Archive

Trump vs. Hillary (NO OTHER OPTIONS)

  • bases_loaded
    Cokes no big deal ask the president.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • superman
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1816036 wrote:Sniffles doesn't want a drug test unless they're not screening coke.
    Or maybe he was sniffling to get liberals talking about drugs.
  • ZWICK 4 PREZ
    superman;1816124 wrote:Or maybe he was sniffling to get liberals talking about drugs.
    or maybe he just says a bunch of shit without thinking, constantly.
  • Belly35
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1816036 wrote:Sniffles doesn't want a drug test unless they're not screening coke.
    Hillary will refuse any drug test .. Testing will proved the American public with answers to her health issues.....
  • QuakerOats
    ptown_trojans_1;1815836 wrote:Dear God, that article makes me feel embarrassed to call myself from the state of Ohio.

    Nice, the party of peace, tolerance and unity firebombs republican headquarters in North Carolina.
  • QuakerOats
    ptown_trojans_1;1815837 wrote:Depends on the poll and the methodology. Some are better than others.

    No shit. The question was are any of them capturing it; I doubt it based on what I am seeing.
  • QuakerOats
    ptown_trojans_1;1815836 wrote:Dear God, that article makes me feel embarrassed to call myself from the state of Ohio.

    By the way, you were good with the Black Panthers 'policing' the polls in Philly, right?
  • ptown_trojans_1
    QuakerOats;1816199 wrote:Nice, the party of peace, tolerance and unity firebombs republican headquarters in North Carolina.
    1. You do not know who did the bombing. It was awful and not called for. But, you are just assuming and projecting what you want while the facts of the case are still pending. Even if it was a D, it was wrong and those people should be punished to the fall extend of the law.
    2. The same could also be said of the two yahoos in Kansas that were arrested last week for trying to bomb a Somali apartment complex cause they hated Islam. They do not represent Trump supports I know, but still, Trump has created the environment where the dipshits can start to take action.
    QuakerOats;1816201 wrote:No shit. The question was are any of them capturing it; I doubt it based on what I am seeing.
    Five thirty eight has a create pollster rating system and actually provides good breakdown into the various polls. It is actual date, instead of your feelz and your narrow point of view.
    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
    QuakerOats;1816212 wrote:By the way, you were good with the Black Panthers 'policing' the polls in Philly, right?
    No I was not. It was wrong and the guys should have been charged. But, where is your evidence from legit fact based websites, it was wide spread? Also, that still does not support people racial profiling others at the polling station. That is not America and we should be way past that.

    I have a larger question for those few Trump supporters on here. As Trump is expected to lose (he has about a 15% chance of winning), will his supporters and him accept the outcome? Are you guys going to say ok, like in 2008 and 2012, our guy lost, accept it, or are you going to fight the result due to the system being rigged, whatever the fuck that means?
  • sleeper
    1. You do not know who did the bombing. It was awful and not called for. But, you are just assuming and projecting what you want while the facts of the case are still pending. Even if it was a D, it was wrong and those people should be punished to the fall extend of the law.
    I'm sure it was a Republican Trump supporter and/or a sweet baby angel who din' do nuttin'.

    Please.
  • bases_loaded
    CNN tells people yesterday that wikileaks is illegal for us to look at so we must trust them on it.

    Today Assange has internet cut off.

    All of you with her have to love how she runs the world.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • like_that
    http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-quid-pro-quo-over-clinton-emails-2016-10

    This is all just a disgrace at this point.
  • O-Trap
    bases_loaded;1815829 wrote:Maybe it's the only thing the Clinton political machine could come up with to deflect from her wiki leaks issues and the media is running with it.
    With the stuff that comes out of his mouth, not to mention the Trump University case, which hasn't been discussed much, it's not like they're short on material. Both of them are the other's campaign manager's wet dream.
    Automatik;1815846 wrote:This shit show of an election just keeps on giving. TREMENDOUS!

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/15/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-drug-test/index.html
    I swear, Ashton Kutcher has be be secretly behind this whole election. There's no way this isn't one giant episode of Punk'd.
    sleeper;1815856 wrote:You are missing the point entirely. The court will be 5-4 blue come January 2017 with Roberts a RINO judge making it really 6-3. 6-3 at best case scenario with worst case being 7-2 is a daunting number.
    In the event that Roberts is such a RINO, they've been dealing with a sort of minority in the SCOTUS, anyway.

    Beyond this, of course, is still the assumption that Trump is going to throw Scalia-level conservatives into the Supreme Court. Hardly a slam dunk if you look at his track record of speaking on his own politics over the years. Dude has hardly been a bastion of contemporary Republicanism over his decades in the spotlight.

    And it isn't like these folks don't look like BFFs from the past:

    sleeper;1815856 wrote:As far as the women, just as we shouldn't call them liars, we also shouldn't just automatically believe it as truth either. Accusations in rape/sexual assault are often treated as guilty until proven innocent and false accusations have ruined plenty of lives. We need to find the balance here.
    No question. See Ezekiel Elliott's recent ex and her attempt at such.

    And I'm not saying there's enough to charge the man or anything, but when you couple his words (which are more than just guy talk) with the number of people who have recalled examples of him either sexually violating them or objectifying them, I'd say you have a pretty strong case for public opinion. If there's enough smoke, there's probably fire.
    isadore;1815896 wrote:possibilities for the United States and the World with a Trump Presidency
    1. Most hopeful option early Trump impeachment and removal, but unlikely given Republican control of Congress
    2. World wracked by trade wars, collapse of the western alliance system, nuclear proliferation and world wide depression
    3. Authoritarian dictatorship ruling the United States with all the pillars of representative democracy undermined and cataclysmic racial and ethnic rifts tearing the country
    4. A burned out cinder
    You really are just the Democrat version of QuakerOats, aren't you?

    I love the parity.
    Belly35;1816031 wrote:i think a drug test before the debates is a good idea ... You have to take a drug test for some Federal job why not before a debate for President.
    Why not to get gas? Or get a new driver's license? Why not equip all cars with breathalyzers?

    Unless there is actual evidence to suggest that she was on something, this is a non-story. Trump's credibility is hardly iron-clad, so it would be pretty ignorant to take his word for it.
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1816174 wrote:or maybe he just says a bunch of shit without thinking, constantly.
    Pretty much.
  • CenterBHSFan
    like_that;1816231 wrote:http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-quid-pro-quo-over-clinton-emails-2016-10

    This is all just a disgrace at this point.

    Read that article. Isn't it just the cutest thing?!
    After the FBI refused to change the classification of the email in question, Kennedy reportedly asked whether the FBI or the State Department would comment publicly on the matter. After an FBI official said the bureau would not comment publicly, Clinton reportedly appeared before the press and denied sending classified emails over her private server.
  • QuakerOats
    ptown_trojans_1;1816224 wrote:I have a larger question for those few Trump supporters on here. As Trump is expected to lose (he has about a 15% chance of winning), will his supporters and him accept the outcome? Are you guys going to say ok, like in 2008 and 2012, our guy lost, accept it, or are you going to fight the result due to the system being rigged, whatever the fuck that means?
    Your party is the party of rioting, looting, and other assorted street activism, agitation, law breaking and vote fraud; not ours.
  • Automatik
    He asked about Trump supporters, not Republicans as a whole.
  • O-Trap
    Automatik;1816244 wrote:He asked about Trump supporters, not Republicans as a whole.
    Fair distinction, given the divisive nature of this election within the parties.
  • bases_loaded
    It is now proven the democrats were the ones and are the ones provoking violence and riots at these Trump events. So I would think the ones you have to be worried about are these mercenary provokers as the Trump supporters will return to their small businesses, coal mines, retirement, military, whatever job they were doing before they took time out of their day to attend his event.
  • bases_loaded
    https://youtu.be/5IuJGHuIkzY
  • QuakerOats
    bases_loaded;1816251 wrote:It is now proven the democrats were the ones and are the ones provoking violence and riots at these Trump events. So I would think the ones you have to be worried about are these mercenary provokers as the Trump supporters will return to their small businesses, coal mines, retirement, military, whatever job they were doing before they took time out of their day to attend his event.

    There are no coal mines to return to .................68,000 miners thrown out of work by obama/clinton and their radical minions.
  • gut
    bases_loaded;1816251 wrote:...as the Trump supporters will return to their small businesses, coal mines, retirement, military, whatever job...
    Well, probably won't be anyone going back to the coal mines if Hillary wins...
  • QuakerOats
    bases_loaded;1816253 wrote:https://youtu.be/5IuJGHuIkzY
    8:52 mark .........."centralized agitator training"

    Sick bunch.

    Typical liberal tactics; do they ever do anything the right way? Why does it always have to be violence, corruption, theft, graft, lies, deceit, distortion, obfuscation, and rape?
  • bases_loaded
    QuakerOats;1816275 wrote:8:52 mark .........."centralized agitator training"

    Sick bunch.

    Typical liberal tactics; do they ever do anything the right way? Why does it always have to be violence, corruption, theft, graft, lies, deceit, distortion, obfuscation, and rape?
    Because those make GREAT headlines
  • O-Trap
    QuakerOats;1816275 wrote:8:52 mark .........."centralized agitator training"

    Sick bunch.

    Typical liberal tactics; do they ever do anything the right way? Why does it always have to be violence, corruption, theft, graft, lies, deceit, distortion, obfuscation, and rape?
    To be fair, the only reason the agitation is so effective is that they can always count on a Trump supporter at the rally to get violent. In a couple of the examples cited, all a person had to do was wear a certain T-shirt, and that was enough to get the confrontation going.

    I like the way Dr. Paul addressed dissenters during a speech of his during the 2012 primaries, and I'd say this would be a far better way at keeping the opposition from using such tactics effectively. He let them speak, engaged them at a point of common ground, and steered back to his point. None of the other listeners were aggressive.

    To be fair, this was just a speech, and not a rally, but something similar happened at a rally. Security escorted them away from the platform (probably for safety concerns), but they were allowed to remain in the room, and they weren't roughed up by Paul supporters.

    http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2011/11/21/bts-paul-ows-speech-interrupt.cnn
  • QuakerOats
    O-Trap;1816286 wrote:To be fair, the only reason the agitation is so effective is that they can always count on a Trump supporter at the rally to get violent.
    That is not "to be fair" at all. And you know it. You are starting to paint yourself into a corner.
  • QuakerOats
    Meanwhile, the media empire is being rocked to its core:

    [LEFT][INDENT]


    ‘Holy grail of US journalism’: WikiLeaks releases transcripts of Clinton’s paid Wall St. speeches —...

    WikiLeaks has released what it dubbed the “holy grail of journalism”: full transcripts of three paid speeches that the Democratic presidential candidate gave to Goldman Sachs back in 2013. The...
    rt.com







    [/INDENT]






    [/LEFT]

    This morning, WikiLeaks said in a tweet that it was activating "contingency plans" after co-founder Julian Assange's "internet link was intentionally severed by a state party".


    It is staggering what is being exposed, and what is occurring right before us. The media in complete cahoots with the most corrupt people to ever invade government. Un-fucking believable. No wonder leakers like Seth Rich are showing up dead.