Jump to content
IGNORED

Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

Nebraska

By Nebraska
in General Banter

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 22.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • ignatius

    2201

  • Nebraska

    1305

  • goDel

    1013

  • Rubin Farr

    905

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Braintree
Braintree
J3FF3R00
J3FF3R00

A bunch of entitled/threatened/fearful white people have allowed themselves to be brainwashed to support the egotism of a common opportunist / cheap tie salesman. Now they are resorting to violen

usagi
usagi

enough of this pissweak white apologism, at long last. apparently you haven't paid attention the last 5 years and understood the scale of what has occurred in that time. go take a cursory look at the 

Posted Images

auxien Grand Master

auxien

Posted
Posted

 

Clinton has the election on lock, do not doubt that. The only questions are the Senate and the House.

Remember when there was no way in hell Trump was going to be the Republican candidate
Yeah, I probably said that. But really, Trump doesn't have a shot in hell.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
delet... Grand Master

delet...

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/18/exposed-dem-operative-who-oversaw-trump-rally-agitators-visited-white-house-342-times/

 

 These were people that were called bernie supporters when it was long known that they were orchestrated by the hillary camp, just more damning evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
caze Grand Master

caze

Posted
Posted

that o'keefe guy is a total fraud it turns out, not only is there nothing particularly shocking in his videos, but he only manages to construct anything of note by judicious editing and lots of leading questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
delet... Grand Master

delet...

Posted
Posted

 yes, because some liberal website you go to calls him a fraud and that there's 'nothing particularly shocking in his videos' that means it's true, yeah, great. If this was repubs you'd be on board with it, because it's your guys it can't mean anything. This is the problem with the left right divide politics, it turns off people's brains. They assume that everything their guys do is for right and excuse it, and everything the other side does, not matter how insubstantial, is the worst thing in the world. obama doubled down on the war agenda but because he was a democrat the anti-war protests dried up, the liberal media started justifying instead of questioning. Hillary will be worse, but the left doesn't care, they have no principles, only a religion that they cannot question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisbot Grand Master

Brisbot

Posted
Posted

 

 

Clinton has the election on lock, do not doubt that. The only questions are the Senate and the House.

Remember when there was no way in hell Trump was going to be the Republican candidate
Yeah, I probably said that. But really, Trump doesn't have a shot in hell.

 

I'd say there's about a 20% chance at the moment. Was about a 50/50 shot before the other day. Though people have a short attention span, so it'll probably go up a bit before election day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
caze Grand Master

caze

Posted
Posted

 yes, because some liberal website you go to calls him a fraud and that there's 'nothing particularly shocking in his videos' that means it's true, yeah, great. 

 

no he's a fraud because he produces his videos in a fraudulent manner. like when he claimed he dressed up as a pimp and went to try and pass off his girlfriend as a prostitute to a bunch of community organisers, but it turned out he completely misrepresented how it actually went down - he only wore the ridiculous pimp getup before he met with the people he was conning, changing back into regular clothes to meet them, but made it look like he had it on when he was in there on the video (was all shot from his perspective so you couldn't see what he was wearing), he also edited the footage to distort what the guy had said to him. he was sued over that and settled for $100,000. he's also a convicted felon.

 

this video looks like a load of nothing to me, the Fovel guy doesn't do anything wrong, just provides an opportunity for Trump supporters to highlight their true cunty natures. the other claims are nothing as well, would need to see the unedited footage to see exactly how he went about distorting everything, but it's pretty obvious in most cases, leading questions, taking things out of context, but mostly things that just aren't even particularly controversial in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
auxien Grand Master

auxien

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

 

 

 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/18/exposed-dem-operative-who-oversaw-trump-rally-agitators-visited-white-house-342-times/

 

 These were people that were called bernie supporters when it was long known that they were orchestrated by the hillary camp, just more damning evidence.

 

Um, I dunno why that's quoted as my video but I didn't post it.

 

So that site says these activists incited violence, been then only shows some proof of bird dogging, which is just asking questions to Trump while reporters are present. Those two things do not equal one another, not by any stretch. Is the bird dogging itself a bit shady? Sure. But unless those people are actively trying to promote violence, then that site is entirely full of shit and just getting clicks from feeble-minded conspiracy seekers.

 

 

 

Clinton has the election on lock, do not doubt that. The only questions are the Senate and the House.

Remember when there was no way in hell Trump was going to be the Republican candidate
Yeah, I probably said that. But really, Trump doesn't have a shot in hell.

 

I'd say there's about a 20% chance at the moment. Was about a 50/50 shot before the other day. Though people have a short attention span, so it'll probably go up a bit before election day.

 

Technically, sure. I'm simply saying that in reality, barring any huge major issue, he's going to lose by a lot and that's all there is to it.

 

edit: yes also what caze said above me. The video is weaksauce, and I wouldn't care which side it was going for, it's just shit.

Edited by auxien
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisbot Grand Master

Brisbot

Posted
Posted

Another thing that remains to be seen, is if enough democrats will come out to vote. Republicans do vote more often, statistically. Makes sense given the general age differences, and the fact that Republicans 'tend' to think Democratic leaders are out to ruin America, so it becomes a kind of moral imperative. At least most of the ones I know, that's the basic gist of it..

Also Hillary isn't as exciting as Obama was. What she has going for her is the fact that Trump is fairly crazy. If her opponent wasn't Trump, and a more mainstream Republican, I honestly think that Hillary would lose. As Republicans will vote regardless of their level of excitement for a candidate.

The general belief among the Republicans I've talked to is: "We just need to get a Republican in office". There is more discrepancy among the left wing since we are more interested in policy and things. Which can and HAS backfired. There are lots of Democrats who think "we just need to get a Democrat in office" but there are fewer of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alcofribas Grand Master

Alcofribas

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

 

What's the conspiracy theory? It's pretty simple, a Russian news agency published something incorrect (they later retracted it), Trump later presents it as the truth (after the original source had retracted it), lots of idiots believe him. I'm not sure what else you think I'm saying, but that's about it.

 

As to the dog-whistling, have you heard the way Trump has been very deliberately using and repeating this guy's name? He clearly wants a jewy name out there associated with Clinton to keep his white supremacist fans happy/angry.

If that's about it then I agree with you and suggest avoiding Kurt Eichenwald's hack bs to make your point since he claims his article demonstrates that both trump and wikileaks are Russian operatives. Not in an inadvertent way but in a conspiracy against America. It's become his shtick this summer and it is the conspiracy theory I referred to.
I didn't see much wrong with the article to be honest.

 

It would obviously be silly to suggest that Trump is a Russian operative, but he is clearly a useful idiot being helped along by the Russians, they would much rather him in the oval office than Clinton, for what should be obvious reasons even to you.

 

Wikileaks have gone down in my estimation as well, again, they're not paid up Russian agents, but they're clearly not simply all about transparency and the truth like they claim, obviously pushing their own agenda here (an agenda which seems largely driven by Assange's personal animosity towards Clinton, which is perfectly understandable, but let's be honest here).

thing is, your moderate observations are undermined (again) by your sources. Just look at this clown:

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/status/785736619550765056

 

imo your points are more convincing when you state them without this kind of context. it also comes off as hypocritical bc this clearly rises to a similar standard by which you've judged other things to be conspiracies.

 

That being said, your observations about Trump and Assange are quite reasonable. Yes, even I can agree.

they're not undermined by anything, they stand or fall by whether they're true or not. I have no idea who this guy is, all I know is that this was a reasonable article.

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201610171046431086-Newsweek-Eichenwald-Moran-Putin-Trump/

 

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/10/did-newsweeks-kurt-eichenwald-use-threats-and-brib.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
auxien Grand Master

auxien

Posted
Posted (edited)

Another thing that remains to be seen, is if enough democrats will come out to vote. Republicans do vote more often, statistically. Makes sense given the general age differences, and the fact that Republicans 'tend' to think Democratic leaders are out to ruin America, so it becomes a kind of moral imperative. At least most of the ones I know, that's the basic gist of it..

 

Also Hillary isn't as exciting as Obama was. What she has going for her is the fact that Trump is fairly crazy. If her opponent wasn't Trump, and a more mainstream Republican, I honestly think that Hillary would lose. As Republicans will vote regardless of their level of excitement for a candidate.

 

The general belief among the Republicans I've talked to is: "We just need to get a Republican in office". There is more discrepancy among the left wing since we are more interested in policy and things. Which can and HAS backfired. There are lots of Democrats who think "we just need to get a Democrat in office" but there are fewer of them.

These points are all true. I assumed before the primaries that we'd end up with a Republican president since it was obvious Hilary was a shoe-in for the Dem nomination (and since we've only had one stretch of more than 8 years of one party since the 40s). And if we'd had a couple of decent Republicans in the primary, I still think it would've gone that way. But the field was mostly shit and the couple with any decent chance (Rubio, Kasich, Perry) underperformed, especially in comparison to the shitshow that was cable news suckling ratings from Trump's moldy pigteets. Clinton would've had a hell of a fight and a likely loss if the Republican party had gotten their shit together, but they were all too busy fighting amongst each other over who hates Obama the most and just letting the teabaggers control everything their party stood for that the nominees weren't vetted and picked through and supported and trained. 

 

There's definitely a lot of Republicans who are going to vote for Trump just because he's an R and will appoint Republican Supreme Court Justices. They're generally not stupid people, they know Trump is an ass, I just don't think they realize the full implications of what true harm he could as the international face of the United States. I definitely don't generally fall into the 'just get a Dem into office' camp, but this election I'm a bit influenced by that ideology, because of the SCJs issues I mentioned. Another one-two or even maybe three SCJs who are middle of the road (which of course the current 'Dem' Justice nominee is, I cant remember his name right now) or liberal will keep America progressing in the right direction, whereas the 1-2-3 possible SCJs to be appointed if an R was president could seriously drag back progress in major ways. And honestly, I think that the SCJ issue is so big in this election that it really is the most important issue...and that's sad because the SCJ shouldn't have that sort of political leaning sways and huge sweeping changes enacted that we've seen them pull out so often in the past decade or two. It really should be a different beast than it's become, and I think the checks and balances of the triumvirate (Executive, Judicial, Legislative) has been seriously out of whack for the entirety of the Obama administration and probably almost a decade before. Congress has been absofuckinglutely useless, seriously just childish cuntery from both sides, for the past 8 years.

 

And because of all that, I see the Republican/Trump supporters feelings of screaming for true change, from an 'outsider' who can 'fix' Washington DC. But holy fuck could they have picked a worst candidate who fulfills that need than Trump?

Edited by auxien
Link to comment
Share on other sites
caze Grand Master

caze

Posted
Posted

 

the interesting thing for me was that even after the article was retracted, Trump still continued to peddle the mistake as the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alcofribas Grand Master

Alcofribas

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

the interesting thing for me was that even after the article was retracted, Trump still continued to peddle the mistake as the truth.
that too is significant aspect of this story.

 

i'll only add that in a month trump will be out of the picture and eichenwald will still be peddling his garbage in a major publication.

Edited by Alcofribas
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.