm aware of, has ever had this sort of influence with the media to lie and collude combined with an apparent power over the oversight bodies (FBI, NSA, Courts), and established quid pro quo deals with shady foreign governments (Clinton Foundations Gulf State/Russian donors) combined with a raging power lust going back nearly 40 years. The table is set. Where are the checks and balances in a Clinton administration? Where will the oversight come from? What is her track record on war, illegal smuggling, bribery, assassinations, cover-ups? Where are the safe guards? Trump will get strong, systemic scrutiny. 1/3 of his own party is against him. 95% of the media is against him. Clinton will have virtually zero scrutiny and she's shown a tendency to abuse power and embrace secrecy and corruption. What do you think that looks like if she gets MORE control?
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Oct 17, 2016 12:20:31 GMT -5
If you're still voting for Hitlary, and I really mean this, fuck you. If you don't want to vote for Trump and you can articulate a rational justification for that, I get it. He's authoritarian, a hot head, contradicts himself, there are some real issues that have nothing to do with faux outrage over him being a billionaire playboy in the 1990s. That's fine. But if you're actively supporting Hitlary, you've chosen an indefensible position. This is ushering the doom of a nation in through the front door. The secrecy and misinformation and corruption you think exists . . . give this bitch and her team and her sycophant media and her bought-off FBI and her fake quid pro quo charity 4-8 years of unchecked executive power. We'll never be the same. And you'll have cast a vote in FAVOR of that. I'll start with a caveat: I think you guys are damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Both of the people running to fill the position of "Leader of the Free World" aren't fit to run a small daycare, neverfuckingmind an entire country. I honestly feel bad for y'all, because your choices suck. However, what I'm curious about, is this insistence that Hilary is so bad that she will lead the globe into WW3. I see her as rather status quo, that she'll just continue along the track set for her in the last 100+ years of American politics. From where I sit, I don't see her doing anything of consequence for 4 years (if elected, of course). Not to say that is a good thing necessarily, but I fail to see this demon that everyone else sees. Hillary will appoint SC justices. If she has 5 in her pocket, and she will, she will have absolute and unchecked power to do anything she wants. There is no big brother left if she has the SCOTUS. Put 5 whack job liberals that ignore the constitution on the bench of the supreme court and the President is unchecked. It could effectively render congress meaningless because like Obama, Clinton can simply enact executive order and then fight those challenges via court, a court she will have to defend and protect her. We have a system of checks and balances that while both sides use to stall things, it also allows for separation of powers. Obama changed it but most people lack an understanding of government and don't understand how the hill actually works. Obama used the "nuclear option" and changed history in 2013. He took away the filibuster rules we have had for 100 years so he could appoint people that republicans were trying to block. That is a HUGE, HUGE, historically relevant massive change. It means he can appoint anyone with unchecked power and he DID. One being the corrupt POS deputy secretary of DHS. Obama also uses executive actions to end run around congress. Immigration is one area where the federal government has control and laws are passed by congress, right? Hope you are following along because most of the sheep in the USA have no fucking clue. We vote on laws and some pass, some don't. The open borders Obama's administration has wanted can't pass. So what does he do? He orders his agencies to implement his immigration policies DESPITE congress and it takes states taking him to court and even his own agents, my co-workers, to SUE their own government to force us to be able to enforce laws. We literally had federal agents sue their own federal government because we were ordered to ignore and break laws. This shit happens and you can google it. This is how bat shit crazy it becomes with these desperate liberals in office. Courts order injunctions and stop the government overreach and those court rulings can be appealed all the way to the SCOTUS. Okay, so what happens when the court becomes a political ally of the POTUS? There is the answer to your question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2016 13:14:58 GMT -5
I'll start with a caveat: I think you guys are damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Both of the people running to fill the position of "Leader of the Free World" aren't fit to run a small daycare, neverfuckingmind an entire country. I honestly feel bad for y'all, because your choices suck. However, what I'm curious about, is this insistence that Hilary is so bad that she will lead the globe into WW3. I see her as rather status quo, that she'll just continue along the track set for her in the last 100+ years of American politics. From where I sit, I don't see her doing anything of consequence for 4 years (if elected, of course). Not to say that is a good thing necessarily, but I fail to see this demon that everyone else sees. It's entirely because of her history of interventionism. Bitch votes to stick our nose into every single issue that rears its head anywhere on the globe. Her voting record indicates that she really does see the United States as the Global Police. Given our current state of things in the world, Syria specifically, her record of regime change puts her in direct opposition with: Russia, who are siding with the leader of Syria over the rebels. Hillary is backing the rebels. Trump has said countless times that he wants to improve our relationship with Russia, and Putin has expressed interest in that as well. But I think Putin knows that'll never happen with Hillary. That's why folks are saying she'll spark WWIII.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2016 17:39:48 GMT -5
Elissa... because status quo is a fast track to bankruptcy and our country hating each other to the point of no return. Status quo is high inflation, lower purchasing power, jobs leaving the country at record rates, gun control without voting, a mess in the middle east, no relationship with Israel/Russia, and a real shot at $40T in debt by the time 8 years is up.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Oct 17, 2016 23:05:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Oct 18, 2016 6:17:35 GMT -5
Nobody, that I'm aware of, has ever had this sort of influence with the media to lie and collude combined with an apparent power over the oversight bodies (FBI, NSA, Courts), and established quid pro quo deals with shady foreign governments (Clinton Foundations Gulf State/Russian donors) combined with a raging power lust going back nearly 40 years. The table is set. Where are the checks and balances in a Clinton administration? Where will the oversight come from? What is her track record on war, illegal smuggling, bribery, assassinations, cover-ups? Where are the safe guards? Trump will get strong, systemic scrutiny. 1/3 of his own party is against him. 95% of the media is against him. Clinton will have virtually zero scrutiny and she's shown a tendency to abuse power and embrace secrecy and corruption. What do you think that looks like if she gets MORE control? I need to learn to multi quote here, but there is a precedent in FDR, who colluded with shady foreign governments and had the media lying for him. He (along with his uncle Joe) created WW2 and got around a hundred million people killed in less than a decade
|
|
|
Post by Canuklehead on Oct 18, 2016 8:29:49 GMT -5
Nobody, that I'm aware of, has ever had this sort of influence with the media to lie and collude combined with an apparent power over the oversight bodies (FBI, NSA, Courts), and established quid pro quo deals with shady foreign governments (Clinton Foundations Gulf State/Russian donors) combined with a raging power lust going back nearly 40 years. The table is set. Where are the checks and balances in a Clinton administration? Where will the oversight come from? What is her track record on war, illegal smuggling, bribery, assassinations, cover-ups? Where are the safe guards? Trump will get strong, systemic scrutiny. 1/3 of his own party is against him. 95% of the media is against him. Clinton will have virtually zero scrutiny and she's shown a tendency to abuse power and embrace secrecy and corruption. What do you think that looks like if she gets MORE control? I need to learn to multi quote here, but there is a precedent in FDR, who colluded with shady foreign governments and had the media lying for him. He (along with his uncle Joe) created WW2 and got around a hundred million people killed in less than a decade How did FDR and his uncle create WW2? Serious question, never heard that one before.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 12:03:22 GMT -5
To understand what happened to FDR, you gotta understand who FDR really was. Now FDR was born to a three-legged bitch of a mother. And he was ashamed of this, man. And then he was adopted by his uncle, Josef STalin, a small time gun runner and communist fight promoter. And they put FDR into training, and they realized FDR was good. He was damn good. Then, he was scheduled for the fight of his life, against his brother, Teddy. And he was like 'no man, i'm not gonna fight Teddy, thats my brother, man'. And they made him fight. And he killed Teddy. And that was it, he cancelled all his fights, started smoking crack. And in a rage, he wrecked the apartment and collapsed on the floor. And FDR was no more...wow!
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Oct 18, 2016 12:46:08 GMT -5
Follow the rabbit trail on FDR --> William Randolph Hearst --> Gabriel Over the White House --> Citizen Caine
Massive media collusion, print and feature film, to the point it bordered on open propaganda akin to something we'd expect out of Russia or Germany during that time.
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Oct 18, 2016 13:28:30 GMT -5
I need to learn to multi quote here, but there is a precedent in FDR, who colluded with shady foreign governments and had the media lying for him. He (along with his uncle Joe) created WW2 and got around a hundred million people killed in less than a decade How did FDR and his uncle create WW2? Serious question, never heard that one before. It's not possible to condense it into a readable couple paragraphs, and I've written about the shit enough to deaf ears. "Uncle Joe" was how FDR referred to Stalin on the radio in his "fireside chats" to unknowing Americans.
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Oct 18, 2016 13:44:11 GMT -5
garth - i'm interested to hear how George Soros and the russian influence you have wrote about all these years connects? In regards to the subversion of our media and duping our people, etc. I clearly see it and these videos and emails leaking from the democrats and Hillary show a movement to create chaos, breed complacency, stupidity and laziness and embrace hatred. These fucking clowns are on tape saying they created false flags at Trump events, etc. We know Soros funds these things but I also read about how much Putin hates him and kicked him out of Russia.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Oct 18, 2016 13:51:42 GMT -5
garth - i'm interested to hear how George Soros and the russian influence you have wrote about all these years connects? In regards to the subversion of our media and duping our people, etc. I clearly see it and these videos and emails leaking from the democrats and Hillary show a movement to create chaos, breed complacency, stupidity and laziness and embrace hatred. These fucking clowns are on tape saying they created false flags at Trump events, etc. We know Soros funds these things but I also read about how much Putin hates him and kicked him out of Russia. Putin does hate him, but he loves money and power too. So he just uses middlemen when dealing with Soros business interests as a way to justify himself. Just like politicians saying they'd never kill someone but have no problem having someone else do it for them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 14:46:05 GMT -5
I feel a lot of people are voting for Trump but keeping thier vote private. I think quite a few people still don't care to discuss religion, politics, etc and just keep it to themselves.
I feel this is very similar to Brexit, the media kept talking like they were not going to vote for an exit.
|
|
|
Post by TitoOrtizIsAPunk on Oct 18, 2016 14:52:33 GMT -5
The one Wikileak leak that talks about Sorts's right hand man and Podesta talking about replacing Scolia immediately after his death.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 14:54:35 GMT -5
Ok I don't know much about the wiki leaks other than the few I've skimmed across. How reliable is all of this?
|
|