|
There are entire whole candidates who have not raped people, but they believe in a tax plan that people don't like.
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 12:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 08:08 |
|
|
well, let's be honest here. even though trump is terrible in every way he is still much better than ted cruz.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
he is also still much better than hillary clinton
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
im voting for hillary clinton 
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
Sancho posted:he is also still much better than hillary clinton Lol even I wouldn't go that far.  I thought you were talking about Ted Cruz. Foibled again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
I'm voting for Hillary Clinton.... In an online poll asking who you would never want to see as president, that is
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
this thread is full of really drat dumb people myself included
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
Hillary 2016 (and I say this in the Kony sense)
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
It's kind of neat to think that in our lifetimes we're going to see a great power completely collapse and disintegrate under the weight of its own irony.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
Slime Bro Helpdesk posted:There are entire whole candidates who have not raped people, but they believe in a tax plan that people don't like.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
Hilary and Trump are both good and cool and if only there were a way to elect both at once the USA could be twice as good and cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
as a child of immigrants who will be profiled and interned after a trump win, i still think the country & world would be better off in 10 years if he wins as opposed to clinton winning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:Hilary and Trump are both good and cool and if only there were a way to elect both at once the USA could be twice as good and cool. the nuclear option is a clinton/trump Pres/VP fusion ticket coin flip decides which gets which
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
i'm so depressed. i have all this evidence of wrongdoing on hillary's behalf and it just makes me so sad. i feel like i want to shoot myself in the back of the head 5 times
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Just gonna leave this here: http://www.businessinsider.com/un-aid-trucks-airstrike-syria-us-russia-relations-2016-9 Watch Hildog start a war
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:as a child of immigrants who will be profiled and interned after a trump win, i still think the country & world would be better off in 10 years if he wins as opposed to clinton winning. lmao if you think that going to improve after a war with Syria inspires more and more attacks at home
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
i dont, though i imagine trump's immigration policy will be mostly DOA with so many stakeholders relying on cheaper labor coming to the states. otherwise, intervening killer drone lady who is all about govt secrecy is a well understood evil. i imagine republicans and her will work pretty well on foreign policy and erosion of privacy. at least with trump there might be a facade of resistance and a public conversation but liberals will probably fold on profiling because 
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
So apparently Hilldawg's phone banking system allowed literally anyone to register an account and make calls on behalf of her campaign, access names/addresses/phone numbers of everyone in the database, and enter new data. And 4chan used it as their personal playground for six hours. Jesus loving Christ trump is going to win lmao
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
It's pretty amazing how badly the Dems have run this campaign.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
They had a perfectly likable, progressive candidate on the ticket, but they chose to completely sabotage him for someone who can't go 2 days without getting into another scandal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
No one wants Hillary, not even her own party. She just happens to know all the dirt, where all the bodies are buried, all the corruption. And this is the last time she can possibly even try to be president, she's already falling apart at the seams. So in the little corrupt government mafia, it's her turn, to stroke herself by being first woman president.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
lmao loving hell: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ite-supremacist btw she'd have got paid £240 for that column, which is like $320ish?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
I'm volunteering for HRC because she's less evil.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
i can't believe anyone falls for this dog and pony show any more
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hillary-clinton-tech-guy-asked-reddit-for-email-advicequote:“I may be facing a very interesting situation where I need to strip out a VIP's (VERY VIP) email address from a bunch of archived email that I have,” a user named Stonetear wrote on a Reddit thread, which was deleted (but is still archived and screenshotted) on Monday, after Redditors spotted it. “Basically, they don't want the VIP's email address exposed to anyone, and want to be able to either strip out or replace the email address in the to/from fields in all of the emails we want to send out.”
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Quantum Finger posted:i can't believe anyone falls for this dog and pony show any more Its better than tv
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Quantum Finger posted:i can't believe anyone falls for this dog and pony show any more
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
opus111 posted:lmao loving hell: This article doesn't give even one reason why "hillary rules"? That is the worst written bullshit, a grade 5 teacher would give that article a D at best. One day society is going to miss having a competent and honest press.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
opus111 posted:lmao loving hell: Hillary Clinton rules because the democratic party platform speaks more to me than the republican one. IM loving EXCITED. reallivedinosaur posted:this article doesn't give even one reason why "hillary rules"? Yeah, this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Uh, she's a woman that did things. It clearly states that
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
It's a dumb article but to be fair there are multiple paragraphs illustrating what the author likes about Clinton, starting with "Clinton is pro-choice" and ending somewhere around "shrewd, savvy, tough politician." I just don't really believe Clinton is going to enact those policies nor do I particularly think progressive social policy is all that matters.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
The one saving grace is that shes getti ng slaughtered in tbe comments.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
I'd be all for a Machiavellian gangster lord as president if their agenda wasn't "Sell out Americans for personal profit"
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Roylicious posted:It's a dumb article but to be fair there are multiple paragraphs illustrating what the author likes about Clinton, starting with "Clinton is pro-choice" and ending somewhere around "shrewd, savvy, tough politician." Sharing (hopefully! she only recently decided Gay Marriage is ok!) the same political views you'd expect of any major Democrat running for office is definitely a 'totally rules' feel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
HRC aside I have no confidence that the Dems have the guts to really get anything done in the face of a hostile GOP in Congress. Obama was elected with a fairly clear mandate on several things and proceeded to get barely even token legislation through because of the GOP. The Dems rolled over on every negotiation and gave the GOP pretty much everything they wanted in the name of party cooperation and then just got shafted anyway. Remember "remove the public option or we'll filibuster" then they filibustered anyway? If Trump is in office there's a pretty strong chance the Dems will gain a lot of seats which is really where the social progressive stuff is going to come from, if you actually care about that. With HRC in office, it seems like it'll be 4-8 years of quagmire again wherein nothing gets done except some token feel good stuff and a lot of gimmes to big finance. You care about SCOTUS appointments? The executive still needs approval from Congress to confirm anyone and your fantasy liberal candidates aren't getting in there anyway. HRC will most definitely 'compromise' with the GOP and get some middle of the road candidates (at best) in there. Congress has already effectively blocked Obama from making the appointment, what makes anyone think they'll let HRC just appoint some super liberal? That said Trump is probably completely unqualified to be president and will have no idea what he is doing in office which will probably end up being a bog standard GOP presidency because he'll end up doing whatever his conservative advisers tell him is a good idea. Ugh too many words. Roylicious fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Sep 20, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Roylicious posted:HRC aside I have no confidence that the Dems have the guts to really get anything done in the face of a hostile GOP in Congress. Obama was elected with a fairly clear mandate on several things and proceeded to get barely even token legislation through because of the GOP. Lol. Ok. Obama is a sell out and a global corporation / wall street rear end monkey. It has nothing to do with the GOP. It's cute that you believe in things though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 20:12
|
|
Spunky Psycho Ho posted:Lol. Ok. Obama is a sell out and a global corporation / wall street rear end monkey. It has nothing to do with the GOP. It's cute that you believe in things though. Well if you think that corporate interests are that ingrained then it really does not matter whatsoever who is president. If all billionaires and F500 companies were aligned on who the best candidate for them would be then I might agree but that's not remotely true at all.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
obama had control of both houses and sucked
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
How could Obama have ever managed to pass legislation in the face of the GOP? As you can see from the past year, they're just an unstoppable, unbreakable juggernaut.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 08:08 |
|
reallivedinosaur posted:obama had control of both houses and sucked Well that's just untrue. The Dems had control of the House for the first 2 years of his presidency but not the Senate because it requires 60 seats to bypass filibusters (which the Dems did not have). Plus this was when the stimulus package the GOP was crying bloody murder about got passed. Do you remember how they made filibusters just "we're filibustering now?" It's not Mr. Smith Goes to Washington style anymore. The Dems had 60 seats in the Senate for all of 4 months until Kennedy's seat was filled by a Republican, which was when they finally managed to get a gutted Obamacare passed (since they gutted it then the GOP filibustered anyway resulting in it being dead in the water until those 4 months). If Obama was a corporate sell out we'd have seen a lot worse; such as no requirement for the banks and car companies to pay back the bailout money (most of which has been paid back already). I'm not a huge Obama fan and def not a Dem fan but constantly spouting factoids and misinformation only makes your side look weaker. It takes 2 moments to verify information in this day and age and I don't see how anyone could argue against the notion that the GOP has been a bunch of pissbabies for the last 8 years. Roylicious fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Sep 20, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 20:18
|
|