|
Post by stevegm on Oct 20, 2016 16:36:20 GMT
She's the biggest shill for big business to ever run (and probably win) for President. I laugh when I see my friends that supported Bernie turn the page and become hardcore supporters of Hillary like a Boston fan goes from the Pats to the Red Sox. Hillary is Barry Goldwater (who she did support in college) compared to Bernie. The Progressives are going to be in for a shock. There are only a few social stances that separate her from a neocon. I'm disappointed Trump didn't use the "you're fired" line during any of the debates. You don't keep a quip like that in the garage. Just another miscue from this campaign. I hate conspiracy theories and I am skeptical to the core, there is no bigfoot, UFO's and Oswald acted alone. But now I'm wondering if there is some conspiracy with Trump - is he a Manchurian candidate? Not for the Democrats, but by the commies who want to destroy democracy? Or is he just trying to use this as a springboard for Trump tv? I will dismiss those thoughts by lunch, but you have to wonder. He was doing reasonably well for the first half hour and then went bat shit fucking crazy. "No, you're the puppet" - outright infantile, right out of the peewee Herman playbook "I know you are, but what am I?" "You're a nasty woman" - unprofessional, never mind presidential. And not willing to even to say that he would accept the results of the election? That was clearly premeditated, he MUST have known that question was coming and yet he still doesn't give an answer? And if Hillary is enabling all of these wonderful tax breaks for him, why wouldn't he vote for her himself? Again, I watched every minute of that disgusting debate. I'm dismayed that America's best judgement came down to those 2 simpletons. I hate watching that shit, it ruins my day, but I guess I'm dumb enough to follow along.
One of the things most disgusting to me...is the process in which these debates are framed and moderated. Everyone knows he's a me first, arrogant, bullshitting, asshole. Everyone knows, she's a social climbing, insincere, bullshitting, smooth, arrogant, double speaking millionaire, who just happened to become incredibly rich...because she's a career politician.
There is no high ground here. Yet, the networks shamelessly attempt to convince the masses there is. I'm not praising Trump. It's obvious, he's just a different kind of opportunist, than Hillary. They both have a terrible camera presence, but fortunately for Hillary, it doesn't get much worse than the Donald. But seriously, all that's come out of these debates imo, is how weak both candidates are, how incredibly inconsistent they are, and how desperate the media is....to exert influence.
On the "H" word. We've advanced to a point, where the term profanity is pretty much outdated. Calling someone an asshole, prick, motherfucker, terms like those are now referred to merely as descriptors(within the media), however, our social consciences are coming up with new terms to be abhorred daily. Hombre wasn't a good choice of words. But that's really all there is to it. To turn that into a television series is a joke. If there's a "disrespect" story to come out of that debate, it isn't the use of "hombre" once. It's the disrespect they consistently showed each other, and the disrespect they consistently show for our collective ability to see through their adspeak.
Then there's the "nasty woman" comment. Of course it was stupid. She gave him an opening he should have pounced on. Instead, he came out with a line, like some brilliant comedy writer would have a hard time outdoing for Baldwin. But the big thing, for me, is how CNN framed it. The analyst opened by admitting Hillary fired a "cheap shot", then validated it with , "but all's fair in love and war". OK fine, but don't make a 10 minute program, and create a twitter firestorm when the other guy responds in kind. There are 2 wrongs in this sequence, not 1. They're both about equal, and neither is deserving much press.
Finally, we have the big drama about the sanctity of the 'results". Fairness would dictate both should have been asked that question. If numbnuts had of declared he "would not, under any circumstance accept the countries decision, if he got beat", it would validate the media shitstorm they created. But, as per usual, in their attempt to control and further...they got way ahead of themselves. Turned it into high drama. Fact is, neither one will really "accept defeat". IMO, that never happens. If a candidate believes they're far superior to their opponent, the voting process doesn't change that. One of 2 things usually happens. Either they do some insincere, bullshit public show, in an attempt to pitch how incredibly wonderful they are, followed by spitting nails after the camera's are turned off, or they merely say little, shut up, and avoid the limelight, while congratulating the opponent. IMO, asking either candidate, at this point in time, how they'll deal with loss, is incredibly sneaky, and how they ran with it, is just as undisciplined as how they make Jerkoff out to be. The last thing on either candidates mind right now, is losing, and the answer to a stupid, leading question like that, would take many minutes to answer fairly and thoughtfully.
IMO, there are only a very few reasons, this election is separated by 8 or 10 points. Hillary is a terrible choice. The Dems would have a pretty good shot with Charlie Manson, as long as the GOP stuck with Trump. And many people see this reality as proof that both the Republican and Democratic establishments are irrelevant to the kind of government needed.
Like many Americans, I don't see much to "look forward to", with either.
My hope is this. Americans take to the polls in record numbers, and 2 thirds spoil their ballot. Obviously, one of these candidates is going to get in. The winner needs to be hit over the head, with some historical kick to the crotch, that requires a humble acknowledgement, rather than a victory celebration. As here in Canada, pretty much everything governmental needs revisited. there needs to be fundamental change.
Funny thing. I really dislike, and distrust both candidates. But I believe if "forced to get things done", both could be a pretty good tandem. They'd cover off the other's ineptness.
If I had to vote for one or the other, or lose both arms, I think I'd grudgingly take Trump. Simply because I think he'd blow the lid off conformity and political mustn't touch its, coupled with the belief there are enough safeguards in the system, to limit the power of one person. Perceived honesty should be at about the top of the list, and since the lack of it, is pretty much a dead heat, Donald is an easier one to see through, so I'm choosing that particular evil. I don't think politics should be a career, and I don't think a person should become stupidly rich while serving. IMO, the gold should come after politics, if there is one to be had. Hillary pretty much embodies everything, most of us "generically' see wrong with our elected system in both countries.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Oct 20, 2016 16:54:12 GMT
I hate conspiracy theories and I am skeptical to the core, there is no bigfoot, UFO's and Oswald acted alone. But now I'm wondering if there is some conspiracy with Trump - is he a Manchurian candidate? Not for the Democrats, but by the commies who want to destroy democracy? Or is he just trying to use this as a springboard for Trump tv? I will dismiss those thoughts by lunch, but you have to wonder. He was doing reasonably well for the first half hour and then went bat shit fucking crazy. "No, you're the puppet" - outright infantile, right out of the peewee Herman playbook "I know you are, but what am I?" "You're a nasty woman" - unprofessional, never mind presidential. And not willing to even to say that he would accept the results of the election? That was clearly premeditated, he MUST have known that question was coming and yet he still doesn't give an answer? And if Hillary is enabling all of these wonderful tax breaks for him, why wouldn't he vote for her himself? Again, I watched every minute of that disgusting debate. I'm dismayed that America's best judgement came down to those 2 simpletons. I hate watching that shit, it ruins my day, but I guess I'm dumb enough to follow along.
One of the things most disgusting to me...is the process in which these debates are framed and moderated. Everyone knows he's a me first, arrogant, bullshitting, asshole. Everyone knows, she's a social climbing, insincere, bullshitting, smooth, arrogant, double speaking millionaire, who just happened to become incredibly rich...because she's a career politician.
There is no high ground here. Yet, the networks shamelessly attempt to convince the masses there is. I'm not praising Trump. It's obvious, he's just a different kind of opportunist, than Hillary. They both have a terrible camera presence, but fortunately for Hillary, it doesn't get much worse than the Donald. But seriously, all that's come out of these debates imo, is how weak both candidates are, how incredibly inconsistent they are, and how desperate the media is....to exert influence.
On the "H" word. We've advanced to a point, where the term profanity is pretty much outdated. Calling someone an asshole, prick, motherfucker, terms like those are now referred to merely as descriptors(within the media), however, our social consciences are coming up with new terms to be abhorred daily. Hombre wasn't a good choice of words. But that's really all there is to it. To turn that into a television series is a joke. If there's a "disrespect" story to come out of that debate, it isn't the use of "hombre" once. It's the disrespect they consistently showed each other, and the disrespect they consistently show for our collective ability to see through their adspeak.
Then there's the "nasty woman" comment. Of course it was stupid. She gave him an opening he should have pounced on. Instead, he came out with a line, like some brilliant comedy writer would have a hard time outdoing for Baldwin. But the big thing, for me, is how CNN framed it. The analyst opened by admitting Hillary fired a "cheap shot", then validated it with , "but all's fair in love and war". OK fine, but don't make a 10 minute program, and create a twitter firestorm when the other guy responds in kind. There are 2 wrongs in this sequence, not 1. They're both about equal, and neither is deserving much press.
Finally, we have the big drama about the sanctity of the 'results". Fairness would dictate both should have been asked that question. If numbnuts had of declared he "would not, under any circumstance accept the countries decision, if he got beat", it would validate the media shitstorm they created. But, as per usual, in their attempt to control and further...they got way ahead of themselves. Turned it into high drama. Fact is, neither one will really "accept defeat". IMO, that never happens. If a candidate believes they're far superior to their opponent, the voting process doesn't change that. One of 2 things usually happens. Either they do some insincere, bullshit public show, in an attempt to pitch how incredibly wonderful they are, followed by spitting nails after the camera's are turned off, or they merely say little, shut up, and avoid the limelight, while congratulating the opponent. IMO, asking either candidate, at this point in time, how they'll deal with loss, is incredibly sneaky, and how they ran with it, is just as undisciplined as how they make Jerkoff out to be. The last thing on either candidates mind right now, is losing, and the answer to a stupid, leading question like that, would take many minutes to answer fairly and thoughtfully.
IMO, there are only a very few reasons, this election is separated by 8 or 10 points. Hillary is a terrible choice. The Dems would have a pretty good shot with Charlie Manson, as long as the GOP stuck with Trump. And many people see this reality as proof that both the Republican and Democratic establishments are irrelevant to the kind of government needed.
Like many Americans, I don't see much to "look forward to", with either.
My hope is this. Americans take to the polls in record numbers, and 2 thirds spoil their ballot. Obviously, one of these candidates is going to get in. The winner needs to be hit over the head, with some historical kick to the crotch, that requires a humble acknowledgement, rather than a victory celebration. As here in Canada, pretty much everything governmental needs revisited. there needs to be fundamental change.
Funny thing. I really dislike, and distrust both candidates. But I believe if "forced to get things done", both could be a pretty good tandem. They'd cover off the other's ineptness.
If I had to vote for one or the other, or lose both arms, I think I'd grudgingly take Trump. Simply because I think he'd blow the lid off conformity and political mustn't touch its, coupled with the belief there are enough safeguards in the system, to limit the power of one person. Perceived honesty should be at about the top of the list, and since the lack of it, is pretty much a dead heat, Donald is an easier one to see through, so I'm choosing that particular evil. I don't think politics should be a career, and I don't think a person should become stupidly rich while serving. IMO, the gold should come after politics, if there is one to be had. Hillary pretty much embodies everything, most of us "generically' see wrong with our elected system in both countries. After playoff games teams line up and shake hands. They hate each other, but they do it anyway as a symbol of sportsmanship. They acknowledge the score, they do not say that they will wait until the game is over and then decide whether or not to challenge the goals scored. How about term limits for hockey players? We all agree they make too much money and it is a dangerous sport, so limiting everyone's career to 4 years or less would make things better? Term limits means you get amateur politicians, why are amateurs better? Do you practice this with doctors, lawyers and dentists? I guess politics and the NHL are one in the same in the sense that you can accept it for what it is or you can bitch about it and its very existence. Or just come to grips with the game that is being played and accept it for what it is.
|
|
|
Post by neelycam on Oct 20, 2016 19:24:45 GMT
Trump is the most ignorant nominee of all time ,he has handed the dnc the sweep of house ,senate and White House .How anyone can back this Fawk wad is mind boggling How a Canadian that can't spell or executive the most simple grammatical clause can tell Americans how they should vote is mind boggling. How long do you have to bend the rabbit ears on your TV console in Elk Butt to get the news? . Holy crap the clown puncher is back. What r u going to do when trump gets his ass kicked. What poster u going to jerk off to.. David Duke. Your next candidate. You fucken knuckle dragging redneck
|
|
|
Post by kelvana33 on Oct 20, 2016 19:41:09 GMT
Again, I watched every minute of that disgusting debate. I'm dismayed that America's best judgement came down to those 2 simpletons. I hate watching that shit, it ruins my day, but I guess I'm dumb enough to follow along.
One of the things most disgusting to me...is the process in which these debates are framed and moderated. Everyone knows he's a me first, arrogant, bullshitting, asshole. Everyone knows, she's a social climbing, insincere, bullshitting, smooth, arrogant, double speaking millionaire, who just happened to become incredibly rich...because she's a career politician.
There is no high ground here. Yet, the networks shamelessly attempt to convince the masses there is. I'm not praising Trump. It's obvious, he's just a different kind of opportunist, than Hillary. They both have a terrible camera presence, but fortunately for Hillary, it doesn't get much worse than the Donald. But seriously, all that's come out of these debates imo, is how weak both candidates are, how incredibly inconsistent they are, and how desperate the media is....to exert influence.
On the "H" word. We've advanced to a point, where the term profanity is pretty much outdated. Calling someone an asshole, prick, motherfucker, terms like those are now referred to merely as descriptors(within the media), however, our social consciences are coming up with new terms to be abhorred daily. Hombre wasn't a good choice of words. But that's really all there is to it. To turn that into a television series is a joke. If there's a "disrespect" story to come out of that debate, it isn't the use of "hombre" once. It's the disrespect they consistently showed each other, and the disrespect they consistently show for our collective ability to see through their adspeak.
Then there's the "nasty woman" comment. Of course it was stupid. She gave him an opening he should have pounced on. Instead, he came out with a line, like some brilliant comedy writer would have a hard time outdoing for Baldwin. But the big thing, for me, is how CNN framed it. The analyst opened by admitting Hillary fired a "cheap shot", then validated it with , "but all's fair in love and war". OK fine, but don't make a 10 minute program, and create a twitter firestorm when the other guy responds in kind. There are 2 wrongs in this sequence, not 1. They're both about equal, and neither is deserving much press.
Finally, we have the big drama about the sanctity of the 'results". Fairness would dictate both should have been asked that question. If numbnuts had of declared he "would not, under any circumstance accept the countries decision, if he got beat", it would validate the media shitstorm they created. But, as per usual, in their attempt to control and further...they got way ahead of themselves. Turned it into high drama. Fact is, neither one will really "accept defeat". IMO, that never happens. If a candidate believes they're far superior to their opponent, the voting process doesn't change that. One of 2 things usually happens. Either they do some insincere, bullshit public show, in an attempt to pitch how incredibly wonderful they are, followed by spitting nails after the camera's are turned off, or they merely say little, shut up, and avoid the limelight, while congratulating the opponent. IMO, asking either candidate, at this point in time, how they'll deal with loss, is incredibly sneaky, and how they ran with it, is just as undisciplined as how they make Jerkoff out to be. The last thing on either candidates mind right now, is losing, and the answer to a stupid, leading question like that, would take many minutes to answer fairly and thoughtfully.
IMO, there are only a very few reasons, this election is separated by 8 or 10 points. Hillary is a terrible choice. The Dems would have a pretty good shot with Charlie Manson, as long as the GOP stuck with Trump. And many people see this reality as proof that both the Republican and Democratic establishments are irrelevant to the kind of government needed.
Like many Americans, I don't see much to "look forward to", with either.
My hope is this. Americans take to the polls in record numbers, and 2 thirds spoil their ballot. Obviously, one of these candidates is going to get in. The winner needs to be hit over the head, with some historical kick to the crotch, that requires a humble acknowledgement, rather than a victory celebration. As here in Canada, pretty much everything governmental needs revisited. there needs to be fundamental change.
Funny thing. I really dislike, and distrust both candidates. But I believe if "forced to get things done", both could be a pretty good tandem. They'd cover off the other's ineptness.
If I had to vote for one or the other, or lose both arms, I think I'd grudgingly take Trump. Simply because I think he'd blow the lid off conformity and political mustn't touch its, coupled with the belief there are enough safeguards in the system, to limit the power of one person. Perceived honesty should be at about the top of the list, and since the lack of it, is pretty much a dead heat, Donald is an easier one to see through, so I'm choosing that particular evil. I don't think politics should be a career, and I don't think a person should become stupidly rich while serving. IMO, the gold should come after politics, if there is one to be had. Hillary pretty much embodies everything, most of us "generically' see wrong with our elected system in both countries. After playoff games teams line up and shake hands. They hate each other, but they do it anyway as a symbol of sportsmanship. They acknowledge the score, they do not say that they will wait until the game is over and then decide whether or not to challenge the goals scored. How about term limits for hockey players? We all agree they make too much money and it is a dangerous sport, so limiting everyone's career to 4 years or less would make things better? Term limits means you get amateur politicians, why are amateurs better? Do you practice this with doctors, lawyers and dentists? I guess politics and the NHL are one in the same in the sense that you can accept it for what it is or you can bitch about it and its very existence. Or just come to grips with the game that is being played and accept it for what it is. He should have said, I'll wait to see how this process plays out first. I don't blame him. Having people go to his rallies and start fights is shady, and she didn't deny it, women all of a sudden claiming they were groped by him now is pretty much insulting the intelligence of the voters, so you can see why he thinks the election will be dirty.
|
|
|
Post by kelvana33 on Oct 20, 2016 19:45:34 GMT
Funny thing I heard on the radio today, a caller said he wish he could talk his dad out of voting for Hillary but he's been dead for 20 years...Ahh, that dirty Hillary, it isn't past her to campaign at the cemetery!
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Oct 20, 2016 21:22:08 GMT
How a Canadian that can't spell or executive the most simple grammatical clause can tell Americans how they should vote is mind boggling. How long do you have to bend the rabbit ears on your TV console in Elk Butt to get the news? . Holy crap the clown puncher is back. What r u going to do when trump gets his ass kicked. What poster u going to jerk off to.. David Duke. Your next candidate. You fucken knuckle dragging redneck Dude, why do you post this way? WTF.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2016 21:25:15 GMT
I get the hate for Hillary, I really do. I understand it. But losing his shit during a debate and saying "you nasty woman"? That just shows that he's unqualified. Being a politician *means* controlling yourself and he CLEARLY cannot do that.And not accepting the election results is outright treasonous as far as I'm concerned. This is America and we have the best election system in the world. Yes, there are contested elections (see Al Gore and Nixon 1960), but they accepted the results. And he's done it to himself, he only has himself to blame and he refuses to accept it. This is kinda what I like about him. We have countries taking advantage of us big time...I want someone who's going to say "fawk you, we're gonna do what's best for the ole US of A. Hillary will just continue to rubber stamp everything to make others happy and keep the votes.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Oct 20, 2016 21:42:49 GMT
After playoff games teams line up and shake hands. They hate each other, but they do it anyway as a symbol of sportsmanship. They acknowledge the score, they do not say that they will wait until the game is over and then decide whether or not to challenge the goals scored. How about term limits for hockey players? We all agree they make too much money and it is a dangerous sport, so limiting everyone's career to 4 years or less would make things better? Term limits means you get amateur politicians, why are amateurs better? Do you practice this with doctors, lawyers and dentists? I guess politics and the NHL are one in the same in the sense that you can accept it for what it is or you can bitch about it and its very existence. Or just come to grips with the game that is being played and accept it for what it is. He should have said, I'll wait to see how this process plays out first. I don't blame him. Having people go to his rallies and start fights is shady, and she didn't deny it, women all of a sudden claiming they were groped by him now is pretty much insulting the intelligence of the voters, so you can see why he thinks the election will be dirty.
I disagree with the notion that Hillary has any sort of power to rig an election though. Or that one would be rigged anyway. The Pew research study that was cited last night specifically states that their voter inaccuracy study is a totally separate thing from voter fraud. They literally stated that, in the results, to prevent the wrong interpretation that Trump tried to sell -- that voter inaccuracies like address changes or deceased people still on the records could not realistically lead to any sort of comprehensive voter fraud. There are all kinds of safeguards to prevent this and the notion that one party could somehow slip this past the other party and government regulators, in a meaningful way, is silly. Trump has also stated that he would only challenge the election if he loses, so really this isn't about voter fraud concerns in general. Then there is the media angle, which he has stated "rigged" the election, but that is a whole different issue and not a grounds for contesting an election legally. Both sides will be vigilant for voter fraud, and a re-count is automatic in every state if the election is razor close. That's already part of the process. So this whole thing is kind of silly. The election isn't rigged, and both sides should respect the result, even if that result ultimately needs to be confirmed in a recount. What Trump said last night was dumb, primarily because it serves no purpose other than to hurt his chances with remaining voters. By and large, people respect elections, democracy, and the will of the people, and there is a long tradition of the country working to rebuild and unite after a long, bitter, election season. I think Trump was winning the debate last night and just needed to avoid this kind of nonsense to grab some positive headlines. What's worse, is that he's continued to hurt Congressional Republicans in their races with these sideshows, and we're going to need Republicans to retain some separation of power in the Congress to keep Hillary in check. I can't think of any rationale that the "rigged election" talk isn't just petty and self-wounding.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Oct 20, 2016 21:48:45 GMT
I get the hate for Hillary, I really do. I understand it. But losing his shit during a debate and saying "you nasty woman"? That just shows that he's unqualified. Being a politician *means* controlling yourself and he CLEARLY cannot do that.And not accepting the election results is outright treasonous as far as I'm concerned. This is America and we have the best election system in the world. Yes, there are contested elections (see Al Gore and Nixon 1960), but they accepted the results. And he's done it to himself, he only has himself to blame and he refuses to accept it. This is kinda what I like about him. We have countries taking advantage of us big time...I want someone who's going to say "fawk you, we're gonna do what's best for the ole US of A. Hillary will just continue to rubber stamp everything to make others happy and keep the votes. Right Hang, that strategy works great! I disagree with your post, so fuck you! Now start posting things I like. How did that work? Are you going to start making pro Hillary posts right now? I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you were offended and will say 'fuck you' back to me . This is exactly what Trump is proposing - a trade war. He will put a tariff on them and they will counter with a tariff on us. But never even mind that, China and others is manufacturing stuff - for the *most* part low wage jobs, bringing those back to the US won't help shit, there will be minimum wage jobs.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Oct 20, 2016 21:54:36 GMT
He should have said, I'll wait to see how this process plays out first. I don't blame him. Having people go to his rallies and start fights is shady, and she didn't deny it, women all of a sudden claiming they were groped by him now is pretty much insulting the intelligence of the voters, so you can see why he thinks the election will be dirty.
I disagree with the notion that Hillary has any sort of power to rig an election though. Or that one would be rigged anyway. The Pew research study that was cited last night specifically states that their voter inaccuracy study is a totally separate thing from voter fraud. They literally stated that, in the results, to prevent the wrong interpretation that Trump tried to sell -- that voter inaccuracies like address changes or deceased people still on the records could not realistically lead to any sort of comprehensive voter fraud. There are all kinds of safeguards to prevent this and the notion that one party could somehow slip this past the other party and government regulators, in a meaningful way, is silly. Trump has also stated that he would only challenge the election if he loses, so really this isn't about voter fraud concerns in general. Then there is the media angle, which he has stated "rigged" the election, but that is a whole different issue and not a grounds for contesting an election legally. Both sides will be vigilant for voter fraud, and a re-count is automatic in every state if the election is razor close. That's already part of the process. So this whole thing is kind of silly. The election isn't rigged, and both sides should respect the result, even if that result ultimately needs to be confirmed in a recount. What Trump said last night was dumb, primarily because it serves no purpose other than to hurt his chances with remaining voters. By and large, people respect elections, democracy, and the will of the people, and there is a long tradition of the country working to rebuild and unite after a long, bitter, election season. I think Trump was winning the debate last night and just needed to avoid this kind of nonsense to grab some positive headlines. What's worse, is that he's continued to hurt Congressional Republicans in their races with these sideshows, and we're going to need Republicans to retain some separation of power in the Congress to keep Hillary in check. I can't think of any rationale that the "rigged election" talk isn't just petty and self-wounding. But *perhaps* self serving. There is a lot of talk of him starting Trump TV. I can't see it working, other than his most ardent supporters most people voting for him now would realize they were used by him for another money making venture. Thats *if* this Trump TV thing is legit. But probably not, I'm going to bet that Mark Cuban is right and he's just being used by the Breibart people to further themselves and in about 7 years or so Trump will be broke. All he has is the name brand Trump that he stamps on shit and he's certainly hurting it with this nonsense shit he's doing.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Oct 20, 2016 22:11:30 GMT
He should have said, I'll wait to see how this process plays out first. I don't blame him. Having people go to his rallies and start fights is shady, and she didn't deny it, women all of a sudden claiming they were groped by him now is pretty much insulting the intelligence of the voters, so you can see why he thinks the election will be dirty.
No, it is totally believable that these women didn't come forward until now. The People magazine writer had an article about Trump and his wonderful family, the 'assault' was minor, he kissed her with tongue uninvited. She called her journalism professor and asked his advice and since it wasn't serious enough to press charges, his advice was to request she be reassigned - which she was. 10 women so far. Some might be bullshit, but I would bet at least a few of them are real. These are groping incidents, not rape. And after all he said what he said on the bus, he said he just walks up to them and starts kissing them and grabs their pussy. He was on a bus, not in front of an audience, why would he say that if it was absolutely untrue? Have you ever said that? I never have in the locker room scenario. Bragged about how many women I've had sex with, yes, but assaulting them? No. He could have just as easily have said he walks up to them and charms them and fucks them. This is pretty common, just about every woman I know has had some guy hit on them and try to kiss them, kiss them or grab them. In my experience they said they didn't tell me at the time because they were afraid I would go beat the shit out of the guy, in your case I would guess your wife would be afraid you would shoot him.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Oct 20, 2016 22:12:35 GMT
Bad Hombres. I think we have our name for the new Las Vegas team.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Oct 20, 2016 22:13:02 GMT
This home opener better be pretty fucking entertaining because this political shit is driving me crazy.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Oct 20, 2016 22:19:33 GMT
Bad Hombres. I think we have our name for the new Las Vegas team. Here is their 1st promotional poster.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Oct 20, 2016 22:32:32 GMT
Bad Hombres. I think we have our name for the new Las Vegas team. Here is their 1st promotional poster. Haha! Nice. And no ice sluts...just those 3 guys skating around between periods.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Oct 20, 2016 22:35:51 GMT
The "hombre" talk just reminds me of Pierre McGuire talking about Adam McQuaid...in the first 20 seconds...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2016 22:38:38 GMT
This is kinda what I like about him. We have countries taking advantage of us big time...I want someone who's going to say "fawk you, we're gonna do what's best for the ole US of A. Hillary will just continue to rubber stamp everything to make others happy and keep the votes. Right Hang, that strategy works great! I disagree with your post, so fuck you! Now start posting things I like. How did that work? Are you going to start making pro Hillary posts right now? I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you were offended and will say 'fuck you' back to me . This is exactly what Trump is proposing - a trade war. He will put a tariff on them and they will counter with a tariff on us. But never even mind that, China and others is manufacturing stuff - for the *most* part low wage jobs, bringing those back to the US won't help shit, there will be minimum wage jobs. I want a safer America. Trump has a better chance at delivering that than Hillary does.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2016 22:48:46 GMT
How a Canadian that can't spell or executive the most simple grammatical clause can tell Americans how they should vote is mind boggling. How long do you have to bend the rabbit ears on your TV console in Elk Butt to get the news? . Holy crap the clown puncher is back. What r u going to do when trump gets his ass kicked. What poster u going to jerk off to.. David Duke. Your next candidate. You fucken knuckle dragging redneck I know you can't find it on a map, but I live in South Florida, chico. We don't have enough white people or rural areas to foster "rednecks." How diverse is your hometown of Elk Butt? Have you seen a black person this month?
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Oct 20, 2016 22:53:20 GMT
She's the biggest shill for big business to ever run (and probably win) for President. I laugh when I see my friends that supported Bernie turn the page and become hardcore supporters of Hillary like a Boston fan goes from the Pats to the Red Sox. Hillary is Barry Goldwater (who she did support in college) compared to Bernie. The Progressives are going to be in for a shock. There are only a few social stances that separate her from a neocon. I'm disappointed Trump didn't use the "you're fired" line during any of the debates. You don't keep a quip like that in the garage. Just another miscue from this campaign. Or is he just trying to use this as a springboard for Trump tv ? Bada bingo! And I can't wait Melania and Ivanka to host pool side chats in their freakin bikinis.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2016 22:55:26 GMT
The "hombre" talk just reminds me of Pierre McGuire talking about Adam McQuaid...in the first 20 seconds... I thought it was funny. It's the whitest statement anybody has made since Bernie Sanders was in the race. There are good and bad realities to immigration/migrants. Why do we have to pretend that America is a carton of Neopolitan ice cream with each flavor being as cloying as the last? The mass immigration from 2000 to now has depressed working class wages. There also are "some real bad hombres." But on the other hand, countries with strident immigration policies like Japan have a brain drain. If not for the Latinos, Miami and much of South Florida would be like Maine, a seasonal economy with no real growth.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Oct 21, 2016 2:10:18 GMT
Again, I watched every minute of that disgusting debate. I'm dismayed that America's best judgement came down to those 2 simpletons. I hate watching that shit, it ruins my day, but I guess I'm dumb enough to follow along.
One of the things most disgusting to me...is the process in which these debates are framed and moderated. Everyone knows he's a me first, arrogant, bullshitting, asshole. Everyone knows, she's a social climbing, insincere, bullshitting, smooth, arrogant, double speaking millionaire, who just happened to become incredibly rich...because she's a career politician.
There is no high ground here. Yet, the networks shamelessly attempt to convince the masses there is. I'm not praising Trump. It's obvious, he's just a different kind of opportunist, than Hillary. They both have a terrible camera presence, but fortunately for Hillary, it doesn't get much worse than the Donald. But seriously, all that's come out of these debates imo, is how weak both candidates are, how incredibly inconsistent they are, and how desperate the media is....to exert influence.
On the "H" word. We've advanced to a point, where the term profanity is pretty much outdated. Calling someone an asshole, prick, motherfucker, terms like those are now referred to merely as descriptors(within the media), however, our social consciences are coming up with new terms to be abhorred daily. Hombre wasn't a good choice of words. But that's really all there is to it. To turn that into a television series is a joke. If there's a "disrespect" story to come out of that debate, it isn't the use of "hombre" once. It's the disrespect they consistently showed each other, and the disrespect they consistently show for our collective ability to see through their adspeak.
Then there's the "nasty woman" comment. Of course it was stupid. She gave him an opening he should have pounced on. Instead, he came out with a line, like some brilliant comedy writer would have a hard time outdoing for Baldwin. But the big thing, for me, is how CNN framed it. The analyst opened by admitting Hillary fired a "cheap shot", then validated it with , "but all's fair in love and war". OK fine, but don't make a 10 minute program, and create a twitter firestorm when the other guy responds in kind. There are 2 wrongs in this sequence, not 1. They're both about equal, and neither is deserving much press.
Finally, we have the big drama about the sanctity of the 'results". Fairness would dictate both should have been asked that question. If numbnuts had of declared he "would not, under any circumstance accept the countries decision, if he got beat", it would validate the media shitstorm they created. But, as per usual, in their attempt to control and further...they got way ahead of themselves. Turned it into high drama. Fact is, neither one will really "accept defeat". IMO, that never happens. If a candidate believes they're far superior to their opponent, the voting process doesn't change that. One of 2 things usually happens. Either they do some insincere, bullshit public show, in an attempt to pitch how incredibly wonderful they are, followed by spitting nails after the camera's are turned off, or they merely say little, shut up, and avoid the limelight, while congratulating the opponent. IMO, asking either candidate, at this point in time, how they'll deal with loss, is incredibly sneaky, and how they ran with it, is just as undisciplined as how they make Jerkoff out to be. The last thing on either candidates mind right now, is losing, and the answer to a stupid, leading question like that, would take many minutes to answer fairly and thoughtfully.
IMO, there are only a very few reasons, this election is separated by 8 or 10 points. Hillary is a terrible choice. The Dems would have a pretty good shot with Charlie Manson, as long as the GOP stuck with Trump. And many people see this reality as proof that both the Republican and Democratic establishments are irrelevant to the kind of government needed.
Like many Americans, I don't see much to "look forward to", with either.
My hope is this. Americans take to the polls in record numbers, and 2 thirds spoil their ballot. Obviously, one of these candidates is going to get in. The winner needs to be hit over the head, with some historical kick to the crotch, that requires a humble acknowledgement, rather than a victory celebration. As here in Canada, pretty much everything governmental needs revisited. there needs to be fundamental change.
Funny thing. I really dislike, and distrust both candidates. But I believe if "forced to get things done", both could be a pretty good tandem. They'd cover off the other's ineptness.
If I had to vote for one or the other, or lose both arms, I think I'd grudgingly take Trump. Simply because I think he'd blow the lid off conformity and political mustn't touch its, coupled with the belief there are enough safeguards in the system, to limit the power of one person. Perceived honesty should be at about the top of the list, and since the lack of it, is pretty much a dead heat, Donald is an easier one to see through, so I'm choosing that particular evil. I don't think politics should be a career, and I don't think a person should become stupidly rich while serving. IMO, the gold should come after politics, if there is one to be had. Hillary pretty much embodies everything, most of us "generically' see wrong with our elected system in both countries. After playoff games teams line up and shake hands. They hate each other, but they do it anyway as a symbol of sportsmanship. They acknowledge the score, they do not say that they will wait until the game is over and then decide whether or not to challenge the goals scored. How about term limits for hockey players? We all agree they make too much money and it is a dangerous sport, so limiting everyone's career to 4 years or less would make things better? Term limits means you get amateur politicians, why are amateurs better? Do you practice this with doctors, lawyers and dentists? I guess politics and the NHL are one in the same in the sense that you can accept it for what it is or you can bitch about it and its very existence. Or just come to grips with the game that is being played and accept it for what it is. I'll stick to script here bhab. i'll only respond directly to what you wrote. Hope you will to. Yes players shake hands. But Cheevers never did, and explained why. I don't recall a National shitfest. Which brings me to my second point. IMO, a trivial entertainment pursuit like hockey shouldn't be compared to the running of our countries. And my second....second point is the "symbolism" you speak of. Many feel symbolism isn't that awfull important in politics. Any more.
Hockey, and all pro sports weed out the weak and the old, and the hangers on...just fine. I think most would be thrilled if our political system had that kind of accountability.
If you feel doing what's right for the masses, needs the same type of experience a doctor, or lawyer or dentist gains on the job, we just are on different planets. Much of what we need to know, to be an effective politician, we learned in kindergarten. Help those that need helped. Take care of people. Get done, what can't be done individually.
If you accept politics, for "what it is"...coming "to grips with the game", ...and "accepting it for what it is"....I can tell you with absolute certainty....your thought process will guarantee the end of America, the way you know it.(Canada too). Government is not looking out for the common good. It's become a business of lobbying, and we're robbing Peter to pay Paul, in that endeavor. Just a matter of time before the same thing happens to America, that happened to General Motors....but obviously, this time, you can't lobby the golden goose that has no more golden eggs.
Anyway, Hillary is probably the safest bet. Hopefully, the establishment has been rocked hard enough to realize the masses are getting near the end of their rope. The one good thing Shithead has done...moving forward, is he's proved the electorate could well elect a moron, as a means of protest. So it's time to rethink a lot of things.
I think this election will go down as one of the darkest, most negative, disgusting times in U.S. history. Fortunately, I don't think it's walking on water to rebound spectacularly.
If I've offended your politics, I didn't mean to bhab. just throwin stuff out for debate.
sorry. hombre
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Oct 21, 2016 3:13:12 GMT
I'll stick to script here bhab. i'll only respond directly to what you wrote. Hope you will to. Yes players shake hands. But Cheevers never did, and explained why. I don't recall a National shitfest. Which brings me to my second point. IMO, a trivial entertainment pursuit like hockey shouldn't be compared to the running of our countries. And my second....second point is the "symbolism" you speak of. Many feel symbolism isn't that awfull important in politics. Any more.
Hockey, and all pro sports weed out the weak and the old, and the hangers on...just fine. I think most would be thrilled if our political system had that kind of accountability.
If you feel doing what's right for the masses, needs the same type of experience a doctor, or lawyer or dentist gains on the job, we just are on different planets. Much of what we need to know, to be an effective politician, we learned in kindergarten. Help those that need helped. Take care of people. Get done, what can't be done individually.
If you accept politics, for "what it is"...coming "to grips with the game", ...and "accepting it for what it is"....I can tell you with absolute certainty....your thought process will guarantee the end of America, the way you know it.(Canada too). Government is not looking out for the common good. It's become a business of lobbying, and we're robbing Peter to pay Paul, in that endeavor. Just a matter of time before the same thing happens to America, that happened to General Motors....but obviously, this time, you can't lobby the golden goose that has no more golden eggs.
Anyway, Hillary is probably the safest bet. Hopefully, the establishment has been rocked hard enough to realize the masses are getting near the end of their rope. The one good thing Shithead has done...moving forward, is he's proved the electorate could well elect a moron, as a means of protest. So it's time to rethink a lot of things.
I think this election will go down as one of the darkest, most negative, disgusting times in U.S. history. Fortunately, I don't think it's walking on water to rebound spectacularly.
If I've offended your politics, I didn't mean to bhab. just throwin stuff out for debate.
sorry. hombre Yes, we are on different planets. And not to insult you, but being a politician isn't a simple thing, I notice a lot - not all - but a lot of right wing people over simplify issues. Stop and frisk for example, sounds good, but didn't work. Good old fashioned street justice where you let street cops smack some people around for minor offenses - which also was a bad idea. The world is a complicated place. and the analogy to hockey is more relevant than you make it out to be, you can say exactly the same thing about hockey. All you need to know you learned as a peewee or bantam, you skate, you shoot the puck - what could be simpler? I've been playing all my life and I still don't know a shitload about hockey (and if you want proof of that just look around at how many people have issue with what I say here). Politicians have to have a LOT of skills, note how many politicians are lawyers. Yes, there are problems with government. It has to become more effective, but it is easy to see why. Our society has grown in every way you can imagine and our methods of government have not kept pace. I believe it will change, but slowly. "The wheels of democracy roll slowly but finely" As far as this being one of the darkest, most negative, disgusting times in U.S. history - I hope so, but I am afraid that Trump has opened the door for worse to come. We have been on a downward trend for a while with Dan Quayle, and George Bush jr. - and now Donald Trump, I was beside myself in the 80's with Ronald Reagan and couldn't imagine it could get worse, but it got much more worse. Say what you will, but Hillary does her homework. She is a hard worker. And she has Bill to get advice from. Don't forget that Bill introduced the law where you don't have to pay the full tax on your primary residence if you are buying another primary residence which is a super benefit for retirees and God willing I will be a retiree some day.
|
|
|
Post by kelvana33 on Oct 21, 2016 16:55:38 GMT
FBI director received millions from Clinton Foundation, his brother’s law firm does Clinton’s taxes September 26, 2016 US News A review of FBI Director JamesComey’s professional history and relationships shows that the Obama cabinet leader — now under fire for his handling of the investigation of Hillary Clinton — is deeply entrenched in the big-money cronyism culture of Washington, D.C. His personal and professional relationships — all undisclosed as he announced the Bureau would not prosecute Clinton — reinforce bipartisan concerns that he may have politicized the criminal probe. These concerns focus on millions of dollars that Comey accepted from a Clinton Foundation defense contractor,Comey’s former membership on a Clinton Foundation corporate partner’s board, and his surprising financial relationship with his brother Peter Comey, who works at the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation’s taxes. Lockheed Martin When President Obama nominated Comey to become FBI director in 2013, Comey promised the United States Senate that he would recuse himself on all cases involving former employers. But Comey earned $6 million in one year alone from Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin became a Clinton Foundation donor that very year. Comey served as deputy attorney general under John Ashcroft for two years of the Bush administration. When he left the Bush administration, he went directly to Lockheed Martin and became vice president, acting as a general counsel. How much money did James Comey make from Lockheed Martin in his last year with the company, which he left in 2010? More than $6 million in compensation. Lockheed Martin is a Clinton Foundation donor. The company admitted to becoming a Clinton Global Initiative member in 2010. According to records, Lockheed Martin is also a member of the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt, which paid Bill Clinton $250,000 to deliver a speech in 2010. In 2010, Lockheed Martin won 17 approvals for private contracts from the Hillary Clinton State Department. HSBC Holdings In 2013, Comey became a board member, a director, and a Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee member of the London bank HSBC Holdings. “Mr.Comey’s appointment will be for an initial three-year term which, subject to re-election by shareholders, will expire at the conclusion of the 2016 Annual General Meeting,” according to HSBC company records. HSBC Holdings and its various philanthropic branches routinely partner with the Clinton Foundation. For instance, HSBC Holdings has partnered with Deutsche Bank through the Clinton Foundation to “retrofit 1,500 to 2,500 housing units, primarily in the low- to moderate-income sector” in “New York City.” “Retrofitting” refers to a Green initiative to conserve energy in commercial housing units. Clinton Foundation records show that the Foundation projected “$1 billion in financing” for this Green initiative to conserve people’s energy in low-income housing units. Who Is Peter Comey? When our source called the Chinatown offices of D.C. law firm DLA Piper and asked for “Peter Comey,” a receptionist immediately put him through to Comey’s direct line. But Peter Comey is not featured on the DLA Piper website. Peter Comey serves as “Senior Director of Real Estate Operations for the Americas” for DLA Piper. James Comey was not questioned about his relationship with Peter Comey in his confirmation hearing. DLA Piper is the firm that performed the independent audit of the Clinton Foundation in November during Clinton-World’s first big push to put the email scandal behind them. DLA Piper’s employees taken as a whole represent a major Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign donation bloc and Clinton Foundation donation base. DLA Piper ranks #5 on Hillary Clinton’s all-time career Top Contributors list, just ahead of Goldman Sachs. And here is another thing: Peter Comey has a mortgage on his house that is owned by his brother James Comey, the FBI director. PeterComey’s financial records, obtained by Breitbart News, show that he bought a $950,000 house in Vienna, Virginia, in June 2008. He needed a $712,500 mortgage from First Savings Mortgage Corporation. But on January 31, 2011, James Comey and his wife stepped in to become Private Party lenders. They granted a mortgage on the house for $711,000. Financial records suggest that Peter Comey took out two such mortgages from his brother that day. This financial relationship between the Comey brothers began prior to JamesComey’s nomination to become director of the FBI. DLA Piper did not answer any question as to whether James Comey and Peter Comey spoke at any point about this mortgage or anything else during the Clinton email investigation. This needs to be seen by all: Lead FBI agent John Giacalone abruptly resigned in the middle of the investigation in February 2016. pay-for-play involving the Clinton Foundation were not properly vetted, ultimately white washed. FBI agents were blocked from serving search warrants to retrieve key evidence. FBI agents were not allowed to interrogate witnesses and targets without warning. FBI agents had been trying to interview Clinton since December 2015, approval delayed by top brass. FBI agents believed Clinton case was being “slow-walked” to run-out-the-clock. FBI agents stunned that targets Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were permitted to sit in on Hillary Clinton’s FBI interview. Clinton and aides cited amnesia. In Clinton’s case she claimed due to medical complications. Attempts to secure Clinton’s medical records to confirm her head injury were sabotaged by FBI Director James Comey. FBI Director: We found no evidence of intent FBI Docs: IT employee labeled his work “Hillary coverup operation”.
|
|
|
Post by kelvana33 on Oct 21, 2016 16:57:42 GMT
I messed up the quote box BHab, but the post above is in reference to you saying the FBI didn't find enough evidence.
Crooked Hilary.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Oct 21, 2016 18:29:24 GMT
I messed up the quote box BHab, but the post above is in reference to you saying the FBI didn't find enough evidence. Crooked Hilary. Call me what you will, but here is my conclusion after looking at that and several other sources. Does it look bad? Yes. Was enough evidence found that could bring charges? No. How many FBI and police such as yourself are "liberals"? Honestly, off the top of my head of the people I know - one guy who did tax stuff for the FBI, he's insanely right wing, the 2 cops I know - very conservative. The one cop I know on this website (goes by the name of Kel something or other), also right wing as far as I can tell. I find it very hard to believe that they wouldn't have Hillary's head on a pole IF they could nail her for something. Further - and I'll say this for both candidates, Hillary is a lawyer and Trump surrounds himself with lawyers. Did BOTH do things that people would question, yes. Just to pick on Trump, refusing to rent to blacks, Trump university, the Polish workers - he made sure he wouldn't get nailed. I would guess his lawyers had a worse case scenario, yah, you might get a fine, but certainly you won't see jail time. And same for Hillary. Neither one of them are stupid enough to rob convenience stores that have security cameras. So for both - close to illegal or just over the line, yes, but enough to get any prison time, no. At the end of the day it's politics. Trump has done a much better job of playing up Hillary's wrong doings, and Trump has remained pretty teflon as far as popular opinion. And here is a bonehead thing from the left, NOT paying taxes for example - clearly NOT illegal, he used tax laws to his advantage, nothing there. Yet the non payment of taxes is what gets the most attention and its a nothing. Just like Trump with the groping. It's not rape, it's just unwanted kissing or touching. It was a way for him to get a quickie. Notice he wasn't stupid enough to outright rape some woman - not one woman who has stepped forward has said that. For the *most* part people like that don't commit crimes simply because they don't have to, they can obtain whatever they want by "legal" means albeit very close to breaking the law. Unless they are totally fucked in the head - like Bill Cosby for example, but those people *usually* get caught because they can't help themselves. Oh sure, I would *love* it if pictures turned up of Trump in compromising positions with under age farm animals just as much as you would like to see wikileaks produce the email from Putin to Hillary saying thanks for giving us the passwords to all the CIA files, the check for 3 billion dollars is in the mail. But it ain't going to happen. Neither candidate will be found committing a felony outright as much as we'd like to think so.
|
|