[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
politics

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 64250)
Message
File  []
close
first orange president.jpg
642506425064250
>> No. 64250 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 6:46 pm
64250 US elections 2016
This man is going to be the next President of the US and it's going to be fucking awesome.
Expand all images.
>> No. 64251 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 7:10 pm
64251 spacer
>it's going to be fucking awesome.

Kill yourself. He's a dumb, racist, joke, as are you by association.
>> No. 64252 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 7:12 pm
64252 spacer
>>64251
So?
>> No. 64253 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 7:13 pm
64253 spacer

america immigrants.png
642536425364253
He's the only one who can save America from the Mexican hordes.
>> No. 64254 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 7:13 pm
64254 spacer
>>64252
I agree with the first lad, it's not 'awesome' when buffoonish but genuinely nasty people wield power. I bet you want Jeremy Clarkson or Boris Johnson to be Prime Minister too.
>> No. 64257 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 7:40 pm
64257 spacer
His Twitter account alone amazes me.
>> No. 64259 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 7:48 pm
64259 spacer
>>64253
Bhutan? Fucking BHUTAN? All I can assume is that there are about 6 legal migrants in North Dakota and 3 of them are a Bhutanese family.
>> No. 64260 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 7:54 pm
64260 spacer
I hear his campaign theme song is going to be this.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROR1mpAxri0
>> No. 64263 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 8:13 pm
64263 spacer
>>64250
>first orange president.jpg
That's a shame. Boehner had hoped to take that title.
>> No. 64267 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 8:33 pm
64267 spacer
>>64251
>dumb
>made billions of dollars from a few million

I'm sure you're much smarter m80
>> No. 64270 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 8:37 pm
64270 spacer
>>64267

Not like he hires people to do that for him. I'm sure he sits down at his kitchen table and manages all his finances himself when he's not on Twitter being an obnoxious moron and replying to every single insult.
>> No. 64271 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 8:41 pm
64271 spacer
>>64250
The chance of Trump getting the nomination is incredibly slim, and even if he beats those odds, the chance of him winning against Clinton is essentially 0%. The Republicans have a serious (and growing) demographic problem, and the best way to make it a lethal problem is to get idiots like Trump on the national stage.

>>64267
As we all know, no moron has ever made money.
>> No. 64274 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 9:13 pm
64274 spacer
>>64270>>64271
You two really are enlightened by your own intelligence aren't you? No, idiots do not just luck their way into being a multi-billionaire, sure, Trump was >privileged in his upbringing but he made his fortune with intelligence and a deep knowledge of how markets work.

>obnoxious

This isn't even an argument imo, as Trump himself says, he doesn't have to be likeable, who'd you rather have? Some asshole who can actually do his job or a nice guy who can't?
>> No. 64275 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 9:20 pm
64275 spacer
>>64271
Not even 60% of the voting population bothered to turn out last time around, there are a lot of people who are just fed up with career politicians, people are tired of Bushes and Clintons, I honestly don't know why the British media is painting it as though Hillary is somehow destined to win, she has more scandals than anyone else running, is terrible with the media, poor in debates and quite frankly unlikable, just because she's a woman doesn't gift her the presidency.
>> No. 64276 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 9:29 pm
64276 spacer

FeelTheBern.jpg
642766427664276
Bernie can take him.
>> No. 64278 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 9:46 pm
64278 spacer
>>64274
A turnout of less than 60% would be a real wake up call if not for the fact that there hasn't been a turnout higher than that in nearly 50 years, mate. Hilary has extremely positive ratings within the party (80% plus favourability).

US politics have grown incredibly partisan over the past couple of decades. The key to winning elections isn't convincing the other people to switch sides, it's to convince the people on your side to turn up and vote. The excitement of electing a woman as president will no doubt be a factor in favour of turning out the vote for Clinton. She's not without her problems, and she certainly isn't "destined" to be gifted the presidency, but the odds are objectively on her side at this point in time.

>>64274
I can't believe I actually have to say these words: Donald Trump would not do a good job as president. He would be an asshole who can't do his job. The worst of both worlds.

Luckily, however, he is not in a million years going to be President.
>> No. 64279 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 9:50 pm
64279 spacer
>>64276

I really hope he gets the nomination, and the presidency. Hilary is as vicious a neo-con as anybody.

Bernie/Corbyn pax Anglo-Sphere when?! Don't tell me, we all know the answer already.
>> No. 64280 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 9:52 pm
64280 spacer
>>64276
Bernie is not going to be President either. Nor is he going to be the Democratic nominee.
>> No. 64281 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 9:58 pm
64281 spacer
>>64279
You can disagree with someone's foreign policy without calling them a neoconservative, just so you know. That word actually has a meaning, and it would be a real shame to have it turn into "person to my right who I don't like", like "fascist".
>> No. 64282 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 10:07 pm
64282 spacer
>>64278
Yeah, you're right, voter apathy has been chronic for decades, Hillary is popular within her party, but the base isn't going to win the election for her, Romney is still popular in the GOP even now, in spite of being a shit candidate.

I think people are a bit fatigued about "firsts" after the first black president, I know European and Brit media sugarcoat the issue but Obama is not and has not been popular for a long time now, it's not as bad as Bush in his twilight years, but his ratings are mediocre at best. I think looking at the larger picture the Republicans have a good chance, there is almost a pattern of them having 8 years each.

I think he would be a good president, he has balls, can self finance his campaign so not beholden to lobbyists, certainly understand the economy better than anyone else running and would make the rest of the world respect America again, not respect in way you're thinking, the "oh, that Obama guy, he's cool" way, but in a "No, we'd better not invade Crimea" way.

Trump is the most Reagan like candidate since Reagan tbh.
>> No. 64283 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 10:20 pm
64283 spacer
>>64281

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

And she voted to go to war with Iraq. She's a neo-con, like most in D.C..
>> No. 64284 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 10:30 pm
64284 spacer
>>64283
Trump was always against it as a matter of interest.
>> No. 64285 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 10:33 pm
64285 spacer
>>64284

That's great, but he's also a racist billionaire, so it's moot.
>> No. 64287 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 10:41 pm
64287 spacer
>>64285
Obama's racist too, just not against blacks. Most Americans are sick of being Mexico's dustbin as well, it's baffling that the Republicans won't nut up and battle the issue head on, it's not like hispanics are going to vote for Jeb just because he sucks up to them. They'll always vote Dem. Another moderate like Mitt is the last guy they need to win.
>> No. 64288 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 11:00 pm
64288 spacer
>>64282
I'd be surprised if Romney ever touched 80% favourability within the GOP, even at the "height" of his popularity.

European and "Brit" media don't habitually report about the popularity ratings of American presidents one way or the other mate, it's not exactly a pressing concern.

Based on his actual statements on policy, there is no reason to believe Trump understands the economy. There is every reason to believe he is clown. The prospect of trying to convey why this is to someone dense enough to think he's some sort of genius strongman doesn't really interest me. Luckily, it doesn't matter, because he will not be the Republican nominee, and he will not be president.

Like Ron Paul, the sheer size of the portion of the party who are hostile to him and his ideas and will never come around to agreeing with him means that there is a hard ceiling on his support. Paul consistently polled in the top few candidates in 2012, and yet there was never any chance of him actually winning the nomination, because despite his vocal supporters, most of the party were not interested in him or what he was selling.

Another key factor is Trump's inherent inability to secure the endorsement of party actors, which is crucial to winning the nomination. It isn't about throwing money around, it's about having an actual efficient operation spreading your message. If you want to start from scratch building that operation, you have a really fucking hard time ahead of you. When you have influential supporters in your party (representatives, senators and especially governors) who already have a successful infrastructure in place, it becomes a lot easier. People like Bush, Walker, Rubio, and even Rand have been seriously planning this for years. Trump's campaign, on the other hand, is so half assed it's hard to tell whether or not it is or was a publicity stunt.

Trump can fill a room with thousands of people. Ron Paul could too. So can Bernie Sanders. None of them have ever or will ever have a real chance of becoming president, though, because that simply isn't how it works.

>>64283
Again, you disagree with her foreign policy. I do too! Doesn't mean she's a neocon.
>> No. 64289 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 11:06 pm
64289 spacer
>>64274
Why did you put that chevron before the word privileged?
>> No. 64290 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 11:07 pm
64290 spacer
>>64287
>Obama's racist too, just not against blacks
Oh good, this will definitely stimulate an intelligent discussion.
>> No. 64291 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 11:08 pm
64291 spacer
>>64289
I would guess that he's straight off the funchan banana boat.
>> No. 64292 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 11:25 pm
64292 spacer
>>64288
The point about popularity is that the Democrats have fallen out of favour, it isn't often a party can stay in power for three terms, the last time was with Bush Sr. and he was carrying the torch from the extremely popular Reagan.

>statements of policy

Sorry to say but 90% of voters don't really give a shit, charisma matters, that's how Presidential elections have worked ever since the television, and Trump is the most charismatic candidate. How tall the guy is, his delivery and overall confidence, a well funded campaign, these things are in all honesty more important than policy. Sounds trollish but that's the reality of things.

Poor old Ron was someone they could easily sweep under the carpet, Trump is not. he's also the type of guy that could well go third party and split the vote, a la Ross Perot.

>endorsement

The guy's established and has money to burn, he doesn't need it, but if he keeps up momentum they'll have no choice but to support him.

The real brunt of your argument is that you don't think Trump can win because he's Trump, they said the same about a certain cowboy actor.
>> No. 64293 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 11:29 pm
64293 spacer
>>64290
I would say something like he isn't doing anything significant about Ferguson or racial equality, but then I remembered Congress is controlled by the Republicans, so he can't.
>> No. 64294 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 11:35 pm
64294 spacer
>>64293

What do you think Obama needs to do about racial equality?
>> No. 64295 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 11:38 pm
64295 spacer
>>64292
The comment on his economic acumen was in response to the suggestion that Trump understands the economy better than anybody running, not a comment on his electability.

>The guy's established and has money to burn, he doesn't need it, but if he keeps up momentum they'll have no choice but to support him.
He has name recognition because he's a reality TV star. He is not "established". You are ignoring the explanation I gave as to why those endorsements matter. In fact, you're ignoring almost everything I said.

>The real brunt of your argument is that you don't think Trump can win because he's Trump, they said the same about a certain cowboy actor.
I have given very good reasons why he can't win, the fact that you haven't engaged with them doesn't mean they don't exist. But yeah, maybe if Trump becomes a governor and is extremely popular with his constituents at his time of leaving office, I'll reconsider.
>> No. 64296 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 11:45 pm
64296 spacer
>>64292
>they said the same about a certain cowboy actor
Yes, and John Wayne didn't win either.
>> No. 64297 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 11:52 pm
64297 spacer
>>64296

Almost every time I hear or see the name John Wayne, I spend 0.5 seconds confusing him with Johnny Cash.

Sage for complete irreverence.
>> No. 64298 Anonymous
15th July 2015
Wednesday 11:55 pm
64298 spacer
>>64294
Well, here are some suggestions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-obama-should-do-now-address-racial-inequality/2012/11/09/4bac5210-29de-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_story.html
>For example, in addition to lowering mandatory minimum sentences, the administration should stop funding the Byrne grant program, which provides federal money for state and local criminal law enforcement. These grants are often awarded to cities and states with high rates of arrest and conviction, therefore encouraging aggressive policing.

>As is well known, high incarceration rates reduce employability and civic participation, and weaken family bonds. The president and his congressional allies ought to advocate for legislation that would ban employers from requiring former felons to identify themselves as such. This might help address the incredibly high unemployment among ex-offenders and better enable them to rebuild their lives after serving their time.

>We are also in dire need of a federal jobs program focused on geographic areas where unemployment and poverty are pervasive. Likewise, we need the federal government to support public education, rather than encouraging schools to privatize or become charters, which are often run by corporations and non-educators and displace trained teachers.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2015-03-01/racial-inequality-after-racism
>Jim Crow–era voting restrictions, such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and the grandfather clause, were adopted precisely because they appeared to be race neutral and therefore compliant with the 15th Amendment, which prohibits race-based voting discrimination. And even today, seemingly race-neutral policies often reinforce racial inequalities, although what is different now is that the officials behind them may harbor no racist intentions. To take one well-known example, cocaine drug laws that are based on the principle of colorblindness—distinguishing not between black and white defendants but between crimes involving crack cocaine and those related to powder cocaine—have resulted in grossly disproportionate punishments for black offenders.

http://www.thenation.com/article/reducing-racial-inequality-our-justice-system/
>In 2010, President Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act into law and ensured that those arrested with crack—mostly young, African-American men—are no longer subject to a 100-to-1 sentencing disparity compared to those arrested with essentially the same drug in powder form, who are more likely to be Caucasian.

>The Fair Sentencing Act was a rare time in history when Congress reduced sentences, thereby enunciating a sharp turn in public policy, yet those sentenced prior to 2010 remain in prison, serving sentences that have now been repudiated by Congress. ... If, as Dr. King wrote, “justice too long delayed is justice denied,” then every day they continue to sit in prison serving sentences that policymakers—and the American people—believe no longer fit their crime is another day that justice is denied. I continue to call on President Obama to use his commutation power to correct these injustices today.

>And there is more he can do. According to a recent poll, 52 percent of Americans now support legalization of marijuana. And a recent ACLU report revealed that despite using marijuana at the same rate as Caucasians, African-Americans were arrested for marijuana at a rate four times higher than whites. With opposition to the failed policies of criminalization and prohibition growing every day, Congress should immediately act to catch up with the American people. In the interim, the president should not let anyone suffer one more day for the mistakes of outdated policy. He should be guided by the fierce urgency of now.

>Commutation of nonviolent offenders is a significant step the president can take immediately, but he has so far used this power—one of the few he has that cannot be obstructed by the Tea Party—far less than his predecessors.
>> No. 64299 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 12:22 am
64299 spacer
>>64250

I doubt that.

The Republican party hasn't had a president elected that wasn't a Nixon or a Bush for decades.
>> No. 64302 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 3:36 am
64302 spacer
He'd be the most American of presidents. A good choice. I can already imagine him shouting "blow it out of your ass," at all the people against him when he bombs poor countries or stops handing out food stamps.

Let the good times roll.
>> No. 64303 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 3:37 am
64303 spacer
>>64253
What's with Somalis and Scandinavians?
>> No. 64304 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 3:42 am
64304 spacer
>>64303
I don't really like Jerry Seinfeld's new race material, it's kind of weird.
>> No. 64305 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 4:49 am
64305 spacer
Guys iwm equally seseubjnb plwqw rakenpitt.
>> No. 64307 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 6:46 am
64307 spacer

image.jpg
643076430764307
>>64259

Bhutanese refugees are the descendants of people who caught alongside the British East India company forces against Croydon in the Gurkha wars. They have been treated badly in Bhutan which created a refugee crisis, some of them have managed to resettle in Croydon and some in other countries. Of the top of my head I can't remember why America agreed to take so many.

Picture of the best food in Croydon.
>> No. 64314 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 12:36 pm
64314 spacer

Donald-Trump-Boris-Johnson.jpg
643146431464314
I fucking hate how you morons just dismiss people as racists, clowns or neocons. What a fucking waste of time, keep your trap shut if you've nothing to contribute. Grown ups only.
>> No. 64320 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 1:04 pm
64320 spacer
>>64314

There's nothing more childish than thinking you're so grown up.
>> No. 64321 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 1:07 pm
64321 spacer
>>64314
Whereas you're really exhibiting your maturity with that post.
>> No. 64322 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 1:18 pm
64322 spacer
>>64314
I'm sure you never dismiss people are loonie lefty tumblrite fems and the like.
>> No. 64323 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 1:39 pm
64323 spacer
>>64314
No comparison there, lad. BoJo is rather intelligent, but plays a buffoon for the crowds. He only really gets into trouble when he goes off-script while speaking. Trump, on the other hand, is an actual buffoon.
>> No. 64324 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 3:29 pm
64324 spacer
>>64314
Trump's not a "racist, clown or neocon", he's just a racist clown. And (overtly) racist clowns don't get to drive the clown car in 2016, I'm sorry that the reality of that upsets you.
>> No. 64325 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 4:08 pm
64325 spacer
>>64324
Why are you having a teary? Trump is like an average American. They should choose someone they can see eye to eye with.
>> No. 64326 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 4:20 pm
64326 spacer
As to Hillary's popularity, it's been in decline for some time now.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

>>64324
I'm afraid when you screech racist at anything and everything like some demented harpy you devalue the word, and these shame tactics only work if a candidate is weak and shamable, Trump isn't, the media could hammer the issue of him having divorced so many times for instance, but he doesn't pretend to be some paragon of virtue so it has no punch. Anything they throw at him will just fall off like water off a duck's back.
>> No. 64327 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 5:02 pm
64327 spacer
>>64325
I want aware the average American was a rich, racist clown.
>> No. 64328 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 5:10 pm
64328 spacer
>>64327
Not in financial terms, foreveroffendedlad. The average American, politically speaking, is like Trump. He is the quintessential American. They should definitely vote for him.
>> No. 64329 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 5:24 pm
64329 spacer
To understand the Trump appeal, you have to understand the American mindset.

First imagine the quintessential British stiff upper lip. That stoic responsibility that characterises our people. Now try to picture the American equivalent. The American Dream- That sickly, almost naive optimism that underlines all their media output and domestic history. If you try hard enough, you will get there too.

Trump embodies that. People like him are living gods in America, in a way that will probably compared to Egyptian Pharoahs when our civilization passes beyond memory.
>> No. 64332 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 7:10 pm
64332 spacer
I want Are Jacob to be PM.
>> No. 64333 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 7:49 pm
64333 spacer
>>64326
She's got a long way to fall before she's anywhere near as reviled as Trump.

>I'm afraid when you screech racist at anything and everything like some demented harpy you devalue the word, and these shame tactics only work if a candidate is weak and shamable, Trump isn't, the media could hammer the issue of him having divorced so many times for instance, but he doesn't pretend to be some paragon of virtue so it has no punch. Anything they throw at him will just fall off like water off a duck's back.
I'm not saying that Trump is a racist to shame him, mate. I agree with you: he is shameless (I don't know why you think that's a good thing). I'm saying it because of the stupendously stupid racist shit that comes out of his mouth, be it his comments on Mexicans or his absurd "birther" thing.

The media doesn't need to hammer anything at him to make him unelectable. He is already unelectable. Regardless of how much you might want him to be President, if you can't understand why he is never going to be President you have zero understanding of the American political process.
>> No. 64335 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 8:33 pm
64335 spacer
>>64333
Trump's popularity has doubled since his anti-Mexican speech, I know it's hard for trigger policing Guardian readers like yourself to believe but not every American is tripping over themselves to suck immigrant cock, in fact, many despise them, this isn't aimed at all Mexicans of course, but the ones the US gets are the bottom of the barrel ones.

>unelectable

You're just firing buzzwords mate, >racist >obnoxious >unelectable

It's honestly ridiculous that you think Trump is an impossibility while you assume Hillary, who has more scandals than her arm is long, is the anointed one. Hillary's past is going to catch up with her, and she refuses to give straight answers, another reason why the average guy, the fence sitter, doesn't like her.

After 8 years of vapid platitudes and against his manufactured rivals a brash, real talking guy like Trump is a breath of fresh air.
>> No. 64336 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 8:37 pm
64336 spacer
Bickering aside, Bernie vs Trump would make for good watching
>> No. 64337 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 8:45 pm
64337 spacer
>>64336
I just want an interesting election, to have Bush vs Clinton would be the most boring and depressing outcome possible.
>> No. 64338 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 8:51 pm
64338 spacer
>ctrl-f "caucus"
>0 of 0
>ctrl-f "Florida"
>0 of 0

This thread isn't about politics at all.
>> No. 64339 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 8:52 pm
64339 spacer
>>64333
>muh process
Read Spengler and you'll see that we're approaching the final stage of civilisation: The Age of the Caesars. The men who run the country are there purely because of their cult of personality.

Someone like Trump will enter the white house.
>> No. 64341 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 9:17 pm
64341 spacer

fXp1YLp.png
643416434164341
>>64335
>Trump's popularity has doubled since his anti-Mexican speech
And yet he is still far less popular than Hitlery Clinton who ALL AMERICANS DEFINITELY HATE.

>the average guy, the fence sitter
The "average guy" is not on the fence, you moron. Truly undecided independent voters are a small minority, and it's really just a polite term for very low info voters. Again, you do not win elections by convincing people you're right, you win by convincing people who already agree with you (or, and this is yet another reason why Trump would be a disaster for the Republicans, who already disagree with the other candidate) to get off their ass and vote. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the modern American political process.

Saying that, I don't think anything's going to get through to you. Anybody who thinks that a racist clown with no political experience or backing who is hard at work issuing sick burns to libertarian magicians on twitter while serious candidates mobilise actual campaigns is a potential, and desirable, future President is beyond reason.

This thread is going to be fucking hilarious to look back on a year from now.

>>64336
The primaries are already shaping up to be more of a circus than 2008 and 2012 put together, and that's saying something. If Trump gets to share a stage with Jeb and Rubio it will be more entertaining than anything I could've possibly hoped for.
>> No. 64342 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 9:19 pm
64342 spacer
>>64333

So you're basically one of those sorts who sees a black president, and thinks WELL FUCK YEAH THE NEXT ONE SHOULD HAVE A VAGINA! THE ONE AFTER THAT WILL PROBABLY BE GAY!!!

I don't exactly have my finger on the pulse of the US political scene, but from what I have seen of Hilary as a politician, nobody in their right fucking mind would vote for her. I don't know if she's better or worse than Trump, but I see little good coming of either.

Then again, considering the state of the average American in terms of being educated and well-informed, you might be right, and we see her win with a landslide simply by every single woman in the country voting for her.
>> No. 64343 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 9:27 pm
64343 spacer
>>64342
>So you're basically one of those sorts who sees a black president, and thinks WELL FUCK YEAH THE NEXT ONE SHOULD HAVE A VAGINA! THE ONE AFTER THAT WILL PROBABLY BE GAY!!!
No, dickhead, I'm not. I haven't made any statement on who should be President other than implying that Trump shouldn't. The joke of this whole thing is I don't even fucking like Hilary Clinton. That doesn't mean she doesn't have a very good chance of becoming President.
>> No. 64345 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 9:50 pm
64345 spacer
>>64341
Hillary's popularity has been declining for years, Trump is on the way up. These are the trends right now. You see where this is going.

There are still people who aren't dedicated to one party or who vote Dem one election and Repub the next, if this weren't so there would just be one party that kept on winning, which obviously isn't the case. There are people you can sway.

You're way too entrenched in your idea of what a politician "should" be, which seems to be a straight-laced moderate who has anything he says go through the committee grinder. As for Trump's shitposting on twitter you could well say the same about Obama, what was he doing shitposting on reddit (and shitposting in real life with memes and other childish nonsense) while we have multiple wars going on and a debt crisis? You honestly sound very out of touch, the internet is a major tool for ostensibly serious people now, it certainly helped the current president get elected.

>racist
>clown
>serious candidate

This again, Jesus Christ, you're a parrot. A non-combative, moderate establishment candidate like you think they ought to have, another Romney or McCain, simply isn't going to work, people have short attention spans while Mars and Earth align, people treat elections like reality TV, you need someone who can work with that, not some nice guy stiff who lets the media tread all over them.

Look, I'm not saying Trump is absolutely guaranteed to win, I think his biggest obstacle is the Republicans themselves, but I do think he will do brilliantly in the debates, he's in his element with that kind of shit.

Let me ask you this - do you think Jeb Bush (the only other likely candidate) would stand a better chance than Trump?
>> No. 64346 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 9:53 pm
64346 spacer
I hope Trump wins. And Boris.
>> No. 64347 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 9:56 pm
64347 spacer
>>64345

>As for Trump's shitposting on twitter you could well say the same about Obama, what was he doing shitposting on reddit (and shitposting in real life with memes and other childish nonsense) while we have multiple wars going on and a debt crisis?

Let's agree that Trump should stop shitposting on Twitter and start actually campaigning, and that Obama should stop having aids run his media profiling and join the army and during his lunch breaks single-handedly fix their debt crisis.
>> No. 64348 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 9:56 pm
64348 spacer
>>64342

You have to be joking. You accuse him of that outlandish nonsense in the first line, before reasoning Americans must be idiots, despite not "having your finger on the pulse of US politics", all because they probably won't elect a reality TV start who spends most of his time either alienating the exact voter republicans need to win, or having social media interactions the like of which most people stopped shortly after their 13th birthday. As I said, you have to be joking, you're so absurd I can't take what I read seriously.

Whatever, I made a /101/ post about British people who care for more for American politics than they do our own, and this thread is a shining example, and my participation is just as rueful as anyones.
>> No. 64349 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:22 pm
64349 spacer
Is it weird that I want Trump to win after reading the annoying lad's posts?
>> No. 64350 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:22 pm
64350 spacer
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there have been female presidential candidates before, have there not? What stopped them surfing their way to victory on a tidal wave of support from women? And why should it be different for Clinton?
>> No. 64351 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:23 pm
64351 spacer
>>64348
American elections are more fun.
>> No. 64352 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:24 pm
64352 spacer
>>64350
What makes you think all women would vote for a female candidate just because... Fanny?
>> No. 64353 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:27 pm
64353 spacer
Evidence suggests women are slightly more prone to vote for female candidates.

Doesn't make a lot of difference though.
>> No. 64354 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:29 pm
64354 spacer
>>64350

Not one for the Dems or GOP ticket. No other party has a chance of winning the election.
>> No. 64355 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:31 pm
64355 spacer
>>64352

Nothing in particular but it sounded for a bit like people were considering Hilary a shoe-in on that basis.
>> No. 64356 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:34 pm
64356 spacer
>>64355
That's mostly the feel good champagne socialists and Guardian readers. Don't pay them any mind.
>> No. 64357 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:34 pm
64357 spacer
>>64355

>shoe-in

It's shoo-in!
>> No. 64358 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:36 pm
64358 spacer

imrs.png
643586435864358
>>64345
>Hillary's popularity has been declining for years, Trump is on the way up. These are the trends right now. You see where this is going.
THIS LINE GOES UP, THIS LINE GOES DOWN, LET'S NOT THINK ABOUT THE CONTEXT FOR THAT OR CAUSATION OR ANYTHING, LET'S JUST CALL IT A TREND AND MOVE ON TRUMP 2016

Fuck me.

>There are still people who aren't dedicated to one party or who vote Dem one election and Repub the next, if this weren't so there would just be one party that kept on winning, which obviously isn't the case. There are people you can sway.
If it was the same people casting votes every election, that would be correct. But it isn't.

>A non-combative, moderate establishment candidate like you think they ought to have, another Romney or McCain, simply isn't going to work, people have short attention spans while Mars and Earth align, people treat elections like reality TV, you need someone who can work with that, not some nice guy stiff who lets the media tread all over them.
>You're way too entrenched in your idea of what a politician "should" be, which seems to be a straight-laced moderate who has anything he says go through the committee grinder
Nope. Cruz and Walker, for example, are not moderates, non-combative or establishment approved, and yet they have a far, far better chance at success than Trump.

>As for Trump's shitposting on twitter you could well say the same about Obama, what was he doing shitposting on reddit (and shitposting in real life with memes and other childish nonsense) while we have multiple wars going on and a debt crisis? You honestly sound very out of touch, the internet is a major tool for ostensibly serious people now, it certainly helped the current president get elected.
Trump isn't ridiculous because he's on twitter, he's ridiculous because he's on twitter being a petty, narcissistic braggart. He has this problem when he's speaking in person too: half of his rally in Phoenix was just him making lame burns on all the people and companies who had distanced themselves from him for damage control. Although, at least when he's making vacuous boasts he's not talking about his actual policies, which are even more poorly conceived. I think the 35% import tariff is my favourite so far.

Trump would give the Democrats a landslide that hasn't been seen since 72. Any other candidate would stand a better chance than him.

Tell you what, build me a map that you think is a viable route to Trump winning the electoral vote:

http://www.270towin.com/

While you're filling it in, keep the attached image in mind. Good luck!

>>64355
There have been other primary contenders over the years, but she will be the first candidate in the general should she win, which is almost an inevitability. She's not a shoo-in because women will all vote for her, but the fact that she's a woman certainly won't hurt democratic turnout. Like it or not, the idea of being a part of the "historical movement" that elects the first black guy, woman etc. is a greater motivator among the democratic base than being someone who helped elect old white dude #43.
>> No. 64359 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 10:36 pm
64359 spacer
>>64354
There have been candidates for VP. Mondale had a bint on his ticket, and it's said that McCain's bid was sunk by the prospect of Palin being a heart attack away from the top job.
>> No. 64360 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 11:17 pm
64360 spacer
>>64358
Wow, you really are convinced Hillary is going to win, I'm not sure if you know why opinion of her has grown so dim but I don't have the patience to discuss Benghazi and the email scandal, things you should be well aware of if you haven't been living under a rock. These are big issues, and will haunt her.

Cruz and Walker don't have the looks, fame or charisma to be president, they're Santorum and Huntsman tier.

>Trump is a meanie, I hate him

Ok, I get that, but a lot of people agree with him, it's his frank attitude and swagger that has got him this early attention, it's a good thing, not bad.

Jeb Bush is the only other real competition, his being a Bush has some currency with a slice of voters, but it's poison to many more. He's not charismatic, has a shitty weak name, "Jeb" (yes, this matters), and is pandering more to Mexicans than any Democrat, he's a RINO basically.

Yeah I see your pic, hispanics are growing, it's incredibly stupid of the Republicans to have not done more about hispanics. Most do vote Democrat and it doesn't much matter who the Republicans pitch in that regard.

You can't rely on women to vote for Hillary, no-one hates women more than women themselves, and many think she's a bitch (not even to do with the scandals, it's just herself), this isn't like blacks who actually do vote as a monolithic bloc.
>> No. 64363 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 11:39 pm
64363 spacer
>>64360
>Yeah I see your pic, hispanics are growing, it's incredibly stupid of the Republicans to have not done more about hispanics. Most do vote Democrat and it doesn't much matter who the Republicans pitch in that regard.
It does matter who the Republicans pitch you thick cunt. For the last fucking time, it's not that there's a chance that the Republicans could win the hispanic vote, it's that if they nominate someone who is perceived by hispanics to be racist against them, hispanics will be highly motivated to turn up to vote for the other candidate. Demographics in swing states (which were won by the Democrats in 2012, you may have noticed) are a growing problem for Republicans. Trump would make this a much worse problem by increasing the turnout of demographics already unfavourable towards the Republican party.

¿Comprende?

>You can't rely on women to vote for Hillary, no-one hates women more than women themselves
>has a shitty weak name, "Jeb" (yes, this matters)
You're talking absolute shit and nothing you say means anything.

Why don't you make an actual concrete assertion and build me a map showing which states you believe Trump can succeed in that Romney couldn't?

http://www.270towin.com/
>> No. 64364 Anonymous
16th July 2015
Thursday 11:59 pm
64364 spacer
>>64363
Why are you so confrontational?
>> No. 64365 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 12:00 am
64365 spacer
>>64363
Trump may well motivate some hispanics (though quite a few want the door shut after them), but in turn will motivate a great deal of whites to vote, there are a lot of people who you would without doubt call racist that don't like the idea of America becoming Mexico 2.0, but there hasn't been a real candidate who's taken the bull by the horns like Trump has, everyone other Republican is too chickenshit to even bring it up in a serious way.

It's worth noting that not all non-whites are allied against whites, and Trump could even gain a few black votes (they love celebrities, and dislike hispanics more than whites as they often share the same areas).

The woman thing, I can see you're assuming rather too much, women will not just vote a woman for President like blacks did with Obama, sure some will, but it's not a big deal to women outside leftist circles who would vote Democrat no matter which candidate was put up.

I'm not going to play the autistic webgame, these stupid analysis things never work out even when they get guys who do it for their career like Nate Silver.
>> No. 64366 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 12:08 am
64366 spacer
>>64365
>I'm not going to play the autistic webgame, these stupid analysis things never work
So you're not going to make predictions about who can win based on routes to victory in the electoral college through demographic appeal in swing states, you are instead going to posit that Trump can win because "blacks love celebrities". Ok. I think this has run its course.

>even when they get guys who do it for their career like Nate Silver.
Yeah, the analysis of the guy who correctly predicted the results of every single state in 2012 really didn't work out.
>> No. 64367 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 12:31 am
64367 spacer
>>64366
You can't predictably reduce elections to a formula like you so clearly want, at least not at this stage, there's a lot of things that can happen in the 16 months between now and the election and I don't pretend to know what they will be, again, I never said Trump was sure to win, but I do think he has a very good chance.

>blacks like celebrities

They do, black culture worships athletes, rappers and guys with money, I know this is triggering you or something but it's true, and not just with the youth either. The other half about them disliking hispanics is also true.

Nate kept conveniently adjusting shit towards the end, I know there was a lot of shit he got called out on back in 2012, I can tell you're too emotionally involved to have a normal debate about this, I think you said you were against Hillary but I'm finding that hard to believe now.

As for me, I just want to watch the fireworks, a Trump presidency would be an amazing thing to witness, I don't think even a Schwarzenegger presidency would be as entertaining.
>> No. 64368 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 12:46 am
64368 spacer
>>64367
I'm not asking you to reduce anything to a formula, I'm asking you which states you think Trump can win that Romney couldn't. It's a very straightforward question. If you can't answer that, I'm not sure on what basis you think you can say he has a "very good chance".

If only Nate Silver had based his predictions on such concrete data as "blacks love celebrities" and "women hate themselves", he would surely have predicted 75 out of 50 states correctly.
>> No. 64369 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 1:06 am
64369 spacer

Randyman.jpg
643696436964369
All this talk about Trump is shifting the focus away from America's real saviour: Rand Paul. I take it his chances for getting the republican nomination are slim to none?
>> No. 64370 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 1:19 am
64370 spacer
>>64369
They're slim, but they're not Trump slim. He's been very popular as a senator in Kentucky, and has an endorsement from Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell under his belt, which isn't too shabby considering how diametrically opposed he is to the Republican establishment in a lot of cases.

He'll be interesting to watch as the campaign unfolds, but barring a few implosions of more viable candidates, he's definitely a long shot.
>> No. 64371 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 2:59 am
64371 spacer
>>64368
Your posts are utter trash mate.
>> No. 64372 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 3:32 am
64372 spacer
>>64371
I will make a bold prediction here and now that my trash posts will have as many pledged delegates as Donald Trump.
>> No. 64373 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 6:18 am
64373 spacer
>>64343

>No, dickhead, I'm not.

Haha, yes you are.
>> No. 64374 Anonymous
17th July 2015
Friday 10:59 am
64374 spacer
Btw looking at some of Nate Silver's more recent predictions is pretty entertaining.

>Today, Silver’s website is arguing not merely that the Brazilian soccer team is most likely to win the World Cup, but that it has a remarkable 38% chance of doing so

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brettarends/2014/06/24/is-nate-silver-wrong-about-the-world-cup/

He was way off with our own election too.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/nate-silver-polls-are-failing-us-206799.html
>> No. 64418 Anonymous
19th July 2015
Sunday 11:07 am
64418 spacer
I'm not following US politics closely, but I can see echoes in this video of the upthread accusations against Trump of stupidity. He's treating the public as he would people in his boardroom, and that can surely never work.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/18/trump-slams-mccain-for-being-captured-in-vietnam/
>> No. 64427 Anonymous
20th July 2015
Monday 1:56 am
64427 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m91vEm9kAsY

He actually seems fairly reasonable outside the twitter feed and the sound bites.
>> No. 64428 Anonymous
20th July 2015
Monday 7:46 am
64428 spacer
>>64418
He's plain speaking and appeals to the broad Republican demographic. I don't see why he wouldn't win the nomination.

Whether he beats Hillary is a different question. I can't see Dems going out in droves to vote for her though.
>> No. 64429 Anonymous
20th July 2015
Monday 9:22 am
64429 spacer
>>64428
Oh, Donald.
>> No. 64430 Anonymous
20th July 2015
Monday 10:37 am
64430 spacer
>>64428
Right. In the boardroom he'd usually be the boss and it makes sense for him to state his views strongly and only allow challenges from people with complete confidence in themselves. He's a strong leader. On certain political issues he'll gain many votes with his plain speaking. First among them would be immigration, what with many people feeling like honest debate has been stifled by political correctness. When he starts "plain speaking" about who is and isn't a war hero, he can only lose votes; America isn't renowned for its reluctance to worship military representations of heroism. My point is, his approach only makes sense when he stands not just to lose, but to gain votes too. There's a reason politicians are renowned for their duplicitous and evasive speech: it's a political necessity in a modern democracy.
>> No. 64432 Anonymous
20th July 2015
Monday 1:41 pm
64432 spacer
>>64428
It appeals to me too. Fuck the Greens. We need a British Donald.
>> No. 64433 Anonymous
20th July 2015
Monday 1:42 pm
64433 spacer
>>64432
Alan Sugar?
>> No. 64434 Anonymous
20th July 2015
Monday 2:25 pm
64434 spacer
>>64428
He can't and won't win the nomination.
>> No. 64435 Anonymous
20th July 2015
Monday 2:30 pm
64435 spacer
>>64434
He will m8.
>> No. 64438 Anonymous
20th July 2015
Monday 5:28 pm
64438 spacer
>>64435
A little over half the base likes him. Less than a quarter of other voters like him. He will do poorly in primaries, though may do better in caucuses. Unfortunately only around 20% of the delegates are available through caucuses, whereas 25% are through FPTP primaries where he's unlikely to top the poll. Especially if Chris Christie gets any traction - he has the straight talk but without the crazy, and is a red governor in a blue-ish state who plays well with voters outside the base.
>> No. 64439 Anonymous
20th July 2015
Monday 7:05 pm
64439 spacer
>>64438
He will get fewer delegates than Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders is not going to get many delegates.
>> No. 64445 Anonymous
21st July 2015
Tuesday 3:43 pm
64445 spacer
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-trump-surges-to-big-lead-in-gop-presidential-race/2015/07/20/efd2e0d0-2ef8-11e5-8f36-18d1d501920d_story.html
>> No. 64446 Anonymous
21st July 2015
Tuesday 4:00 pm
64446 spacer
>>64445
Sigh. This is happening. This is really happening...
>> No. 64447 Anonymous
21st July 2015
Tuesday 4:05 pm
64447 spacer
>>64445
>Support for Trump fell sharply on the one night that voters were surveyed following those comments. Telephone interviewing for the poll began Thursday, and most calls were completed before the news about the remarks was widely reported.
>Although the sample size for the final day was small, the decline was statistically significant. Still, it is difficult to predict what could happen to Trump’s support in the coming days and weeks as the controversy plays out.
Also remember that both McCain and Romney were well behind at this stage. The first actual action isn't until the first week of next year.
>> No. 64455 Anonymous
21st July 2015
Tuesday 10:01 pm
64455 spacer
>>64446
Don't panic lad. Americans can be stupid, but they're not going to vote for Trump for president in a million years. He is the local equivalent of a more personally successful Savile. Says things that people want to hear, couldn't govern to save his life.
>> No. 64456 Anonymous
21st July 2015
Tuesday 10:05 pm
64456 spacer
>>64455
Also probably won't be outed as a nonce until after he's dead.
>> No. 64459 Anonymous
21st July 2015
Tuesday 10:14 pm
64459 spacer
What boggles my brain is that the election isn't until fucking November 2016. It just goes on and fucking on. Well over a year away and already there's a load of coverage. Couldn't give a toss.

I hope Donald Trump falls into a skip.
>> No. 64460 Anonymous
21st July 2015
Tuesday 10:22 pm
64460 spacer
>>64459
That's what happens when your election dates are fixed. We never had to put up with this shit because most of the time we didn't get two years' notice. As we saw with the election this year, when we knew it was coming things started happening well over a year out.
>> No. 64461 Anonymous
21st July 2015
Tuesday 10:39 pm
64461 spacer
>>64460
Nothing like the same scale as the states though, the vast majority of campaigning was still relatively short, at least in comparison to the yanks.
>> No. 64462 Anonymous
21st July 2015
Tuesday 10:43 pm
64462 spacer
>>64446
Nah.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/07/20/why-is-trump-surging-blame-the-media/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-the-worlds-greatest-troll/

The only people who think he has a real shot are the true believers who are retarded enough to fall for his gimmick and the people who only pay attention to American politics once every four years.

Just sit back and enjoy the show. If nothing else, Trump's a consummate entertainer, born and bred.
>> No. 64463 Anonymous
21st July 2015
Tuesday 11:11 pm
64463 spacer
It's the five (six) stages of Trump grief.

Denial
>"Trump is just a meme candidate. No one would seriously vote for him. It's just a publicity stunt!"

Anger
>"What the fuck, how can anyone be stupid enough to vote for a bigoted bully with bad hair like Trump!? He's making a mockery of our political system!

Bargaining
>"H-He's actually a Democrat in disguise. He's running to discredit the Republicans and guarantee that Hillary wins..."

Depression
>"I can't believe that America would seriously elect Donald Trump for president. It's game over, man. I'm moving to Canada. America is finished."

Acceptance
>"What do you mean, I'm hired? Even with my useless degree and complete lack of work experience, you say that you can't fill positions fast enough to keep up with the economic boom under President Trump? Well, I guess America isn't doomed, but he still has a stupid haircut!

Liberal Bonus Stage: Arousal
>"YES GOD YES FILL ME WITH YOUR ENORMOUS PATRIARCHAL COCK YOU ARROGANT WHITE HETEROSEXUAL CISGENDERED ALPHA MALE! I'M COMING EVEN FASTER THAN OUR JOBS BACK FROM OVERSEAS!!"
>> No. 64464 Anonymous
22nd July 2015
Wednesday 2:13 am
64464 spacer
>>64459

They need to elect the primaries long before November, though.
>> No. 64467 Anonymous
22nd July 2015
Wednesday 2:11 pm
64467 spacer
>>64427
God, his barnet is shocking, Trump is actually hideous to look at.

Fucking seppos. I hope they elect the cunt. The world could do with laughing at them for a few years
>> No. 64470 Anonymous
22nd July 2015
Wednesday 3:09 pm
64470 spacer
>>64467
Laugh and the world laughs with you, laugh at America and get firebombed.
>> No. 64471 Anonymous
22nd July 2015
Wednesday 3:16 pm
64471 spacer
>>64467>>64470

Yeah, Bush was a laugh until he started dumping JDAMs on people.
>> No. 64479 Anonymous
22nd July 2015
Wednesday 10:01 pm
64479 spacer
Texan Republican here

Trump has no shot at winning the Republican nomination. Most Republicans hate him; he's just vocal enough to get media attention.

>>64463
I laughed.
>> No. 64480 Anonymous
22nd July 2015
Wednesday 10:28 pm
64480 spacer

simshouse.jpg
644806448064480
>>64479
I thought I'd check out what your little town looks like. It's like a goddamn game of The Sims.
>> No. 64481 Anonymous
23rd July 2015
Thursday 12:09 am
64481 spacer

neverhitsohard.gif
644816448164481

>> No. 64482 Anonymous
23rd July 2015
Thursday 11:44 am
64482 spacer

20150721-publicrelations[1].png
644826448264482

>> No. 64485 Anonymous
23rd July 2015
Thursday 10:14 pm
64485 spacer
>>64480
Not my town, but close enough.
>> No. 64580 Anonymous
29th July 2015
Wednesday 12:35 am
64580 spacer

trump-hair[1].jpg
645806458064580
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bloomberg-billionaires-index-donald-trump-net-worth-seven-billion-less-120724.html?cmpid=sf

How small must the man's dick be that being a billionaire isn't enough, he has to pretend to be a TEN BILLIONAIRE?

Also
>In a summary of his finances released in June, Trump estimated the value of his brand name at $3.3 billion
My sides.
>> No. 64581 Anonymous
29th July 2015
Wednesday 3:47 am
64581 spacer
>>64580
What about your sides?
>> No. 64584 Anonymous
29th July 2015
Wednesday 5:27 pm
64584 spacer
>>64580
>implying someone who's 6'3" isn't hung

Jelly manlet detected.

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 64586 Anonymous
29th July 2015
Wednesday 5:45 pm
64586 spacer
>>64580
How small must yours be to be talking about his?
>> No. 64588 Anonymous
29th July 2015
Wednesday 7:00 pm
64588 spacer
I still don't get why being a billionaire is considered a good thing for a president. Are people not familiar with the words vested interests?
>> No. 64591 Anonymous
29th July 2015
Wednesday 7:20 pm
64591 spacer
>>64588
Have you tried talking to people? Beware: you'll find out just how much they're not familiar with. Only today someone was impressed with me because I knew the words "nest egg", much to my bemusement. I blew his mind when I showed him how to defeat website input validation with soft hyphens.
>> No. 64592 Anonymous
29th July 2015
Wednesday 7:23 pm
64592 spacer
>>64588
Well he has no incentive to get rich from it does he.
>> No. 64594 Anonymous
29th July 2015
Wednesday 7:38 pm
64594 spacer
>>64592
However, he certainly has an incentive to stay rich.
>> No. 64595 Anonymous
29th July 2015
Wednesday 7:41 pm
64595 spacer
>>64594
Not hard.
>> No. 64596 Anonymous
29th July 2015
Wednesday 7:44 pm
64596 spacer
>>64595
Even easier if you're the president.
>> No. 64709 Anonymous
7th August 2015
Friday 8:00 pm
64709 spacer
CAN'T STUMP THE TRUMP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y9_LJj7A68
>> No. 64710 Anonymous
7th August 2015
Friday 8:58 pm
64710 spacer
>>64709
I love this cunt. Honestly, I don't even know what draws me to him.
>> No. 64711 Anonymous
7th August 2015
Friday 9:27 pm
64711 spacer
>>64709
I like how he ended it with all the things he doesn't have.
>> No. 64712 Anonymous
7th August 2015
Friday 10:04 pm
64712 spacer
>>64711
I'm sure a billionaire has more brains than you.
>> No. 64713 Anonymous
7th August 2015
Friday 10:08 pm
64713 spacer
>>64712
Doubtful, I have like, at least 5 in my shed.
>> No. 64721 Anonymous
9th August 2015
Sunday 8:33 pm
64721 spacer
It's always gratifying when the progressive nonsense of the progressives bites them in the ass, this is what happens when the rabid pets of the left are let off their leash.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BnbwUT7lBg
>> No. 64722 Anonymous
9th August 2015
Sunday 9:52 pm
64722 spacer
>>64721
The Democrats get open rallies they attend interrupted by the left's most vacuous morons, who are roundly denounced and end up apologising. The Republicans have the right's most vacuous moron invited on stage with them and leading the polls.

Pretty clear who's being bitten in the ass harder here mate.
>> No. 64724 Anonymous
9th August 2015
Sunday 10:33 pm
64724 spacer

beta bernie.jpg
647246472464724
>>64722
They're not denounced and have done this more than once now, the narrative is that Bernie is a racist, and it's fucking hilarious.>>64722
>> No. 64731 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 12:28 am
64731 spacer
>>64724
The crowd booed them, a search for the ridiculous "#bowdownbernie" hashtag that their press release tried to start reveals that it has almost exclusively been mentioned in negative tweets, and the Black Lives Matter Seattle twitter feed tweeted out an apology. This is just some twats disrupting a small pre-rally.

The narrative isn't that Sanders is a racist. The narrative they're trying to promote is that America is a white supremacist society and none of the candidates are doing anything to address it. The reason that they're targeting Sanders is that he's by far the most progressive candidate, and they're making the point that even he isn't doing what they want and isn't "on their side". The fact that he attends open rallies and doesn't go around with the Secret Service protection that someone like Hilary has also helps.

It's really damn stupid and goes to prove how poisonous identity politics can be, but until those twats seek the democratic nomination and become frontrunners, there's no comparison to the dumbfuckery that is the Republican part right now.
>> No. 64733 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 12:57 am
64733 spacer

black gratitude.jpg
647336473364733
>>64731
Scores of blacks on social media are calling Bernie a racist, in case you're not aware in this current climate that's all that's necessary for you to be ostracized, it doesn't matter if he's helped the black community, it doesn't matter if you bring a rational argument, he's an old white man and that alone is enough for him to be tarred a racist.

I hope you enjoy this monster you've created.
>> No. 64734 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 1:01 am
64734 spacer
A brief reminder that Trump is currently the leading Republican candidate, and his favourability ratings are massively net negative, especially among women, who are more likely to vote than men. Unless the herd thins out before the primary races kick off in earnest, they're fucked.
>> No. 64735 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 1:31 am
64735 spacer
>>64733
Considering he's been "ostracized", it's strange that he's doing far, far better than anybody expected when he announced his candidacy. It's almost as if the community who seriously hold the view that he's a racist is a tiny, fringe minority...

I would be greatly amused to hear of my role in the creation of that minority, though, please do go on.

>>64734
It's 15 months to the election. The closer it comes, the more people will start to actually pay attention, and the less of an advantage Trump gets from sheer name recognition. Also, note that his poll numbers will not translate 1:1 to his share of the vote from caucus and primary attendees. Turnout there is more representative of more dedicated and/or party-minded party members (i.e. not the type of people who are impressed by TV celebrity tough guy).

Something interesting about the post debate poll numbers is that if you add up Trump, Cruz, and Carson's (who currently occupy 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place respectively, and are the "outsiders" of this cycle) share of the vote you still only get 47%. And it's notable that Carson's share of would probably end up shifting to another evangelical like Santorum or Huckabee than Trump. Cruz is the only candidate whose supporters would significantly filter into Trump's camp following his dropping out (although Cruz is betting on the opposite happening, which is a much more likely scenario and probably explains why he's had nothing but good things to say about Trump, even as the other candidates try to tear him down).

So yeah, it's hilarious to see Trump make the process so torturous for them, but Hilary Clinton is not a good enough person to be so favoured by God that he delivers the Donald as her opponent.
>> No. 64736 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 1:33 am
64736 spacer
>>64733
Clearly, Trump's reign is hugely preferable to a world in which scores of people are freely allowed to be wrong on social media
>> No. 64737 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 1:44 am
64737 spacer
Doesn't look like the Koch brothers are backing him so far.
>> No. 64738 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 1:52 am
64738 spacer
>>64737
Why would they when their wholly owned subsidiary Scott Walker is in the running?
>> No. 64739 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 2:39 am
64739 spacer
>>64735
>It's 15 months to the election.
Which the candidates can't really think about until the nomination is sown up. The convention is next July. The selection process starts in January. The Fox debate picked ten out of seventeen likely candidates. If the party wants to gain momentum, then they need to get that down to single figures. Otherwise they all end up starving each other of publicity.

>Also, note that his poll numbers will not translate 1:1 to his share of the vote from caucus and primary attendees. Turnout there is more representative of more dedicated and/or party-minded party members (i.e. not the type of people who are impressed by TV celebrity tough guy).
Not really. Where there are open primaries, his favourability numbers will hit him, whereas in the caucuses he will do well if his campaign continues to energise and enthuse people as it is now. Caucuses aren't like a committee meeting, where a specific group of people are invited and turn up. They're open to any party supporters, and are subject to turnout variation just like a ballot. Ron Paul outperformed both his opinion polls and primary results at caucuses because his supporters were more active. Most crucially, after Paul's antics last time (such as reports that his supporters were engaging in entryism to get themselves nominated as delegates even when a majority supported another candidate), the Republicans changed the rules so that effectively all delegates are bound and therefore if sent to the convention to vote for Trump can't see sense and vote for someone else instead. Unlike the Democrats, there's no massive bloc of senior figures that get to vote. At the Republican convention, there will be only three ex officio delegates from each state and territory. As a former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State, Hillary gets a vote in the Democratic convention, but the sitting Senators and Governors will not get a vote in the Republican convention.
>> No. 64740 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 3:04 am
64740 spacer
I thought the tumblrites with funny coloured hairs was only an online thing...
>> No. 64741 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 3:22 am
64741 spacer
>>64739
>The selection process starts in January
That's rather my point. The election, and the start of the primary season is pretty far off. It's not 2016 yet and there aren't that many people paying much attention to the race at this point. You don't need to pay much attention to know about Trump, thus Trump has benefited from name recognition and his higher profile. He will not have that advantage for much of the campaign proper.

>Not really
Yes really. Only 20% of Registered Republicans in Iowa turn up to the caucus. The reason Ron Paul performed so well in the caucuses is that his supporters were dedicated and organised. If you think Trump's supporters are activists on the scale of Paul's supporters or that the shitshow that is the Trump campaign (which still scarcely exists outside of the man himself and the recent hirings and immediate firings should show you how inept they've been at expansion) is capable of the same level of organisation and mobilisation, you're drastically misreading the source of his support. I would guess the opposite, and say he'll do better in primaries due to the lower effort required, although actually getting on the ballot in certain states could prove to be an obstacle.
>> No. 64743 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 10:38 am
64743 spacer
>>64741
>The election, and the start of the primary season is pretty far off
It really isn't. In the American electoral cycle, six months isn't very long at all.

As for the caucuses, 20% of party supporters is a lot of people. If we did that sort of thing here, we'd have constituency meetings with thousands of people turning up. Remember that being a "registered Republican" doesn't mean being a card-carrying paid-up member of the party. It's a matter of ticking the box on the voter registration. Typically, to carry a local caucus, you need a few vocal supporters to make a bit of noise at the venue, and sheer numbers through the door. Particularly with the new rules that say that caucuses are binding, and therefore the people you send up the chain must vote as they've been instructed by the caucus, this becomes easier with this many relatively sane candidates splitting each other's support.
>> No. 64744 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 11:07 am
64744 spacer
>>64741
>there aren't that many people paying much attention to the race at this point

It was only the most viewed thing ever shown on cable that isn't a sport, whether you like him or not (and you're clearly upset) Trump has got the people excited.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/08/business/media/republican-debate-draws-24-million-viewers.html
>> No. 64745 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 2:15 pm
64745 spacer
>>64743
It is, however, long enough that the "don't knows" are still relatively high in polling.

I didn't say 20% wasn't a lot of people, I said it's comprised of the most dedicated party supporters, and that that is not likely to include the devotees of Mr Trump in proportion to people who say they like him in a poll.

Why do you keep posting rules of caucuses apropos of nothing? You realise you're not the only one who can read the green papers?

>>64744
It was highly viewed for the spectacle of Trump, not just amongst Republican primary viewers. It doesn't mean primary voters are making actual decisions at this point.
>> No. 64748 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 3:30 pm
64748 spacer
>>64745
>I said it's comprised of the most dedicated party supporters, and that that is not likely to include the devotees of Mr Trump
And you were wrong on both counts.

>apropos of nothing?
Oh dear, lad. It's almost as if you haven't been paying attention to the very conversation you're taking part in.
>> No. 64749 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 3:36 pm
64749 spacer
>>64748
>And you were wrong on both counts.
We'll see!
>> No. 64750 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 4:33 pm
64750 spacer
>>64749
There's no seeing to do. You said things that were simply wrong, and no future event will make them less wrong.
>> No. 64751 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 5:24 pm
64751 spacer
>>64750
Oh boy, you sure showed me with that well reasoned argument of "you are wrong".
>> No. 64752 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 5:47 pm
64752 spacer
>>64751
Welcome to /pol/.
>> No. 64753 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 5:59 pm
64753 spacer
>>64751
To be fair, it was easier than simply repeating the correct answer that you'd already been given but dismissed out of hand. But I guess we could run with that if you like.
>> No. 64754 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 6:31 pm
64754 spacer
>>64753
Except there was no answer to anything I've actually said. If you have an explanation of why you apparently dispute the idea that caucus goers are the most engaged in their party, and also why Trump's ~25% support in August polls (which means absolutely nothing, as notable non-Presidents Rick Perry and Rudy Giuliani, among many others, will tell you) will translate to votes in a caucus in February despite the fact that there's fuck all organisation for his supporters to engage with, please do feel free to go on.
>> No. 64756 Anonymous
10th August 2015
Monday 6:55 pm
64756 spacer

bzEDnZw[1].png
647566475664756
Apparently even some of Trump's supporters don't actually like the man.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_81015.pdf
>> No. 64764 Anonymous
12th August 2015
Wednesday 8:16 am
64764 spacer
>>64733

I'm thankful everyday that America exists as a dump for Soros funds in these kind of fake activist movements, else it would be lavished so lovingly completely and entirely upon us.
>> No. 64765 Anonymous
12th August 2015
Wednesday 8:46 am
64765 spacer
>>64733

This is painful to read.
That person clearly doesn't know what Martain Luther King stood for, or who shot him.
>> No. 64766 Anonymous
12th August 2015
Wednesday 10:06 am
64766 spacer
>>64765

Spoken like a true white man.
>> No. 64767 Anonymous
12th August 2015
Wednesday 11:38 am
64767 spacer

bernie cuckie.jpg
647676476764767
>>64766
>> No. 64768 Anonymous
12th August 2015
Wednesday 11:42 am
64768 spacer
Race aside, letting a couple of women steal your own damn podium from you shows laughable weakness, who'd want someone like that negotiating with Putin or middle eastern strongmen?

At least Trump wouldn't be such a doormat, that's for sure.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqOlOdHHoEM
>> No. 64769 Anonymous
12th August 2015
Wednesday 3:25 pm
64769 spacer
>>64768

Putin doesn't negotiate, and there are no "middle eastern strongmen", just an endless succession of weak ones. That's one reason it's on fire all the time.

Being totally disagreeable and completely aloof doesn't make you a good diplomat.
>> No. 64770 Anonymous
12th August 2015
Wednesday 3:30 pm
64770 spacer
>>64768
Not terribly weak, considering that Bernie is the only one willing to attend open rallies with basically zero security. Doubt Trump has the balls to do that.
>> No. 64771 Anonymous
12th August 2015
Wednesday 5:59 pm
64771 spacer
>>64770
He could, and when the funny hair coloured women turn up and get shot at by the oath keepers, then you would still be complaining like the little bitch your mother raised.
>> No. 64772 Anonymous
12th August 2015
Wednesday 6:04 pm
64772 spacer
>>64771

Did you really just call someone a "little bitch" on a Bretonic shed discussion board? Do you even see yourself right now?
>> No. 64777 Anonymous
13th August 2015
Thursday 4:39 pm
64777 spacer
Oh god this is too much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz3YvE_FHXY
>> No. 64778 Anonymous
13th August 2015
Thursday 5:52 pm
64778 spacer
>>64777

What an awful post. You could at least have found out to embed a video, you goob.
>> No. 64783 Anonymous
13th August 2015
Thursday 6:35 pm
64783 spacer
>>64778
I know how to embed videos, I just didn't think it was good enough to merit it, as you cruelly pointed out.
>> No. 64784 Anonymous
13th August 2015
Thursday 6:40 pm
64784 spacer
>>64783

Your tears nourish my brood.
>> No. 64792 Anonymous
13th August 2015
Thursday 7:50 pm
64792 spacer
>>64777
Why did they do that?
>> No. 64804 Anonymous
13th August 2015
Thursday 8:58 pm
64804 spacer
>>64792
Why did who do what?
>> No. 64805 Anonymous
13th August 2015
Thursday 9:36 pm
64805 spacer
>>64804
Why did they do that? You know, them, in the video. Why did they do that?
>> No. 64806 Anonymous
13th August 2015
Thursday 9:49 pm
64806 spacer
>>64777
I'm trying to understand the logic here. Is it just "Bernie is an old white man, and therefore a bad person" or something like that or is there something deeper? It's just that of all the major party candidates he's likely to be one that offers them the best prospects. Apart possibly from Lincoln Chafee, except for the part where he has practically no support.
>> No. 64807 Anonymous
13th August 2015
Thursday 10:28 pm
64807 spacer
>>64806
Identity politics will be the death of the democratic process. Those cunts in the video don't have the mental capacity to understand what you said. What matters to them is the attention they received for being cunts. Nothing more, nothing less.
>> No. 64808 Anonymous
13th August 2015
Thursday 10:33 pm
64808 spacer
>>64806
A couple of reasons. For one, Bernie has been giving the same speech to as many people as possible for 40 years. He now has a nationwide pulpit from which to give that speech, and as a result is likely reluctant to turn down speaking engagements regardless of how amateurish the organisation and security is (note that these incidents have taken place at third party events where Bernie was speaking, not at events managed by Bernie's campaign).

Speaking of his nationwide pulpit, that's another reason: he's big news. The Democratic primary was supposed to be a race only in theory: it was meant to be a walk in the park for Hilary. Suddenly Bernie looks like he has a shot ("looks like" being an important qualification here) and he's all over the place. If you want to draw attention to your cause, you might as well do it where cameras are already pointed.

Lastly, they know that he offers them the best prospects. They're purposely going after him to highlight the fact that they find even that insufficient.

Personally, I think they're fucking morons who couldn't be doing anything more poisonous to their own cause, but the idea that they're doing it because they hate all white people is just plain ill-informed.
>> No. 64915 Anonymous
18th August 2015
Tuesday 5:20 pm
64915 spacer
So they're deliberately only confronting Bernie and not Hilary are they? What a load of bullshit all your analyses turned out to be eh.

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/18/watch_black_lives_matter_activists_confront_hillary_clinton_you_dont_tell_black_people_what_we_need_to_know/
>> No. 64981 Anonymous
19th August 2015
Wednesday 12:30 pm
64981 spacer
>>64915
>So they're deliberately only confronting Bernie and not Hilary are they?
Er, no?
>> No. 64986 Anonymous
19th August 2015
Wednesday 10:09 pm
64986 spacer
Very prescient.

https://youtu.be/Wgxlp2UJI5I?t=869
>> No. 64987 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 12:33 am
64987 spacer

trump ben.jpg
649876498764987
>Our latest national telephone survey finds that 57% of Likely Republican Voters now think Trump is likely to be the Republican presidential nominee next year

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/trump_change

>poll finds Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton ahead of Trump by just 6 points, a dramatic tightening since July. Trump is the one of three Republican candidates who have been matched against Clinton multiple times in CNN/ORC polling to significantly whittle the gap between himself and the Democratic frontrunner. He trailed Clinton by 16 points in a July poll

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/19/politics/2016-poll-hillary-clinton-joe-biden-bernie-sanders/index.html?eref=rss_politics
>> No. 64988 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 12:53 am
64988 spacer
My money's on Deez Nuts in North Carolina.
>> No. 64989 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 8:02 am
64989 spacer
>>64987
Scenes when that syrup-wearing mug is the most powerful man in the world
>> No. 64997 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 9:47 am
64997 spacer
>>64988
u wot m8
>> No. 65001 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 3:11 pm
65001 spacer

DeezNuts.jpg
650016500165001
>>64997
>> No. 65002 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 3:35 pm
65002 spacer
>>65001
Hypothetical poll a year before the candidates are known produces odd result shocker.
>> No. 65003 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 6:26 pm
65003 spacer
>>65002
I believe he was illustrating who "Deez Nuts" is, not making a serious prediction based on current polling.
>> No. 65004 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 7:09 pm
65004 spacer
>>65003
I was merely pre-empting the inevitable.
>> No. 65006 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 8:36 pm
65006 spacer
I think he has a chance you know. He has authenticity, or at least the perception of it, and the idea that he's too rich to be corruptible seems to be widespread. He wants to create a stronger and more confident America at a time when Obama's perceived weakness, the growing threat of China and a resurgent and militarist Russia all seem to be bearing down on the American psyche. I doubt all latinos would be put off by his rhetoric either, it surprises me how often I encounter second-generation immigrants who having adopted the native culture look down upon new arrivals who don't share it.

Still I'll make no predictions. I remember when that black pizza mogul was looking to be the next Big Thing until being trumped (sorry) by a sex scandal. Anything can happen.
>> No. 65007 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 10:32 pm
65007 spacer
>>65006

In other words, he's the personification of America's mid-life crisis and insecurity at declining global credibility.

He will get in because Americans will never stomach the idea of not being the greatest country in the world, but he's only going to make them feel all the more embarrassed when they wake up the morning after and realise what a tit they were acting.

I hate to be so cynical but the future of planet Earth just gets bleaker by the day.
>> No. 65008 Anonymous
23rd August 2015
Sunday 10:47 pm
65008 spacer
>>65007
Ultron was right. Vote Ultron.
>> No. 65009 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 12:34 am
65009 spacer
>>65006
He's quite popular among black Americans too. More so than you'd expect anyway, because they believe he actually has some bollocks.
>> No. 65010 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 1:18 am
65010 spacer
>>65009
That's one of the things throwing off a lot of liberals and some people within the GOP. How can a good chunk of black people and Hispanics (mostly 2nd generation or more) be okay with Trump and the GOP?
>> No. 65011 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 3:05 am
65011 spacer
>>65010
Whatever the reason, I hope those liberals get a nice fat smack.
>> No. 65012 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 4:19 am
65012 spacer
>>65011
Why? Are you a racist?
>> No. 65038 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 6:19 pm
65038 spacer
>>65006
>I think he has a chance you know. He has authenticity, or at least the perception of it
The eventual nominee won't win with authenticity, and won't win by coming top of a poll in August. He will win by being awarded delegates next year, and there is precisely zero reason to believe that Trumps's performance so far is indicative of an ability to do so.
>> No. 65039 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 6:46 pm
65039 spacer
>>65012
A bit, not that it's relevant to my post.
>> No. 65048 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 8:08 pm
65048 spacer
>>65038
>there is precisely zero reason to believe that Trumps's performance so far is indicative of an ability to do so.
Apart from all those reasons to believe it, of course. There are plenty of things that rule him in, but not very much to rule him out yet. Not least that he has a level of support at this point on the same order as John McCain and Hillary Clinton had at this point in the 2008 cycle. You might remember that he got the nomination, and she fell at the final hurdle. That other candidates have had similar levels of support and gone nowhere is neither here nor there. They didn't get the nomination because other candidates prevented them from getting it. We can't write him off at this stage, because it's not entirely clear that he has no chance at all, neither is it clear that anyone in particular is going to stop him winning. Don't make the mistake of thinking that it's a long way away - it's 4-5 months to the first step, which in American electoral terms is no time at all.
>> No. 65053 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 9:01 pm
65053 spacer
>>65038
He's threatened to run as an independent candidate if the Republican party isn't 'nice' to him. He can certainly afford that threat and it'd split the vote enough to doom any Republican challenger so they'll have to take him seriously at some point. If it wasn't for that I'd wholly agree with you.
>> No. 65054 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 9:05 pm
65054 spacer
>>65048
>That other candidates have had similar levels of support and gone nowhere is neither here nor there
... Yes, that's why I'm saying that the performance of other candidates in the past has had nothing to do with how they poll months before the first primary.

>it's 4-5 months to the first step, which in American electoral terms is no time at all
Wow, that sure is an impressive, pithy little phrase. What precisely is it supposed to mean though?
>> No. 65057 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 9:06 pm
65057 spacer
>>65053
The Republicans already have a rock solid strategy to beat him. It's called "voting".
>> No. 65058 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 9:18 pm
65058 spacer
>>65054
>Yes, that's why I'm saying that the performance of other candidates in the past has had nothing to do with how they poll months before the first primary.
Which doesn't really say anything. It doesn't say he can win it. More importantly, contrary to your assertion, it doesn't say he can't win it either.

>Wow, that sure is an impressive, pithy little phrase. What precisely is it supposed to mean though?
Here, let me help you out:
>it's 4-5 months to the first step
It's 4-5 months to the first step.
>which in American electoral terms
I'm speaking in American electoral terms.
>is no time at all
In those terms, it's no time at all.

Did that help?
>> No. 65060 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 9:29 pm
65060 spacer
>>65057
I'm not sure if you understood my post, lad.
>> No. 65061 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 9:30 pm
65061 spacer
>>65058
>Which doesn't really say anything. It doesn't say he can win it. More importantly, contrary to your assertion, it doesn't say he can't win it either.
Except I never made that assertion. I said that there is zero reason to believe that he can win based on his polling performance so far, not that his polling performance so far is reason to believe he can't win.

The reasons to believe that he can't win are that he doesn't have a real base, or organisation, or endorsements. But that's beside the point.

>Did that help?
Not really, no. I'm not asking you to repeat it, I'm asking you to expand upon and explain it.
>> No. 65063 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 9:34 pm
65063 spacer
>>65060
I do. My point is that they can beat him quite handily while still treating him "nicely". If you think that people who are enthusiastic about Trump are also enthusiastic about sitting in a room with other voters for potentially hours listening to nominating speeches (which is what a caucus entails), you are grossly overestimating the man's supporters.
>> No. 65064 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 9:43 pm
65064 spacer
>>65063
>My point is that they can beat him quite handily while still treating him "nicely".
I think the part you may have missed is that he's not the one they need to beat. Many senior figures in the party remember 1992 all too well.
>> No. 65065 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 9:53 pm
65065 spacer
>>65064
They didn't lose because of a third party in 1992.
>> No. 65066 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 9:58 pm
65066 spacer
that idiot is not going to be president of anything.

take a look at this hair.

also the last name trump sounds like an elephants dick

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 65067 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 10:01 pm
65067 spacer

trump.png
650676506765067
>>65066
>that idiot is not going to be president of anything.
Incorrect.
>> No. 65068 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 10:02 pm
65068 spacer
>>65067
The best kind of correct.
>> No. 65069 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 10:27 pm
65069 spacer
>>65065
Clinton won 21 states, worth 209/370 electoral votes, by a margin of less than half Perot's vote. While Perot was taking votes from both sides, he was certainly taking more from Bush than he was from Clinton. Of those 209, Bush would only have needed to win 101. Georgia, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee were worth 53 alone. While Perot wasn't a complete spoiler, there was undoubtedly some spoiler effect there.
>> No. 65070 Anonymous
24th August 2015
Monday 10:51 pm
65070 spacer
>>65069
Nope.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1992/11/08/perot-seen-not-affecting-vote-outcome/27500538-cee8-4f4f-8e7f-f3ee9f2325d1/

This was bullshit 23 years ago, and it's still bullshit today.
>> No. 65078 Anonymous
25th August 2015
Tuesday 11:16 pm
65078 spacer
>>65070
Whether or not Perot was a spoiler doesn't really matter, because the one thing that is certain is that an independent Trump would be. His favourability among registered Democrats and unaffiliated voters is in the negative double digits. If he runs, realistically he's going to be taking votes away mostly from one side. He wouldn't need to take anywhere near Perot's shares to do some damage - marginal states like Florida, North Carolina, Virginia and Ohio account for a significant number of electoral votes.

Meanwhile, over on the other side of the aisle, Joe Biden has announced rather late in the game that he's thinking about possibly throwing his hat into the ring, maybe.
>> No. 65079 Anonymous
26th August 2015
Wednesday 12:00 am
65079 spacer
>>65078
Yeah, that's why they don't want him to run third party almost as much as they don't want him running for their nomination.
>> No. 65080 Anonymous
26th August 2015
Wednesday 12:11 am
65080 spacer
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/state-gop-leaders-plot-to-tie-donald-trumps-hands-121696.html#ixzz3js4un9LF

>The Virginia and North Carolina parties are in discussions about implementing a new requirement for candidates to qualify for their primary ballots: that they pledge to support the Republican presidential nominee — and not run as a third-party candidate — in the general election.

Hmm, wonder who that's aimed at...
>> No. 65093 Anonymous
27th August 2015
Thursday 5:39 am
65093 spacer

4L8H8aw.png
650936509365093
Ouch.
>> No. 65129 Anonymous
7th September 2015
Monday 10:37 pm
65129 spacer
Has anyone actually ever been to America? I mean, do we really know for certain it's a real place and not some fiction you only ever hear about on the news when they want some comic relief?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0jOVv0qu3M
>> No. 65130 Anonymous
7th September 2015
Monday 10:50 pm
65130 spacer
>>65129
I was taken to "America" by my parents when I was younger, but it could have just been a big theme park. We went to Compton and saw black people dancing on a street corner, and despite being the whitest, most-middle class family you've ever seen, we did not experience any danger at all. So I can only assume that it was all an elaborate stage.
>> No. 65131 Anonymous
7th September 2015
Monday 10:50 pm
65131 spacer
>>65129


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIyXJxPFVz4
>> No. 65132 Anonymous
7th September 2015
Monday 10:52 pm
65132 spacer
>>65131

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOfIDtvfmqg
>> No. 65133 Anonymous
8th September 2015
Tuesday 11:50 am
65133 spacer
>>65129
I've been for an extended duration, in California mind you, and it's a mix of very pleasant, very nice people, to utter fucking twats.

The nice pleasant people know how fucked the country is, and how badly it's run, but they are too busy working and worrying about the colour of their lawns to actually take part in preventing the twats from going into power.

I didn't meet too much dumb cunts, but then again, I wasn't looking for them. One thing that struck me was the disingenuous types that are overly-friendly and have a saccharine sort of altruism - I don't get this. The only plausible reason would be to look good in front of your mates, which in that case makes you the cuntiest of cunts.
>> No. 65136 Anonymous
8th September 2015
Tuesday 4:13 pm
65136 spacer
>>65133
>One thing that struck me was the disingenuous types that are overly-friendly and have a saccharine sort of altruism - I don't get this.
I have them down as serial killers. Seriously, a lot of the fake friendliness and insincere smiling put me off a lot of them. Made me a very cynical and hateful person while I was there. I did not enjoy my holiday, unless I was by myself and surrounded by nature.

Maybe I'm just a misanthrope, but I seem to be doing fine on these isles.
>> No. 65137 Anonymous
8th September 2015
Tuesday 4:30 pm
65137 spacer
>>65136
No you're not, neither am I. It just came off so fake and transparent and it's a really prevalent trend, as noted by the odd story on reddit or whatever. Call me weird, but I find it very uncomfortable when for instance (as an example of a story) I'd be in the queue for a drive-through and someone decided to pay for my food whose in-front of me. It struck me as presumptuous and a bit rude to do that to a complete stranger. Not only that, but it's expected of YOU to return the favour as well.
>> No. 65141 Anonymous
8th September 2015
Tuesday 6:46 pm
65141 spacer
>>65132

That was awful.
>> No. 65151 Anonymous
9th September 2015
Wednesday 5:08 pm
65151 spacer
>>65141
Some people would prefer to listen to a professional misery guts from thirty years ago while complaining about old jokes. Each to their own, innit grandpa.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_x4_QrMcm8
>> No. 65191 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 12:20 am
65191 spacer

cnbc_perry_oops_111109c-615x345[1].jpg
651916519165191
Oops.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34227778

One down.

Perry's campaign was haemorrhaging money and staff for weeks, I'm surprised he took this long to throw in the towel. Then again, he was deluded enough to think a pair of "I'm smart now, honestly" glasses could render him electable after his 2012 travesty, so why would one extra dash of delusion be surprising?
>> No. 65192 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 12:23 am
65192 spacer
Oh, also he's probably going to jail, so that would have made the duties of the Presidency quite cumbersome, all things considered.
>> No. 65367 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 3:52 pm
65367 spacer
>>65191
>Homophobic asshole unpopular

This just in, sky also blue and the theological leader of the Roman Catholic Church wears odd headgear.
>> No. 65368 Anonymous
13th September 2015
Sunday 6:02 pm
65368 spacer
>>65367
No lad. There are many ways a politician can make themselves unpalatable to Republican primary voters. Homophobia is not one of them.
>> No. 65400 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 10:38 am
65400 spacer
>>65368

>There are many ways a politician can make themselves unpalatable to Republican primary voters.

Not according to that blubbery mass of whatever people keep calling "Trump".
>> No. 65404 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 11:03 am
65404 spacer
>>65400
He's a reality TV star and real estate tycoon, not a politician.
>> No. 65407 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 12:01 pm
65407 spacer
Any Republican in office would be disastrous but Trump would be utterly catastrophic. The only reason I want to see Trump on the Republican ticket is because it might, just MIGHT inspire the Democrats to put up someone interesting.

Sanders is by far a better choice than Hillary - Hillary is just business as usual for America, which is bad for America and bad for the world - but honestly I'm not a fan of Sanders either.
>> No. 65412 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 12:36 pm
65412 spacer
I don't know why you all find him so unpalatable.
>> No. 65418 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 12:42 pm
65418 spacer
>>65412
He's an incoherent narcissist with less substance than a eunuch's ejaculate.
>> No. 65420 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 12:48 pm
65420 spacer
>>65418
So a perfect fit for the presidency then.
>> No. 65426 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 1:02 pm
65426 spacer
I feel like America isn't even taking itself seriously anymore, what with Trump and now Kanye West announcing his 2020 presidential run.
>> No. 65427 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 1:02 pm
65427 spacer
>>65418
Why do you say that?
>> No. 65428 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 1:09 pm
65428 spacer
>>65427
Presumably he said it because it's true.
>> No. 65433 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 1:17 pm
65433 spacer
>>65428
That's not a reason to say something.
>> No. 65437 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 1:26 pm
65437 spacer
>>65433
>saying something because it's true is not a reason to say something

Well, I think that's just about enough /pol/ for one day.
>> No. 65438 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 1:28 pm
65438 spacer
>>65437
Christ.
>> No. 65445 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 3:39 pm
65445 spacer
>>65427
Someone expressed confusion about why others may find him unpalatable, so I responded with my reasons.

"Unpalatable" is perhaps the wrong word for my take though, personally I think he's hilarious and the absolute chaos and destruction he's leaving in his wake for the eventual nominee to clean up is more entertaining than even 2012's clown car.
>> No. 65449 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 4:33 pm
65449 spacer
>>65412
He's beating the leftist media at their own game and making the moderates in his party look like milquetoast saps, so he's evidently worse than Hitler.
>> No. 65454 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 5:46 pm
65454 spacer
>>65412
Despite people saying that they dislike career politicians who won't say anything that might offend someone, and who seem like a blank slate that don't stand for anything, the fact is they want that. If they come face to face with what they really want, i.e. a politician who doesn't really give a shit about offending people, stands for something, and doesn't care either way if you find him abhorrent or not, they will have a teary.
>> No. 65455 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 5:53 pm
65455 spacer
>>65454

You seem to be confusing people with the media.
>> No. 65458 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 6:15 pm
65458 spacer
>>65455
The media doesn't exist in a vacuum. Most of what we consume is what we want. If you want to know how people are in a country, just have a look at their media.
>> No. 65460 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 6:29 pm
65460 spacer
>>65449
The "leftist media" are not taking on Donald Trump. He is ratings gold, they fucking love him.

The only "moderate" running is Kasich (and possibly Pataki, but who cares). Bush is a conservative who is intelligent, experienced enough, and has enough of an instinct for self-preservation that he knows that throwing pointless red meat soundbites to the base who will vote Republican anyway at the expense of making yourself poisonous to the overall electorate is counter-productive as all fuck.

What policies proposed by Trump do you believe make his fellow candidates look moderate in comparison?
>> No. 65461 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 6:42 pm
65461 spacer
>>65458
>The media doesn't exist in a vacuum. Most of what we consume is what we want. If you want to know how people are in a country, just have a look at their media.

Do you not think it's a bit more complicated than that? Do you not think reckon the media have the power to influence and sway opinion?

I'd agree that people will lap up lowest common denominator shite but I'd argue that it's more of a feedback loop that feeds into itself and amps up. Not either or but both, people will happily read, watch, consume simplistic reactionary bullshit but also the media will play on this in order to frame debates and push certain narratives whilst containing others.

Sage for /boo/.
>> No. 65462 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 6:46 pm
65462 spacer
>>65461
There might be an element of that, although minute. The way I see it is that it is a business, and it wants to sell to make a profit. A corner shop won't sell shite nobody is going to buy. The media is not shit in this country and in America, the people are.
>> No. 65463 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 6:47 pm
65463 spacer
>>65460
>What policies proposed by Trump do you believe make his fellow candidates look moderate in comparison?

The wall. Simple as that, Bush's stance on immigration is no different to that of the Democrats in any real way, he's also got all the charisma of an unwashed sock and probably has a lower IQ than his brother.

A moderate is not going to win an election for the Republicans, people in the party that want them to run a bland, lifeless camwhore like Bush (and surely this is what liberals desire, someone they can throw shit at and know it will stick, like with Romney) either have no recollection of the last two cycles or are just in the pocket of the donors. These "Conservatives" don't care about winning, they care about the status quo, and if that means losing, so be it.
>> No. 65469 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 6:55 pm
65469 spacer
Trump will get republicans out to vote and if he's the nominee that's why he'll win.
>> No. 65478 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:07 pm
65478 spacer
>>65463
Hahahaha, "the wall".

For one thing, that's not a policy, that's a daydream.

For another, it's designed to ameliorate problems that don't exist (the crisis level tide of illegal immigration and supposed illegal immigrant crime wave are demonstrably not happening).

And you're quite correct to say that Republicans and Democrats agree on immigration. If it wasn't for Boehner getting cold feet and deciding that he'd actually quite like to keep his job, thank you very much, Rubio and the rest of the Gang of 8 would have passed reform. Considering that a pro immigration stance is one of the incredibly rare values shared across the aisle, how do you imagine Trump would get his plan through congress?
>> No. 65480 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:14 pm
65480 spacer

you have chosen poorly.jpg
654806548065480
>>65469
The appeal of Trump is very simple, he's a straight talker, takes no shit from the media and says things a lot of the public agree with. He's dominant, people deep down have no trust or respect for guys like Bush.
>> No. 65482 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:17 pm
65482 spacer
>>65478
>Hahahaha, "the wall".

It's very doable, it's not a fantasy, people like you pretend it's harder than going to the moon.
>> No. 65483 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:18 pm
65483 spacer
>>65482
If you repeat 'Trump is a clown' enough then you don't even have to talk about things like the wall.
>> No. 65484 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:22 pm
65484 spacer
>>65463
Don't you have a golf course to build, Don?
>> No. 65486 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:31 pm
65486 spacer
>>65480
Holy hell. I thought that ugly goblin was his mother. What the hell is wrong with him? Fucking hell.
>> No. 65488 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:33 pm
65488 spacer
>>65482
I see you say "it's very doable", but I don't see you explain how it will be done, why it should be done, or how Trump will convince congress to allow it. Colour me sceptical!
>> No. 65491 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:36 pm
65491 spacer
>>65488
Maybe congress will become less "I don't want to offend people" after Trump wins, and pass the wall building act or whatever. Maybe an executive order. It should be done to stop illegal immigrants crossing the border, but also, and most importantly, to stop the flow of arms and drugs.

Israel built a wall. Saudi Nanookia is building a wall on its northern border. Wall building isn't something special, people have been doing it for centuries. Are you dense or something?
>> No. 65495 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:39 pm
65495 spacer
>>65469
Trump will get hispanics out to vote and if he's the nominee that's why he'll lose.
>> No. 65496 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:41 pm
65496 spacer
>>65495
I daresay he'd even turn off the Cubans in Florida with the sort of things he's coming out with.
>> No. 65499 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:43 pm
65499 spacer
>>65491

When the Sauds and the Israelis are your inspiration, maybe you're having the wrong dream.
>> No. 65503 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:54 pm
65503 spacer

CNnFJvUUYAAGp9L[1].jpg
655036550365503
>>65491
It's not about "not offending people", it's about not alienating a growing portion of the electorate in order to satisfy your shrinking and already solid base (see the picture), and not alienating your business donors who are very much pro-immigration. Executive order? You do know he's running for the Presidency, not the God-Emporerhood, yes? There are limits on what can be achieved via EOs, and they are subject to congressional approval if challenged.

And there's a decent body of evidence to show that strict border enforcement has indeed prevented illegal immigrants from crossing the border. That is, it stops those already in the States from returning across to Mexico. If you have any evidence to show that extending the walls across the entire border would have the effects desired, do share.
>> No. 65504 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 7:58 pm
65504 spacer
>>65499
Are you offended? As it stands, people like you wouldn't vote for a republican, let alone Trump. So people with your teary views don't really matter.
>> No. 65505 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:00 pm
65505 spacer
>>65504
Ah, yes "people like you wouldn't vote Republican anyway", a sound electoral strategy.
>> No. 65507 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:04 pm
65507 spacer
>>65503
Hispanic voting patterns don't deviate too much from the average. Your racist identity politics will be the end of the likes of you.

Oh, and you need evidence on how a fucking wall will stop immigrants, drugs and guns? Haha.
>> No. 65508 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:05 pm
65508 spacer
>>65505
It is. What you want is some sort of politician who doesn't stand for anything but will promise everyone anything they want. Do fuck off.
>> No. 65509 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:06 pm
65509 spacer

487582075-475552.jpg
655096550965509
>>65507
>Oh, and you need evidence on how a fucking wall will stop immigrants, drugs and guns?
Yes. Yes, we do.
>> No. 65510 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:09 pm
65510 spacer
"The Israelis have spent over a decade constructing a 440km wall to separate themselves from an area turned into a constant low-intensity warzone by their occupation. That's clearly proof that the USA easily can and should build a 3000km wall to separate themselves from a peaceful ally!"

There are no words.
>> No. 65511 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:09 pm
65511 spacer
>>65509

I've no dog in this fight, but do appear to have provided a picture of a wall not stopping immigrants.
>> No. 65512 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:10 pm
65512 spacer
>>65511

but you do appear*
>> No. 65513 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:11 pm
65513 spacer

trump wall.jpg
655136551365513
>>65509
That's not a wall m8, it's a tiny fence.
>> No. 65514 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:11 pm
65514 spacer
>>65511
Yes. In response to the suggestion that it was ridiculous that we'd need evidence that walls stop immigrants.
>> No. 65515 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:12 pm
65515 spacer
>>65510
>Mexico
>peaceful

"No".
>> No. 65516 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:12 pm
65516 spacer
>>65514

Err, I was just pointing that out.

Honest, I'm not an idiot.
>> No. 65517 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:13 pm
65517 spacer
>>65509
Who is we lad? I'm sure a wall in the middle of a desert, with armed border guards doing the rounds will stop illegal immigrants and criminals. So stop being offended and having a teary.

You haven't explained to me why you don't want a wall, and why you would want America to get overrun with immigrants, criminals and drugs?

>>65510
Nice one lad.
>> No. 65519 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:15 pm
65519 spacer
>>65517
>I'm sure a wall in the middle of a desert, with armed border guards doing the rounds will stop illegal immigrants and criminals.
You mean like how in that picture, the wall, with its armed border guards doing the rounds, is stopping all those illegal immigrants and criminals?
>> No. 65520 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:16 pm
65520 spacer
>>65507
Actually, hispanic voting patterns differ wildly from white voting patterns. Over 70% of hispanics voted for Obama in 2012 vs. 39% of non-hispanic whites.

And Trump will by all accounts only deepen the gap, see >>65093

And yes, "I intuitively feel like this will work" is not a sound basis for policy making, so some evidence would be a boon!
>> No. 65523 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:20 pm
65523 spacer

4557470157beb43c177e404ef973d487.550x407x1[1].jpg
655236552365523
>>65517
>why you would want America to get overrun with immigrants
Bit late to stop that mate.
>> No. 65524 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:21 pm
65524 spacer
>>65520
Obama was an exception. Hispanics never voted for one candidate like that since Clinton. So yes, it does not wildly differ.

You are also not taking into account how they will be more likely to vote for a republic the more college educated, older, and middle-class they become.

I will give you a study on how walls stop immigrants, criminals and drugs, when you give me a study on how your front door stops people from coming into your house.
>> No. 65526 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:22 pm
65526 spacer
>>65523
Low grade.
>> No. 65527 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:22 pm
65527 spacer
Holy shit, people actually believe in the wall idea?
>> No. 65528 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:22 pm
65528 spacer
>>65510
Nice. Pro-Zionist liberal.
>> No. 65529 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:23 pm
65529 spacer
>>65517
People asking you to back up idiotic claims doesn't make them offended, pal.
>> No. 65531 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:25 pm
65531 spacer
>>65529
Dry your eyes mate.
>> No. 65535 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:37 pm
65535 spacer
>>65524
It's in evidence outside of Presidential elections (Hispanics went 62% Dem in the 2014 midterms, compared to 38% of whites), and even the relatively immigrant friendly Bush lost the Hispanic vote, with 53% of their votes going to Kerry, compared to 41% of white votes. So it's a long term trend, it's growing, but the man who has made famously inflammatory remarks about hispanic immigrants and who has phenomenal unfavourably ratings among hispanics is going to reverse the trend? What?

>give me a study on how your front door stops people from coming into your house
I will do exactly that the minute I start advocating a multi-billion dollar front door policy! "It seems obvious to me" is not an argument, it's not evidence.
>> No. 65536 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:43 pm
65536 spacer
>>65535
Not him, but a party that's losing because of Hispanics should just become Democrat-lite and open the floodgates, instead of trying to halt, or reverse the situation? Where the fuck is the logic in that? And there's more whites in America than hispanics, are we supposed to just ignore their wishes and defer to the minority?

The biggest problems with Republicans is that a lot of them listen to the advice their enemy gives them.
>> No. 65537 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 8:45 pm
65537 spacer
Also remember that there are two kinds of Hispanics in the US. There are the Central Americans and Carribeans, and then there are the Cubans. The rest tend to vote for the Democrats overwhelmingly, but the Cubans tend to vote Republican as a result of the Bay of Pigs fiasco and everything that followed. I daresay some of his rhetoric is also pissing off the Cubans, which would be some fucking achievement.
>> No. 65540 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 9:00 pm
65540 spacer
>>65536
They aren't losing because of hispanic immigration, they're losing because the base of old white people is dying off and the ethnic makeup of younger generations is more diverse. Even if you stopped all immigration tomorrow, hispanics would still continue to reach voting age, still have kids, and boomers would still be dying off.

Why must "the situation" be halted or reversed precisely? Which Democratic policies do you see to represent an opening of the floodgates?
>> No. 65546 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 9:15 pm
65546 spacer
>>65540
You haven't given an answer on what the Republicans ought to do, just copy the Democrats? And the whole situation is out of control, has been for decades, under both parties. They weren't even 2% of the population at the end of the war, now we're approaching the 20% mark, you're an idiot if you think this is what the white population, or the black population for that matter, want.

Only the wealthy benefit from it, and only them and the useful idiots defend it.
>> No. 65549 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 9:24 pm
65549 spacer
>>65546
I don't really give a fuck what they do, I'm merely pointing out that if they want to get elected, nominating a man whose entire candidacy is centred on the demonization of an increasingly important demographic is perhaps not a smart move.

What's out of control? What chaos does living in a country with people whose ancestors came from the Iberian peninsula instead of Northern Europe bring to the lives of white Americans?

Is it the same kind of chaos that the Irish brought? Because I think they got over that. Who knows, maybe they'll do the same again!
>> No. 65556 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 9:57 pm
65556 spacer
>>65549

Mass immigration causes increased competition for jobs and housing. New jobs will be created (perhaps) and new houses will be built, but this happens more slowly than the increase in population. This means the quality of life of the existing residents is damaged.
>> No. 65557 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 10:00 pm
65557 spacer
>>65556
>Mass immigration causes increased competition for jobs and housing.
Except any number of attempts to prove this have failed. The intuitive solution apparently does not hold.
>> No. 65562 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 10:30 pm
65562 spacer
>>65557
There is a special place in hell for people who start their sentences with the word "except."
>> No. 65563 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 10:34 pm
65563 spacer
>>65562
You know what they say. If you can't argue the facts, bitch about the writing instead.
>> No. 65564 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 10:39 pm
65564 spacer
>>65563
I'm not the lad you are having a teary about. Calm down for a bit. Have a bit of tea, and Rich Tea biscuits.

And stop starting your sentences with "except."
>> No. 65565 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 10:44 pm
65565 spacer
>>65564
>And stop starting your sentences with "except."
Fuck off. If it's good enough for the OED, it's good enough for you.
>> No. 65566 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 10:46 pm
65566 spacer
>>65564
I'm not the lad you're telling to calm down, but he seems perfectly calm, and to boot actually making a decent point about the importance of content over style in an argument.
>> No. 65567 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 10:54 pm
65567 spacer
>>65566
I'm not following whatever they are crying about. I'm just trying to tell him to stop posting like he is an American, teenage girl on reddit.
>> No. 65569 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 11:09 pm
65569 spacer
>>65567
You're only supposed to do that to people who are actually posting like an American teenage girl on reddit.
>> No. 65570 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 11:12 pm
65570 spacer
>>65564
Don't start your sentences with "and", either. Or "don't", or "or".
>> No. 65573 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 11:15 pm
65573 spacer
>>65570
Miss Gillingham... Is that you?

God I miss her tits.
>> No. 65574 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 11:30 pm
65574 spacer
>>65570
And who exactly put you in charge of the language? Don't presume to prescribe the "correct" rules of English to others who are perfectly coherent without your "advice". Or if you insist on doing so, fuck off and do it somewhere else.

Except, of course, if you're a mod, in which case I wouldn't dare presume to contradict you.
>> No. 65575 Anonymous
14th September 2015
Monday 11:34 pm
65575 spacer
>>65574
You did it again lad. Why are you being like this (an American teenage girl posting on Reddit)?
>> No. 65582 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 2:24 am
65582 spacer
>>65575
What's with your obsession with American teenage girls on Reddit, noncelad?
>> No. 65588 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 11:41 am
65588 spacer
>>65575
It's really not hard to work out, lad.
>> No. 65602 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 2:12 pm
65602 spacer
>>65463

>the charisma of an unwashed sock and probably has a lower IQ than his brother

Wasn't his brother actually estimated to have one of the highest IQs of any Presidents?
>> No. 65603 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 2:20 pm
65603 spacer
>>65480

Is it just me or does Donald Trump's wife look a bit too much like him? I thought that was his daughter at first. Didn't he also say that he would date/marry his own daughter or something?
>> No. 65605 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 3:40 pm
65605 spacer
>>65603
>Didn't he also say that he would date/marry his own daughter
Yes, he has said as much in public, and complimented her on her "figure", on no less than three occasions.
>> No. 65608 Anonymous
15th September 2015
Tuesday 4:11 pm
65608 spacer
>>65602
Not as far as I'm aware of.

Bush wasn't the slack jawed yokel he was commonly portrayed as, but he certainly wasn't much more intelligent than the minimum required to go as far as he did. I don't know of any formal IQ tests, but he was an average to decent student at Yale, he didn't exactly display the intellectual prowess of a Rhodes Scholar like Clinton or a polymath like Teddy Roosevelt.
>> No. 65668 Anonymous
21st September 2015
Monday 9:19 pm
65668 spacer

walker_selfie[1].jpg
656686566865668
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/21/scott-walker-said-to-be-quitting-presidential-race/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE

Turns out someone with zero charisma and a fucked up face running a campaign on an union busting record the base couldn't give any less of a shit about isn't a winning candidate.

Who knew.
>> No. 65669 Anonymous
22nd September 2015
Tuesday 11:43 pm
65669 spacer
>>65668
You say that like the Donald is attractive.
>> No. 65670 Anonymous
22nd September 2015
Tuesday 11:52 pm
65670 spacer
>>65669
He at least doesn't have the face of a doughy toby jug like Walker.

And is also not a winning candidate.
>> No. 65755 Anonymous
3rd October 2015
Saturday 6:40 am
65755 spacer

Bushpile[1].jpg
657556575565755
This is the best non-Trump related thing to come out of the race so far.

"My bro kept us safe, here's him standing on a mountain of rubble and corpses." Amazing.
>> No. 65756 Anonymous
3rd October 2015
Saturday 12:55 pm
65756 spacer
>>65755

Sometimes I feel as though, in an alternate reality, John Kerry was elected president in 2008 only to be impeached after the devastation of the 9/11 attacks in which 150 people died on American soil.
>> No. 65757 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 1:44 am
65757 spacer

rcpoct.png
657576575765757
As the Summer of Trump comes to a close, the Donald gives himself an out:

>"Number one — I'm not a masochist," he said. "And if I was dropping in the polls where I thought I wasn't gonna win, why would I continue?"

>"I'm doing great in the polls," Trump continued. "If I were doing poorly, if I saw myself going down, if you would stop calling me because you no longer had any interest in Trump because he was doing so poorly," he said, talking to NBC host Chuck Todd. "I'd go back to my business. I have no problem with that."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-polls-gop-race
>> No. 65758 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 2:54 am
65758 spacer
>>65757
He says, as his poll ratings drop ten points and his lead halves. Yet again he makes it known to all that he has the massive balls of solid stainless steel required to wear that thing on his head.
>> No. 65770 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 4:36 pm
65770 spacer
>>65758
> where I thought I wasn't gonna win
>> No. 65771 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 4:40 pm
65771 spacer
>>65770
SPOILER: he is not going to win, and there is a good chance that he, or at least his advisors, are aware of this fact.
>> No. 65772 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 5:15 pm
65772 spacer
>>65771
Why?
>> No. 65773 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 5:18 pm
65773 spacer
>>65771
Unlikely, but not impossible. By the same token: possible, but not likely. Go back in time eight years and a bet on Obama would get you offers in the three digit range.
>> No. 65786 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 6:47 pm
65786 spacer
>>65772
Because the people who think he has a shot are wildly overestimating the impact of public opinion and wildly underestimating the extent to which American political parties are capable of influencing their own primary races. The only metric by which Trump is in the lead is in polling (which is largely due to a cycle of his media exposure leading to more support, leading to more exposure, etc. in the first place). That is a very easy to understand metric, and intuitively gives the impression that he's got a good chance of winning, but the actual historical evidence demonstrates that national polling is not predictive at this stage in the race. At all. It does not become so until around Super Tuesday. State polling is different, it can become predictive in the weeks leading up to a primary/caucus, but it's still a bit of a crapshot. Iowa in 2012 was a great example of this: Romney led in Iowa for months, until Ron Paul took over in the weeks leading up to the caucus. In the end, Santorum, who was polling lower than the margin of error not long before the caucus, was the winner, coming a fraction of a percent ahead of Romney.

Leading the polls months before the primaries start has not historically been a characteristic of the eventual winners of the nomination. There are, broadly speaking, three things that are: the support of influential party actors, a traditional political background (e.g. VP, governor, senator, maybe general or cabinet level position at a push), and views in line with the party orthodoxy. That's why comparisons to Obama, like >>65773's, are misguided: Obama was not the favourite, but he was certainly considered presidential material by his party. He had already racked up an impressive list of endorsements at this point in the race, compared to Trump, whose endorsements come from a couple of state reps and Gary Busey.

There is an outside possibility that this is all wrong of course. Some people think this time it's different. Thing is though, that people who think "this time it's different" are almost always wrong.
>> No. 65787 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 6:48 pm
65787 spacer

9780226112374.jpg
657876578765787
There's a very good book on this subject which I'd recommend to anyone interested in the process.
>> No. 65789 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 7:49 pm
65789 spacer
>>65786
>He had already racked up an impressive list of endorsements at this point in the race
He really hadn't. By September 2007 he was nowhere to be seen. He literally wasn't on the radar. He came from nowhere to win Iowa. It was only really after that when the endorsements started rolling in.
>> No. 65790 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 7:50 pm
65790 spacer
>>65786
>Iowa in 2012 was a great example of this
Outliers occasionally happen shocker.
>> No. 65791 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 8:00 pm
65791 spacer
>>65790
Oh come the fuck on. A candidate endorsed by Kent Conrad and Dick Durbin isn't "on the radar"? 538 keeps a handy tally of current and past endorsements. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/

As you can see, Obama had the second most endorsements of any Democratic candidate, behind Clinton. He had more at this point in the race than Jeb Bush does currently. He was very much "on the radar".
>> No. 65792 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 8:06 pm
65792 spacer
>>65790
... Yes, I am saying that state polling is more predictive than national polling but outliers still exist.
>> No. 65793 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 8:09 pm
65793 spacer
>>65791
>Obama had the second most endorsements of any Democratic candidate, behind Clinton.
That's like saying bumders make up the second most common sexuality behind straight people. In 2008, Hillary was orders of magnitude ahead of the competition until around March.
>> No. 65794 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 8:14 pm
65794 spacer
>>65792
You are saying that state polling is a crapshoot, and using as your evidence an outlier in a particularly difficult contest to predict. In states which use straightforward ballots, it does very well, as 538's own record attests.
>> No. 65795 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 8:16 pm
65795 spacer

clintonobamaendorsement.png
657956579565795
>>65793
You need to either take a look at that endorsement chart or look up what an order of magnitude is.
>> No. 65796 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 8:25 pm
65796 spacer
>>65794
The Iowa caucus is difficult to predict precisely because polling is the only thing to go on. See Howard Dean's collapse in 2004 for another example. Once the race is properly under way, the results of past primaries and caucuses can be used to form predictions, along with polling (which is likewise influenced by primary results and the narrative of "momentum") and a pattern properly starts to emerge.
>> No. 65797 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 8:25 pm
65797 spacer

clinton.png
657976579765797
>>65795
For illustration, we are here. Obama's endorsements were are in the tens, Clinton's were in the hundreds.
>> No. 65798 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 8:35 pm
65798 spacer
>>65796
No, the Iowa caucus is difficult to predict because it's a caucus. For a primary ballot, pollsters can just go out and ask people how they're likely to vote. The decision is made (usually) before the voter arrives at the polling station - they're merely turning up to commit it to paper. At caucuses, attendees engage in debate and discussion before making their decision - you could poll people on the door going in and still get it completely wrong.
>> No. 65799 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 8:43 pm
65799 spacer

clintonobamaendorsementdnc.png
657996579965799
>>65797
There are 600 possible endorsement points. Obama had 48 at this point in the race, Clinton, as is clear from that chart, had well under 50%, so less than 300.

For one number to be "orders of magnitude bigger" than another number, it has to be at least 100 times bigger. 48 is not 1% of 300, in case you weren't aware.

So, Clinton was at no point "orders of magnitude" ahead of her competition, let alone "until March". Obama was very much on the radar, and you are categorically talking out your arse.

>>65798
Yes, but other caucus results are easier to predict than Iowa because past primary/caucus results can be relied upon as predictive, and polling has "settled down", so to speak.
>> No. 65800 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 9:32 pm
65800 spacer
>>65799
>Obama had 48 at this point in the race, Clinton, as is clear from that chart, had well under 50%, so less than 300.
For those of us who aren't being deliberately obtuse, that's still a fucking massive margin.

>Yes, but other caucus results are easier to predict than Iowa because past primary/caucus results can be relied upon as predictive
You haven't managed to get your head around this whole "caucus" thing still, have you?
>> No. 65802 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 10:07 pm
65802 spacer
>>65800
It's a significant margin! But he did not by any means "come from nowhere". Note also that by February, Obama would rack up over 200 endorsements. So for those of us who are actually paying attention, your assertion that Clinton was "orders of magnitude ahead" of her rivals until March is plainly moronic.

To clarify, I am not saying that Obama's nomination wasn't an upset, I am saying it is not an upset compNanookle to a hypothetical Trump nomination.

As far as the caucuses go, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I have explained to you why the Iowa Caucus in particular is hard to predict. Caucuses in general are harder to predict than primaries, but Iowa presents unique difficulties. If you have an actual response, go ahead and make it, your posturing is very boring.
>> No. 65803 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 10:10 pm
65803 spacer
>>65802
*200 endorsement points, I mean, my mistake.
>> No. 65804 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 10:21 pm
65804 spacer
>>65802
>I have explained to you why the Iowa Caucus in particular is hard to predict.
No. You've posted a load of words purporting to explain why the Iowa caucus in partcular is hard to predict, but actually don't hold any truth. Caucuses are harder to predict, full stop. Availability of other results means nothing. That would be like saying that nobody could have any idea how our elections would turn out because the only indications they have before May are polls. That sort of argument is utterly moronic. The Iowa caucus isn't harder to predict because it's first. It's 100%, absolutely, entirely due to the mechanics of the thing. States where the caucus process involves aggregation are a bit easier, while those that involve multi-level selection processes are harder still, as the outcome of the initial meetings may not be the same as the county metings, which may not be the same as the final statewide convention. You may remember that the results in Iowa and New Hampshire for the Republicans in 2012 and the Democrats in 2008 bore no resemblance to one another. Knowing who won Iowa won't tell you who will win New Hampshire, but asking people in New Hampshire might.
>> No. 65805 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 10:52 pm
65805 spacer
>>65804
>the Democrats in 2008
Funny you should mention that. Clinton was in the lead in polling for months, but after Obama won Iowa, he was leading by double digits in some polls. The RCP average for the days before the primary showed Obama with an 8.3% lead, and the winner was... Clinton, by 2.6%. Because, again, early in the race state support in polling is softer, and the predictive value is a bit of a crapshoot. It becomes more predictive as the race goes on, and past victories in other states are a big part of that. I am not saying that knowing who won Iowa will tell you who will win New Hampshire, and honestly have no idea how you got that out of anything I've posted.
>> No. 65806 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 10:53 pm
65806 spacer
Also it's worth noting that the Republican who won NH in 2012 lost Iowa by 0.03%.
>> No. 65807 Anonymous
6th October 2015
Tuesday 12:28 am
65807 spacer
Trump continues to speculate about what his exit would look like:

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/05/donald-trump-sees-a-collapse-in-a-g-o-p-campaign-without-him/?_r=0

>“There’d be a major collapse of the race, and there’d be a major collapse of television ratings,” he said from his office in Trump Tower. “It would become a depression in television.”

>“I wouldn’t even be watching it probably, and neither would anybody else,” he said.

Hmmmm, I'm almost starting to think that maybe this reality TV star isn't a serious political candidate...
>> No. 65808 Anonymous
6th October 2015
Tuesday 12:42 am
65808 spacer
The best precedent for Trump isn't Obama or Perot, or whoever else people are comparing him to. He's basically Morry "The Griz" Taylor with better name recognition.

Taylor's run was pretty special:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/78937/the-griz-michael-lewis-morry-taylor

>"Why do they call you the Griz?" I ask, after he hangs up. It seems the natural next question.

>"I got that when I took the company public," he shouts. "At the closing they gave me this plaque. It says—and they did it in Latin, which language I can't speak—but this is what it says: IN NORTH AMERICA THERE IS NO KNOWN PREDATOR TO THE GRIZZLY. So I became the Griz. Then I thought about it. Up until that time I kind of liked my other nickname, Attila. 'Cause of Attila the Hun, you know. People think Attila the Hun was a barbarian but he's not. He's the guy who ran the Roman Legion out of town."

>Morry then shouts back at Lenny, an extremely resourceful young man whose job is to race around sorting out the chaos that Morry creates wherever he goes in Iowa and New Hampshire.

>"Hey piss-boy. Are we in the Connecticut primary?"

>There's some shuffling in the back of the land yacht. "I'm not sure," says Lenny.

>...

>"Did you play sports in high school?" I ask Morry, or rather, the back of Morry's head. He doesn't even look around. He's shaking his head; I have no trouble imagining the scorn on his face. My question is plainly ridiculous. "Did I play sports?" he asks. "I am the biggest jock who ever ran for president. I can beat you in anything." And with that he blows through the double doors leading into the auditorium. High school probably was not prepared for Morry Taylor the first time he passed through, and it most certainly is no match for him now that he's sitting on $40 million-plus of Titan stock and a fully fueled presidential campaign. About thirty kids file in, slump down into their seats and settle in for a snooze they'll never have.

>"Your school is too big," booms Morry, and as the kids jolt and stir he enters his stream of consciousness. "This is what is wrong with America," he says, pointing at the kids. "Big, big, big. You don't see no little kids in here. No little kids with the big kids so that the little kids don't have anyone to look up to. When I was in school the third-graders looked up to the eighth-graders, and the eighth-grade boys were in love with the senior girls. The senior girls just thought they were cute little twerps, but it was good for them. Some kid comes to school with orange hair, you don't have to call the parents. Hell, we'll take care of the orange hair. A place like this breeds weirdos."

>The students are now fully alert.

>"I never could enjoy going to a school like this," concludes Morry. The kids seem to concur.

>"How many of you ever take accounting?" he asks. The kids are now squirming and ducking: he's breaking down their resistance, making them nervous. Two hands go up. Morry shakes his head, a little sadly. His tone changes. "I know you got a lot of these teachers"—he waves nonchalantly at a couple of uneasy-looking older men in the rafters—"and they tell you a lot of ..." (he doesn't use the word "crap" but he might as well) "things ... but in your whole entire life you are only going to use one or maybe two of those things. Hell, I took 257 engineering courses, and I never used one of them."

>He pauses and seems to reconsider. I wonder if he's about to make a little plea for the joy of learning for its own sake, the importance of a liberal education, that sort of thing. He isn't. "Now we all agree that the most important thing in your life is your family," he says. "Your momma and your daddy, your brothers and your sisters. But right after that there's something else. We all know what it is, and it's... GREEN."

>With that he reaches into his pocket and produces a fat roll of $100 bills. He holds it high so that everyone can see. Five grand. Cash. The kids are now perched on the edge of their seats, giggling nervously, probably wondering what they feed presidential candidates.

>"It all comes down to accounting," says Morry. "Accounting and money. You can't live without it. And the minute you make it someone is trying to take it away from you. So for god's sake, find out about money!"

>"Can I have some?" asks a kid in the front row.

>"It's mine!" shouts Morry, and puts the money back in his pocket, a nice illustration of some general business principle. The teachers are now frowning, but the kids are unable to preserve their original detachment.
>> No. 65809 Anonymous
6th October 2015
Tuesday 12:51 am
65809 spacer
>>65807
He was never a serious political candidate, just like Jesse Ventura.
>> No. 65913 Anonymous
13th October 2015
Tuesday 9:57 pm
65913 spacer
>>64250
America isn't that stupid. They're not.
>> No. 65928 Anonymous
14th October 2015
Wednesday 9:00 am
65928 spacer
>>65913
No. They are just as stupid as the lot who voted for Boris.
>> No. 65929 Anonymous
14th October 2015
Wednesday 9:18 am
65929 spacer
>>65913
No, they're not. Donald Trump is not going to be the nominee.

Donald Trump is not going to be President.
>> No. 65931 Anonymous
14th October 2015
Wednesday 7:49 pm
65931 spacer
>>65913
>>65929

You don't understand just how much the average American loathes the establishment candidates, you're all too distracted with irrelevant issues and media nonsense, people are fed up with cardboard cutout politicians.

This shouldn't be a hard thing to understand, really, it's the same reason Corbyn got nominated.
>> No. 65932 Anonymous
14th October 2015
Wednesday 8:11 pm
65932 spacer
>>65931
And the same thing that got Savile elected.
>> No. 65933 Anonymous
14th October 2015
Wednesday 8:14 pm
65933 spacer
>>65931
>This shouldn't be a hard thing to understand, really, it's the same reason Corbyn got nominated.
If the Republican nominee were chosen via a nationwide ballot, yes Trump would have a good chance.

It won't be and he doesn't.
>> No. 65935 Anonymous
14th October 2015
Wednesday 8:56 pm
65935 spacer
>>65929

Alright, Dan.
>> No. 65936 Anonymous
14th October 2015
Wednesday 9:24 pm
65936 spacer
>>65935
ha, >>65929 does read like dear Mr Hodges, it's true.

I decided to read Nate Silver and he says it's all going to be fine and that nice man Mr Rubio will win the nomination, but he's actually more right wing then Mr Bush III. So that's all good then.
>> No. 65937 Anonymous
14th October 2015
Wednesday 9:27 pm
65937 spacer
>>65931
You'd have a point were it not for the comparatively very weird way the primaries work. It isn't an open £3 ballot that people can fix in quite the same way.
>> No. 65938 Anonymous
14th October 2015
Wednesday 10:11 pm
65938 spacer
>>65937
>It isn't an open £3 ballot that people can fix in quite the same way.
No, it isn't. Instead, in most states it's an open £0 ballot that people can fix in quite the same way.
>> No. 65939 Anonymous
14th October 2015
Wednesday 10:33 pm
65939 spacer
>>65938
£0 and a hell of a lot more effort than mailing in a ballot at any time that suits you over the course of month.

US primaries and caucuses are far, far more involved than the Labour leadership election process, and have been designed from the start to give party actors substantial weight in the process. Read The Party Decides if you're actually interested.
>> No. 65940 Anonymous
14th October 2015
Wednesday 10:38 pm
65940 spacer
>>65939
>£0 and a hell of a lot more effort than mailing in a ballot at any time that suits you over the course of month.
Writing the word REPUBLICAN on the voter registration form where it says "Party affiliation" isn't exactly "a lot more effort".
>> No. 65941 Anonymous
14th October 2015
Wednesday 10:56 pm
65941 spacer
>>65940
Voting in a Republican primary or caucus does not merely entail writing Republican on a voter registration form, though it is an important first step.
>> No. 65944 Anonymous
14th October 2015
Wednesday 11:23 pm
65944 spacer
>>65941
>Voting in a Republican primary or caucus does not merely entail writing Republican on a voter registration form
Erm, yes it does. Literally nowhere in the states or territories do the Republicans limit participation to paid-up, card-carrying members of the party. In states with a closed primary, all that's required is that you are a "registered Republican", and the event itself is run by the state using the state's election apparatus, so you just turn up at your usual polling place and cast your ballot.

Caucuses are a different ball game altogether. In those cases, you simply have to turn up, partake of the drinks and cake if they've been laid on (none of this silly "treating" nonsense in the US), listen to people talk for a bit, then raise your hand or fill in a bit of paper. Of course, the decision you and your fellow caucusgoers reach on the day may not be respected in its full proportion if your state uses a tiered caucus, in which case the county convention (which still might not be limited to paid-up card-carrying members) will discuss the returns and come to its own decision, which it relays to the state convention (which again might not be limited to paid-up card-carrying members), who select and apportion the delegates in accordance with their rules. Caucuses in particular are sensitive to who is in the room on the night. Not who shows up, but specifically who is in the room - in 2012 it was unheard of for some people to be turned away from their local caucus because there simply wasn't any more room at the venue for them. Some figures suggest as many as 20% of registered voters will attend their party's caucus. To get an idea of what this means, imagine 3000 people turning up to a CLP or CCA meeting to pick their candidate for Parliament. Or 20 people turning up to a Lib Dem selection meeting. See? It's funny because their support has collapsed.
>> No. 65948 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 12:02 am
65948 spacer
>>65944
I think you've pretty grossly misunderstood me.

I'm not saying that you need to do anything more than register as a Republican to be eligible to participate, I am saying that that is merely the first step in a process which is far more involved than Labour's online/postal ballot.
>> No. 65949 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 12:04 am
65949 spacer
>>65944
This sounds harder and tedious to be honest.
>> No. 65950 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 12:08 am
65950 spacer
>>65949
Yeah, he actually seems to have unintentionally underlined my point pretty well.

In the ballot for Labour leadership, you paid £3 if you weren't already a member or an affiliate, and then voted online or sent in a postal ballot at any point over the course of a month. Saying that the fact that this system produced a populist victor like Corbyn is evidence that Trump could succeed in the states is incredibly dumb and ignores the vast differences in the processes, such as those pointed out in >>65944.
>> No. 65951 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 12:12 am
65951 spacer
>>65950
>In the ballot for Labour leadership, you paid £3 if you weren't already a member or an affiliate, and then voted online or sent in a postal ballot at any point over the course of a month.
As opposed to states using a closed primary, where you pay £0, tick a box on your registration form, and send in a postal ballot at any point over the course of a month.
>> No. 65952 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 12:19 am
65952 spacer
>>65951
What you outlined in >>65944 sounds ten times harder and more tedious, than sticking in my membership details online, paying three quid and voting for Corbyn.
>> No. 65954 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 12:21 am
65954 spacer
>>65952
Really? Filling in the voter registration form that comes around every other year is tedious? Are you some kind of attention-deficit child or something?
>> No. 65955 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 12:27 am
65955 spacer
>>65954
What about the bit where you have to turn up to a party and you get force fed cake or something? The cactus thing.
>> No. 65957 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 12:40 am
65957 spacer
>>65951
And how many states is that? In the states that allow it, what proportion of the vote is cast via a postal ballot?
>> No. 65960 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 12:42 am
65960 spacer
And you're ignoring the effects of staggering of state votes, winner-take-all vs proportional delegate selections, the impact of media coverage and advertising in establishing momentum etc etc.

But yeah, if you ignore all of the salient details, I guess Trump and Corbyn have similar chances!
>> No. 65962 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 1:07 am
65962 spacer
>>65957
Most of them. There are 56 state and territory contests. Around a third use caucuses, but they're almost entirely a small-state thing. Around a third use closed or closed-ish primaries, which means telling the state when you register to vote. Then around a third use open primaries, where you don't even have to do that. If the state lets you vote by post, then you can do so in the primary as well as the final thing. The only trouble is that if you have to vote in person, voting hours aren't quite as long as they are here - it's more usual for polls to close somewhere between 6-8pm.
>> No. 65963 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 1:15 am
65963 spacer
>>65962
Nah, I want a number of states where postal voting is openly and widely available, and the proportion of ballots cast by post in those states.
>> No. 65964 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 1:20 am
65964 spacer
To be clear, even when voting by postal ballot is possible, it is not anything like the Labour party sending out ballots to all members.

See http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/vote-by-mail/pdf/fill-in-vote-by-mail-app-instruct.pdf
>> No. 65965 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 1:20 am
65965 spacer

Cambridge-publishing-management-moon-on-a-stick0ea.png
659656596565965
>>65963
>Nah, I want a number of states where postal voting is openly and widely available, and the proportion of ballots cast by post Then go find them.
>> No. 65966 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 1:22 am
65966 spacer
There is no comparison between the US primary process and the Labour leadership contest. None at all.
>> No. 65967 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 1:23 am
65967 spacer
>>65965
See mate, when you make a ridiculous claim about voting in the US primary process being similarly easy to voting in the Labour leadership election, people are going to want you to back that up. If that's beyond you, then don't volunteer such idiocy in the first place.
>> No. 65968 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 1:26 am
65968 spacer
>>65964
>it is not anything like the Labour party sending out ballots to all members
You know, it would help you massively if you actually read the document you linked to.
>> No. 65969 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 1:28 am
65969 spacer
>>65968
Maybe you should read it, dickhead.

>Only the registered voter himself or herself may apply for a vote-by-mail ballot.

They don't send them out, you have to specifically request one. Most people do not.
>> No. 65970 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 1:29 am
65970 spacer
>>65967
>when you make a ridiculous claim about voting in the US primary process being similarly easy to voting in the Labour leadership election
Yeah, completely ridiculous. For a US election, you register for a postal vote, then they send you a ballot paper, then you fill it in and send it back, whereas for the Labour Party leadership election, you registered for a vote, then they sent you a ballot paper, then you filled it in and sent it back. See? Completely different.
>> No. 65971 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 1:31 am
65971 spacer

Capture.png
659716597165971
>>65969
>> No. 65972 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 1:39 am
65972 spacer
>>65970
In the Labour leadership election, ballots were sent out to all members. Votes were cast by filling out and returning that ballot or filling in one online.

In the US primary process, the only people voting by post are people who

a) live in a state that allows absentee ballots,

b) if they aren't an active military member, live in a state that allows no-excuse absentee ballots

c) live in a state that doesn't hold a caucus

d) actually want to.

And again, that's without even getting into the effects of staggering, winner-takes-all etc etc.

>>65971
Yes, and most people in California have never requested a single vote-by-mail ballot.
>> No. 65973 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 1:45 am
65973 spacer
>>65971
Also note that almost no states offer permanent absentee status, California is an exception.
>> No. 65974 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 1:47 am
65974 spacer
>>65972
>In the Labour leadership election, ballots were sent out to all members.
Yes, a ballot for which they had to carry out some process analogous to registering for a postal vote, such as joining the party or registering as a supporter. Are you being deliberately obtuse or were you just dropped in the delivery room?
>> No. 65975 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 2:02 am
65975 spacer
>>65974
Mate, you're awfully rude.
>> No. 65976 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 2:05 am
65976 spacer
>>65974
Merely by being a member/registering as a supporter of the Labour party, you could vote by postal/online ballot. Everyone did.

In the US primary process, you register as a member of the party and if you live in a state that allows absentee ballots, and if absentee ballots are not restricted only to those with an excuse the state deems valid, and if your state does not hold a caucus instead, and if you send in an application for a postal vote, then you can vote by post. The vast majority of people do not.

If you think that understanding the difference between those two systems is being "obtuse", that's your problem.
>> No. 65977 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 2:09 am
65977 spacer
>>65974
In order to vote at all you had to register with Labour.

Registering for a postal vote is optional, it's not at all analogous.
>> No. 65978 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 2:16 am
65978 spacer
>>65976
>Merely by being a member/registering as a supporter of the Labour party, you could vote by postal/online ballot. Everyone did.
Yes, just like merely being registered for a postal vote in the US you could vote by postal ballot. Everyone registered for a postal ballot got one. You didn't just wake up one morning and receive a ballot for the Labour leadership. You did have to tell them, in one way or another, that you might want one.

>you register as a member of the party
No. If you're in one of the states that requires it, you declare an affiliation with the party. No membership required. Around 55-60% of all registered voters in the US do this.

>if you live in a state that allows absentee ballots
Which is most of them, and most of the exceptions are places the Republicans aren't winning, and hence get fewer delegates anyway.

>if absentee ballots are not restricted only to those with an excuse the state deems valid
Which is most of those that allow them, and in many of the remainder the excuses are quite wide. In some they require that you not only be unavailable on the day, but also during the two-week "early voting" period, but then that does mean you get a whole two weeks in which to find your way to the polling station.

>if your state does not hold a caucus instead
Again, that's most of the states in contention.

>if you send in an application for a postal vote
Not really relevant. You'll need to register to vote before you can vote anyway, and increasingly the application for a postal vote is just a box on the registration form.

I really don't see what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting that somehow registering with a party to be eligible to vote is different from registering with the state to be eligible to vote? Because that way lies madness.
>> No. 65979 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 2:20 am
65979 spacer
>>65977
>In order to vote at all you had to register with Labour.
Just like in order to vote by post at all you have to register for a postal vote. Look mate, there's no getting around this. Either the registration process is done and dusted, in which case both lots of voters automatically got a vote, or the registration process is a required hurdle, in which case both lots of voters had to pass it before they got a vote. There's really no logically consistent argument that makes one automatic and the other not.
>> No. 65980 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 2:27 am
65980 spacer
>>65978
Only 18 states and DC have no-excuse absentee ballots in a primary.
>> No. 65981 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 2:30 am
65981 spacer
>>65980
At the risk of repeating myself, where exactly are you going with this? Is this the "but going to the polling station is tedious" bollocks still?
>> No. 65982 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 2:30 am
65982 spacer
>>65978
>I really don't see what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting that somehow registering with a party to be eligible to vote is different from registering with the state to be eligible to vote?
I'm suggesting that having a nationwide, month long vote by post where all your members are provided with a postal ballot and able to return it any any point during that month will produce a different type of candidate than a process which by and large require a significantly greater deal of effort to participate in, not lest because of the fact that postal ballots are not common.
>> No. 65983 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 2:32 am
65983 spacer
>>65981
Going to a polling station on a specific day, at a specific time requires more dedication than filling in and returning a ballot at any time during a month, yes. Sorry if that makes you so confused, but that's how it is lad.
>> No. 65984 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 2:38 am
65984 spacer
>>65982
>I'm suggesting that having a nationwide, month long vote by post where all your members are provided with a postal ballot
Which they only got by going to the effort of registering for that vote in the first place.

>not lest because of the fact that postal ballots are not common.
Define "not common". I haven't seen figures for 2012, but in November 2008 almost a third of ballots were cast before the day itself, whether by post or by in-person early voting.
>> No. 65985 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 2:40 am
65985 spacer
>>65984
There wasn't a presidential primary in November 2008.
>> No. 65986 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 2:44 am
65986 spacer
>>65985
See >>65981.
>> No. 65987 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 2:56 am
65987 spacer
>>65986
The figures for postal voting in a presidential election are not the same as those for voting in a primary.

In any case, I wouldn't say that less than a third of voters using absentee ballots makes it "common", no.
>> No. 65988 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 3:22 am
65988 spacer
>>65987
I think we might need to put out a missing persons notice on your point.
>> No. 65989 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 4:32 am
65989 spacer
>>65988
My point, pal, is that a system where everyone who has elected to participate votes by post is not the same as a system where some people, in some states, vote by post if they elect to do so, but the overwhelming majority, by choice or by necessity, are dedicated enough to be at a specific place at a specific time to vote.

And even if all the states used postal ballots, the staggering, the rules of delegate apportionment, the impact of advertising and media, the narrative of momentum etc. etc. would mean that the outcome would still be different.

That's the last I'll say on this, it's getting extremely tedious.
>> No. 65992 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 8:31 am
65992 spacer
>>65989
Then it would appear that your point is simply wrong.
>> No. 65994 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 8:46 am
65994 spacer
>>65992
If you're actually interested in the process, how it came about, how it works, etc. read The Party Decides.

Or alternatively just keep posting nonsense in the hope that someone, somewhere will think you know what you're talking about because you've described a caucus.
>> No. 65996 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 9:17 am
65996 spacer
>>65994
Says the lad posting nonsense who thinks he knows what he's talking about because he once read a book.

There is literally nothing in the process itself that allows us to rule anyone out at this stage. There are many reasons why he's unlikely to win, but the process is not yet one of them.
>> No. 66000 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 9:54 am
66000 spacer
>>65996
The process of American primaries makes it far more difficult for a populist candidate to win than it is for a populist candidate to win the Labour leadership election. It was explicitly set up to be that way.

If you are seriously have this much difficulty understanding why, you probably should forget about reading that book, because you're possibly fucking illiterate.
>> No. 66001 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 10:25 am
66001 spacer
>>66000

The primaries don't do shit to combat populism; presidential candidates are all spin, no substance. They're always populist; they might just be able to act as though they're not.
>> No. 66002 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 11:35 am
66002 spacer
>>66001
I think we may have different ideas of what populism means.

I mean that a candidate like Trump, or Sanders, or Ron Paul, who holds (or at least expresses) positions who resonate strongly with party's base, or a segment of that base, but go against party orthodoxy, will have a hard time getting through the primary process.
>> No. 66003 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 12:11 pm
66003 spacer
>>66000
Yeah, you see, what you've done there is resort to the tactic of just repeating yourself until you're right. Empirical evidence suggests that populist candidates tend to have an easier time of it than principled ones. It also suggests people in open primaries can cross the floor and influence the outcome. But no, that evidence is invalid because you once read a book. Obviously if the map and the territory disagree, you're trusting the map.
>> No. 66004 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 12:23 pm
66004 spacer
>>66002
I'm not sure that's what populism means. I've understood it as telling the people what they want to hear. "Hopes and fears" politics. As Tony Benn would put it, populists are weather vanes rather than signposts. Such as Romney effectively saying different things to different audiences in different parts of the country. By contrast, Ron Paul's message has been more or less the same for the last four decades. His 2012 platform might as well have been his platform when he made a run as the Libertarian candidate in 1988. He is the archetypal signpost.
>> No. 66026 Anonymous
16th October 2015
Friday 12:32 am
66026 spacer
>>66003
>Empirical evidence suggests that populist candidates tend to have an easier time of it than principled ones

>>66004
>Tony Benn would put it, populists are weather vanes rather than signposts. Such as Romney effectively saying different things to different audiences in different parts of the country.

I've never encountered a definition of populism remotely like this. Populism is a movement that seeks to represent the interests of the public vs the elite. Be it Trump vs the career politicians, Sanders vs the 1%, or Ron Paul vs the Fed. It's not a question "populist vs principled".

Populist candidates certainly haven't done well in the nomination process historically, and Mitt Romney is just about as far from one as it's possible to be. The populist wing of the party, the Tea party, loathed him.
>> No. 66028 Anonymous
16th October 2015
Friday 12:50 am
66028 spacer
>>66026
>I've never encountered a definition of populism remotely like this.
Likewise. I've only ever heard it used to refer to the politics of pandering, and offering people just what they want, even if that means making contradictory pledges to different constituencies. Candidates like that are known to do well, and up to a point the more naked the pandering the better they tend to do.
>> No. 66029 Anonymous
16th October 2015
Friday 1:20 am
66029 spacer
>>66028
Okay, well I'm not referring to that when I say populist, I'm referring to the traditional definition.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=populism

>S: (n) populism (the political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite)
>> No. 66030 Anonymous
16th October 2015
Friday 1:22 am
66030 spacer
Here's a good article on the populism of Trump and Sanders.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/09/07/the-populists
>> No. 66124 Anonymous
23rd October 2015
Friday 11:21 pm
66124 spacer
This seems like as good a place as any to leave these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46ZLAT7BY_s
>> No. 66125 Anonymous
24th October 2015
Saturday 7:55 am
66125 spacer
>>66030
>Trump and Sanders.

That would be an excellent sitcom.
>> No. 66126 Anonymous
24th October 2015
Saturday 1:00 pm
66126 spacer

ap_bernie-sanders_ap-photo5.jpg
661266612666126
>>66125

>Trump makes out with Sanders girlfriend Dalia on the sofa. Trump’s on top.

Trump: Oh baby, you make me so hot.

>Trump's toupee flips up suggestively.

>(Audience roars with laughter.)

>Dalia attempts to push Trump back.

Dalia (in shrill New Yorkese): Donny, stop, I-

Trump (annoyed): The Trump! It’s pronounced THE Trump, you kikey whore!

>(Audience displays considerable mirth.)

Dalia: T-The Trump, sorry. The Trump… I-I don’t feel comfortable with this.

Trump: What’s wrong? Is Ivanka’s dress too tight? She has a very lean, supple body y’know.

Dalia: No no, it’s not that. It’s… Bernie, we’re hurting Bernie.

Trump: Baby, what people don’t know can’t hurt ‘em. After-all, the illusion always TRUMPS reality. (Trump turns to look directly into camera) How’d you think I got those poll ratings?

>(Nervous laughter wafts from the stalls until someone repeats “trumps!” and they all fall into hysterical mirth.)

>At this point a key can be heard turning in the lock.
>The front door bursts open, Sanders enters the room on his tiny, rickety donkey. The donkey’s named Socialized Health Care.

Sanders (waving arms erratically): Heya comrades!

>(A wave of applause shake the set’s very foundations.)

>Trump and Dalia fix themselves and sit up on sofa.

Sanders: And what have my best bud and favourite lady been up to today? I was out at the Mall having a Hersey bar… and eating it!

>(Chortling.)

Dalia: Look, Bernie, there’s some ‘ing I been meaning to tell ya.

Trump (jabbing her in the ribs with a pen): Are you sure about that?

Dalia: This won’t be easy, Bernie, you betta get off Socialized Health Care and take a seat.

Trump (teeth gritted): Why don’t you go out into the kitchen and make up some dreidel pie, huh hun?

>Dalia stands.

Dalia: Bernie, I and The Trump have been having sex behind your back.

Trump (grinning, he leans around Dalia to look at the camera): And also behind hers!

>He slaps Dalia’s behind.

Trump: Anything so I didn’t have to look at that nose!

>(A man in the front row is taken aside by the medical team and diagnosed with having split sides. It proves fatal.)

Dalia: Oh! I can’t deal with this now! I’m sorry Bernie.

>Dalia runs out of the room leaving Trump and Bernie in silence. Bernie looks confused and distraught.

Sanders: Oy! Oy! …This can’t be happening.

Trump: Hey, now, there’s no need for language like that. Bernie, take a seat.

Sanders (in shock): …She’s my favourite lady and you’re my best bud…

Trump: Look here. Do you want know the truth of the matter? Bernie, you’re always on about sharing and being nice to each other and, well, I was trying to follow your example. I was trying to do that by fucking Dalia. Y’see, I respect you Bernie. I respect you a lot. I was just trying to be a bit more like my best bud.

>(A loud “awwww” comes from the audience. Theatre assistants begin handing out boxes of tissues.)

Sanders: That’s the nicest thing anyone has said about me. Do you really mean it?

>Trump, who has his arm around the hunched Senator, smiles warmly.

Trump: Of course not you loser! Now come on, we’re going to the titty bar.

>The theme tune to Curb Your Enthusiasm begins playing as Sanders looks up and smiles back at his lascivious old friend.

>(End Credits.)

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 66127 Anonymous
24th October 2015
Saturday 1:33 pm
66127 spacer
>>66126

Better than The Big Bang Theory.
>> No. 66237 Anonymous
26th October 2015
Monday 3:27 pm
66237 spacer
>>66126
It's not a toupée.
>> No. 66255 Anonymous
26th October 2015
Monday 7:23 pm
66255 spacer
>>66237
Quite. The Donald wears The Toupée.
>> No. 66258 Anonymous
26th October 2015
Monday 8:05 pm
66258 spacer

Donald_Trump_Hairstyle_Instructions[1].jpg
662586625866258
>>66255
It's his real hair. It's a ridiculous (and patently failed) combed forward attempt to disguise his hair loss, but it's real.
>> No. 66261 Anonymous
26th October 2015
Monday 8:36 pm
66261 spacer
>>66258
Well I'll be. Even his comb-over has a comb-over.
>> No. 66263 Anonymous
26th October 2015
Monday 8:49 pm
66263 spacer
>>66261

I know right. It looks like weather patterns.
>> No. 66367 Anonymous
28th October 2015
Wednesday 12:18 pm
66367 spacer
Trump's old news. The new hotness is this guy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JblVU8GyK0
>> No. 66368 Anonymous
28th October 2015
Wednesday 1:03 pm
66368 spacer
Carson has pulled ahead of Trump for the first time, but only really trading within the crazy vote, which is holding steady at around 48%. Out of the serious candidates, it's looking like Marco Rubio will pick up a bit of momentum.

Just a couple of months to go now. Iowa goes on Feb 1, and the whole thing will be about halfway there by the middle of March, so there's not much incentive for candidates still in after Iowa to drop out before then, whereas last time it took more than a month longer to reach that stage.
>> No. 66490 Anonymous
2nd November 2015
Monday 9:24 am
66490 spacer
Boy, he sure likes China.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDrfE9I8_hs
>> No. 66491 Anonymous
2nd November 2015
Monday 10:19 am
66491 spacer
>>66490

Aye, he's fucking mad about plates.
>> No. 66492 Anonymous
2nd November 2015
Monday 12:22 pm
66492 spacer
>>66490

He's actually saying vagina, but the guy who made the video cut off the "va".
>> No. 66556 Anonymous
5th November 2015
Thursday 4:59 pm
66556 spacer

ha'tak.png
665566655666556
>>66368
It seems the Republican race is decided by who can make the most outlandish brash statements. Carson was a nobody until he started making disparaging comments about minorities and backing Biblical science. Today he made the claim that the Pyramids were used to store grain and not docking platforms for alien ships like those scientists say.
>> No. 66557 Anonymous
5th November 2015
Thursday 5:32 pm
66557 spacer
>>66556
He's actually been all over Fox News for years, and has had really good favourables throughout the race.
>> No. 66569 Anonymous
9th November 2015
Monday 4:34 am
66569 spacer
>>66557
Is anyone following the entire Deportdolphin rape thing? Apparently Hillary tried to frame Bernie Sanders for a dig at Trump. They've also been digging into her campaign donations and finding some inconsistencies.
>> No. 66591 Anonymous
10th November 2015
Tuesday 12:54 am
66591 spacer

jeb.png
665916659166591
I can't believe there's still a whole year of this to go.
>> No. 66592 Anonymous
10th November 2015
Tuesday 1:14 am
66592 spacer
>>66591
It is weird that I don't know what is real and what isn't any more.
>> No. 66594 Anonymous
10th November 2015
Tuesday 1:18 am
66594 spacer
>>66592
Oh, it's real.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/09/politics/jeb-bush-kill-baby-hitler/index.html
>> No. 66769 Anonymous
23rd November 2015
Monday 2:46 am
66769 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq4l2eYIsU0

Those two girls who fucked up Bernie's rally really, really shot themselves in the foot.
>> No. 66770 Anonymous
23rd November 2015
Monday 7:03 am
66770 spacer

1530833601135304231.png
667706677066770
>>66769
You can't stump the Trump.
>> No. 66775 Anonymous
23rd November 2015
Monday 9:49 am
66775 spacer
>>66770
No doubt this will attract some negative responses, and it probably deserves it but I am a little torn on campaigning for some of these high profile cases.

On the one hand I don't believe these gents who've robbed a shop, who've acted aggressively or even those who have been caught beating their girlfriends and then the subsequent medical team sent to help, should die. I'm against the death penalty and I'm against the killing of people.

On the other hand I have to question what kind of message it sends out when people campaign on behalf of men who were literally acting like scourges of society, creating them this martyr status. Devalues the movement for me and I find it hard to have sympathy when they support literally any kind of shady character as long as the police are the bad guys.
>> No. 66779 Anonymous
23rd November 2015
Monday 11:35 am
66779 spacer
>>66775
I think it goes back to the saying that we should judge a society by how it treats its least. We should expect our police to be responsible enforcers of the law, no matter who they're enforcing it against. That's their role, and I don't think it's unreasonable to hold them up to that standard. If you neglect to campaign for less sympathetic victims, you tacitly endorse the idea that police should be judge, jury, and executioner, doling out force based on on a judgement of whether the perpetrator "deserves it", instead of what the situation itself merits.

Not to mention that just as history is written by the victors, police reports are written by, well, police, whose depiction of "scourges of society" should not be taken at face value.
>> No. 66783 Anonymous
23rd November 2015
Monday 1:21 pm
66783 spacer
>>66779


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO8EpfyCG2Y
>> No. 66797 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 5:28 pm
66797 spacer
>>66770

The source doesn't exist, and the image has been traced back to a neo-Nazi group. Oops!

The USA is genuinely fucked if Trump wins, right? He's a fascist hell beast.
>> No. 66798 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 5:33 pm
66798 spacer
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/24/donald-trump-on-waterboarding-even-if-it-doesnt-work-they-deserve-it

>Trump told supporters: “Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your ass I would. In a heartbeat. I would approve more than that. It works.”

Genuinely worrying.
>> No. 66799 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 5:46 pm
66799 spacer
>>66798
But Bush authorised waterboarding and later went on to extol its utility in his memoir, so it's hardly the aberration the Guardian's pretending it is.
>> No. 66800 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 5:51 pm
66800 spacer
>>66799
Well if Bush said it, it must be true.
>> No. 66801 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 5:58 pm
66801 spacer
>>66800
He's talking about the precedent.
The president's precedent.
>> No. 66802 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 6:10 pm
66802 spacer
>>66799
I think it's that he went on to say: “… and if it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway for what they do to us”.

That and the "I would approve more than that." bit.
>> No. 66803 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 6:23 pm
66803 spacer
>>66798

It doesn't even work! People will tell you any old shite when you torture them! Christ on a fucking bike. They spent more than a decade torturing people and it still didn't help them find Bin Laden! How stupid are these people?

But, they aren't stupid, they're just vindictive and uncaring. Who cares if you get bogus information? It's only some soldiers that might die, or maybe a few hundred thousand swarthy civilians. Oh, and don't forget a couple of trillion dollars and an unimaginably destabilised country or three.

The last 15 years of shifting politics to the right, and complete lack of push back, or moreover outright compliance, from the left has led to a racist, billionaire who talks entirely in reactionary sound bites and confused anecdotes becoming a likely contender for US president.
>> No. 66804 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 7:09 pm
66804 spacer
>>66797
How far off is it? I assume the % for whites killing whites is higher if it's including Hispanics.
>> No. 66808 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 8:04 pm
66808 spacer
>>66803
This a very common misconception that 'torture' is some kind of awful thing done to human beings. They are really just psychological, persuasive techniques done by a human with their entire sessions being watched and controlled by groups of doctors. And then only torturing a small amount of threats that have all went through a long targeting process.

At the end of the day they are just like traditional pub brawls but with the brownlad sitting on a chair in a base hundreds or thousand of miles away instead of being in pub brawl in an EDL pub.

I don't think a lot of people realise just how high the level of scrutiny every torture session is under. Various "anti-torture" groups like to push this image that it's some kind of out of control war crime just going around torturing everyone after illegal renditions willy nilly. The reality is gangs of lawyers and political advisors watching every little detail and the final authorisation to torture being a decision that takes a lot of time and consideration. The process is so slow that the window to torture most targets closes long before interrogator finishes his pint and goes off to the base.
>> No. 66809 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 8:30 pm
66809 spacer
>>66808

I don't care how well the state's legally covered.

I also don't care for how low you wish to set the bar for Western civilisation. If you want to beat and humiliate your enemies then perhaps you'd feel more at home in Egypt or Assad's Syria?

And well done for completely overlooking the undeniable fact that torture does not foster solid intelligence. So long as you can get a nice little twitch in your tingly bits from the thought of an (alleged) terrorist bastard getting his just desserts, who cares if you're actively endangering the lives of domestic soldiers and citizens?
>> No. 66814 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 9:21 pm
66814 spacer
>>66809
>I don't care how well the state's legally covered.
Either there's laws against something or there's not.

Well, not quite that black and white in nations with common law, but still.
>> No. 66816 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 9:30 pm
66816 spacer
>>66808

The use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" by the CIA was not subject to any degree of legal scrutiny. It was being conducted in secret, in locations whose very existence was denied. These detainees did not have access to legal counsel or the ability to contact the outside world. The CIA repeatedly lied to the US government and the media about their interrogation programme.

The following are verbatim quotes from the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's report on CIA interrogation:

"The interrogations of CIA detainees were brutal and far worse than the CIA represented to policymakers and others."

"The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice, impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program."

"The CIA has actively avoided or impeded congressional oversight of the program."

"The CIA did not conduct a comprehensive or accurate accounting of the number of individuals it detained, and held individuals who did not meet the legal standard for detention. The CIA's claims about the number of detainees held and subjected to its enhanced interrogation techniques were inaccurate."

"The CIA's use of its enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_CIA_torture
>> No. 66819 Anonymous
24th November 2015
Tuesday 10:32 pm
66819 spacer
>>66816
It isn't illegal because they happened in black sites in Egypt, and as we all know, in Egypt (and other shitholes like Djibouti) torture is not illegal.
>> No. 66828 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 12:48 am
66828 spacer
While I'm not surprised that he's racking up ratings at the red end of the scale, it amazes me just how wrong he is at times.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/
>> No. 66833 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 11:47 am
66833 spacer
>>66814
Nearly every member of the UN is a signatory to the Convention on Torture.
>> No. 66834 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 12:10 pm
66834 spacer

unrc.png
668346683466834
>>66833
The maps that show which countries have ratified, signed etc. UN conventions are actually really interesting.

This one's my favourite.
>> No. 66835 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 1:20 pm
66835 spacer
>>66828
The joke of it is he's not even the worst. Until the 8th of this month, when he finally got a "mostly true" ranking, not one statement of Ben Carson's was ranked anything above half true.
>> No. 66836 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 1:49 pm
66836 spacer
Trump's posturing on refugees, fucking refugees, is hilarious. He is treating them like filthy illegal immigrants, asking for Moslem registration and not understanding the irony that the only time a mass immigration of refugees has ever wiped out the native culture will be celebrated by him and his family this week.
>> No. 66837 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 2:56 pm
66837 spacer
>>66834

>The United States government played an active role in the drafting of the Convention and signed it on 16 February 1995, but has not ratified it because it forbids both the death penalty and life imprisonment for children"

How charming
>> No. 66839 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 3:16 pm
66839 spacer
>>66837
Also, quite a number of US conservatives oppose it on the grounds that it affords children freedom of religion, which they don't agree with in case it means they can't force their kids to go to church.

That freedom was pushed for by the Reagan administration, who wanted the convention to contain language reflecting values enumerated in the US Bill of Rights. D'oh!
>> No. 66840 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 3:43 pm
66840 spacer
>>66839

Who'd have ever imagined that in retrospect, Reagan seems like a good egg.
>> No. 66841 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 3:52 pm
66841 spacer
>>66840

Reagan has more in common with the likes of Sanders than he does with the likes of Trump/Carson.

He was the last great Republican President. The entire party has spiralled downwards into the echo chamber for racists and bigots it is today.
>> No. 66842 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 4:13 pm
66842 spacer

Gallup_Poll-Approval_Rating-Ronald_Reagan.png
668426684266842
>>66841

On the one hand he started the war on drugs, on the other hand he ended the cold war.

Also, any modern politician would kill for approval numbers like this.
>> No. 66844 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 4:21 pm
66844 spacer
>>66836
They are.
>> No. 66845 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 4:44 pm
66845 spacer
>>66841
Funnily enough, Ronald Reagan Jr. is a vocal Sanders supporter. And former ballet dancer.

His adopted brother, Michael, is a hard right talk radio host.

Ron Sr failed to recognise Michael at his graduation, prompting him to ask “My name is Ronald Reagan. What’s yours?”, to be met with the response "I'm your son, Mike". I'm not going to say Michael Reagan's entire career is an ongoing quest for the Gipper's approval because of his obvious inferiority complex as a result of his childhood, but... Well, actually I think I am saying that.
>> No. 66846 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 4:47 pm
66846 spacer
>>66842
I can think of one politician for whom those numbers would be a serious downgrade.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/261180-sanders-has-highest-approval-rating-in-the-senate
>> No. 66849 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 6:53 pm
66849 spacer
>>66846

His national favourability is only about 40%, which is lower than that of Obama and Biden. I have a lot of respect for Biden, but I don't think he has any real appeal in the red states. Of course, that's the problem in a nutshell - America is now two increasingly polarised halves.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-rating
>> No. 66851 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 7:00 pm
66851 spacer
>>66849
His constituency isn't national, though, is it?
>> No. 66852 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 7:38 pm
66852 spacer
>>66851

Obviously not. Comparing Sanders's congressional approval rating with Reagan's presidential approval rating is apples-to-oranges. Senators have consistently higher approval ratings than presidents or presidential candidates. Sanders is indeed the senator with the highest approval ratings, but half the senate pulls better numbers than the president. It's the nature of the job - you have to make far fewer compromises when you're only representing a state.
>> No. 66853 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 7:58 pm
66853 spacer
>>66852
So it's not true to say "any modern politician would kill for approval numbers like this", then.
>> No. 66854 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 9:20 pm
66854 spacer
>>66839
Did you know that Ronald Reagan would try and convince the Soviets that he had lost his mind and was willing to do anything in order to end the Vietnam war.

>>66839">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory>>66839
>> No. 66855 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 9:23 pm
66855 spacer
>>66854
... The Vietnam War ended long before Reagan took office, lad.
>> No. 66856 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 9:24 pm
66856 spacer

PNODhwz.jpg
668566685666856
>>66854
>Madman_theory
>> No. 66857 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 9:26 pm
66857 spacer
>>66855
I don't know why I read that as Nixon and then wrote Reagan in the post. Brainfart, sorry. I don't even know how it came out so mangled either.
>> No. 66858 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 10:01 pm
66858 spacer
>>66857
Well that's just not true then. Nixon actually purposefully prolonged the Vietnam war to help his electoral chances.
>> No. 66859 Anonymous
25th November 2015
Wednesday 10:29 pm
66859 spacer
>>66855
How was Reagan supposed to know that?
>> No. 67255 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 11:00 am
67255 spacer
Donald Trump sparked a furious backlash on Monday when he called for all Muslims to be barred from entering the United States in the wake of terrorism attacks in Paris and California.

It was a bombshell even by the outspoken candidate's standard of bombast, and brought the immediate condemnation of his rivals for the Republican nomination. However, Trump was unmoved later telling a crowd: "I. Don't. Care."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12038280/Donald-Trump-calls-for-a-ban-on-all-Muslims-entering-the-US-live.html

No doubt his popularity will continue to rocket.
>> No. 67257 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 12:01 pm
67257 spacer
>>67255
Saw something on the news the other day of an American university head saying that if more people had concealed carry permits "We could end those Muslims". Legitimately frightening.
>> No. 67258 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 1:40 pm
67258 spacer
>>67257
Why? Islam is a cancer.
>> No. 67259 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 1:50 pm
67259 spacer
>>67258
Your posting is a cancer.
>> No. 67260 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 2:23 pm
67260 spacer

NTWICE3.png
672606726067260
>>67258
>> No. 67261 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 2:45 pm
67261 spacer
>>67259>>67260
Christ, lads. You don't have to bite every single fucking time.
>> No. 67262 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 2:59 pm
67262 spacer
>>67261
I wasn't trolling, what on earth is not cancerous about belief in a random cloud wizard that leads to the death and oppression of millions?

Maybe I'm the only reasonable one here.
>> No. 67263 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 3:06 pm
67263 spacer
>>67262

>belief in a random cloud wizard that leads to the death and oppression of millions?

Could you be any more of an archetype? Have a word, m8.

Sounds a lot like Evangelical Protestantism, frankly.
>> No. 67264 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 3:07 pm
67264 spacer
>>67263
What?
>> No. 67265 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 3:10 pm
67265 spacer
>>67264

Give us a look at your hat collection, slowlad.
>> No. 67266 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 3:17 pm
67266 spacer
>>67265
I'm not a militant atheist if that's what you mean. You don't have to be to acknowledge how godawful religion in general is.
>> No. 67268 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 3:37 pm
67268 spacer
>>67266

You don't have to not believe in religion to not believe in religion? Am I being trolled?
>> No. 67269 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 3:51 pm
67269 spacer
>>67257

You just can't handle the freedom™ m8. If he said the same thing over here he'd probably be arrested.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLUOprLLyY0
>> No. 67270 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 4:52 pm
67270 spacer
>>67255
>Donald Trump sparked a furious backlash on Monday
Why? He already said Muslims need a special ID just for them. Apparently it is too far now. That's where the line is drawn.
>> No. 67272 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 4:56 pm
67272 spacer
>>67270
America wouldn't give Anne Frank's family aslyum, so it's perfectly alright to make Muslims wear the equivalent of yellow badges. It was something like that, I didn't entirely follow the logic of it.
>> No. 67273 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 4:56 pm
67273 spacer
>>67270

Does one furious backlash invalidate another? He pisses people off every time he opens his mouth.
>> No. 67274 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 5:33 pm
67274 spacer
>>67273
They're usually just the same people or foreigners each time, making it irrelevant really.
>> No. 67275 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 5:55 pm
67275 spacer
>>67273
I'm loving it. He's a fucking billionaire making an ass out of politics and the world. I don't think he believes any of his own hype, this is just his equivalent of posting on /IQ/ but on a global scale. Good drills that ladmate.
>> No. 67276 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 6:01 pm
67276 spacer
>>67274
Nah, this time even Dick Cheney is coming out and saying this is a bit much. Dick fucking Cheney.
>> No. 67277 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 6:08 pm
67277 spacer
>>67276
Personally I'm just glad he's got the bollocks to say what people are thinking in many cases, regardless if lots of people get oh so offended over it, pushing anti-left liberal attitudes into the accepted mainstream. Good luck to him on his adventures, but prepare for a Clinton government.
>> No. 67278 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 6:15 pm
67278 spacer
>>67276

Dick Cheney and his ilk created this shit. Years of race baiting and tell people the POTUS is a Muslim, an inability to make any reasonable progress on immigration reform, and it's all led to this.
>> No. 67279 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 6:43 pm
67279 spacer
>>67275
>this is just his equivalent of posting on /IQ/ but on a global scale.
It's hilarious isn't it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkCtipt6kqU

I doubt he'll get elected but every time he opens his mouth, the offended response I see everywhere are just beautiful. Worth the price of admission.
>> No. 67280 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 6:48 pm
67280 spacer

Unstumpable_Trump[1].jpg
672806728067280
>>67279
No wonder he's a political imageboard's sweetheart. He's genuinely doing it for the lulz.
>> No. 67281 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 6:57 pm
67281 spacer
I imagine if this causes his poll ratings to go even higher that some of the other Republican candidates will try and out-retard each other with similar outrageous statements to try and gain popularity.
>> No. 67282 Anonymous
8th December 2015
Tuesday 7:23 pm
67282 spacer
>>67279

What do you think "offense" is? I'm disgusted by this by this man, but I'm not gasping and clutching my hands to my face like a Victorian lady walking in on her first born son bumming his house-master.

>>67281

That's what's been happening for years now. Obama did nothing to push back against it during his first term, and the rot has reached unmanageable levels.
>> No. 67287 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 5:04 pm
67287 spacer

tbG91Y5.png
672876728767287
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114003
>> No. 67288 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 5:18 pm
67288 spacer
>>67287
>If the United Kingdom is to continue applying the 'unacceptable behaviour' criteria to those who wish to enter its borders, it must be fairly applied to the rich as well as poor, and the weak as well as powerful.

I'd like to think she is trying to point out the absurdity of such bans in general but I know better than to make assumptions about the intelligence of the British public.

Can the government not shut this site down already, its nothing but fodder for useless stories in the papers and I doubt the vast majority of those who signed actually thought this through any more than they would a facebook 'like'.
>> No. 67289 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 5:24 pm
67289 spacer
>>67288

I thought it was funny, which is about as far as I thought about it really if I'm honest. Seeing the Govt hand wring over it or the 1000/1 shot that they actually do it would be glorious for the shitstorm it would kick up in Seppo.
>> No. 67290 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 5:28 pm
67290 spacer
>>67288
>>67287

It's that damnable thing where British people care more about US politics for some reason. I don't know if it's because it's more personality led, or because British politics is characterised by arcane traditions that make you feel you need a degree to get a handle on half of what's going on, but it's frustrating regardless.

As for the petition site, it's a nice idea, it's just a shame people care more about what some wanker has burbled into a microphone this week, than things like income disparity and the transparently intentional withering of the NHS.
>> No. 67291 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 5:48 pm
67291 spacer
>>67290
>It's that damnable thing where British people care more about US politics for some reason.

The British public consume a huge amount of American entertainment so its only natural our society will start to ape American culture and by extension be dragged into its debates. I don't think its a problem of our institutions but instead that America dominates the entertainment (and news if that is still a separate thing) market at least for the mouth-breathing cretins which means people get more exposure to American politics than domestic stuff.

>As for the petition site, it's a nice idea, it's just a shame people care more about what some wanker has burbled into a microphone this week, than things like income disparity and the transparently intentional withering of the NHS.

I dunno, I think those that actually do care probably spend less time pissing about on petition websites.
>> No. 67293 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 8:51 pm
67293 spacer
>>67290
Here's a British perspective, fuck the NHS, the sooner it's dissolved the better for us all.
>> No. 67294 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 8:53 pm
67294 spacer
>>67293

I look forward to your next paper.
>> No. 67295 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 9:27 pm
67295 spacer
>>67290
>It's that damnable thing where British people care more about US politics for some reason. I don't know if it's because it's more personality led, or because British politics is characterised by arcane traditions that make you feel you need a degree to get a handle on half of what's going on, but it's frustrating regardless.
Nah, engaging with the real substance of US politics requires just as much knowledge of arcane traditions. It just happens that there's a hilarious sideshow going on as well as that which can be very entertaining and requires relatively little foreknowledge to engage with, particularly in presidential races.

Also, if the Iraq war accomplished anything it was showing that US politics have a very real and significant impact on our own, so there's that.
>> No. 67296 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 9:28 pm
67296 spacer
>>67293
Careful with that edge, Eugene.
>> No. 67302 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 10:45 pm
67302 spacer
>>67295
>Also, if the Iraq war accomplished anything it was showing that US politics have a very real and significant impact on our own, so there's that.
Not it doesn't. The Iraq war just showed everyone that we like sucking Uncle Sam's cock. It was our doing. Our choice.
>> No. 67303 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 10:55 pm
67303 spacer
>>67302
Careful now, Bono.
>> No. 67304 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 11:02 pm
67304 spacer
>>67302

That's the same thing, you just worded it differently, silly.
>> No. 67307 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 11:24 pm
67307 spacer
>>67304
No. You implied that what happens over there matters too greatly to us. That isn't true. We just care too much since we could have declined entering the illegal war like the French and Germans did. Cunts like you facilitate this kind of mindset by making excuses and talking about how similar we are and what have you. Fuck off.
>> No. 67310 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 11:30 pm
67310 spacer
>>67307

Putting words in his mouth there, lad. If you can't hold up a conversation without attacking a person's character maybe you should fuck off.
>> No. 67313 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 11:33 pm
67313 spacer
>>67310
Don't you dare speak to me that way.
>> No. 67318 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 11:40 pm
67318 spacer
>>67313

Wont no wot hit im.
>> No. 67319 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 11:44 pm
67319 spacer
>>67307
>Cunts
No need to bring ISIL into this, lad.
>> No. 67322 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 11:49 pm
67322 spacer
>>67313

Dry your eyes, m8. Fucking diddums.
>> No. 67324 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 11:51 pm
67324 spacer
>>67307
The poster you're replying to didn't imply anything, that was me, and I didn't imply anything beyond US policy impacting us. I didn't say that it should, or that it has to, or that it inevitably does, I just stated a simple fact, which really shouldn't make you so angry.
>> No. 67328 Anonymous
9th December 2015
Wednesday 11:57 pm
67328 spacer
>>67322
Watch yourself mate.

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 67358 Anonymous
10th December 2015
Thursday 2:30 pm
67358 spacer
>>67313

I'd like this post to be entered for the booby prizes when we do our post of the year run down lads. It is the double standards, special pleading, holier than thou attitude, and being so offended that someone told them to fuck off, after they told someone to fuck off that makes it for me. That ladm8 is the Ed Wood of Britfa.gs posters.
>> No. 67362 Anonymous
10th December 2015
Thursday 3:30 pm
67362 spacer
>>67358

How very dare you.
>> No. 67363 Anonymous
10th December 2015
Thursday 4:27 pm
67363 spacer
>>67362

Don't you dare speak to me that way.
>> No. 67371 Anonymous
10th December 2015
Thursday 8:20 pm
67371 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XRoRiOt_gE
>> No. 67376 Anonymous
10th December 2015
Thursday 8:31 pm
67376 spacer
>>67371

>So the people of England

Wrong! You are wrong, sir! The people of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have signed a petition. A petition I believe would garner much wider support were to include the total sum of that transatlantic cesspit in it's remit.

I'd sign it, anyway.
>> No. 67384 Anonymous
10th December 2015
Thursday 9:03 pm
67384 spacer
>>67371
I know this is supposed to be satire but it's always amusing when Americans accuse the UK of having become a police state.
>> No. 67385 Anonymous
10th December 2015
Thursday 9:07 pm
67385 spacer

3american-police-militarization-war.si_[1].jpg
673856738567385
>>67384
Calling the US a police state is wholly inaccurate, at this point they look more like a fucking junta.
>> No. 67386 Anonymous
10th December 2015
Thursday 9:42 pm
67386 spacer
>>67385
The horrors of war will always follow you home.
>> No. 67389 Anonymous
10th December 2015
Thursday 10:16 pm
67389 spacer
>>67384
I agree with him on the count of the petition. It's a fucking joke.

I'd welcome liberation by the seppos under Emperor Trump.
>> No. 67390 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 12:08 am
67390 spacer
>>67371
He seems rather old to be embodying the other place. Is he having a crisis? This is terribly cringy.
>> No. 67391 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 12:17 am
67391 spacer
>>67390
see
>>67280

It's fucking glorious.
>> No. 67392 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 1:15 am
67392 spacer
>>67391

No it's not, it's embarrassing. But pardon me for still taking the entire western world seriously, I suppose I'm just a stick in the mud.

>>67389


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgTVrcRUMig
>> No. 67393 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 1:56 am
67393 spacer
>>67391
It really isn't, mate.
>> No. 67394 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 3:24 am
67394 spacer
This kind of shite wouldn't happen in China. A member of the public would assassinate a Chinese Trump just to save face. I like the individualistic culture and freedom to do as we please in the western world. Everywhere else, there is this weird sense that you shouldn't "embarrass" your community and make them a laughing stock.
>> No. 67395 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 3:41 am
67395 spacer

p0289nkn.jpg
673956739567395
>>67394

>This kind of shite wouldn't happen in China. A member of the public would assassinate a Chinese Trump just to save face.

The Ministry of State Security would take him away for a "quiet chat". He'd emerge two weeks later clutching a signed statement apologising for his counter-revolutionary lies.
>> No. 67396 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 8:04 am
67396 spacer
>>67392
>pardon me for still taking the entire western world seriously

I see - we've found your problem at least. You need to see the world for the chaotic joke it really is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discordianism
>> No. 67397 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 8:08 am
67397 spacer
>>67394
> I like the individualistic culture and freedom to do as we please in the western world.
You idiots make me laugh.

You're free to do and think what you like. As long as it doesn't go against what is allowed. God forbid you have any un PC thoughts, or wrongthink. Hey, that guy voted for UKIP, let's get him fired, etc etc.

> A member of the public would assassinate a Chinese Trump just to save face.

Have you seen the opninion polls? The media is gunning for Trump and painting him as "The next Hitler" etc but it just isn't working. People love him over there.
>> No. 67398 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 8:41 am
67398 spacer
>>67397

You can say whatever you want, but it'll usually be ignored. That's the only kind of freedom you have in speech. If you can get enough people to listen to you and what you say undermines the status quo, heaven help you.
>> No. 67399 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 1:42 pm
67399 spacer
>>67397
Trump's painting himself as the next Hitler, "the media" is hardly doing anything beyond pointing out what he says.
>> No. 67400 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 1:54 pm
67400 spacer
>>67394

>A member of the public would assassinate a Chinese Trump just to save face

This...this is actually incredibly likely.
>> No. 67401 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 1:59 pm
67401 spacer
>>67397
>You're free to do and think what you like. As long as it doesn't go against what is allowed. God forbid you have any un PC thoughts, or wrongthink. Hey, that guy voted for UKIP, let's get him fired, etc etc.
Nothing like getting outraged at shit that doesn't happen.

Nobody is stopping you from thinking what you want to think, or voting for who you want to vote for, mate. Get over yourself.
>> No. 67402 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 2:12 pm
67402 spacer
>>67400

I can picture the news report where in hand cuffs under escort he quite calmly declares his guilt to the cameras and then bows before calmly walking on with the police.

>>67401

He has a valid point, there is a lot of lip service liberals. Usually on the left of the spectrum who would claim they are all for freedom of expression, until it is something they disagree with, and then they want to stamp it out of existence, it is my biggest problem with tumblrlads. I find the hypocrisy sickening.
>> No. 67403 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 2:32 pm
67403 spacer
>>67394
You might want to take a look at Chinese culture there, lad. He'd be dealt with for not being part of the establishment but nobody would bat an eye if a CPC official talked about more security provisions for Eastern provincials, general anti-immigrant rhetoric or talk of making China great again.

Of course an American-style President in charge of China would be fucking terrifying thought but lets not pretend they are readily comparable.
>> No. 67404 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 2:45 pm
67404 spacer
>>67401
What?
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/nov/02/bnp-members-barred-teaching
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/nov/19/police-bnp-far-right-list
>> No. 67406 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 3:48 pm
67406 spacer
>>67397

Yeah, remember when the 4 million people who voted UKIP were all sacked the following day?

What's that? You don't? Oh, I suppose your head's just too far up your own arse.

>>67404

The BNP believe white and black people shouldn't mix, and that if you're a non-white, you can't be a British citizen. How does that not make you unfit to teach?
>> No. 67407 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 4:02 pm
67407 spacer
>>67402
>He has a valid point, there is a lot of lip service liberals. Usually on the left of the spectrum who would claim they are all for freedom of expression, until it is something they disagree with, and then they want to stamp it out of existence
No he doesn't. He's confusing people thinking he's a dickhead for having certain opinions with being forbidden from having those opinions in the first place.

>>67404
BNP and UKIP have been the same party all along? What a shocking twist!

Personally I think my freedom to send my child to school without fear that the person teaching her thinks she's untermensch scum who should be deported trumps the rights of educators to be idiot racists.
>> No. 67408 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 4:51 pm
67408 American Nazi Party Chairman: Trump’s Muslim Ban Is Unrealistic
enhanced-buzz-20691-1449792698-7[1].jpg
674086740867408
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/american-nazi-party-chairman-im-a-fan-of-trumps-rhetoric-but#.jkLJQP1O4

>Donald Trump’s plan to ban Muslim immigration has drawn rave reviews from America’s most prominent white nationalists, but at least one prominent racist, who has spoken favorably of Trump in the past, is throwing cold water on the idea: the chairman of the American Nazi Party.

>“Unless Trump plans on ruling by Presidential Decree, I don’t see how he would implement ANY of his ‘plans,’ the rest of the sold out ‘mainstream’ political whores would block his every move,” he said.
>> No. 67409 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 4:57 pm
67409 spacer
>>67407
>Your rights end where my fears begin!

Presumably you would support the banning of suspected communist teachers also.
>> No. 67410 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 5:01 pm
67410 spacer
>>67409
No, your rights end where my rights begin.
>> No. 67411 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 5:03 pm
67411 spacer
>>67410
I have a right to not fear my little darlings being told taught that there will be a revolution by the proletariat that will depose the ruling classes, followed by a dictatorship of the proletariat, and then full communism.

Better get cracking on purging commies from the ranks of teachers eh.
>> No. 67412 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 5:15 pm
67412 spacer
>>67411
Okay, try and get legislation passed to that effect then.
>> No. 67413 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 5:15 pm
67413 spacer
>>67409>>67411

No one's saying teachers can't have political ideals, that would be impractical in the extreme. But a teacher who thinks blacks and asians aren't to be valued as much as the white kids in a class is clearly going to be an impediment to the learning of those children. You can't possibly disagree with that, can you?

As for communist teachers, as far as I know there's nothing in communist writings that could lead to classroom discrimination. And if a teacher was found to be, I don't know, telling the posh kids to leave half their dinner or something mental like that, then by all means, fire the bugger.
>> No. 67414 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 5:20 pm
67414 spacer
>>67413
> But a teacher who thinks blacks and asians aren't to be valued as much as the white kids in a class is clearly going to be an impediment to the learning of those children.

Then the performance monitoring of the teachers will pick it up.

I may as well claim that communist leanings also compromise a teacher's ability.

>as far as I know there's nothing in communist writings that could lead to classroom discrimination.

For example, if some magistrates are better off than others. Doesn't matter what's in 'communist writings', communists traditionally loathe the rich.

>And if a teacher was found to be, I don't know, telling the posh kids to leave half their dinner or something mental like that, then by all means, fire the bugger.

This is the thing. You are proposing that communists should only be fired when it's found that they have compromised in their duties. But you think BNP members, members of a legal political party, should be sumararily fired.
>> No. 67415 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 5:38 pm
67415 spacer
>>67414
>Then the performance monitoring of the teachers will pick it up.
Hahahahahhaha.

>Doesn't matter what's in 'communist writings'
Er, yes, it does. The reason we can easily say all BNP members are unsuitable to teach is because they advocate what's written in the BNP party platform.
>> No. 67416 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 5:39 pm
67416 spacer
>>67414

Yes, because there's nothing inherent to communist teachings that requires the followers to discriminate against others. For the BNP it's the very core of their world view; non-whites are not British and ought to be deported. Christians "traditionally" think women belong at home, and that gays and lesbians are a social menace, but that doesn't mean we should be kicking out Christian teachers.

And as for your faith in "performance" monitors, well, it's hopeful to say the least.
>> No. 67417 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 5:43 pm
67417 spacer
>>67415
Yeah 'hahahaha'. If the teacher doesn't enunciate the views then how else is it going to affect the learning of the pupils?

Your double standards here are ridiculous. If a teacher were a closeted BNP member and kept to themselves at work then who gives a fuck.
>> No. 67418 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 5:46 pm
67418 spacer
>>67417
Today on britfa.gs I leaned that acting in a racist manner is impossible unless you loudly proclaim your dolphin rape!
>> No. 67419 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 5:48 pm
67419 spacer
>>67416
>Yes, because there's nothing inherent to communist teachings that requires the followers to discriminate against others.

Tell that to the Jews and the kulaks, and the children of Jews and kulaks, who had their property confiscated. Or the 'intellectuals' in Cambodia who were killed for wearing glasses.

> For the BNP it's the very core of their world view; non-whites are not British and ought to be deported.

As far as I am aware this was not party policy at the time of the membership leak. They modified the message in terms of deporting foreign criminals etc.

>And as for your faith in "performance" monitors, well, it's hopeful to say the least.

I don't have much, but better to stick to the process than start sacking people on the basis of their politics when it seemingly hasn't disrupted the performance on the job (unless you can find examples of how this guy's membership compromised his performance).
>> No. 67420 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 5:49 pm
67420 spacer
>>67418
We presume innocence until guilt is proven in this country, chapmate.
>> No. 67421 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 6:27 pm
67421 spacer
>>67420

And joining the BNP is an admission of crayfishery, you dippy sod.
>> No. 67422 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 6:30 pm
67422 spacer
>>67420
... Your point being?
>> No. 67424 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 6:31 pm
67424 spacer
>>67422
That you can't accuse someone of being racist and compromising the performance of the job without proof that shows this is so beyond reasonable doubt. I thought that would be obvious.
>> No. 67426 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 6:32 pm
67426 spacer
>>67421
No lad. That's your opinion. In this country we presume innocence until guilt is proven without doubt. In your opinion joining the BNP is an admission of dolphin rape. Well in my opinion, joining the communist party is an endorsement of Marxist Leninism and all the violence and brutality it and its relatives have wrought in the 20th century.

Fuck this circular shit I'm going to the pub.
>> No. 67427 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 6:42 pm
67427 spacer
>>67424
For one thing, presumption of innocence is a legal principle that doesn't apply outside a courtroom.

For another, joining the BNP is proof beyond reasonable doubt that one is a racist.

You really don't seem to have thought this through.
>> No. 67428 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 6:46 pm
67428 spacer
>>67426

When someone's accused of breaking the law we have that threshold. This isn't a legal matter, it's a precautionary measure. And it's not a matter of opinion; if you join the BNP, you are a racist. Not vote for them, not say "they make a view valid points", but join the party itself, you are a racist and you will discriminate against children in your care. That's not an opinion.
>> No. 67429 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 9:04 pm
67429 spacer
>>67424
>beyond reasonable doubt

Surely in this case its balance on probability? We're not talking about being a BNP member being a criminal offence, just a sackable offence which would come under unfair dismissal. I must admit however I'm not aware if there is legislation specifically addressing this because I'm lazy and poorly motivated.

For the record I think discriminating someone in employment based solely on political membership is outright dangerous. You might argue this is because it effects ones capacity to perform the job but you'd cry foul if an employer refused to hire TUSC members for fear of illegal strike action. Then again that is the teaching profession for you.

A better example of a PC police action would be found on our university campuses where certain people are banned from ever speaking by the NUS under the 'no platform' policy (including the Lion of Bradford even back when he was an MP) and the NUS has further banned certain music with the famous example being 'Blurred Lines'. You can see how this is problematic despite how irrelevant magistrate politics is even to the magistrates themselves.

>>67427
>For one thing, presumption of innocence is a legal principle that doesn't apply outside a courtroom.

Er..no Employment Law is a thing.

>>67428
>And it's not a matter of opinion; if you join the BNP, you are a racist.

Yeah but why, is giving money to people racist?
>> No. 67430 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 9:14 pm
67430 spacer
>>67429
>Er..no Employment Law is a thing.
And where do you think employment law is settled, if not in courtrooms/tribunals?
>> No. 67431 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 9:38 pm
67431 spacer
>>67401
>Nothing like getting outraged at shit that doesn't happen.
30 seconds on google. Sure there are plenty more.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/26/ukip-candidate-fired-by-national-express-over-inter-racial-marriage-post
>> No. 67432 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 9:39 pm
67432 spacer
>>67430

With the fired and the firer in an alleyway, taped together by their left hands, and a sharpened spoon taped to their right.
>> No. 67433 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 9:55 pm
67433 spacer
>>67431
That is a man getting fired for publicly denouncing interracial marriage, not a man getting fired for voting for UKIP. Maybe you should have taken 30 extra seconds to reread the headline and make sure what you were posting wasn't horseshit.
>> No. 67434 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 9:57 pm
67434 spacer
>>67433
So a man is fired for his beliefs.

First they came for the segregationists...
>> No. 67435 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 10:17 pm
67435 spacer
>>67434
Oh no a racist got fired. What a shame.
>> No. 67436 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 10:26 pm
67436 spacer
>>67430
Oh wait sorry. I thought you were speaking about the employers decision to fire as not being bound by legal principles.

Instead you're just talking about your own judgement which obviously doesn't follow logic or any attempt at arriving at a fair decision.
>> No. 67438 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 10:36 pm
67438 spacer
First they came for the segregationists, and I did not speak out because I was not a segregationist.

Then they came for the people who wanted a European homeland for Europeans, and I did not speak out because I was not a nationalist.

Then they came for the Islamaphobes, and I did not speak out because I was not an Islamaphobe.

Then they came for those who didn't want Sharia law, honour killings and a global caliphate, and I didn't speak out because I was, like, so progressive yah?

Then they came for me and well it's about fucking time they came for you to be honest.
>> No. 67439 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 10:36 pm
67439 spacer
>>67436
I am pointing out, dullard, that "we" don't presume innocence until guilt is proven in this country, that is a legal principle used in courts.
>> No. 67440 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 10:45 pm
67440 spacer
>>67438
That's a nice story, Nige. Night.
>> No. 67441 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 10:55 pm
67441 spacer
Being brown and all, I wonder how a BNP-racist teacher would teach me and my brown classmates back in my school days. Automatic detentions for being brown?
>> No. 67442 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 11:06 pm
67442 spacer
There is absolutely no problem with prohibiting BNP members from joining the police or teaching. Nor would there be any problem with banning members of, say, Islam4UK. Liberal democracies must, at times, take steps to preserve themselves.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streitbare_Demokratie
>> No. 67443 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 11:14 pm
67443 spacer
>>67441
You would be taught the same way.

Expectations would probably be lowered though.
>> No. 67444 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 11:28 pm
67444 spacer
just ogt back from the pub


looks like you fucking SJWs have had nothing fucking bneteter to to than to dribble on about this fucking 'muh dolphin rape' shite

I've honestly made an effort to proof read bur I'm pissed as fuck.

allah akbar heil hitledr

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 67445 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 11:38 pm
67445 spacer
>>67444
And heil Eris you fucking cunts.
>> No. 67446 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 11:40 pm
67446 spacer
>>67444

Delete this and go to bed and we'll all forget it ever happened. Then, you can post a nice coherent reply in the morning.
>> No. 67447 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 11:41 pm
67447 spacer

Eris_Antikensammlung_Berlin_F1775[1].jpg
674476744767447
>>67446
Haud your weesht tumblarine I've a long motorway haul in the morning and then it's Christmas week yer hoor.

There are no gods. there are no authorities. This is all a fucking chaotic situation. Hail Eris.
>> No. 67448 Anonymous
11th December 2015
Friday 11:54 pm
67448 spacer
I post drunk as fuck all the time, I'm pissed now. I assume people notice even though I keep it tight, but I've never posted this pissed I don't think. I'm a happy drunk anyway.

Bedtime, lad. Hey, maybe you're a lightweight m8. No shame in it, there are worse things to be. Like someone who uses the acronym SJW.
>> No. 67449 Anonymous
12th December 2015
Saturday 12:04 am
67449 spacer
>>67439
Maybe you don't m8. I have faith however that most people are reasonable.

>>67442
Why are you bringing German culture and constitutional law into this? British liberal democracy has lasted centuries without taking aggressive steps to curb dissenting views so I don't see why we should start now.
>> No. 67450 Anonymous
12th December 2015
Saturday 12:34 am
67450 spacer
>>67449
It is not reasonable to live your life as if you're constantly in a courtroom, mate. There are very good reasons why certain standards should be upheld in a judicial system which are not applicable outside of it.

>Why are you bringing German culture and constitutional law into this?
Because militant democracy is a well developed concept that exists outside of Germany.

>British liberal democracy has lasted centuries without taking aggressive steps to curb dissenting views so I don't see why we should start now.
Congratulations on simultaneously being wrong on so many different levels.
>> No. 67451 Anonymous
12th December 2015
Saturday 1:37 am
67451 spacer
>>67447

Look who just came across the Wikipedia page for Discordianism.
>> No. 67452 Anonymous
12th December 2015
Saturday 10:38 am
67452 spacer
>>67427
>For one thing, presumption of innocence is a legal principle that doesn't apply outside a courtroom.
Oh, do fuck off, you child-murdering nonce.
>> No. 67453 Anonymous
12th December 2015
Saturday 11:12 am
67453 spacer
>>67452

Wont no wot hit im.
>> No. 67454 Anonymous
12th December 2015
Saturday 11:26 am
67454 spacer
>>67452
OJ was innocent.
>> No. 67455 Anonymous
12th December 2015
Saturday 11:38 am
67455 spacer
>>67454
Depends which verdict you believe.
>> No. 67456 Anonymous
12th December 2015
Saturday 10:52 pm
67456 spacer
>>67444
For fuck's sake lad. Whenever you post you make us look bad. Please cut it out.

I've posted on here pissed as all fuck before and still find time to proofread. And please...busting out the old heils is doing us no favours whatsoever. Have a fucking word with yourself.
>> No. 67457 Anonymous
12th December 2015
Saturday 11:16 pm
67457 spacer

chavs2.jpg
674576745767457
>>67456

See, I've been drunk and on the internet from the comfort of my own home for many a year, and I've legitimately never found my typing to be that severely affected by alcohol. Certainly I've never produced such utter garbled nonsense as that poster even when absolutely hammered and if anything I make an extra effort to not make any typos so as not to betray how pissed I am. The only thing that's more likely to happen is gratuitous use of caps lock. I think he's putting it on so that we'll buy how hurr durr look how drunk I am a bit like teenagers do with their mates after one whiff of a blue WKD, which is just a bit pathetic really.
>> No. 67458 Anonymous
12th December 2015
Saturday 11:22 pm
67458 spacer
>>67457
I fucvsin lvwoi you, nate
>> No. 67459 Anonymous
13th December 2015
Sunday 12:01 am
67459 spacer
>>67457
I used to type like >>67444 when I was 14 and had been at the Malibu.
>> No. 67461 Anonymous
13th December 2015
Sunday 1:42 pm
67461 spacer
>>67456
It doesn't take a drunk post to make .gs look bad, a typical thread will do that.
>> No. 67462 Anonymous
13th December 2015
Sunday 6:39 pm
67462 spacer
>>67461

Wonderful analysis professor.
>> No. 67463 Anonymous
13th December 2015
Sunday 7:00 pm
67463 spacer
It's finally happened. A poll in Iowa has put Ted Cruz in front of Donalad Trump. It looks like finally the man who would fuck his own daughter were they not related is starting to slip.
>> No. 67464 Anonymous
13th December 2015
Sunday 7:06 pm
67464 spacer
>>67463
Nah man, them little bits won't count for nothing unless them man take the disco around him away.
>> No. 67465 Anonymous
13th December 2015
Sunday 8:32 pm
67465 spacer
>>67463

That poll's been out for a while now, I think.

Ted Cruz has basically just nodded along to everything Trump's said, seemingly waiting for Trump's political undulating to reach critical mass, then sweep up the gooey remnants for his own, equally vile, gain.
>> No. 67502 Anonymous
16th December 2015
Wednesday 2:52 pm
67502 spacer
Loathsome cunt got torn up by the Scots.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-35106581

Good on them.
>> No. 67503 Anonymous
16th December 2015
Wednesday 3:16 pm
67503 spacer
>>67502
>The EOWDC (European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre) will completely destroy the bucolic Aberdeen Bay and cast a terrible shadow upon the future of tourism for the area.

>History will judge those involved unfavourably and the outcome demonstrates the foolish, small-minded and parochial mentality which dominates the current Scottish government's dangerous experiment with wind energy.

Calm down mate, it's only a couple of fucking turbines.
>> No. 67504 Anonymous
16th December 2015
Wednesday 4:08 pm
67504 spacer

NIMBY-Comic1[1].jpg
675046750467504
>>67503
It's alright, the anoraks will die out soon and we can have a beautiful landscape of whirling turbines.
>> No. 67505 Anonymous
16th December 2015
Wednesday 4:21 pm
67505 spacer
>>67504
That graphic is dumb. There are 0.07 deaths per TWH caused by nuclear power generation, fewer than the 0.15 deaths per TWH for wind.
>> No. 67506 Anonymous
16th December 2015
Wednesday 4:24 pm
67506 spacer
>>67504

That comic fucks me off immensely. The straw-manning is painful to look at.
>> No. 67507 Anonymous
16th December 2015
Wednesday 4:25 pm
67507 spacer
>>67505
Is that a fact? do you have citation? I am interested to find out more.
>> No. 67508 Anonymous
16th December 2015
Wednesday 4:26 pm
67508 spacer
>>67506
Go on.
>> No. 67511 Anonymous
16th December 2015
Wednesday 4:50 pm
67511 spacer
>>67507
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/lifetime-deaths-per-twh-from-energy.html

Fun facts:

If there were two Chernobyl scale disasters in the United States every year (causing ~8,000 deaths), coal would still cause more premature deaths annually in that country (~10,000).

More people died in the sinking of the Dona Paz than have died in the entire history of nuclear power generation.

The failure of the Banqiao Dam caused 40x more deaths than have been caused in the entire history of nuclear power generation.
>> No. 67512 Anonymous
16th December 2015
Wednesday 4:50 pm
67512 spacer
>>67508

It is the way the key argument against wind is apparently that it looks ugly in your backyard. The fact that it is prone to spontaneous drought, output has no relation to demand, or that the energy output versus energy to manufacture is frequently dubious, all of which seriously undermine it's practical applications are just brushed over.

When solar energy sorts its self out over the next 20 years we'll look back on wind as an embarrassment. Like one of the wacky inventions of the Victorians.
>> No. 67513 Anonymous
16th December 2015
Wednesday 5:14 pm
67513 spacer
>>67512
>solar energy

How is solar energy any more controllable than wind? I'm not sure if you've been outside lately mate but it's not exactly sunny over the winter months here.
>> No. 67514 Anonymous
16th December 2015
Wednesday 5:29 pm
67514 spacer
>>67513
https://news.cnrs.fr/opinions/solar-energy-aims-for-the-sky-0

Solar panels can still produce about a third of what they usually do on cloudy days, too, but it can be variable.
>> No. 67515 Anonymous
16th December 2015
Wednesday 5:32 pm
67515 spacer
>>67513

To make renewable energy practical, we need two things. Firstly, a European Supergrid to distribute generation capacity. Secondly, large scale energy storage systems to manage fluctuations. Both are in development on a reasonably large scale.

Using HVDC links, we can transport electricity very efficiently over long distances. Wind and hydro power can move south overnight, solar power can move north during the day. This way, we smooth out most of the broader peaks and troughs in supply. To cope with short-term demand peaks, we can use pumped water stations like Dinorwig.

The future of solar isn't PV panels on houses, but massive installations like the Andasol station. This facility uses parabolic reflectors to store energy in the form of molten salt, which can then drive steam turbines when needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andasol_Solar_Power_Station
>> No. 67516 Anonymous
16th December 2015
Wednesday 5:51 pm
67516 spacer
>>67511

Nuclear is only a partial solution to our energy needs. It poses the opposite problem to renewables - it produces power constantly, whether you want it or not. This leaves you with a huge oversupply during the night when demand is lowest and little ability to respond to sudden peaks in demand.

France produces most of its electricity using nuclear power and their solution is to dump cheap electricity to neighbouring countries. This only works because those countries predominantly generate electricity using coal and natural gas which is very controllable.

Without fossil fuel stations to manage instantaneous changes in demand, nuclear is a much more difficult power source to manage. The big hope comes from electric cars, which can suck up power during the overnight lull; in future, they could become a distributed reserve battery to drive power back into the grid during demand peaks.

Nuclear has a very useful role to play in the energy mix, but it is far from a complete solution.
>> No. 67517 Anonymous
16th December 2015
Wednesday 6:11 pm
67517 spacer
>>67512
>all of which seriously undermine it's practical applications
If you say so, m9.
>> No. 67518 Anonymous
16th December 2015
Wednesday 6:39 pm
67518 spacer
>>67516
Nuclear should play the central role in the energy mix, at least if we're to continue living anything like our current lifestyles, but you're correct to say that there are drawbacks. I am merely pointing out that safety is not among them.
>> No. 67520 Anonymous
16th December 2015
Wednesday 7:06 pm
67520 spacer

Price_history_of_silicon_PV_cells_since_1977.svg.png
675206752067520
>>67513
It isn't more controllable, but it is more predictable, and its peek output matches up pretty closely with peek demand so it is less necessary to control it.

The price to produce per kwh is also going down at an absurd rate the reason I threw out the 20 year number is that solar energy's cost to produce is going down rapidly, it is already becoming the cheapest way to produce electricity in a lot of places by that point it should be cheaper then fossil fuels in the UK.
>> No. 67521 Anonymous
16th December 2015
Wednesday 7:56 pm
67521 spacer
>>67518

Although I agree that safety concerns about nuclear power are massively overblown, I'm slightly more circumspect about the issue of long-term waste storage. MOX has proven to be a very expensive flop. If there is a major increase in the use of nuclear power worldwide (particularly in developing economies) then we need a serious global effort to find better solutions to waste management.
>> No. 67523 Anonymous
16th December 2015
Wednesday 9:15 pm
67523 spacer
>>67521
Not really, we could literally dump it in the ocean and almost certainly be fine. Oceans contain a massive amount of uranium already, and the stuff we're talking about is extremely dense and heavy.

After reprocessing, a typical 1000 MWe light water reactor, produces 3m3 of vitrified waste per year, compared to 400 thousand tonnes of ash from an equivalent coal fired plant. Another fun fact: you get more energy putting coal through a fast breeder reactor from the thorium and uranium than you do burning it. Yet another: the total radioactivity released into the environment by nuclear power stations, including Chernobyl, is less than has been released by coal power plants.

Coal is fucking terrible.
>> No. 67524 Anonymous
16th December 2015
Wednesday 9:44 pm
67524 spacer
>>67520

>peek demand

Voyeurism on the rise.
>> No. 67526 Anonymous
17th December 2015
Thursday 12:46 am
67526 spacer
>>67524

Well fuck me sideways with a wrench. I shall go out back now and commit suicide for the sake of my family's honor.
>> No. 67527 Anonymous
17th December 2015
Thursday 1:09 am
67527 spacer

tmp_25301-cup-o-rage1442509428.jpg
675276752767527
>>67526
>honor

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 67528 Anonymous
17th December 2015
Thursday 2:28 am
67528 spacer
>>67521
Ship the toxic waste to Africa.
>> No. 67534 Anonymous
17th December 2015
Thursday 7:20 pm
67534 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaXxl5Pc6As
>> No. 67573 Anonymous
18th December 2015
Friday 6:26 pm
67573 spacer
>>64251

god forbid someone actually questions the value mass migration of mudslimes add to the developed world

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 67588 Anonymous
19th December 2015
Saturday 12:39 pm
67588 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUGT30gGtiI
>> No. 67611 Anonymous
24th December 2015
Thursday 10:07 pm
67611 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xmEwTjAOGc
>> No. 67612 Anonymous
24th December 2015
Thursday 10:33 pm
67612 spacer

43246789o80876543.png
676126761267612
>>67611

Brilliant.

Best mainstream politcal laugh since Miliband
>> No. 67613 Anonymous
24th December 2015
Thursday 11:13 pm
67613 spacer
>>67611

>otherchan /tv/ memes and use of the word "cucked"

How thoroughly awful.

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 67614 Anonymous
24th December 2015
Thursday 11:37 pm
67614 spacer
>>67613
"Cuck" isn't just a 4chan thing any more, real people know about it.

http://www.redstate.com/2015/07/29/cuckservative-is-a-racist-slur-and-an-attack-on-evangelical-christians/

The entrance of "cuck" and "cuckservative" into mainstream political vocabularies has been one of the most bizarre things to happen this election.
>> No. 67615 Anonymous
24th December 2015
Thursday 11:46 pm
67615 spacer
Trump is going to get the black vote and and it's going to be funny as all fuck to watch the histrionics of leftists at "their" demographic voting the "wrong" way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WhGgHjwZxU
>> No. 67616 Anonymous
25th December 2015
Friday 12:28 am
67616 spacer
>>67614
I'm glad 'cuck' is back in vogue, it's very Shakespearean.
>> No. 67617 Anonymous
25th December 2015
Friday 2:51 am
67617 spacer

trumphilblackwhite.png
676176761767617
>>67615
Happily, we don't have to use the stupendously retarded metric of looking at a compilation of rappers using Donald Trump's name as a byword for wealth to gauge his support among blacks, we actually have polling data.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/12/18/fox-news-poll-2016-gop-race-trump-muslim-ban-terrorism-isis/
>> No. 67618 Anonymous
25th December 2015
Friday 10:04 am
67618 spacer
>>67617
Is that half a year old or something? He's polled at 25% with them, and we have a whole year yet for Trump to destroy give Hillary the Jeb treatment.

Honestly, I'm not sure she isn't going to have a fucking stroke at the live debates with the shit he's going to pull on her.
>> No. 67619 Anonymous
25th December 2015
Friday 10:30 am
67619 spacer
>>67614

This is terrible and we should all be ashamed. The word is 'cuckold' and any shortening there of is utter unreconsituted yankery.
>> No. 67620 Anonymous
25th December 2015
Friday 12:55 pm
67620 spacer
>>67619
It's a perfectly sensible word to abbreviate. It makes it single syllable, and now it rhymes with all kinds of other useful verbs and nouns.

Whining about grammar is probably septic tbh.

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 67621 Anonymous
25th December 2015
Friday 1:25 pm
67621 spacer
>>67617
literally "gibs me dat" the race

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 67624 Anonymous
25th December 2015
Friday 4:28 pm
67624 spacer
>>67621
At least they have the integrity to admit what they're about. You won't find straightforwardness like that from 'I just like making nice music honest guv the wealth is really unimportant' whitey.
>> No. 67632 Anonymous
27th December 2015
Sunday 7:36 pm
67632 spacer
>>67624
>integrity

no, they are simply too stupid to dress it up with altruistic notions like white lolberals

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 67633 Anonymous
27th December 2015
Sunday 8:01 pm
67633 spacer
>>67632
You neglected once again to capitalise the start of your sentence and didn't use a full stop at the end of it.

I'm afraid your posting permit has been revoked. Expect one of our representatives to contact you shortly for removal.
>> No. 67635 Anonymous
27th December 2015
Sunday 8:07 pm
67635 spacer
>>67633
Careful, lad. It has been known that people gloating over a supposed impending ban due for someone else receive it instead.
>> No. 67650 Anonymous
28th December 2015
Monday 1:09 pm
67650 spacer
>>67618
>Is that half a year old or something?
>2015/12/18

The 25% is from one poll months ago, and the reason you've heard about it is because it was an outlier.

Hillary has been putting up with worse than Trump since Vince Foster, the idea that Trump can give her "the Jeb treatment" is laughable.
>> No. 67693 Anonymous
29th December 2015
Tuesday 3:55 pm
67693 spacer
>>67650
The Bushes and Clintons are just two sides of the same coin, and Hillary has far, far more dirt on her than Jeb ever did. I also don't put much stock in think what detractors such as yourself think anymore, seeing as just 6 months ago you were all saying how 'laughable' the idea of Trump ever being the frontrunner was, everyone thought Bush was inevitable, just like you still think Hillary is.

It's almost as if you all forgot, as Trump put it, that she got schlonged last time around.

Also, a new poll has Trump at 40% with the blacks - http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/12/minorities-line-up-behind-donald-trump/#RgUokOwvlQXh4CLv.99
>> No. 67695 Anonymous
29th December 2015
Tuesday 4:44 pm
67695 spacer
>>67693
>Also, a new poll has Trump at 40% with the blacks
Yes. A poll commissioned by WND from a polling house nobody has heard of says 40% of blacks support Trump. That sounds totally legit.
>> No. 67805 Anonymous
5th January 2016
Tuesday 2:38 am
67805 spacer
>>67693
>Also, a new poll has Trump at 40% with the blacks - http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/12/minorities-line-up-behind-donald-trump/#RgUokOwvlQXh4CLv.99
In the Republican primary, you fucking mong, not against Clinton.
>> No. 68020 Anonymous
8th January 2016
Friday 4:53 am
68020 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55NxKENplG4
>> No. 68023 Anonymous
8th January 2016
Friday 6:04 am
68023 spacer
>>68020
Thanks for the video of a cartoonist talking about some concepts barely understands and some he made up off the top of his head. Incisive.
>> No. 68024 Anonymous
8th January 2016
Friday 6:06 am
68024 spacer
>>68023

No problem m8.
>> No. 68029 Anonymous
8th January 2016
Friday 8:25 am
68029 spacer
>>68020
Donald Trump soundbites sound like Jerry Sadowitz jokes. I really hope he gets elected, he'll be a laugh a minute.
>> No. 68033 Anonymous
8th January 2016
Friday 8:56 am
68033 spacer
>>68029
I don't think four laughs is worth it.
>> No. 68034 Anonymous
8th January 2016
Friday 10:16 am
68034 spacer

sMwTbKC[1].png
680346803468034
People may say Trump's more extreme proposals are heartless or cold, but he's not as cold as his hecklers.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/265172-trump-tells-security-to-confiscate-protesters-coats
>> No. 68045 Anonymous
8th January 2016
Friday 7:00 pm
68045 spacer
>>68034
This man is a fucking King among men. I love the thought of starbucks-sipping Huffington Post reading 'protesters' getting humiliated as the spineless losers they are. Good drills that candidate.
>> No. 68046 Anonymous
8th January 2016
Friday 7:21 pm
68046 spacer
>>68045

This is what's so unconscionable to me about Trump supporters, the endless nihilism. There's nothing more to it, it's just I-don't-give-a-fuckism.

I mean, I genuinely want to improve the state of living for those around me, that's why I hold the values I hold. But you? What about you? You get off imagining some kind of "liberal" boogeyman being irritated about coats or whatever this latest Trump™ turd the media's desperate to clock up hits on is about. I just want to fix things, but everyone else wants to shit all over the already broken mechanisms.

I remember think when I was 14 "I can't wait until I'm a grown up and this bizarrely adult way of talking about things with my nerdy best mate is the norm" (I'm paraphrasing), but now I'm grown up, and everyone's still forcing me to ask "why are you like this?"

Why?
>> No. 68047 Anonymous
8th January 2016
Friday 7:48 pm
68047 spacer
>>68046
>I just want to fix things, but everyone else wants to shit all over the already broken mechanisms.

Terms of debate are very deliberately constrained to keep certain big players, usually big private powers, outside of typical political discourse. The result is that people continue to argue in terms of 'left' versus 'right', or that government is corrupt beyond redemption, or that everything is hopeless and that we should focus on our own satisfaction. This has been called 'antipolitics' and is very deliberately propagated in both the US and the UK.

The amount of intelligible coverage we get about the innerworkings of important financial, military and economic institutions is virtually nil compared to the endless analysis of every event inside the Westminster bubble.
>> No. 68048 Anonymous
8th January 2016
Friday 8:02 pm
68048 spacer
>>68046

You sound young lad, young and full of hope and I don't mean that as a put down at all. I'm old and I'm miserable; I've lived through both Thatcher and Blair, two fucking Bushes, and the possibility of a third. I really don't believe that a good, fair, or even a fun world is possible. Nothing I've ever seen in my life has lead me to believe that voting or protest or any other democratic means will ever effect change for the better.

I voted for Boris for the exact same reason I'd vote for trump; the world is a fucking terrible place full of fucking terrible people - I might as well have a giggle before we all get flushed round the cosmic u-bend.
>> No. 68049 Anonymous
8th January 2016
Friday 8:14 pm
68049 spacer
>>68047

Is this just an inability to portray the complex systems at work? A genuine collusion with an extragovernmental force? Or both?

>>68048

Then you're a fucking halfwit, and given your home address I'll take great pleasure in opening your neck like a bag of fucking Monster Munch.

"For a giggle"? All it would take is a thimble of spirit and you can't even muster that, pathetic. You know what? Kill yourself, you aren't worth my bombastic ire.
>> No. 68054 Anonymous
8th January 2016
Friday 9:14 pm
68054 spacer
>>68049

>Then you're a fucking halfwit, and given your home address I'll take great pleasure in opening your neck like a bag of fucking Monster Munch.

"Let us build a kinder politics, a more caring society together. Let us put our values, the people's values, back into politics."
>> No. 68056 Anonymous
8th January 2016
Friday 9:42 pm
68056 spacer
>>68049

> All it would take is a thimble of spirit

I'll take my spirits by the bottle thanks "guy in your politics class in a blazer 'n' Che t-shirt combo"-Lad.
>> No. 68057 Anonymous
8th January 2016
Friday 10:06 pm
68057 spacer
>>68054

I only support Corbyn in as much as I don't support Cameron, and have only the vaguest recollection to a time where there was a party that was neither.

>>68056

Oh, good try, I'm sure if the pair of you keep guessing, you might figure out something I actually do, think or believe.

Can you not understand how infuriating it is to give a shit and be told that some of the minority who bother to pay attention to this crap vote "for a laugh"? It's like watching a sober man piss all over his own foot, while stood directly in front of a perfectly functional urinal.
>> No. 68058 Anonymous
8th January 2016
Friday 10:23 pm
68058 spacer
>>68057
I hope you aren't suggesting that Jeb or Hillary are a perfectly good urinal, or an actual choice or something, they're just puppets for corporate interests, the Koch brothers and the media that enables them, Trump, who takes no donations, is a big middle finger to all those scum.

I think you're just trying to be some kind of political meta hipster by pretending that Clinton vs Bush isn't literally Coke vs Pepsi.
>> No. 68059 Anonymous
8th January 2016
Friday 10:29 pm
68059 spacer
>>68046
Get lost you arrogant dick. Because I can have a laugh about American political theatre, that means there is 'nothing else to me'. Never mind that I doorstep for a major political party, which I joined over 5 years ago, you get the right to make assumptions about me because you're an enlightened teenage Huffington Post-reading know it all.

Arrogant, self-important sack of cum. Fuck off.
>> No. 68060 Anonymous
8th January 2016
Friday 10:30 pm
68060 spacer
>>68057

> Can you not understand how infuriating it is to give a shit

Lad, that jig was up in 1968. We're all doomed by over-population, pollution, massive over-fishing, global warming, and the 2017 great bee extinction anyway. This is the Kali Yuga, buddy, the iron age; just grab a drink and watch the fireworks.
>> No. 68061 Anonymous
8th January 2016
Friday 10:45 pm
68061 spacer
Oh so it is because everyone has stopped giving a shit.
>> No. 68062 Anonymous
8th January 2016
Friday 11:46 pm
68062 spacer
>>68061

That's right acrobatlad. There's no middle ground between being a boring Huffington Post-addicted neurotic and 'I don't give a shit'. Another insight from planet magistrate.
>> No. 68063 Anonymous
8th January 2016
Friday 11:47 pm
68063 spacer
>>68062
>genuinely hilarious joke

Har har.
>> No. 68064 Anonymous
8th January 2016
Friday 11:52 pm
68064 spacer
>>68059

Nice, we have an *actual* Tory doorstepper in here. Rare breed.
>> No. 68065 Anonymous
9th January 2016
Saturday 12:03 am
68065 spacer
>>68064
Try again!
>> No. 68066 Anonymous
9th January 2016
Saturday 12:09 am
68066 spacer
>>68062
That wasn't who you think it was. Also that was easy.
>> No. 68067 Anonymous
9th January 2016
Saturday 1:54 am
68067 spacer
>>68046
>I just want to fix things, but everyone else wants to shit all over the already broken mechanisms.
Listen lad, us at the other end of the horseshoe want to do the same. It's our opinion that it's your lot sending us straight to hell. We do care.
>> No. 68070 Anonymous
9th January 2016
Saturday 9:37 pm
68070 spacer
>>68065

Oh, it's just Blairitelad then. Yawn.
>> No. 68071 Anonymous
9th January 2016
Saturday 10:05 pm
68071 spacer

if-you-want[1].jpg
680716807168071
>>68067
Even if you came at it from the position that both the left and the right have valid arguments to make and just need to hash it out, why can't you see that the kind of horrible people and the kind of attitudes your ideology is associating with makes your side the Evil Empire in this dichotomy?

The constant protection of the rich and powerful? The focus on spin and lies and cheating and backstabbing? The roots of your movement in ideas that are in the process of being consigned to history, like dolphin rape and homophobia (pic related)? The inherent deceptions and contradictions between stuff like not wanting 'big government' but enacting authoritarian policies; like claiming you want people to work their way out of poverty and idleness but then cutting in-work benefits; like bleating about how it's so important that we cut the national deficit but then borrowing more than the previous government and then somehow being able to find the money to go to war on people three thousand miles away? Stuff like that?

Why can't you just look at the skulls on your caps and consider that you might be the baddies?
>> No. 68072 Anonymous
9th January 2016
Saturday 11:34 pm
68072 spacer

stalin[1].jpg
680726807268072
>>68071
Not to disagree that the Tories are a bunch of self-serving slimy bastards, but it's not like all the figures associated with left-wing ideologies are saints either.
>> No. 68073 Anonymous
10th January 2016
Sunday 12:17 am
68073 spacer
>>68072
I didn't know Stalin was British. You learn something new everyday.
>> No. 68074 Anonymous
10th January 2016
Sunday 12:28 am
68074 spacer
>>68073
>the kind of attitudes your ideology is associating with

I didn't know ideologies were confined by borders, you learn something new everyday.
>> No. 68075 Anonymous
10th January 2016
Sunday 12:34 am
68075 spacer
>>68074
They are. A British leftist =/= A mass murdering Russian communist.
>> No. 68076 Anonymous
10th January 2016
Sunday 12:45 am
68076 spacer
>>68072
That is the weakest and in fact most predictable response I could have hoped for. "But Stalin".

You imply you're not a right-winger but another thing that happens to be characteristic of them is their view of the left is always filtered through the lens of the Soviet Union, as though it's the only possible way to do a left-wing government. I don't know if this is some kind red scare thing inherited from the Cold War or what.
>> No. 68077 Anonymous
10th January 2016
Sunday 12:51 am
68077 spacer
>>68073
My post in >>68071 is obviously extrapolating out from the Conservative Party but that doesn't mean I'm only talking about the British right-wing. This is a thread about Trump after all.
>> No. 68078 Anonymous
10th January 2016
Sunday 1:30 am
68078 spacer
>>68076
>I don't know if this is some kind red scare thing inherited from the Cold War or what.
We have become more Americanised than we used to be.
>> No. 68085 Anonymous
10th January 2016
Sunday 9:38 am
68085 spacer
SU wasn't really left wig anyway. Stalin accomplished a total and complete counter revolution.
>> No. 68088 Anonymous
10th January 2016
Sunday 1:58 pm
68088 spacer
>>68085
No true Scotsman. One may as well claim that Franco was 'not truly right wing'. Lefties have this peculiar exceptionality thinking, where they divorce left wing theory from its consequences but extend the same benefit of doubt to no one else.
>> No. 68089 Anonymous
10th January 2016
Sunday 2:28 pm
68089 spacer

9780898754483[1].jpg
680896808968089
>>68088
It's not "benefit of doubt", mate, it's looking at Stalin's ideology, goals and actions and comparing them to left wing and Marxist principles. Same with Lenin to an extent.
>> No. 68096 Anonymous
10th January 2016
Sunday 6:22 pm
68096 spacer
>>68088

Please, do some actual study on this matter. There are plenty of books by respected historians who will tell you the same thing I did.
>> No. 68097 Anonymous
10th January 2016
Sunday 6:50 pm
68097 spacer
>>68088
>Lefties have this peculiar exceptionality thinking, where they divorce left wing theory from its consequences but extend the same benefit of doubt to no one else.

So very very true.

They always claim Hitler was right wing instead of left wing as well because it makes their brains hurt.
>> No. 68098 Anonymous
10th January 2016
Sunday 6:58 pm
68098 spacer
>>68097
Yes, how often did they not turn up in huge numbers, those supporters of the Red Flag, all previously instructed to smash up everything once and for all and put an end to these meetings. More often than not everything hung on a mere thread, and only the chairman’s ruthless determination and the rough handling by our ushers baffled our adversaries’ intentions. And indeed they had every reason for being irritated.

The fact that we had chosen red as the colour for our posters sufficed to attract them to our meetings. The ordinary bourgeoisie were very shocked to see that, we had also chosen the symbolic red of Bolshevism and they regarded this as something ambiguously significant.

The suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists. The actual difference between Socialism and Marxism still remains a mystery to these people up to this day. The charge of Marxism was conclusively proved when it was discovered that at our meetings we deliberately substituted the words ‘Fellow-countrymen and Women’ for ‘Ladies and Gentlemen’ and addressed each other as ‘Party Comrade’. We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims.

We chose red for our posters after particular and careful deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings – if only in order to break them up – so that in this way we got a chance of talking to the people.
>> No. 68099 Anonymous
10th January 2016
Sunday 6:58 pm
68099 spacer
>>68097

Some people seem to struggle to differentiate between economic political alignment and social alignment. i.e. they hold the belief that an authoritarian government is always right wing in economic terms.
>> No. 68101 Anonymous
10th January 2016
Sunday 7:19 pm
68101 spacer
>>68097

Because the shit thing about Hitler was his desire to build an Aryan empire in Europe and eradicate anyone who didn't conform, whatever the reason, not that he was dead into state funded architecture and felt insecure around aristocrats.

Bloody hell, there's something making my brain hurt alright, but it's certainly not Hitler.
>> No. 68109 Anonymous
10th January 2016
Sunday 8:30 pm
68109 spacer

Germany_under_Hitler.jpg
681096810968109
>>68101
> eradicate anyone who didn't conform, whatever the reason,
Not this tired old trope again.
>> No. 68116 Anonymous
10th January 2016
Sunday 10:13 pm
68116 spacer
>>68109
Lad.
>> No. 68117 Anonymous
10th January 2016
Sunday 10:23 pm
68117 spacer
>>68109
A cursory web search of that letter's author gives me a few qualms about its reliability.
>> No. 68121 Anonymous
10th January 2016
Sunday 10:57 pm
68121 spacer
>>68117
I feel the same way about the Nuremberg trials m8.

Everyone on trial was tortured, they claimed a load of stuff that was later disproved (lampshades and soap made out of human skin? Of course that happened!) and yet it was this trial that supposedly proved...a whole lot of things.
>> No. 68122 Anonymous
10th January 2016
Sunday 11:56 pm
68122 spacer
>>68109

I suppose if someone commits lies to physical form they must be true.

I can't wait to hand the bank that I.O.U for a billion pounds I got from, well, it doesn't matter because it'll be true whatever I say. After all, it's on paper.
>> No. 68123 Anonymous
11th January 2016
Monday 12:00 am
68123 spacer
>>68122
See >>68121
>> No. 68125 Anonymous
11th January 2016
Monday 1:23 am
68125 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhJ7NmU6lJI
>> No. 68126 Anonymous
11th January 2016
Monday 2:42 am
68126 spacer
>>68125
Although they are a bunch of assclowns, I agree with the premise. Abortion is wrong.

I remember being 16, knocked a girl up. Her response? Dump me, go get an abortion, then tell me what happened and ask for me back.

The sheer incoherent rage. Her body her choice? What about my fucking kid, what choice did they get?

Abortion is murder, and morally wrong. You can dress it up how you like and make excuses, but deep down you must all realise this, if you have even a quarter of a brain.
>> No. 68129 Anonymous
11th January 2016
Monday 2:56 am
68129 spacer
>>68126
Mate, it isn't a baby until the doctor says it is.
>> No. 68130 Anonymous
11th January 2016
Monday 3:04 am
68130 spacer
>>68129
That's just a load of bollocks. It's a lie put about to make women not feel bad about murdering their unborn child.

If it was left alone, it would be born. It IS a life.

I've had this discussion before and I can already tell we won't agree on. Let's agree to disagree.
>> No. 68133 Anonymous
11th January 2016
Monday 3:09 am
68133 spacer
>>68126

Yeah, what a shame you couldn't cock up three lives because of your inability to wear a rubber.

I mean, you know your knob works, I'm sure if you don't break out the anti-choice material on the first date you might be able to think more long term.
>> No. 68134 Anonymous
11th January 2016
Monday 3:42 am
68134 spacer
>>68133
>I'm sure if you don't break out the anti-choice material on the first date you might be able to think more long term.
Nice projection there lad. I'm sure once you actually see and/or touch another female you'll change your tune.
>> No. 68135 Anonymous
11th January 2016
Monday 4:21 am
68135 spacer
>>68130
>Let's agree to disagree.
That's fine. If we agreed then we'd both be wrong, and we can't have that, can we?
>> No. 68138 Anonymous
11th January 2016
Monday 4:49 am
68138 spacer
>>68133
I still think I deserved to be told about the child's existence before it was blotted out, without me having any chance to plead its case.

Surely you can understand that?
>> No. 68141 Anonymous
11th January 2016
Monday 6:50 am
68141 spacer
>>68138
Mate, you were fucking 16. What case were you going to plead? You had no way to support it, and she would have been the one that had to carry it. The other lad is right, you'd just have ruined her life as well as the child's.
>> No. 68142 Anonymous
11th January 2016
Monday 8:02 am
68142 spacer
>>68141
> and she would have been the one that had to carry it.
I wish I could have done it for her.
>> No. 68143 Anonymous
11th January 2016
Monday 8:04 am
68143 spacer
>>68134

I wasn't projecting, I was saying; if you don't sound like a nutter on a first date, there is a potential chance you could end up having a family with your date.

Nice insecurity though, I'm sure you'd have made a brilliantly mental teenage father.
>> No. 68151 Anonymous
11th January 2016
Monday 7:47 pm
68151 spacer
I know it is a bit of a grey area, but it seems so cruel and callous to abort a child without letting the father know.
>> No. 68156 Anonymous
11th January 2016
Monday 8:11 pm
68156 spacer
>>68151
Agreed, I think
>Dump me, go get an abortion, then tell me what happened and ask for me back.
Is a pretty shit way to behave. But regardless, it was always her choice and her choice alone.
>> No. 68164 Anonymous
11th January 2016
Monday 11:48 pm
68164 spacer
>>68156
Sad.
>> No. 68167 Anonymous
12th January 2016
Tuesday 12:39 am
68167 spacer
>>68164

Totally off topic but if you get a bird pregnant you're fucked both coming and going. If she wants to get rid of it you have no say in the matter and if she wants to keep it, not only do you have no say in the matter but you end up paying for it on top. If you want my advice get a vasectomy lads; voluntary human extinction while we still can.
>> No. 68171 Anonymous
12th January 2016
Tuesday 2:00 am
68171 spacer
>>68167
>voluntary human extinction while we still can.

Amen, sister.
>> No. 68520 Anonymous
19th January 2016
Tuesday 9:45 pm
68520 spacer

0EiYcc1[1].jpg
685206852068520
I'm pretty annoyed about Jeb! being dead in the water, if only because he would have had the funniest first family portrait in history.
>> No. 68521 Anonymous
19th January 2016
Tuesday 9:58 pm
68521 spacer
>>68520
Is she doctor Eggman's wife?
>> No. 68523 Anonymous
19th January 2016
Tuesday 10:12 pm
68523 spacer

8fc4e940d8369d03609c34a9291246.jpg
685236852368523
Well look what just surprised literally nobody:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35358209
>> No. 68524 Anonymous
19th January 2016
Tuesday 10:14 pm
68524 spacer
>>68523
You're Fired/I Quit 2016
>> No. 68525 Anonymous
19th January 2016
Tuesday 11:08 pm
68525 spacer
>>68523
Ha, I was just thinking the other day that I hadn't heard anything about her in a while.
>> No. 68534 Anonymous
20th January 2016
Wednesday 1:04 am
68534 spacer
>>68525
I always wanted to Fuck her.
>> No. 68535 Anonymous
20th January 2016
Wednesday 1:12 am
68535 spacer
>>68534

I trust that you have seen the dramatization of her life 'Nailin Palin' then?
>> No. 68637 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 4:09 pm
68637 spacer
Let's be fucking honest here, shall we, chaps? America was not "one nation conceived in liberty." It was a bunch of old rich men who didn't feel like paying their taxes. They got to say whatever they wanted about their motivations once they won the war of independence, just as we'd have been able to dismiss them as greedy, traitorous rebels if we were the ones writing history.

When Trump says he wants to make America great again, what he really means it that he wants to make it great for old rich men like himself. To be honest, I don't have a problem with that. I don't agree with it, but I'd respect it if he could just come out and say it. The only reason the Republicans give the proles any thought at all is that in a free market capitalist democracy there will always, by neccessity, be more poor people than rich people, so you can't get political power by appealing to rich people alone. Mind you, the Democrats are no better - they're just better at hiding it behind flowery language and a thin veneer of compassion.
>> No. 68639 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 4:24 pm
68639 spacer
>>68637
I disagree, I think there's more to it than that.

His talk about imposing massive trade taxes on China to make Chinese goods not be able to undercut American ones is an interesting idea. He's said he hopes to bring manufacturing jobs back to America through this.

I think it's a good idea.
>> No. 68641 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 4:40 pm
68641 spacer
>>68639
I don't.

I mean, for one thing, doesn't that go against the free market capitalist concepts that hardcore conservatives in America are constantly and ferociously knobslobbing? It seems like government regulation of markets and free enterprise, which I thought Republicans despise.

For another, I can't forsee that doing anything other than bringing hilarious consumer goods shortages, price hikes and sales crashes. Moving production facilities from one continent to another and then training a new workforce mostly from scratch isn't cheap in terms of either time or money. I'm not quite optimistic/pessimistic enough to believe that this sort of behaviour would cause manufacturers to abandon American markets (although with growth in developing markets that's still not entirely beyond the realms of possibility) but I can't see how you'd avoid precipitous economic chaos in at least the short-term.

Ironically a possible solution to such a problem would be to uplift your current Asian workforce and plonk them down in America, which I don't imagine is exactly the solution Trump envisions.
>> No. 68642 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 4:42 pm
68642 spacer
>>68641
> which I thought Republicans despise.

Have you not noticed all the GOP hatchet jobs and schemes out for him?

The people love him but the party top brass can't stand him.
>> No. 68643 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 4:44 pm
68643 spacer
>>68642
Yes, I had noticed that. It's just funny to see a lot of the usual big-L Libertarian suspects from the internet's armchair pundit crowd suddenly going to bat for Trump despite the fact that he's a protectionist authoritarian with some distinctly un-free-market ideas.

Cognitive dissonance is a curious thing.
>> No. 68644 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 4:49 pm
68644 spacer
>>68641
>I can't forsee that doing anything other than bringing hilarious consumer goods shortages, price hikes and sales crashes. Moving production facilities from one continent to another and then training a new workforce mostly from scratch isn't cheap in terms of either time or money.

You need to think more long term. Yes, it might cause difficulties in the future, but in the long run it would make things so much better. More people with jobs, what's not to like?

I notice your first point was taking the stance that other Republicans won't like it. Now that's no way to refute something, you should fight from your own corner lad.

Plus the training isn't going to be much, they have 5 year old kids on the assembly line in China. I'm sure your average septic could be brought up to speed in a day.

>Ironically a possible solution to such a problem would be to uplift your current Asian workforce and plonk them down in America, which I don't imagine is exactly the solution Trump envisions.
That's your answer to everything! I'm kidding. More immigrants! It reminds me of those memes I see posted against gun ownership.

"Education suffering? MORE GUNS!" "Job market depressed? MORE GUNS!" etc. Only instead, it's with immigrants.

"Too many rapes in your city centre? MORE IMMIGRANTS!" "Jobs being undercut by foreign labourers who will work for shit wages? MORE IMMIGRANTS!"
>> No. 68645 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 4:50 pm
68645 spacer
>>68643
They agree with more of what he says than any other candidate. He resonates with them on the biggest issues, it's as simple as that. No one has a politician who they agree with on everything. If you do, you've probably been severely propagandised.
>> No. 68646 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 4:56 pm
68646 spacer
>>68644
To be fair, I do think manufacturing jobs should be shifted back to European countries, but that's as much from my personal paranoia as anything else. We shouldn't make our markets dependant on countries that don't share our values, which is the same reason I'm in favour of energy independence. I'd dearly love to cut Britain off from most of the oil-producing countries and the odious cunts that populate them. To be honest, you're totally right, I'm not sure how we'd do it other than trade taxes - it just seems perilous to me.

In regards to the second half of your post, I never actually advocated importing a workforce - merely stated that it might be an attractive solution for some corporations. In terms of immigration I've done a full 180 since my searchfag days and am now in favour of immediate repatriation programs, voluntary or otherwise.
>> No. 68647 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 5:04 pm
68647 spacer
>>68644
>You need to think more long term. Yes, it might cause difficulties in the future, but in the long run it would make things so much better. More people with jobs, what's not to like?
America cannot produce at the same scale and scope s the Chinese while paying workers anything like a first world living wage, or even at federal and state minimum wages. To think that reversing globalization is easy or desirable requires a childlike understanding of international trade.

And in any case, manufacturing is dying as a source of employment due to encroaching automation. Even if you take the poor 5 year old fuckers in China out of the picture, American workers are competing against robots as well, and !SPOILER ALERT! They won't win.
>> No. 68648 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 5:05 pm
68648 spacer
>>68646
>To be honest, you're totally right
I think this is the first time anyone has ever said that to me on this website. I was actually in a state of shock for a second after reading it.

The rest of your post shocked me even more. I am in total agreement with you.

Have you found it hard to express these views in public? All my crowd from teenage onwards days right up into my thirties are all pretty much SMASH DA STATE fools. Lovely people of course, and we've known each other long enough to not fall out over political differences...but still you have to hold your tongue.
>> No. 68649 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 5:07 pm
68649 spacer
>>68646
>We shouldn't make our markets dependant on countries that don't share our values
Mate, I don't share my next door neighbour's values, never mind David pigfucking Cameron's, take your chauvinism and shove it up your arse.
>> No. 68650 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 5:07 pm
68650 spacer
>>68647
>American workers are competing against robots as well, and !SPOILER ALERT! They won't win.
That's a very good point, and one I'd not considered. Still, I'd rather have those machines over here than making stuff in China then shipping it here. At least some jobs could stay looking after the machines.
>> No. 68651 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 5:13 pm
68651 spacer
>>68650
You know, I'm no communist (far from it), but I think the means of production should be in the hands of if not the workers, then at least our country.

One thing that always really worried me was hearing that we can't support ourself foodwise without imports. Why is this allowed to happen? We managed without imports and humanity didn't end on this island for thousands of years. Sure, there might have been the odd famine or drought or whatever, but we survived - and we'd be better equipped to deal with it now. If it all goes tits up then we fall back on our imports. Hey, when there's a disaster anywhere else in the world we usually sling a few quid in.

It's not that we should be banned from trading with anyone, it's that we should be self-reliant.
>> No. 68652 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 5:21 pm
68652 spacer
>>68648
I'd describe myself as a liberal nationalist, which is a very difficult thing to be in today's world. I believe in universal healthcare, nationalised public services (electricity, water, gas, public transport, etc.), social safety net for the disadvantaged, state-funded public education and government regulation of the financial sector. I'm pro-LGBT rights, pro-gender equality and I feel that members of every ethnicity should be treated with equal respect and fairness by society and the law. I favour totally secular government and absolute separation of church and state. I support the concept of the BBC, if not its current actions. I favour nuclear disarmament and non-interventionalist military policy.

I also believe in the right of a native people to their homeland, the preservation of British cultural and ethnic identity, the absolute right to free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. I do not believe people have a right not to be offended. I am pro-privacy, pro-encryption, anti-surveillance and I believe that the government should have very clear and inflexible rules about what is and isn't a matter of national interest. I believe any law against dolphin rape, sexism or other forms of prejudice (and if those laws have to be written, they should most certainly be written very carefully so as not to interfere with individual freedom) should apply equally to prejudice against any party, even those traditionally perceived to be privileged.

Understandably it's a bit difficult for me to find a political candidate who represents my views. As a mildly disabled bisexual, I don't like voting right-wing because they tend not to approve of my lifestyle, but lately left-wing parties have just gone totally off the rails and if they're not careful we'll end up with either a serious Islamist problem or a serious right-wing authoritarian one. To be honest, though, if this nonsense goes on much longer I'll probably have to start voting UKIP simply on the basis that I'd theoretically prefer to live under a government composed of white Christian right-wingers rather than foreign Muslim right-wingers.
>> No. 68653 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 5:23 pm
68653 spacer
>>68651
>One thing that always really worried me was hearing that we can't support ourself foodwise without imports. Why is this allowed to happen?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

And we could manage quite easily. We import 40% of our food, but once you account for the fact that we also export a fair amount, have a high rate of food waste, most people are fat fucks who eat too much in the first place, and loosening of environmental and animal welfare would provide a boost to domestic production,that ceases to be so scary.

Oh, and it's 2016, France isn't going to blockade the channel any time soon, and there are more pressing concerns than fantasy total war scenarios.
>> No. 68654 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 5:27 pm
68654 spacer
>>68652
>I also believe in the right of a native people to their homeland
So, Brits out of Ulster then? Or maybe the British Isles as a whole should be considered the communal homeland only of pure descendants of the beaker folk?
>> No. 68655 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 5:31 pm
68655 spacer
>>68652
>I'd describe myself as a liberal nationalist, which is a very difficult thing to be in today's world. I believe in universal healthcare, nationalised public services (electricity, water, gas, public transport, etc.), social safety net for the disadvantaged, state-funded public education and government regulation of the financial sector. I'm pro-LGBT rights, pro-gender equality and I feel that members of every ethnicity should be treated with equal respect and fairness by society and the law. I favour totally secular government and absolute separation of church and state. I support the concept of the BBC, if not its current actions. I favour nuclear disarmament and non-interventionalist military policy.
I might have to nick the label Liberal Nationalist from you and start applying it to myself. I agreed with almost everything apart from nuclear disarmament. I still agree we shouldn't be getting in wars.

>I also believe in the right of a native people to their homeland, the preservation of British cultural and ethnic identity, the absolute right to free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. I do not believe people have a right not to be offended. I am pro-privacy, pro-encryption, anti-surveillance and I believe that the government should have very clear and inflexible rules about what is and isn't a matter of national interest. I believe any law against dolphin rape, sexism or other forms of prejudice (and if those laws have to be written, they should most certainly be written very carefully so as not to interfere with individual freedom) should apply equally to prejudice against any party, even those traditionally perceived to be privileged.
Again, completely agree with you.

>Understandably it's a bit difficult for me to find a political candidate who represents my views. As a mildly disabled bisexual, I don't like voting right-wing because they tend not to approve of my lifestyle, but lately left-wing parties have just gone totally off the rails and if they're not careful we'll end up with either a serious Islamist problem or a serious right-wing authoritarian one. To be honest, though, if this nonsense goes on much longer I'll probably have to start voting UKIP simply on the basis that I'd theoretically prefer to live under a government composed of white Christian right-wingers rather than foreign Muslim right-wingers.
This is kind of why I already voted UKIP last time. I know they probably hate me for some of my life choices, but they are the only ones talking any sense on the biggest issue.

I was always Lib Dem before, but after they sided with the Tories in the split election, well they can just fuck right off.
>> No. 68656 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 5:33 pm
68656 spacer
>>68653
>And we could manage quite easily. We import 40% of our food, but once you account for the fact that we also export a fair amount, have a high rate of food waste, most people are fat fucks who eat too much in the first place, and loosening of environmental and animal welfare would provide a boost to domestic production,that ceases to be so scary.
Thanks, that was calming to hear.
>Oh, and it's $CURRENT_YEAR
Please don't do this.
>>68654
>So, Brits out of Ulster then?
Sure.
>> No. 68657 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 5:45 pm
68657 spacer
>>68656
>Please don't do this.
Mate, the fact that there is zero prospect of us facing sanctions or a blockade in a time frame which would necessitate an immediate move to 100% domestic production is extremely relevant.
>> No. 68658 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 5:49 pm
68658 spacer
>>68657
I didn't mean the rest of your comment, I meant the part I quoted. "It's $CURRENT_YEAR" is something that has been parroted out by activists for decades and doesn't really mean anything. I cringe as much seeing it as I would seeing a spelling mistake. There are better ways to emphasise a point.
>> No. 68659 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 5:50 pm
68659 spacer
>>68655
I'm pro-nuclear disarmament because to be quite fucking honest, what use are they to us? Yes, Primeminister said it best. They're not a great deterrent because we'd be extremely hesitant to use them. Hell, given the current arrangement we CAN'T use them without asking permission fron the United States anyway. The only thing they do for us is ensure we'd most likely be a target in a worldwide nuclear exchange - at that point, what benefit do we gain from inflicting millions of enemy casualties? Plus they cost billions of quid, which could be better put towards nearly anything else.

It's strange how much we mirror each other. I was a staunch Liberal Democrat loyalist until the Coalition, and I even voted LibDem at the last election because our local MP has always done a great job, but now that he got kicked out, I feel no particular impetus to vote for them ever again except if in the next election we can get the new Tory cunt kicked out.
>> No. 68660 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 5:53 pm
68660 spacer
>>68658
It means that your concerns haven't made sense for the better part of a century and are misplaced in this year of our lord.
>> No. 68661 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 5:58 pm
68661 spacer
>>68659
>They're not a great deterrent because we'd be extremely hesitant to use them
Can you develop this any further? I don't quite see your point.

>Hell, given the current arrangement we CAN'T use them without asking permission fron the United States anyway
This is incorrect. They'd certainly be rather upset if we were to do so, and the prospect of us launching nukes in a scenario where the yanks either don't approve or haven't already done so themselves is minimal due to our close geopolitical alignment, but they couldn't actually stop us. We rely on them for support and maintenance, but the time from that being cut off to us being rendered incapable of launching them is years, and potentially decades.
>> No. 68662 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 6:16 pm
68662 spacer
>>68661
>Can you develop this any further? I don't quite see your point.
I don't think much can be said that this video doesn't say: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE

But since I can't just drop a link to a snippet of a sitcom and have that be my argument, in my opinion I don't see any reason to have them around. Most strategists seem to believe that nearly any exchange of nuclear weapons would result in escalation to a global exchange, and a global nuclear exchange practically guarantees the end of civilization. They are weapons so powerful and destructive that we dare never use them, tools of warfare on a scale we're almost incapable of imagining. That we teetered on the brink of armageddon for half a century is terrifying, but that it never actually came to that is testament to how unwilling we were to use them, no matter what provocation we might have been offered.

Plus they cost billions.
>> No. 68663 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 7:16 pm
68663 spacer

Industrial Clusters.png
686636866368663
>>68647

China's reliance on low wages is badly overstated. The average salary in Beijing and Shanghai is about £10,500 nominal, or £17,500 adjusted for PPP. The national average is about £6,000 nominal, or £10,000 PPP. While those wages are low by British or American standards, they aren't drastically lower than in many parts of Eastern Europe. The gap is shrinking fast, with double-digit wage growth in the major cities.

Child labour is a definite myth. While it still persists on family farms and in small workshops in the poorest and least developed parts of the country, it is essentially nonexistent in the cities. "Shocking reports" into the supply chains of western multinationals have uncovered only a handful of teenagers who applied for jobs using borrowed ID.

Chinese manufacturers do benefit from low wages, but their core advantage is staggering economies of scale. The Chinese economy is still in large part centrally planned, which means that infrastructure is exceptionally well organised. Manufacturers and their suppliers are clustered together and well connected by road, sea and air. Every city has a specialism and every area in the city has a sub-specialism. Schools and universities teach skills that are directly relevant to local industry.

This approach allowed China to completely dominate manufacturing, niche by niche. Manufacturers in these clusters compete but also collaborate, sharing resources and technology in a mutually beneficial way. Shenzhen is well known as the international hub of consumer electronics, but there are hundreds of similar examples. Hefei specialises in white goods. Xinxiang is the heart of Asia's crane manufacturing business. Most of the world's Christmas decorations and novelty tat are made in one part of Yifu.

China is no longer just the cheapest place to make things, but the best. Every input you need is available quickly, cheaply and in immense quantity. The Chinese government understand that successful manufacturing companies don't in isolation and can't be willed into existence. They foster the support networks that manufacturers need to survive and thrive.

Britain simply gave up on manufacturing. The Germans have a thriving manufacturing sector, because they reacted intelligently to the rise of China. They established rigorous, high quality pathways for vocational and technical education. They developed a collaborative relationship between government, industry and the trade unions. They invested heavily in R&D and industrial support. These interventions allowed German manufacturers to upmarket, producing the best quality products in the most technically demanding markets.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/278350/average-annual-salary-of-an-employee-in-china-by-region/
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/rising-giants-industrial-clusters-are-changing-the-face-of-chinese-manufacturing/
>> No. 68664 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 7:47 pm
68664 spacer
>>68662
You don't think countries act more conservatively in international affairs when they know an action has the potential to lead to a global nuclear exchange?

And that video seems to miss the point that trident is primarily a deterrent against a first nuclear strike, not against conventional forces.
>> No. 68665 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 8:38 pm
68665 spacer
>>68663

>Britain simply gave up on manufacturing. The Germans have a thriving manufacturing sector, because they reacted intelligently to the rise of China.

And Italy still has a pretty successful industrial sector, particularly their steel industry, despite everything. Do you have any insights into the reasons why they're doing well too?

It's weird looking at the state of the European steel industry. Italy, Germany, Sweden, and even smaller economies like Austria and Spain have very successful steel mills producing high-value tool steels and stainless steels, and HSLA steels. Meanwhile Britain has Tata Steel who have almost devoted themselves to producing bottom-of-the-barrel grade structural steel and trying to compete with China on price. At least Tata is pretty good at railway rails, it's just a shame that there's not much of a market for them right now.
>> No. 68667 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 9:35 pm
68667 spacer
>>68665

I'm no expert on steel, but here are my impressions:

Many other countries made substantial investment in modernising and restructuring heavy industry, over a period of several decades. Not all of that money was necessarily spent wisely, but it had a continuing legacy. While heavy industry in other countries was advancing, Britain failed to make progress. British steel lacked investment or the will for modernisation, while facing dwindling domestic demand due to the decline of industries like shipbuilding and motor manufacturing.

The European steel industry first came under threat during the 1970s. The global recession massively reduced demand for steel, while manufacturers in the far east became increasingly competitive. This was a politically inopportune moment for Britain.

Our heavy industry fell between two stools. Pre-Thatcher governments had simply appeased trade unions with generous subsidies, tolerating outdated working practices in fear of industrial action. Thatcher 'won' the battle with trade union militancy in a rather pyrrhic way, by simply cutting off subsidies and letting these industries fail.

By the time Blair was elected, our heavy industries were dead or dying. Skills were being lost. Already outdated plant and infrastructure were becoming hopelessly obsolete. Reviving those industries would have been expensive, risky and politically unfashionable, so they were left to dwindle away in a managed decline. Our economy was restructured around services, almost by default.

I think energy played a significant secondary role. Britain's energy security was severely undermined by the miners strikes of '72 and '74, which unfortunately coincided with the oil crisis of '73.

Again, this was absolutely terrible timing for the steel industry. At a pivotal moment, the industry was starved of a reliable supply of fuel. Many of our rivals had a substantial advantage in terms of energy security; hydroelectric and nuclear plants provide cheap electricity and reduce the demand for coal.
>> No. 68671 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 10:35 pm
68671 spacer
I don't know if the reporters at the BBC can understand redneck accents very well, but one of the Trump supporters they interviewed during a vox pop segment for the News at Ten clearly said he likes him because there's no bullshitting.
>> No. 68672 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 10:45 pm
68672 spacer
>>68671
>News at Ten
There's your explanation.
>> No. 68673 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 11:08 pm
68673 spacer
>>68665 At least Tata is pretty good at railway rails, it's just a shame that there's not much of a market for them right now.

There seems to be something odd going on with the railways around here. We're getting Cambridge North next year, and possibly Cambridge South in the forseeable future. A quick check shows there are quite a few new stations either recently or in the pipeline. Then there' the bullshit that is(n't) HS2.
I can't remember that I've ever seen rail infrastucture being built before, except the channel tunnel, which was special.
Not going to save the UK steel industry, of course.
>> No. 68674 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 11:26 pm
68674 spacer
>>68673

Passenger volume has doubled in the 20 years since privatisation. The network is bursting at the seams and we're in desperate need of new rail infrastructure.
>> No. 68675 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 11:44 pm
68675 spacer
>>68674
>Passenger volume has doubled in the 20 years since privatisation.
I'm sure we could have seen even more growth had we not privatised it, and instead kept the infrastructure in entirely public hands where it belongs, and could therefore have been expanded rather earlier, rather than the massive clusterfuck that was Railtrack's botched West Coast upgrade.

FWIW, it should also be remembered that the rail industry in general is very good at lying with numbers. In my local area, they claim peak utilisation is around 50%, when actual experience doesn't bear this out. (In this instance, it appears they get the figure by averaging out the loadings, such that the packed 2-car train is offset by the empty 4-car train which only runs down that way because of the steep hill next to a junction.)
>> No. 68677 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 1:19 am
68677 spacer
Apparently he doesn't even believe global warming is real. This is bizarre.
>> No. 68682 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 10:01 am
68682 spacer
>>68654
If that's what the people of Ulster want, sure thing.
>> No. 68684 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 12:06 pm
68684 spacer
>>68682
I think the native people made their wishes rather clear on that quite some time ago.
>> No. 68686 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 12:19 pm
68686 spacer
>>68684
By constantly voting for Unionist parties?
>> No. 68687 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 12:24 pm
68687 spacer
>>68686

Those people, by your own strict standards, aren't natives. They aren't "The People of Ulster". The point has sailed several miles over your thick, neolithic brow.
>> No. 68689 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 12:37 pm
68689 spacer
>>68687
Analysis suggests that it was the Unionists, not the Nationalists, that made up most of the No vote on the Belfast Agreement. I'd agree with the other Las. If they want it, then they should have it, but there's no indication that they want it.
>> No. 68690 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 1:06 pm
68690 spacer
>>68689
You think a yes vote for the GFA is an endorsement of the union?
>> No. 68691 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 1:19 pm
68691 spacer
>>68690
Yes, because that's how territorial claims work, you dipshit.
>> No. 68692 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 1:32 pm
68692 spacer
>>68691
The GFA wasn't an in/out referndum, mate. I don't think you quite understand what you're on about.
>> No. 68693 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 1:38 pm
68693 spacer

I141104_182647_2255673oTextTRMRMMGLPICT00003644262.jpg
686936869368693
Pictured: Proponent of the Good Friday Agreement and noted endorser of the union, Mr. Gerard Adams TD.
>> No. 68697 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 2:49 pm
68697 spacer
>>68692
The terms of the agreement explicitly included Ireland removing from its constitution its claim to the whole of the island. I don't really see how that can be anything other than an explicit endorsement of the presence of Brits in Ulster.
>> No. 68698 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 2:55 pm
68698 spacer
>>68697
If you think a yes vote for the agreement is an endorsement of every provision it contained, you really, really don't understand the political context or possibly even the idea of a compromise.
>> No. 68699 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 2:58 pm
68699 spacer
You are literally calling Gerry Adams a unionist. Fucking think about that for a second, pal.
>> No. 68700 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 3:18 pm
68700 spacer
>>68699
Erm, no. He's literally calling Gerry Adams someone who isn't calling for "Brits out". Followers of NI politics will not that indeed he hasn't been calling for any such thing for a couple of decades now.
>> No. 68701 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 3:26 pm
68701 spacer
>>68698
That's funny, because that's exactly the line the DUP took when they opposed it.
>> No. 68704 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 4:33 pm
68704 spacer
>>68659
>I'm pro-nuclear disarmament because to be quite fucking honest, what use are they to us? Yes, Primeminister said it best.
I agree with you that they are lunacy. I wish I could flip a switch and disable the whole lot. Until that time though, I'd keep them. I would disable them last. I know it's honourable to be the first one to put the gun down during a Mexican stand-off, but I'd sooner be the last. I know that we would be a target because of them...but I think as long as we are America's war bitch we'd be a target anyway.

>It's strange how much we mirror each other. I was a staunch Liberal Democrat loyalist until the Coalition, and I even voted LibDem at the last election because our local MP has always done a great job, but now that he got kicked out, I feel no particular impetus to vote for them ever again except if in the next election we can get the new Tory cunt kicked out.
Indeed, the amount of people out there who are ex lib-dem and now UKIP can't be that very many. To find one on an imageboard that only 3 people post on is incredibly surprising.

Those comments earlier where I said I agreed with 99% of what you said really did strike me. I think I made a comment earlier along the lines of there is no politician you will agree with all the time, but that is the nearest I have ever come in my life to complete agreement. I've half considered making a new thread here on /pol/ and taking all the salient points and working it into a manifesto, to be debated and solidified through the rest of the thread by interested parties.

Liberal Nationalist. I like the sound of that.
>> No. 68705 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 5:18 pm
68705 spacer
>>68704
They perceive Tories to be nasty for the sake of nasty which is ridiculous. Or he actually dislikes his local MP personally, which is fine.
>> No. 68706 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 5:47 pm
68706 spacer
>>68700
Read the thread before replying mate. He answered yes to the question "you think a yes vote for the GFA is an endorsement of the union?"
>> No. 68708 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 7:30 pm
68708 spacer
>>68706
Sorry mate, didn't realise that the only possible options were "Brits out" or "bloody unionist".
>> No. 68711 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 8:11 pm
68711 spacer
>>68708
The possible options in terms of answering the question "do you think a yes vote for the GFA is an endorsement of the union?" are yes and no. He responded yes, indicating that he believes Sinn Fein and the SDLP, who backed a yes vote, endorse unionism. That is a very silly thing to imply. This isn't hard to understand.
>> No. 68713 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 8:14 pm
68713 spacer
>>68711
>He responded yes
Yes.

>indicating that he believes Sinn Fein and the SDLP, who backed a yes vote, endorse unionism.
No.

But thanks for playing anyway.
>> No. 68717 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 10:07 pm
68717 spacer
>>68713
If that's not your position, do feel free to elaborate or explain yourself in a more coherent manner. The way you've expressed yourself so far has made you look confused to put kindly.
>> No. 68718 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 10:16 pm
68718 spacer
Getting back on-topic ...

After taking a dislike to Megyn Kelly for daring to do her job at the last outing, the Human Breaching Experiment decided he wouldn't be attending Fox's latest debate in Iowa. In an attempt to turn this into massive dickery, he instead arranged a fundraising event for injured veterans. Prediction: Trump will remind us precisely how enormous his balls compared to the other candidates are by accusing them of blowing off his event. Unsurprisingly, everyone else decided to have a dig at him, while the true believers persisted with the "he speaks for us" mantra.

Latest projections have Trump considerably ahead in New Hampshire, and somewhat ahead in Iowa, but not far enough to be favourite, due to the way the caucuses work. Also, as they're on Monday, it's possible that there won't be enough time left for fieldwork and analysis to see what effect the debate has in Iowa itself. On the upside, Super Tuesday is still almost six weeks away so there's still plenty of time for The Donald to screw up the field entirely before the likely drop-out to run independently.

I bet the smug cunt who was saying that Trump has no hope of winning anything isn't smiling now. I think most reasonable estimations would have had him ruling himself out by now, but the fact remains that he's done nothing to rule himself out. Not for lack of trying, mind you.
>> No. 68735 Anonymous
30th January 2016
Saturday 2:01 pm
68735 spacer
>>68718
I think Trump could win a Republican nomination with some clever manipulation of public opinion - something he most certainly hasn't shown himself incapable of performing. It'd be difficult given that a fair number of his policies are so damn un-Republican, but it's not imposssible.

I don't think Trump could win the presidency on the Republican ticket. He's going to be Romney but worse - a candidate a lot of the traditional red-state voter base doesn't like, and a person a lot of people fear enough to vote Democrat purely on the basis of ensuring Trump doesn't get into office.

Trump running as independent will absolutely ensure a Democrat victory and I don't think I need to explain why.
>> No. 68736 Anonymous
30th January 2016
Saturday 2:27 pm
68736 spacer
>>68735
>I don't think Trump could win the presidency on the Republican ticket. He's going to be Romney but worse - a candidate a lot of the traditional red-state voter base doesn't like, and a person a lot of people fear enough to vote Democrat purely on the basis of ensuring Trump doesn't get into office.

He'd definitely lose to Clinton - which, I think, is the entire idea. He's one of Bill's bezzer mates.

If by some insane chance, though, Sanders got the nomination, I think Trump'd beat him by a fair margin. Fundamentally Trump's 'ideas' aren't loopy from a septic perspective relative to Sanders, who will easily be spun as a Big Government Commie relative to Trump's broadly non-radical agenda besides banning esquimaux.
>> No. 68744 Anonymous
30th January 2016
Saturday 3:35 pm
68744 spacer
>>68736

I'd find it grimly fascinating to see how the US media would cover a Sanders/Trump presidential run. Right now they treat Sanders like some kind of barmy, not a hope in hell's chance candidate, despite the fact he's leading Clinton in some polls. As to your point about Trump's "non-radical agenda", that's only because he hasn't actually laid out any policies. His speeches are just "isn't this thing fucked? *cheers of approval* And how about this other thing, that's also fucked, isn't it? *wild, flabby, cries of adulation*, etc." In short he hasn't really said anything other than his anti-swarthy chap rhetoric so there's not much else to judge. Not that any sane person needs anything more.

I wouldn't count Trump out in a race against Clinton though. The reason for Trump's, and indeed Bernie's, present successes is because they're both viewed as anti-establishment, however misguided, in the former case, that may be. But it doesn't get much more establishment than a former first lady, senator and secretary of state.
>> No. 68749 Anonymous
30th January 2016
Saturday 6:03 pm
68749 spacer
>>68744
American polls make even less sense than British polls given their state-accumalation of electoral college thing. Iowa for example is very tight in the Republican primary but New Hampshire looks clearly in favour of Trump.

Trump's not even particularly unorthodox except with regard to immigration.

American politics isn't so much as winning voters from the 'other side' as it's so entrenched - more important is getting your dyed-in-the-wool people out to vote. Trump can do that as he's exciting, Dems can't get excited or interested in Clinton and just view her as a prototypical idiot presidential candidate.
>> No. 68760 Anonymous
30th January 2016
Saturday 7:56 pm
68760 spacer
>>68749
Actually, Democrats have a very favourable view of Clinton. Higher than Republicans do for Trump, certainly.
>> No. 68763 Anonymous
30th January 2016
Saturday 8:03 pm
68763 spacer
>>68760
No, it's about the same, Hillary WAS popular but she's been sliding for a while now, mostly thanks to the emails.

https://morningconsult.com/2016/01/new-poll-could-bloomberg-win/
>> No. 68769 Anonymous
30th January 2016
Saturday 8:30 pm
68769 spacer

djxlrdtxkka5dyre_19ha.png
687696876968769
>>68763
Nope.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/01/clinton-still-leads-iowa-omalley-backers-could-help-sanders.html

>Clinton's 69/22 favorability makes her more well liked by Democrats than every Republican candidate except Ben Carson is on their side. And even though he's going to finish a distant third Martin O'Malley's 53/18 favorability with Democrats actually makes him more broadly popular within his party than Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Rand Paul, and Rick Santorum are in theirs

Clinton's net favourability in her party is +47, much higher than Trump's +27.
>> No. 68770 Anonymous
30th January 2016
Saturday 8:53 pm
68770 spacer
>>68769
That's just Iowa.
>> No. 68771 Anonymous
30th January 2016
Saturday 8:57 pm
68771 spacer
>>68763
>>68769
The whole email thing is going to remain a major issue I bet, she really fucked up. Anyone else who did it would be facing serious penalties/jail time.
>> No. 68773 Anonymous
30th January 2016
Saturday 9:07 pm
68773 spacer
>>68770
You're quite right, my mistake. That's what I get for skimming the article.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/188396/sanders-image-among-dems-clinton-maintains-edge.aspx

Clinton's net favourability in her party is actually +57, much higher than Trump's +27.
>> No. 68777 Anonymous
30th January 2016
Saturday 9:29 pm
68777 spacer
>>68760
Having a favourable opinion of someone doesn't mean you're going to go out in the wind and rain and vote for them. You can't vote for someone *really hard* like Momentumlads seem to think, but you can ensure you do actually go out and vote for them, and in a country where turnout is barely 50% that counts for a lot.
>> No. 68781 Anonymous
30th January 2016
Saturday 10:05 pm
68781 spacer
>>68749
He's got a decent lead in Iowa, but the unpredictable nature of a caucus may work against him. It will literally depend on who is at the venue, and if they get full people may be turned away. As far as I can tell, the participation levels aren't scaled, so if 50 people turn up at one meeting while 200 turn up at another, then there will be 250 votes up for grabs. On the upside, in order to prevent the antics that allowed Paul to capture Iowa by the back door in 2012, for 2016 the participants will vote by secret ballot rather than by a show of hands (or feet as in the case of the Democrats) and the tallies from the night itself will translate directly into 27 binding delegate votes at the RNC. Unfortunately for the party, it would appear that Trump's assault will actually come from the front. His poll lead is at around 7-8 points, but the fieldwork from even the most recent of those predates the debate debacle. What will probably be the final poll is due to be announced at around 11:30-11:45 tonight (a little under two hours from how), but it's possible that the fieldwork may again have been at least partly before the debate on Thursday.

Also remember that Trump will likely win New Hampshire with around 30% of the vote but only because the relatively-sane candidates are splitting most of the other 70% half a dozen ways. Had the field thinned out earlier he wouldn't be doing nearly so well.
>> No. 68783 Anonymous
30th January 2016
Saturday 10:19 pm
68783 spacer
>>68777
>Having a favourable opinion of someone doesn't mean you're going to go out in the wind and rain and vote for them

I don't think it's controversial to say that a candidate who is well liked by their party will inspire a higher turnout. And it's pretty dumb to say that a candidate with a +57 net favourability rating in their party is regarded by members of said party as a "prototypical idiot presidential candidate".
>> No. 68806 Anonymous
31st January 2016
Sunday 1:08 am
68806 spacer
Final poll numbers are in. Trump ahead by 5, but fieldwork overlaps the debate and unlike in 2012 there's no day-by-day breakdown to get any indication of what effect this might have had, but apparently of his 28% support, 71% claim to have made up their minds.

Democratic numbers are interesting. Hillary ahead by 3, which effectively means an open contest. Unlike the Republicans, who map the Iowa results directly, for the Democrats, the results map only to the next level up, meaning that the eventual allocation at the state level may not bear any resemblence to what happens on Monday thanks to rounding, the inclusion of unbound officials as you work your way up the chain, and the "viability threshold" rule. The way their meetings work is that Hillary's supporters go in one corner of the room, Bernie's supporters go in another, etc. and people try and persuade others to change their support. Halfway through, the process pauses, a headcount is taken, and anyone with fewer than around 15% of the participants is declared "unviable" and removed from consideration at that particular meeeting. This means that in all likelihood Martin O'Malley's voters will be up for grabs.

I've got my popcorn on order already.
>> No. 68807 Anonymous
31st January 2016
Sunday 1:37 am
68807 spacer
>>68806
Iowa isn't terribly important, as Trump says they haven't picked a winner in 16 years, but they do set the tone in a sense, alongside New Hampshire.

All squabbles aside mates, I think we're in for the most interesting election since, well, I don't I really know when, before my time at the very least.
>> No. 68814 Anonymous
31st January 2016
Sunday 2:26 am
68814 spacer
>>68783
You miss my meaning, having 20% of the people guaranteed to go out and vote for you is invaluable in a country where only half actually vote, compared to having 40% think 'eh alright I suppose'. Same is true in eastern europeans nations, did you know Slovakia had 12% turnout in their latest EU elections?
>> No. 68815 Anonymous
31st January 2016
Sunday 2:27 am
68815 spacer
>>68807
>as Trump says they haven't picked a winner in 16 years
That's his way out should he not win it. If he wins, he'll say Iowa are on their way to picking their first winner in 16 years. If he doesn't, he'll say never mind, he can do it without them. As has been said before, bigger balls than Miley Cyrus.
>> No. 68819 Anonymous
31st January 2016
Sunday 4:39 am
68819 spacer
>>68807
Iowa is important. Once the Iowa results come in, you can throw out every poll up until that point.

And nobody who has won both Iowa and NH has failed to win the nom (granted it's not a huge sample size).
>> No. 68844 Anonymous
31st January 2016
Sunday 1:47 pm
68844 spacer
>>68646

>I've done a full 180 since my searchfag days and am now in favour of immediate repatriation programs, voluntary or otherwise.

What happened to you? Did a darky steal your lunch money?
>> No. 68866 Anonymous
31st January 2016
Sunday 2:50 pm
68866 spacer
>>68652
It is always nice to see a deviant with right-wing opinions.
>> No. 68941 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 1:00 am
68941 spacer
Attendance figures reported to be significantly higher than 2008 and 2012, with some locations expecting to break their records on both sides of the aisle. Also, apparently we're getting "entrance polls" in a few minutes - but remember that they'll only be indicative for the Republicans, whereas the only thing we're going to learn from the Democratic polls is whether or not Martin O'Malley is going to come away empty-handed.
>> No. 68942 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 1:45 am
68942 spacer
Entrance poll indication: Trump slightly ahead, with Cruz and Rubio even. Martin O'Malley at an optimistic 3%.
>> No. 68943 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 3:12 am
68943 spacer
Three-quarters of locations in (but not necessarily three-quarters of the vote), and assuming I've got my sums right I make it Cruz 8, Trump 7, Rubio 6, Carson 3, rest 3.
>> No. 68946 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 4:46 am
68946 spacer

Iowa.png
689466894668946
Make it happen, Bernie, make it happen!
>> No. 68947 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 5:02 am
68947 spacer
98% in.

Cruz 7
Trump 7
Rubio 6
Carson 3
Paul 1
Bush 1
Fiorina 1
Kasich 1

Cruz is 165 votes short of an eighth delegate, while Fiorina and Kasich are holding onto theirs by fewer than 30 votes each.
>> No. 68948 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 5:24 am
68948 spacer
>>68947

Could you explain that? Not to me, obviously, I'm very smart so I already know, but to the other posters. Who are not me.

Also until I cropped those two polls above I didn't even know Santorum had been running.
>> No. 68949 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 5:36 am
68949 spacer
>>68948
Multiply the proportion of the vote by 27 to get the raw number of delegates. That yields Cruz 7.47, Trump 6.57, Fiorina and Kasich on 0.504. The next rule is to round to the nearest whole number, which despite the large margin takes Cruz and Trump to 7 each. The final rule is that if you get 26, whoever's "nearest the rounding threshold" gets the last one, and if you get 28, whoever's "furthest from the rounding threshold" loses one. If Cruz had 200 more votes at this point, he'd have 8, the total would be 28, and Kasich would lose his spot.

For shits and giggles, I've also run the numbers through the d'Hondt method (because why bloody hell not), and that produces a slightly fairer looking 9 for Cruz, 7 each for Trump and Rubio, 3 for Carson and 1 for Paul.
>> No. 68950 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 6:07 am
68950 spacer

iowa.png
689506895068950
Fuck it, I'm calling it now. There's only one tally left (out of 1682) and it's in a city in the east of the state where they've been getting around 80-100 votes per precinct, and it's gone 6am and I want to go to bed already.
>> No. 68952 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 12:01 pm
68952 spacer

tumblr_nmsf43ikYV1tq4of6o1_500[1].gif
689526895268952
>Also, note that his poll numbers will not translate 1:1 to his share of the vote from caucus and primary attendees. Turnout there is more representative of more dedicated and/or party-minded party members (i.e. not the type of people who are impressed by TV celebrity tough guy).
>> No. 68953 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 12:29 pm
68953 spacer
>>68952
Iowa was tight in the polls anyway, you haven't really told us anything, Trump's done incredibly well considering just how evangelical the state is, 7 delegates, that's 7 more than the naysayers in this thread predicted.

And what a clusterfuck on the Dem side, the Bernie people must be livid at losing by a hair like this.
>> No. 68954 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 12:32 pm
68954 spacer
>>68953
>Iowa was tight in the polls anyway
No it wasn't. Trump had a solid 5 point lead, and yet lost by a comfortable margin.
>> No. 68955 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 12:35 pm
68955 spacer
So what's the story lads, I don't understand all this Yank system nonsense. Is it still president Trump 2016 or is he out of the running now?
>> No. 68956 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 12:40 pm
68956 spacer
>>68955
His support in Iowa was much less than expected, he came 2nd behind Cruz.

He's still in the running, it just got that much harder for him.
>> No. 68957 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 12:41 pm
68957 spacer
Jeb! spent $15m in Iowa, for 5000 votes.

$3000 per voter.
>> No. 68958 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 12:43 pm
68958 spacer
>>68954
It's been all over the place the past few weeks, everyone knew Cruz would do well.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_caucus-3194.html

>>68955
Not really, as I'm sure Trump will repeatedly tell you, Iowa hasn't picked a winner for 16 years, I think W might be the only time they got it right, they didn't go for Reagan back in 1980 either, and he won with a landslide.
>> No. 68960 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 12:48 pm
68960 spacer
>>68956
Iowa has historically been a very poor indicator of nomination success for Republicans, much better for Democrats, but even still, Bill got the nom without Iowa or New Hampshire.
>> No. 68961 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 1:02 pm
68961 spacer
>>68958
Er, thanks for linking to a poll aggregate showing Trump's solid 5 point lead.
>> No. 68962 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 1:06 pm
68962 spacer
If Jeb dropped out and had his delegate pledge support for Rubio, Trump would drop to third.

Not that Jeb has the wit to do that.
>> No. 68963 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 1:11 pm
68963 spacer

new hampshire.png
689636896368963
>>68961
Hillary had a 4 point lead right before the caucus and that was effectively a draw, if you looked at the larger picture you'd see Ted had a similar lead a month ago, it was close.

Meanwhile, in NH, Trump actually does have a clear lead.
>> No. 68964 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 1:21 pm
68964 spacer
>>68963
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Clinton had a 4 point lead and won by less than expected. Trump had a 5 point lead and lost by 4 points.
>> No. 68965 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 1:25 pm
68965 spacer
>>68964
Hillary won with a coin toss m8, and the point is polls have been erratic as all fuck leading up to the caucus with Trump and Cruz rapidly shifting places.
>> No. 68966 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 1:42 pm
68966 spacer

NIXON'S_BACK.png
689666896668966
>>68963
>Bush

Surely not again?
>> No. 68967 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 1:49 pm
68967 spacer
>>68965
She won, by 3.6% less than polls indicate (and polls are less reliable for predicting an outcome for the Dems, seeing as votes can be shifted through electioneering in the room).

Trump was leading in the polls by 4.7%. He lost by 3.4%. His supporters simply didn't show up to the degree that they said they would.

And you can throw out all NH polling up to this point, by the way, the caucus changes everything.
>> No. 68968 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 1:51 pm
68968 spacer

trump.png
689686896868968

>> No. 68969 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 2:11 pm
68969 spacer
>>68964
You seem to be struggling with the whole "caucuses are less predictable" thing there, lad.
>> No. 68971 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 2:39 pm
68971 spacer
Well this flew under my radar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgohTF8ef3E (NSFW)
>> No. 68972 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 3:05 pm
68972 spacer
>>68967
You clearly have no idea how any of this works. For now, let me simply direct you to the 538 projection, where you'll see that the top four candidates all ended up within the 80% range. Their final projection was Trump at evens and Cruz at 3/2. Remember that regardless of the statistical error, in a caucus state there is a significant practical error. As many as 15% responded to the entrance poll saying they weren't firm on who they were going to choose, and 100% had the opportunity to change their preference once in the room, particularly on the Democratic side with its Monty Hall mechanic.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-republican/
>> No. 68973 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 3:16 pm
68973 spacer
>>68972
I have no idea what you think you're arguing against, but have fun.
>> No. 68974 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 3:17 pm
68974 spacer
>>68973
>I have no idea what you think you're arguing against
You could try, you know, reading the post I responded to. I know that sort of thing is difficult for people on here sometimes, but stick with it.
>> No. 68975 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 3:21 pm
68975 spacer
>>68974
I've read it, m8, and it does not appear to be addressing anything I've said.
>> No. 68976 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 3:37 pm
68976 spacer
>>68975
Let me give you a hint:
>Trump was leading in the polls by 4.7%. He lost by 3.4%.
Trump was leading but within the margin of error. His result fell within the margin of error.
>> No. 68977 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 4:02 pm
68977 spacer
>>68976
Again, no idea what you think this proves. The key reason for difficulty with state polling is that turnout is hard to predict, particularly in earlier states. Trump was underrepresented compared to polling, because he did not succeed in translating supporters into voters compared to his rivals.
>> No. 68978 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 4:06 pm
68978 spacer
Is Sanders vs. Cruz a likely win for Cruz?

Is Iowa fairly liberal? Does Bernie stand a chance outside?

Who do you guys think is the best result for the UK? I'm not particularly concerned with US domestic politics, only its effect on us with regard to US foreign policy.
>> No. 68980 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 4:14 pm
68980 spacer
>>68978
Cruz is probably general election poison.

Sanders will do pretty well in NH, not so well in South Carolina, and probably get slaughtered on Super Tuesday.
>> No. 68981 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 4:20 pm
68981 spacer
>>68980
Why might Cruz be poison?
>> No. 68983 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 4:30 pm
68983 spacer
>>68977
>Trump was underrepresented compared to polling
Exactly what part of "margin of error" are you having trouble with?
>> No. 68985 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 4:38 pm
68985 spacer
>>68983
I'm not sure what margin of error you're talking about. The whole point of looking at an average of polling aggregates is to smooth the MoE out.
>> No. 68987 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 5:01 pm
68987 spacer
>>68985
No, it smooths out the noise, not the error.
>> No. 68989 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 5:18 pm
68989 spacer
>>68987
http://news.mit.edu/2012/explained-margin-of-error-polls-1031

>Overall, Berinsky counsels, the best strategy is not to focus on any particular poll, but to look at a rigorous aggregation of poll results, such as those conducted by Pollster.com or Real Clear Politics. Such averages smooth out the variations and errors that may exist in any given poll or sample. In the 2008 election, he says, “a simple average pretty much gave you the [actual] result.”

And again, what margin of error are you specifically talking about? As in, give me a number please.
>> No. 68990 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 5:26 pm
68990 spacer
>>68989
Six.
>> No. 68991 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 5:32 pm
68991 spacer
>>68990
And where are you getting that from, then?
>> No. 68992 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 5:36 pm
68992 spacer
>>68981
Hard to build a winning coalition in your party when most of your party hates you.
>> No. 68993 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 5:58 pm
68993 spacer
>>68989
Sampling error. For most of these polls it's been somewhere in the 3-6% range. Unlike outliers and house effects, aggregation doesn't make this go away.
>> No. 68994 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 6:11 pm
68994 spacer
>>68993
Uhm yeah it does, that's actually one of the main advantages of aggregation.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/10873/1/Polling-PSA.214.docx

>Turn now to the aggregation of polls, which represents a second layer of method, quite distinct from that required for a single poll. Historically, poll aggregation has had a better predictive record than using individual polls alone. One obvious reason is that aggregation increases effective sample size and therefore reduces sampling error. A typical individual poll may have 95% confidence intervals of 3 or 4%; the confidence intervals for an aggregation of eight or ten polls, by contrast, are typically 0.75 or 1%.
>> No. 68995 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 6:17 pm
68995 spacer
>>68994
You know the difference between theory and practice? In theory there isn't one.
>> No. 68996 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 6:23 pm
68996 spacer
>>68995
Lad, if you'd opened by letting me know that you don't believe in statistical theory, you could've saved us both a lot of time.
>> No. 68997 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 6:38 pm
68997 spacer
>>68996
No, I merely don't believe in dense cunts misapplying statistical theory to make their argument. Don't worry though. Even Oxbridge types make that mistake, like that one about conspiracy theories recently.
>> No. 68998 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 6:39 pm
68998 spacer
>>68997
I'm not even applying the theory, dummy, I'm correcting your assertion that aggregation doesn't smooth out sampling errors.
>> No. 68999 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 6:39 pm
68999 spacer
Can we just stop for a minute to recognize how overtly corrupt the process is that Hillary won 6 coin tosses in a row?
>> No. 69000 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 7:05 pm
69000 spacer
>>68998
You are though. You're saying these polls are aggregated therefore the sampling error goes away. That's applying the theory to get a conclusion. You're applying it wrong so your conclusion is also wrong. If you buy every combination for the lottery, you're guaranteed to hit the jackpot. What you're doing is seeing that you actually only returned 40% of your stake and declaring that you underperformed.

In the final credible poll before the doors opened, Trump was given at 27+/-4. He finished within that range, therefore he performed as expected. Cruz and Rubio outperformed their numbers, the latter considerably. Everyone else, including Trump, fell within the margins. All of this is without taking account of the fact that once you're in the room people are trying to persuade you to change their mind.
>> No. 69001 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 7:18 pm
69001 spacer

moving-the-goalposts-300x2402[1].jpg
690016900169001
>>69000
Aggregation reduces the sampling error and smooths out the MoE. If you don't believe that (as you have previously indicated) you don't believe in statistical theory.

We are not talking about any individual poll, we're talking about the aggregate.
>> No. 69003 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 7:40 pm
69003 spacer
>>68999
I don't know, mate, if I was going to be corrupt, I'd try something more ambitious and effective than making an effective tie slightly more favourable for me and win 0 delegates.
>> No. 69004 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 8:10 pm
69004 spacer
>>69001

Polling is subject to systematic errors that aren't corrected by aggregation, as we saw in the last UK General Election. Sampling bias is a chronic problem in political opinion polling, because willingness to respond isn't homogeneous. Polling companies suffer from a herd mentality - they imitate each other's methods and tend not to publish poll results that substantially deviate from other polls.
>> No. 69005 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 8:22 pm
69005 spacer
>>69001
No, he's right. There's a difference between theory and practice. In theory, aggregating comparable polls does give a lower sampling error. In practice, you're not looking at an aggregate of comparable polls. What you are saying is the same as someone claiming that because the average voltage in an AC circuit is zero it's perfectly safe to touch the contacts at a high-voltage substation. The theory that the average voltage is zero is correct, but in practice this isn't an appropriate application of that theory.
>> No. 69007 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 8:43 pm
69007 spacer
>>69004
>systematic errors

Hit the nail on the head. Taking the mean helps to reduce the random error (but only by a square-root factor of the number of samples) but it doesn't affect underlying reasons why polls differ from on-the-day results.
>> No. 69008 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 8:44 pm
69008 spacer
>>69004
Yep, they're not totally corrected. Luckily, I never said they were. I said aggregation reduces the sampling error and smooths out the MoE. That's why it's more accurate.

Trump finished within the margins of an individual poll, but individual polls are not particularly worth looking at, and are not what we have been discussing. He did not perform as the aggregate suggested. The principal reason for uncertainty with early state polling is the question of turnout. It's not clear whose support will translate into votes. Trump's didn't. His supporters are not as reliable voters as his rivals'.
>> No. 69010 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 9:07 pm
69010 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Yil4jbzeMw
>> No. 69011 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 9:09 pm
69011 spacer
>>69008
>Luckily, I never said they were.
Oh, so you're that cunt, are you?

>I said aggregation reduces the sampling error and smooths out the MoE. That's why it's more accurate.
See this right here? That's you taking the theory and completely misapplying it.
>> No. 69013 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 9:17 pm
69013 spacer
>>69011
I'm the cunt who has been saying aggregates have a lower MoE. I didn't know anyone out there was dumb enough to disagree, but you learn something new every day I guess!
>> No. 69014 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 9:22 pm
69014 spacer
>>69013
>I'm the cunt who has been saying aggregates have a lower MoE.
Right, and in this particular case you'd be wrong.
>> No. 69015 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 9:26 pm
69015 spacer
>>69014
That's a really good post and an incisive counterpoint, thanks.
>> No. 69016 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 9:31 pm
69016 spacer
>>69015
Lad, it's been pointed out to you around half a dozen times where you're going wrong, but by all mean carry on repeating yourself. If you repeat it enough times, maybe all those non-random variations will go away so they fit.
>> No. 69017 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 9:47 pm
69017 spacer
>>69016
Er, no lad, what has been pointed out is that there are errors in polling which aggregation doesn't eliminate. Something which, as should be apparent to the literate, I haven't been arguing against!
>> No. 69018 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 10:00 pm
69018 spacer
>>69017
>Something which, as should be apparent to the literate, I haven't been arguing against!
Except in >>68985, >>68989, >>68994 and >>69001, obviously, where someone who may have been you did very clearly assert, without qualification, that aggregation reduces all errors.
>> No. 69019 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 10:07 pm
69019 spacer
>>69018
Er, I said that aggregation smoothed the MoE out, quoted a political scientist claiming that it smooths out variations and errors, quoted a political scientist saying it reduces sampling error, and reiterated that it reduces the sampling error and smooths out the MoE.

I did not say it eliminates all errors, you subliterate twat.
>> No. 69020 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 10:08 pm
69020 spacer
>>69018>>69019

"Eliminate" and "reduce" are two very different things.
>> No. 69021 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 10:17 pm
69021 spacer
>>69020
Yes, and I didn't say it reduces all errors either.
>> No. 69027 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 11:12 pm
69027 spacer

sadtrump.png
690276902769027
I think they broke him. He looks so sad.
>> No. 69028 Anonymous
2nd February 2016
Tuesday 11:29 pm
69028 spacer
>>69027

Good.

Cruz is just as mental though.
>> No. 69030 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 1:04 am
69030 spacer
>>69028
So are Hillary ad Bernie.
>> No. 69031 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 1:37 am
69031 spacer
>>69027
Remember, New Hampshire is looking a little clearer. In the polling there he currently has a solid lead, which he didn't have in the run up to Iowa (no, 5 points in a caucus state is not a "solid" lead), and there won't be anyone in the polling station telling his supporters to get real. Iowa wasn't a particularly good fit for him, so he's already done well to walk away with 7/27 delegates there, which you'll note regardless of vote share is the same number Cruz won. Iowa is a very conservative state, whereas New Hampshire is more moderate and his "maverick" style will resonate well there. Cruz was a good match for Iowa but is unlikely to feature in NH at all. The candidate you'd expect to do better there would be Jeb! but his wheels have been slowly working their way off. His current projection is not far above the 10% threshold for winning delegates.

Speaking of the rules, here's how it works in New Hampshire for the Republicans: Vote share maps directly onto 20 delegate votes, again rounded to the nearest value, and if any delegates remain unallocated, the winner gets them all. However, anyone getting less than 10% gets nothing. With such a diverse field, with lots of candidates picking up small slices, that could be a lot of spare delegates. If the result is bang-on the current 538 projection, the result would be Trump 5 Cruz 3 Rubio 3 Kasich 2 Bush 2, leaving a top-up of 5 - and Bush is currently projected at 10.8, meaning that the bonus could even be 7. The real number to watch here will be Marco Rubio's performance. He's edging towards the centre of the field, with good conservative credentials but not too far away from the middle to be unappealing to moderates, so while he's not an ideal fit a good 15% in a crowded field should put him in good stead, and a second place finish should be good for his momentum.
>> No. 69032 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 1:47 am
69032 spacer

het.png
690326903269032
>>69031
Cruz won 8 delegates, not 7, and you can throw all pre-Iowa polling out now.
>> No. 69034 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 2:04 am
69034 spacer
>>69032
>Cruz won 8 delegates, not 7
What's 51666 multiplied by 27 divided by 186743 to the nearest whole number?
>> No. 69035 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 2:16 am
69035 spacer
>>69034
http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/ia
>> No. 69036 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 2:48 am
69036 spacer
>>69035
>ARTICLE VIII – BINDING OF NATIONAL CONVENTION DELEGATES
>1. The Iowa delegation to the Republican National Convention shall be bound on the first ballot to vote proportionally in accordance with the outcome of the Iowa Caucuses. The proportional delegate allocation shall be rounded to the nearest whole delegate. In the event that a delegate is unallocated due to mathematical rounding, the unallocated delegate vote shall be cast in favor of the candidate closest to the rounding threshold. In the event that delegates are over-allocated due to mathematical rounding, the over-allocated delegate shall be removed from a candidate based on the rounding threshold. Delegates shall be bound to the candidates in direct proportion to the candidates’ respective vote shares in the Iowa Caucuses regardless of whether any such candidate has withdrawn from the race or otherwise does not have his or her name placed in nomination at the Republican National Convention.
https://www.iowagop.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/RPI-Bylaws-Updated-2015.pdf

As far as I can make out, that's number of votes divided by total of votes multiplied by 27 delegates. Tonight I discovered that you can just Google the actual words "51666 multiplied by 27 divided by 186743" and it'll work it out without you having to put the symbols in.
>> No. 69037 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 3:22 am
69037 spacer
>>69036
There are 30 delegates from Iowa.
>> No. 69038 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 3:24 am
69038 spacer
There is talk of not being much useful polling data coming out of New Hampshire because there apparently won't be many useful polls. To get the impact from Iowa, they'd need fieldwork from Wednesday plus at least one day either side. In practice, that means publishing Friday. There's a debate on Saturday, and apparently everyone's watching the rugby or something on Sunday (I guess there must be a lot of Welsh out there), leaving only the Monday before the vote itself, so there isn't enough time to turn around anything after the debate to see what effect it'll have. In short, if you're not running a campaign, the best use for New Hampshire polling will be picking your lottery numbers.
>> No. 69039 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 3:56 am
69039 spacer
>>69037
Yes and no. Three seats on every delegation are set aside for that state's representatives on the RNC. Apart from a few winner-take-all states that bind them, they're generally not bound to vote for anyone in particular, and are the Republican equivalent of super-delegates.
>> No. 69040 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 4:52 am
69040 spacer
>>69039
All 30 are bound.

https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/694581142482243584
>> No. 69041 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 5:23 am
69041 spacer
>>69040
Hmm. Now I see why various sources have incomplete results. Sticking 30 into my spreadsheet does give Cruz 8, Trump 7, Rubio 7, Carson 3, but then it gets hairy. Five delegates to go around six candidates. Paul and Bush are easy calls, but the other four are close enough that you'd probably want the party to weigh in. By rounding, Fiorina, Kasich, Huckabee and Christie all get a delegate, but that totals 31. If I've assumed correctly in thinking that the "rounding threshold" is the point at which any candidate would round up to their next delegate, effectively N+0.5 for each candidate, then that leaves Christie furthest away, but I may not have assumed correctly. None of the major candidates are anywhere near a rounding point (Cruz gets his eighth easily with a calculation of 30 seats).

Of course the really fun part is that at this rate there'll be one poor sod who will have to vote for Mike Huckabee even though he's pulled out.
>> No. 69046 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 5:08 pm
69046 spacer

okrz7rF.png
690466904669046
Rand Paul is dropping out.

Because of a law in Kentucky, Paul was unable to appear on the ballot for Kentucky's presidential primary (which is run by the state) and run for reelection in his senate seat. He came to an agreement with the Kentucky GOP that they would move to a caucus system (run by the party) this year so he could run for both, so long as he paid for it.

So now he's footing the bill for an unnecessary caucus he won't be participating in. Rational market actor, there.
>> No. 69048 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 7:06 pm
69048 spacer

trumpbaby.png
690486904869048
Trump is handling his loss like the mature, reasonable and serious candidate we all know he is.

Also http://www.loser.com
>> No. 69049 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 7:12 pm
69049 spacer
>>69048

Fucking called it. I said the moment he said he wouldn't show up to the final debate that his wheels were coming off, and now look, he's gone totally bonkers.

He came second because Rubio was able to snatch the debate spotlight and Cruz had people out on the ground telling his supporters to go and vote. I know from personal experience that hubris can only carry you so far, eventually you've got to back that shit up.
>> No. 69050 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 7:54 pm
69050 spacer
>>69046
I don't see what could be considered irrational. He has new information.
>> No. 69051 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 7:55 pm
69051 spacer
>>69049
This is probably going to net him some media attention, though, and he's been able to make that work excellently for him so far.
>> No. 69052 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 7:56 pm
69052 spacer
>>69050
That was a joke, m8, and the fact that he isn't going to be president shouldn't be news to him anyway.
>> No. 69053 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 8:21 pm
69053 spacer
>>69051

His entire shtick has been "I'm already a winner, why would you vote for anyone else". But that's clearly not the case, and now it's there for all to see, right out in the open. He half arsed it and now he's suffering the consequences. Everything he's done since bottling the debate has been on the back foot, and it's making him look weaker and weaker. Which is not a good luck for any candidate, least of all one trying to appeal to the nutters on the American right. The evangelical voters can see right through his miserable attempts at trying to placate them as well.

He's shagged sideways, Trumplad, now let your dark dreams die and render unto Bernie.
>> No. 69055 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 8:39 pm
69055 spacer
Oh Jeb...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5J8RRXnUjk
>> No. 69056 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 8:43 pm
69056 spacer
>>69053
>He's shagged sideways, Trumplad
I've been making smug posts about how he has no chance for months, mate. You may be right, I am merely pointing out that he is not a traditional candidate, and traditional weaknesses haven't damaged him so far.
>> No. 69057 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 8:47 pm
69057 spacer
>>69053
You're painting a very bleak picture for someone who just came a close second in the caucus.
>> No. 69058 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 8:59 pm
69058 spacer
>>69057
“No one remembers who came in second.” - Walter Hagen
>> No. 69059 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 9:05 pm
69059 spacer
>>69058
But as that's a piece of wisdom Trump himself believes I think we can safely ignore it.
>> No. 69060 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 9:06 pm
69060 spacer
>>69057

Because he had such a massive lead in the polls and managed to lose it entirely, and as a consequence his aura of invincibility has been blasted clean off. Now it's obvious to all what he is, and has been all along, a big, whiny, bag of hot air and horse shit. He's a political glass cannon, if you will.
>> No. 69061 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 9:13 pm
69061 spacer
>>69060
So based on this robust analysis, we can expect to see Trump not win a single state?
>> No. 69062 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 9:24 pm
69062 spacer
>>69061

>based on this robust analysis

Oh, I'm so sorry, are my imageboard posts not of suitable quality for your journal, Professor?

All I'm saying is he's fallen, and I don't think he'll get back up.
>> No. 69063 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 9:30 pm
69063 spacer
>>69058
>>69059
>>69062
That's Iowa, the only Republican winner they ever picked was Dubya, and this thing has only just begun, so no-one has even come second yet.

If this were a Tennis match it'd be somewhere between losing game and set, not match.
>> No. 69064 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 11:01 pm
69064 spacer
>>69060
He finished second on an even money bet in a state where he shouldn't even have been a contender. On the Republican side, Iowa is a conservative state with a considerable evangelical Christian influence. Trump isn't a conservative, isn't a Bible-thumper, had almost no ground operation, and alienated a lot of people by skipping the debate. He had all that going against him and still picked up a quarter of the vote.

To borrow >>69063's tennis analogy, this isn't even the set but merely a break of serve. He ultimately isn't going to win, but until the field narrows a bit more he still has quite a bit of mileage in him yet. New Hampshire is his kind of place, and if his opponents' numbers work out right for him then he could well take a majority of the delegates there. What's keeping him in the game is the breadth of the field. We should expect to lose a couple more candidates this time next week, with each dropout lengthening his chances and shortening the other front runners', but I would expect him to make it to Quite Large Tuesday and possibly to Super Tuesday, given both of those have a lot of states with threshold requirements which could eliminate a lot of the challengers. I'd be surprised if there were still five candidates rolling into Super Tuesday and more than three going out of it.
>> No. 69065 Anonymous
3rd February 2016
Wednesday 11:52 pm
69065 spacer
>>69064

In a broader Machiavellian sense, Trump has already won. The Republican consensus has shifted even further right and the Democrat primaries have been completely overshadowed. Even if he finishes dead last in the NH primary, he has made a colossal dent in American politics.

With "build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" out of the debate, Cruz may be able to win a substantial proportion of the Hispanic vote without really addressing the immigration issue. Rubio would almost certainly benefit from a huge Hispanic swing.

The impact of Trump's campaign on the political climate has made Ohio and Florida much more difficult states for the Democrats. Obama only won Virginia thanks to a massive turnout amongst black voters, so that state is up for grabs. I really wouldn't want to be Clinton right now.
>> No. 69076 Anonymous
4th February 2016
Thursday 4:39 pm
69076 spacer
>>69065
Yeah, that's a good point. Ron Paul was a bit of a joke and a no-hoper for the presidency, but he's proof that a factional candidate (which Trump is increasingly looking like) can have a big impact: auditing the fed is now in the GOP platform, and somewhere around half the candidates have voiced support of the gold standard(!).

The US may rep the seeds Trump is sowing for years to come, regardless of whether he wins.
>> No. 69077 Anonymous
4th February 2016
Thursday 4:57 pm
69077 spacer

image.jpg
690776907769077
Jeb didn't do so well.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/please-clap-jeb-bush-begs-crowd-to-applaud-after-speech-is-met-with-total-silence/
>> No. 69078 Anonymous
4th February 2016
Thursday 4:57 pm
69078 spacer
>He ultimately isn't going to win

Hehehehe.
>> No. 69081 Anonymous
4th February 2016
Thursday 7:32 pm
69081 spacer

voting-republican1.jpg
690816908169081
>>69065
Trump has won shit, and I don't see how Republican 'consensus' has shifted. If it's shifted, it's shifted in the direction of Trump, which is to the left of typical Republican policy and way left of Cruz's platform. Building a wall to protect labour is a leftwing policy, however impractical, and an 'amnesty' would be a right wing victory. Indeed, Rick Santorum dropped his bid and endorsed outsider Marco Rubio because both Trump and Cruz are unpalatable for the GOP.
>> No. 69082 Anonymous
4th February 2016
Thursday 7:40 pm
69082 spacer
>>69077
Watching that clip, from his inflections it didn't really sound like he had finished what he was saying when he asked the audience to clap. It signals he isn't the best public speaker but I don't think it necessarily shows distrust from his supporters.
>> No. 69083 Anonymous
5th February 2016
Friday 1:30 pm
69083 spacer
>>69081
>it's shifted in the direction of Trump, which is to the left of typical Republican policy
Lad.
>> No. 69084 Anonymous
5th February 2016
Friday 7:33 pm
69084 spacer

7xqxEKo.png
690846908469084
Huh, would you look at that. Looks like Trump was underrepresented in the Iowa voting compared to polling, because he did not succeed in translating supporters into voters compared to his rivals. Who would've thought.
>> No. 69085 Anonymous
5th February 2016
Friday 10:31 pm
69085 spacer
>>69083

Depends which type of left you're on about. This is leftist in the tradition of labour protectionism, as opposed to leftist in the modern sense of "Nevermind that wealth inequality, we have gay rights and doublethink!"

This is how we have ended up in the absurd situation of having a vaguely leftist set of policies dictating the moves of the fucking Republican party, and it's largely how we've ended up with a throwback 70s Marxist in charge of the Labour party at home. One day perhaps politicians will realise that large chunks of the electorate doesn't give two screaming shits about how much of a progressive you are and we can return to some sort of sensebility- Not likely when they base all their strategies within the context of socially liberal globalist media agenda.
>> No. 69086 Anonymous
5th February 2016
Friday 11:25 pm
69086 spacer
>>69085
Nativism is not a leftist tradition.

Trump's policies are not "vaguely leftist".
>> No. 69088 Anonymous
6th February 2016
Saturday 2:24 pm
69088 spacer
>>69086
It's not traditionally right wing either, because it restricts the supply of labour and thereby maintains or increases wages, and maintains living costs by restricting the importation of greater demand, and so maintains living standards of employees, and decreases them for employers, 'producers' and 'owners of the means of production' or 'workers' and 'bourgeois', respectively. I think you're confused because your model for classifying politicians which equates nastiness with those on the right and humanitarianism with those representing the left isn't applicable to the real world.
>> No. 69090 Anonymous
6th February 2016
Saturday 3:24 pm
69090 spacer
>>69088

It's not liberal, but it's conservative, both right wing traditions of different types.
>> No. 69091 Anonymous
6th February 2016
Saturday 7:09 pm
69091 spacer
>>69088
>it restricts the supply of labour and thereby maintains or increases wages, and maintains living costs by restricting the importation of greater demand, and so maintains living standards of employees
Consumer demand increases labour demand, you dope.

http://people.virginia.edu/~jem6x/hong%20mclaren%20022014.pdf

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_0JtSLKwzqNSfrAF

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_5vuNnqkBeAMAfHv

The impact on the labour market from immigration is small, but positive.

http://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/what_immigration_means_for_u.s._employment_and_wages/

In any case, Trump is not focusing on "labour protectionism" so much as he is on telling flat out lies about immigrants' criminality and a mythical crisis at the border to appeal to an angry, poorly informed electorate.

>I think you're confused because your model for classifying politicians which equates nastiness with those on the right and humanitarianism with those representing the left isn't applicable to the real world.
I think you're a bit of a wanker if you think you're going to project that much onto a dozen word reply to your inanity.
>> No. 69092 Anonymous
6th February 2016
Saturday 7:11 pm
69092 spacer
>>69088
>It's not traditionally right wing either
So you admit it's not left wing, but you somehow think Trump is pulling the Republican party to the left? You're incoherent.
>> No. 69095 Anonymous
7th February 2016
Sunday 1:23 pm
69095 spacer
Carson fucked up his and others' entrances to the debate last night:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uafScAiaC44

And Rubio has managed to stay above the fray for most of the debates by not really engaging any of the other candidates and staying on message for the general. Chris Christie called him out on his strategy of "vaguely address the question for 10 seconds, then pivot to stump speech" and he responded by... Giving his stump speech. Twice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru8EAdIPsPI
>> No. 69096 Anonymous
7th February 2016
Sunday 1:56 pm
69096 spacer
>>69095
Rubio gave it out more than twice - he was terrible and Christie was quite awesome and made bang-on points about the relative levels of experience.

Interesting debate. Donald was being polite, Bush was being witty. If its possible to imagine that the Democrats would nominate Bern, then its also possible to imagine that one of these numpties could end up being President.
>> No. 69097 Anonymous
7th February 2016
Sunday 3:23 pm
69097 spacer
>>69096
He said the same shit more than twice, but I mean that he responded to the accusation that he was giving his stump speech instead of responding to anything with that very stump speech twice.
>> No. 69098 Anonymous
7th February 2016
Sunday 4:15 pm
69098 spacer
>>69095

To be fair to Carson, he'd clearly been told backstage "okay Doctor, you're next". It was hilarious how long he kept walking when they started announcing "Texas Senator..." though.

>>69096
>>69097

I thought either the stream I was listening too was playing up or I'd gone totally mad when you started saying the same thing, word for word, again. Thoroughly bizarre.

As for Christie and Trump, why did no one attack them? There's a pyramid shaped grain silo of shit on Christie, and not one, not even Cruz, pointed out that Trump lost in Iowa, something I found inexplicable.
>> No. 69099 Anonymous
7th February 2016
Sunday 4:47 pm
69099 spacer
>>69098
>not one, not even Cruz, pointed out that Trump lost in Iowa
It turns out that "man who isn't evangelical conservative loses Iowa to evangelical conservative" isn't much of a story.
>> No. 69100 Anonymous
7th February 2016
Sunday 4:55 pm
69100 spacer
>>69098
Why would they attack Christie? His baggage is enough to assume that he's a non-starter in the long run, and having him tear down a frontrunner is great for everybody else.

As for attacking Trump, well, when has that ever worked out for anyone?
>> No. 69101 Anonymous
7th February 2016
Sunday 5:17 pm
69101 spacer
>>69100
Their strategy is to wait for Trump to implode. That is more than likely, lets be honest.
>> No. 69107 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 1:09 am
69107 spacer

smug trump.png
691076910769107
Votes still being counted, but Trump and Sanders have massive leads, feels good to see the establishment maggots reaping what they sowed.
>> No. 69108 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 3:07 am
69108 spacer

NH.png
691086910869108
>>69107
Here's how it breaks down with 125/300 locations counted (and conveniently a little over 100k votes in). The threshold means that even with rounding errors, delegates will be underallocated, and those pass to the winner. Thus at these percentages Trump gets 7+4. Marco Rubio looking precarious - again, if he slips down, those two delegates end up with Trump.

The leaderboard as would be: Trump 18, Cruz 10, Rubio 9, Kasich 4, Carson/Bush 3, Fiorina/Huckabee/Paul 1. I'm guessing Carly Fiorina and Chris Christie will drop out. Difficult to call Ben Carson, since he was never going to get anywhere in NH anyway. Jeb Bush may think he's still in with a shout of being the "establishment" candidate. Marco Rubio may have floundered, but maybe he thinks he can get something out of the South. Remember that on the 1st and 15th of March we will see over half the Republican delegates allocated.

I haven't bothered working out the delegates for the Democrats, since they break it down by Congressional distrrict, and that would mean actually having to do the calculations properly instead of just dicking about with some headline numbers in Excel.
>> No. 69109 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 3:23 am
69109 spacer
Also, I have no idea why everyone seems to be featuring Jim Gilmore in their results, when he received about a dozen votes in Iowa and tonight has received fewer votes than three candidates that have pulled out already.
>> No. 69111 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 4:29 am
69111 spacer
Looks like Christie's dropping out.

>>69108
>Difficult to call Ben Carson, since he was never going to get anywhere in NH anyway
Carson is a grifter, and he will keep on going with his book tour "Presidential Campaign" for as long as it's a good earner.
>> No. 69112 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 4:53 am
69112 spacer

huffpo uk.png
691126911269112
The anglosphere's Huffington Post front pages are a scene right now.
>> No. 69113 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 4:54 am
69113 spacer

huffpo us.png
691136911369113
>>69112
>> No. 69114 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 4:54 am
69114 spacer

huffpo ca.png
691146911469114
>>69112
>> No. 69117 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 10:45 am
69117 spacer

HxrJQNX.png
691176911769117
>>69112
>> No. 69118 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 11:14 am
69118 spacer
>>69112>>69113>>69114>>69117

Did you only find your keyboard's print screen key this morning or something?
>> No. 69119 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 11:42 am
69119 spacer
>>69118
I could've linked them, but they change, and in any case going to each one redirects to .co.uk.
>> No. 69120 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 12:09 pm
69120 spacer
>>69119
And what value did you think there was in showing us multiple Huffington Post headlines about the same story?
>> No. 69124 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 6:26 pm
69124 spacer
>>69120
They are amusing.
>> No. 69125 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 6:36 pm
69125 spacer

media trust.gif
691256912569125
>>69124
It is pretty funny, the media is so out of touch with the people that they never seriously entertained the possibility of Hillary not winning, the BBC has been increasingly apoplectic about Trump as well, funnily enough, the US election is one of the few things they allow comments for anymore.
>> No. 69126 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 7:49 pm
69126 spacer
"I'm gonna do something good because I'm good and good things are good!"

The thick fuck can't even form full sentences.

If you support Trump, especially from a transatlantic perspective, you are subnormal, and you should probably go live in the woods so human society doesn't have to worry about encountering you.

I mean, how can you hate, not just everyone else, but yourself enough to vote for someone like Trump? What's wrong with people?
>> No. 69127 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 8:16 pm
69127 spacer
>>69126
A part of me supports Trump.
Personally, I think it would just be fucking amazing to watch if Trump won the presidency. Like some sick, country wide reality show.
There's certainly a lot of ways that it would affect me/us that I'm overlooking, but still.
>> No. 69128 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 8:18 pm
69128 spacer
>>69126
Are the other Republican frontrunners any better? I really hope Trump secures the nomination, it'd be hilarious.
>> No. 69129 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 8:19 pm
69129 spacer

Untitled.png
691296912969129
>>69125

Clinton is still the runaway favourite on the betting exchanges.
>> No. 69130 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 8:24 pm
69130 spacer
>>69125
There is still very little chance of Hillary not winning. If Sanders can survive Super Tuesday without getting slaughtered, then it's fair to say he has a shot. Same goes for Trump.
>> No. 69131 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 8:27 pm
69131 spacer
>>69129
What's Rubio still doing up there? It has to be 4 days old at least.
>> No. 69132 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 8:32 pm
69132 spacer
>>69130
She barely, fucking barely, won Iowa, and she got slaughtered in New Hampshire, it honestly doesn't look good for her, I know the party has all kinds of undemocratic bullshit they can pull like Superdelegates, media manipulation and general chicanery but there's only so much rigging they can get away with.
>> No. 69133 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 8:34 pm
69133 spacer
>>69125
There was a bloke on BBC news at about 05:45 doing the 'In the News' bit talking about the headlines and I was absolutely amazed that this is considered an impartial organisation anymore. Hilariously it was followed up by a report that women's pay is still 19% below mens and everything that entails, followed by discussing it with someone who said yes it's bloody awful blah blah and nobody made any attempt to point out that it's complete wank.

People give it a pass though because it makes nice documentaries. Fuck me.
>> No. 69134 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 8:35 pm
69134 spacer
>>69132
>She barely, fucking barely, won Iowa, and she got slaughtered in New Hampshire
She's doing better than Bill then.
>> No. 69135 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 8:39 pm
69135 spacer
>>69132
You say that but it's no different to how Ed Miliband won - he won off the back of the Labour parties equivalent of superdelegates too, despite losing the vote amongst the party members.


Anyway, Paddy Power have Clinton favourite at 10/11 followed by Trump at 7/2, Sanders 7/1 and Rubio 8/1. Trump's chances rely on the other contenders not dropping out and thus him being able to glean off as many delegates as possible before the rest of the party rallies around someone else.
>> No. 69136 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 8:41 pm
69136 spacer
>>69134
Bill was the exception to the rule, if you don't do well in one of those two states it's generally a bad omen 9 times out of 10.
>> No. 69137 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 8:50 pm
69137 spacer
>>69135
I don't put much stock in the bookies, didn't they have Trump at 200/1 at some point? Fuck me, I should've put 10 quid down on the blond beast. Really though, all their information comes from the media's slant of who ought to win and not an observation of what's actually happening.
>> No. 69138 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 8:58 pm
69138 spacer
>>69137
I don't see the issue, perhaps that was once the case? It once looked unlikely, time happened to turn down the unlikely route, and now it looks more likely, so what?
>> No. 69139 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 9:08 pm
69139 spacer
>>69138
It only seemed unlikely to people oblivious to how disgusted people were becoming with the establishment.
>> No. 69140 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 9:08 pm
69140 spacer
>>69137
>Really though, all their information comes from the media's slant of who ought to win and not an observation of what's actually happening.
You really have no idea how bookies work.
>> No. 69141 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 9:10 pm
69141 spacer

electoral_precedent[1].png
691416914169141
>>69136
It's not a rule. You should pay more attention to delegate counts and demographics than "bad omens".
>> No. 69142 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 9:22 pm
69142 spacer
>>69141
Who else has won the nomination without securing either Iowa or NH by a wide margin? Generally curious, I don't think there's been anyone else apart from Willy in recent memory.

As for demographics, well, Hillary's pissed off most of them, oh, but I'm sure she'll get the woman vote, especially when she gets someone on stage to say there's a special place in hell for you if you have a pair of tits and don't vote for her.

The inevitable candidate has never looked so...evitable.
>> No. 69143 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 9:40 pm
69143 spacer
>>69142
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/it-gets-harder-from-here-for-bernie-sanders/
>> No. 69144 Anonymous
10th February 2016
Wednesday 10:02 pm
69144 spacer

150501_carly_fiorina_gty_2_1160.jpg
691446914469144
RIP Fiorina, you mental, bloodthirsty insectoid fuck.
>> No. 69145 Anonymous
11th February 2016
Thursday 1:44 am
69145 spacer
So, where was I? >>69108

It looks like the calls I made came out (though to be fair they weren't entirely surprising). I suspected that Carson might not drop out, but I didn't think the campaign would be quite this crazy:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/10/ben-carson-campaign-upbeat-poor-showing-new-hampshire
>His campaign director, Bob Dees, was remarkably chipper. “This is not even below expectations for the campaign,” Dees, a retired general, told the Guardian.
>“Obviously you’d like to do better, but this is not damaging for the campaign,” Dees said.
>The attendance at the party briefly peaked at about 50 people. It wasn’t much of a party. Supporters milled around chatting. Food was served. There were two bars set up but neither was inundated. A woman working behind one of them spent much of her time knitting a blanket.
>> No. 69148 Anonymous
11th February 2016
Thursday 11:22 pm
69148 spacer
Where can I get one of the 'Make America Great Again' hats? They don't ship abroad.
>> No. 69149 Anonymous
11th February 2016
Thursday 11:59 pm
69149 spacer
>>69148
Just get a blank one and inscribe it with a Sharpie. Or just buy from one of the many counterfeit suppliers online. As the seller is the legal entity behind his campaign, technically when you buy one of the caps you're making a political contribution, and contributions from foreigners are very much not allowed.
>> No. 69150 Anonymous
12th February 2016
Friday 12:11 am
69150 spacer
Just when you thought it couldn't get any more annoying, Trump will make America grate again.
>> No. 69151 Anonymous
12th February 2016
Friday 12:26 am
69151 spacer
>>69148
China.
http://www.aliexpress.com/popular/trump-hat.html
>> No. 69155 Anonymous
12th February 2016
Friday 1:48 am
69155 spacer
>>69151
>>69149
I want a real one. Not a fake.

I think I'll get my American (Trump supporting) uncle to send one over for me.

We'll make America Great Again.
>> No. 69156 Anonymous
12th February 2016
Friday 1:52 am
69156 spacer
>>69155
When was it great before?
>> No. 69160 Anonymous
12th February 2016
Friday 7:06 am
69160 spacer
>>69155

Why isn't such blatant Seppoism a ban worthy offence?
>> No. 69161 Anonymous
12th February 2016
Friday 7:53 am
69161 spacer
>>69160
Why should it be?
>> No. 69162 Anonymous
12th February 2016
Friday 8:02 am
69162 spacer
>>69161
Don't worry mate I have already been banned tonight after an appallingly emotional mod incident. Forever, I may add. Trying to get on irc to complain to mummy and daddy but not succeeding. Never mind.
>> No. 69166 Anonymous
12th February 2016
Friday 11:51 am
69166 spacer
>>69156
Before 9/11 if I had to pick a cutoff point, if you really think about it 9/11 ruined everything for America, even their movies and TV shows lost all the optimism they once had, it was more psychologically damaging than Vietnam.
>> No. 69167 Anonymous
12th February 2016
Friday 12:32 pm
69167 spacer
>>69166

Not the otherlad, but I'd say America's history, from the revolution right up to the modern day, is one of such vile hypocrisy and blatant self interest that it rivals Britain's own imperial days. All they did was wrap it up in better PR.

9/11 was simply the first time anyone really managed to deal them much of a blow, and it was a big one for their national psyche. Kind of like the frst time a really attractive girl gets turned down on a date or what have you.

Anyway I'll shut up now, I'll probably start a cunt-off.
>> No. 69168 Anonymous
12th February 2016
Friday 12:52 pm
69168 spacer
>>69167
>America's history, from the revolution right up to the modern day, is one of such vile hypocrisy and blatant self interest that it rivals Britain's own imperial days

That's the history of the world, America was simply the best at it in the 20th century, it is only at a very late and enfeebled stage of civilisation that one would construe strength, vitality and domination as vices, such types as yourself would vilify and denigrate the truly greatest men of history, the Napoleons, the Julius Caesars and Alexanders.

In our age greatness is an embarrassment.
>> No. 69169 Anonymous
12th February 2016
Friday 1:22 pm
69169 spacer
>>69168

Perhaps your own understanding is so enfeebled that you find it hard to reconcile "greatness" with their undoubtedly immoral deeds, so instead you try to excuse it.

I would villify people like Alexander, Napoleon, Hitler, and so on because that is what they are. Their acheivements are no less impressive but they were indeed villains to a large extent, and you have to be a pretty strange sort of person not to realise it.

Probably the sort of person who masturbates whilst watching programs about artillery on the History Channel.
>> No. 69172 Anonymous
12th February 2016
Friday 5:24 pm
69172 spacer
>>69168>>69169

>In our age greatness is an embarrassment.

In our age technology makes it very easy for the Great to embarrass themselves. Trump could probably be very popular if he lived a couple of hundred years ago, and he probably wouldn't be half as ridiculed as he is if he lived a few decades ago.

A public figure now has little to no privacy, and the effect of that seems to be to favour the mediocre politicians who have nothing to hide, but not much to show either.
>> No. 69179 Anonymous
12th February 2016
Friday 7:54 pm
69179 spacer
>>69172
If that were true, then Trump would have zero support.
>> No. 69180 Anonymous
12th February 2016
Friday 7:55 pm
69180 spacer
>>69172
It's not so much the lack of privacy, but the speed and accessibility of information. Were he campaigning for the Presidency in 1816, then if he went and said silly things about the Spanish or the French, the news spread as quickly as a journalist could physically get their copy to wherever it needed to be, and would be disseminated as quickly as the printed copies could be circulated. If his claims didn't pass a smell test, then it might take weeks or even months of investigation to get to the truth, assuming the information was there in the first place. Compare that to now, where he can complain about Muslims (including leaving people to draw inferences about Obama), but it wouldn't take long to figure out that on average gun homicides work out to around three or four 9/11s every year.
>> No. 69196 Anonymous
13th February 2016
Saturday 3:10 am
69196 spacer
Looks like Jim Gilmore isn't going to be president. Shocked.
>> No. 69198 Anonymous
13th February 2016
Saturday 11:09 pm
69198 spacer
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is dead. His replacement will almost certainly be nominated by the next President. Stakes just got a bit higher.
>> No. 69199 Anonymous
14th February 2016
Sunday 1:02 am
69199 spacer
>>69198
Will Barry not be able to squeeze it into the 11 months he's got left?
>> No. 69200 Anonymous
14th February 2016
Sunday 1:17 am
69200 spacer
>>69199
I don't see why it wouldn't. It usually takes 2-3 months and as you said, he has plenty of time.
>> No. 69201 Anonymous
14th February 2016
Sunday 1:43 am
69201 spacer
>>69199
>>69200
It isn't a question of not having sufficient time, it's not having a cooperative senate.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-scalia-mcconnell-idUSKCN0VM0YH

http://news.yahoo.com/senator-grassley-standard-practice-wait-court-nominee-003603321.html

They'll spin the Thurmond rule to extend to the whole year.
>> No. 69219 Anonymous
14th February 2016
Sunday 1:11 pm
69219 spacer
>>69198
>A bit
Mate this is incredibly influential, Scalia was an incredibly powerful and revered figure in US politics, and the supreme court has an enormous amount of power in shaping the United States, especially given that they're jobs for life. This couldn't have come at a worse time for the Republicans.

I've no doubt Obama will select someone before he's gone.
>> No. 69222 Anonymous
14th February 2016
Sunday 1:15 pm
69222 spacer
>>69219
I'm well aware of who Scalia was and the importance of the SC, ta pal.

Obama will nominate someone, sure. Not a snowball's chance in hell of getting them confirmed though.
>> No. 69227 Anonymous
14th February 2016
Sunday 1:24 pm
69227 spacer
>>69222
He can appoint unilaterally during recess. The Senate can't stay in session forever. Its session must end by 3 January because the new Congress convenes the following day. He can even in limited circumstances declare that the Senate is in recess and appoint, and any challenge to this dubious method would take around two years to work its way through the courts. Contrast this with the around two weeks that he'll still be around if he has to wait until January.
>> No. 69230 Anonymous
14th February 2016
Sunday 2:26 pm
69230 spacer
>>69227
A recess of at least 10 days is necessary for recess appointments. The senate will not be in recess for that time for the next 11 months.
>> No. 69231 Anonymous
14th February 2016
Sunday 2:43 pm
69231 spacer
>>69230
If the Senate simply pretend to be in session, he can appoint on the basis that they're effectively in recess, and any objection would have to work its way through the courts. ISTR there was a case a couple of years ago on this, with the important outcome that the appointees were not unseated. By the time any appeal reached the Supreme Court, the newly appointed judge is on the bench and able to vote in favour of declaring their appointment lawful.
>> No. 69233 Anonymous
14th February 2016
Sunday 3:12 pm
69233 spacer
>>69231
Nope, in the 2014 case Obama's appointments were held to be invalid precisely because the senate was holding pro forma sessions and was not therefore in recess.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/25/us/annotated-supreme-court-recess-decision.html

This paragraph is particularly interesting:

>We therefore conclude, in light of historical practice, that a recess of more than 3 days but less than 10 days is presumptively too short to fall within the Clause. We add the word “presumptively” to leave open the possibility that some very unusual circumstance — a national catastrophe, for instance, that renders the Senate unavailable but calls for an urgent response—could demand the exercise of the recess-appointment power during a shorter break. (It should go without saying — except that Justice Scalia compels us to say it — that political opposition in the Senate would not qualify as an unusual circumstance.)

It's like he envisioned this precise scenario occurring.
>> No. 69234 Anonymous
14th February 2016
Sunday 3:31 pm
69234 spacer
>>69233
Doesn't matter. Murder is illegal and it still happens. He can do it again, and the court can again test whether or not it's lawful, but it'll be a bum on a seat that can't be moved from it.
>> No. 69235 Anonymous
14th February 2016
Sunday 3:56 pm
69235 spacer
>>69234
No, lad, supreme court rulings and precedent do, in fact matter.
>> No. 69237 Anonymous
14th February 2016
Sunday 6:05 pm
69237 spacer
>>69235
No, they really don't. No court decision is capable of physically preventing him from putting pen to paper.
>> No. 69238 Anonymous
14th February 2016
Sunday 6:42 pm
69238 spacer
>>69237
The fact that he's not a complete idiot will stop him from doing something which was unanimously and unambiguously ruled unconstitutional two years ago.
>> No. 69239 Anonymous
14th February 2016
Sunday 7:05 pm
69239 spacer
>>69231
By the way:
>ISTR there was a case a couple of years ago on this, with the important outcome that the appointees were not unseated
Only because none of them were actually still in the positions they had been appointed to at the time of the SC ruling, you dope. Their appointments were ruled illegal and invalid, if they had remained they would have been unseated, as would any Supreme Court justice appointed in similar circumstances. And it certainly wouldn't take two years this time, as the matter was settled. And Obama would probably face impeachment.

What you're suggesting is profoundly dumb.
>> No. 69240 Anonymous
14th February 2016
Sunday 7:29 pm
69240 spacer
>>69238
What's that got to do with anything? Again, you appear to be confusing legal theory with reality.
>> No. 69241 Anonymous
14th February 2016
Sunday 7:36 pm
69241 spacer
>>69240
In reality, a President doing something which is unquestionably unconstitutional is a big deal, especially when the reason we know it's unconstitutional is that the exact same President did the exact same thing before. Supreme court rulings matter when it comes to executive action. This is really not hard to understand.
>> No. 69242 Anonymous
14th February 2016
Sunday 7:52 pm
69242 spacer
>>69234
>He can do it again, and the court can again test whether or not it's lawful, but it'll be a bum on a seat that can't be moved from it.
The senate has to confirm recess appointments by the end of their next session or the position becomes vacant again. The "bum on a seat" is very much movable. Do you actually research or reflect on what you're posting about or do you just type out your drivel as soon as it comes into your head?
>> No. 69243 Anonymous
14th February 2016
Sunday 8:04 pm
69243 spacer
>>69241
You're right, it isn't hard to understand, yet you seem to be having real trouble with it. Let's bring this down to a level that your simple brain is capable of understanding. Murder is illegal. If you're on the floor and I'm stood above you pointing a gun at your head, neither of us would be in any doubt that for me to fire that gun would be illegal. There could be no argument - if I pulled the trigger, and you died, then I'd be guilty of murder. As far as legal theory is concerned, the situation is clear - I'm absolutely not allowed to pull the trigger. As far as reality is concerned, I can still pull the trigger, you'll be dead. Maybe I'll be caught and tried, but you'd still be dead. If I'm put on trial, I'd almost certainly end up in prison, but you'd still be dead. All that can happen is that I could be punished after the fact.

To tie this up, there is no precedent and no established process for removing a justice from the Supreme Court. Neither is there a precedent for a recess appointment to the Court expiring if not reconfirmed, as is the case for other offices, which are expressly not lifetime appointments. If Obama tries the same trick as he did with the previous 32, the same thing would happen. They'd have to go through the legal process to get a decision that the justice was unlawfully appointed, but this wouldn't get them unseated, because all the courts could do is declare it unlawful. Think NSA phone interception or votes for prisoners - the courts can say no, but they can't enforce it. There would also be no prospect of impeaching Obama, because there is nowhere near enough time left in his term for it to happen. Of course, all of this could be moot, since come November the Republicans have 24 of the 34 seats in contention, and the Democrats would only need to pick up four of these if Hillary wins.
>> No. 69244 Anonymous
14th February 2016
Sunday 8:49 pm
69244 spacer
>>69243
Just so we're clear, you admit that the appointment would be invalid, but you think the supreme court justice would get to remain on the bench because there's no precedent for them being removed after their appointment has been ruled invalid?

Do you not think that maybe, just maybe, the reason there's no precedent is that nobody as fucking dumb as you has ever been President?
>> No. 69245 Anonymous
14th February 2016
Sunday 9:05 pm
69245 spacer
>>69243
>All that can happen is that I could be punished after the fact.
The decisions made by Obama's invalid recess appointees to the NLRB had to be revisited. The decisions made by an invalid Supreme Court Justice would likewise come into question. But they'd totally get to stay around, because the illegal appointment of a Justice to the SCOTUS is just as irreversible as murder. Top logic m8.
>> No. 69246 Anonymous
14th February 2016
Sunday 9:15 pm
69246 spacer
>>69243
>Neither is there a precedent for a recess appointment to the Court expiring if not reconfirmed
John Rutledge.
>> No. 69247 Anonymous
14th February 2016
Sunday 9:32 pm
69247 spacer
>>69245
>But they'd totally get to stay around, because the illegal appointment of a Justice to the SCOTUS is just as irreversible as murder.
Erm, yes, appointment of a justice to the Court is, in fact, irreversible. There are exactly three ways off the bench: death, resignation and impeachment. Unless the nominee commits some misdeed in public office, they're going to need some novel way of getting rid of them, and the rest of the Court, especially the originalists, are going to be unlikely to want to invent one.

In terms of reconsidering decisions, it's only going to make a difference if they are 5-4 to overturn a decision of a lower court and the new justice is in the majority. If they're not in the majority, then the tally just becomes 5-3. If it's not 5-4, then the majority survives without them. A 4-4 tie means the Court's decision has no effect and the lower court's decision stands, meaning that if the decision was to affirm vacating it would make no difference.

This is assuming that the Democrats fail to make five gains (or four gains and holding the Presidency) in November.
>> No. 69248 Anonymous
14th February 2016
Sunday 9:45 pm
69248 spacer
>>69247
Erm, no, if the appointment is invalid then there was no actual appointment to reverse.

Also:
>John Rutledge

And grounds for impeachment is "whatever a majority of the House (considers it) to be at a given moment in history".
>> No. 69394 Anonymous
21st February 2016
Sunday 1:18 am
69394 spacer

trumpobama.png
693946939469394
Now that resident legal expert Mr Dunning-Kruger Esq. is done trying to argue that laws don't matter, in actually relevant news, Trump has won South Carolina, despite his polling dropping like a rock after his whole "Bush lied, people died" outburst.

Also, it's nice to see him getting some more use out of the "Obama=Muslim" meme. I thought that one was out of commission.
>> No. 69395 Anonymous
21st February 2016
Sunday 1:45 am
69395 spacer
>>69394
I thought he'd decided to drop it and simply not deny it when his audience says it.

Anyway, Jeb! is out. He really does look like he's struggling to hold back the tears.
>> No. 69397 Anonymous
21st February 2016
Sunday 2:08 am
69397 spacer
>>69395
Can you imagine what Jeb! is going through? His father and brother both became the president but he couldn't even come close. What must his mother think?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yHckRTkcZg
>> No. 69399 Anonymous
21st February 2016
Sunday 2:14 am
69399 spacer
If only Jeb had helped Trump with his casino plans in Florida, this could've been a far different outcome.

RIP
>> No. 69400 Anonymous
21st February 2016
Sunday 2:41 am
69400 spacer
>>69397
>What must his mother think?
She's probably relieved, I don't think she was ever a fully committed supporter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS0BGp9vKQ0
>> No. 69401 Anonymous
21st February 2016
Sunday 5:49 am
69401 spacer
>>69397

Bizarrely he comes across as more intelligent and more articulate than his brother whilst still seeking more of a loser. Touch of autism perhaps.
>> No. 69402 Anonymous
21st February 2016
Sunday 5:54 am
69402 spacer
>>69394

It's tragic that endless race baiting and shit stirring don't hurt his numbers one iota, but pointing out Iraq was a red herring and 9/11 did actually happen while Bush Jr. was in office do.

Must be nice being a Republican, living an entire life fact free.I guess that's why they have all that extra space for hot dogs.
>> No. 69403 Anonymous
21st February 2016
Sunday 6:18 am
69403 spacer
>>69402
He couldn't have done it at a worse time too. South Carolina has a huge military population, and W has always been extremely popular there. If there's an easier way to throw away a 20 point advantage, I can't think of one.
>> No. 69404 Anonymous
21st February 2016
Sunday 6:47 am
69404 spacer
>>69403

Well given that he could literally and uncontrollably shit his pants in the middle of a rally and still receive a wild round of applause, does it even matter?

Cruz v Rubio jostling for second place is devastating the vote against Trump, and it's embarrassing watching the pair of them claim victory if you ignore the other guy ssshhh, don't talk about it. Someone needs to hook either one of them off the stage, and be quick about it.
>> No. 69408 Anonymous
21st February 2016
Sunday 8:36 am
69408 spacer
I just can't stand Hilary.

She really riles me up. She couldn't be less authentic and more insincere if she tried.

I'm not a huge fan of any of the candidates this time around but I genuinely worry that the choice is looking more and more likely that it will be either Trump or Hilary on my TV for years to come.
>> No. 69409 Anonymous
21st February 2016
Sunday 8:38 am
69409 spacer
>>69408

Trump v Hilary would be terribly for the Democrats for exactly the reasons you don't like her.
>> No. 69459 Anonymous
21st February 2016
Sunday 4:39 pm
69459 spacer
Oh Lord, I didn't realise "please clap" was a bona fide quote.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdCYMvaUcrA
>> No. 69466 Anonymous
21st February 2016
Sunday 5:08 pm
69466 spacer
>>69459

It's amazing isn't it. There was also somewhere he made a personal appearance and was asked to leave the stage early. Also in one interview he gets pissed at being asked about small key ring type turtles he carries. I find it hard to feel sorry for someone so insecure that they have a gun with their name AND job title engraved on it.
>> No. 69468 Anonymous
21st February 2016
Sunday 5:11 pm
69468 spacer
>>69466

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yHckRTkcZg&ab_channel=Bestof%C2%A1Yeb

How the bloody hell do I embed youtube here?

Regardless, I thought the turtle thing was quite sweet. Somebody gifted him them and he used it to give to kids to support a proverbial message and also give them a nice memento. Don't see what's so bad about that.

The rest of it was awful though, he just seems too nice.
>> No. 69469 Anonymous
21st February 2016
Sunday 5:12 pm
69469 spacer
>>69468

http://britfa.gs/help/features.html
>> No. 69472 Anonymous
21st February 2016
Sunday 5:18 pm
69472 spacer
>>69469

Thank you.

Anybody else get a kick out of these videos just playing over the top music to Jeb? It works quite well considering it's humour based around American politics which usually makes me want to gouge out my eyes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw2-EbXnwvs&ab_channel=Bestof¡Yeb


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xmEwTjAOGc&ab_channel=JebBush

All credit to whoever wrote that second one.
>> No. 69473 Anonymous
21st February 2016
Sunday 5:26 pm
69473 spacer
>>69472
You fucked it up.
>> No. 69475 Anonymous
21st February 2016
Sunday 5:28 pm
69475 spacer

1451743111917.jpg
694756947569475
>>69473

Ah shit, I give in.
>> No. 69476 Anonymous
21st February 2016
Sunday 5:31 pm
69476 spacer
Trump's setting his sights on the Cuban fraud Rubio now.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/trump-questions-rubios-eligibility-219586

>On Saturday, Trump retweeted a tweet that suggested the Florida senator was not a citizen, George Stephanopoulos asked him about it on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday morning.

>"I'm not really that familiar with Marco's circumstances,” Trump said Sunday morning.
>“But then why retweet it?” Stephanopoulos asked.
>“Because I'm not sure."

By the time this is over I don't think anyone will be a real American except the man himself.
>> No. 69480 Anonymous
21st February 2016
Sunday 5:43 pm
69480 spacer
>>69476
To be fair, it is looking like he is possibly the only American in the race now that Bush is out. Rubio's Cuban, Cruz is Canadian-Cuban and nobody's entirely sure which planet Carson is from.
>> No. 69509 Anonymous
21st February 2016
Sunday 7:05 pm
69509 spacer
>>69476

More hateful shit from Trump. Rubio's parents fled Cuba long before they received their robo-baby 3000 builder kit.

>>69480

I theorise it has a remarkably short day night cycle given his constant napping.
>> No. 69513 Anonymous
21st February 2016
Sunday 7:53 pm
69513 spacer

CbtTwxXUAAECF61[1].jpg
695136951369513
>>69480
On one hand, Carson's mission to scam as much money as possible out of the biggest rubes in America is hilarious, on the other it's getting near time the Consumer Protection Bureau stepped in because COME THE FUCK ON
>> No. 69521 Anonymous
21st February 2016
Sunday 9:10 pm
69521 spacer
>>69513
I guess that makes Carson second in the Big Balls primary. (Trump's got a massive lead in that one too.)
>> No. 69532 Anonymous
22nd February 2016
Monday 12:49 am
69532 spacer
Trump 2016. Brexit 2016. Make the globe great again.
>> No. 69533 Anonymous
22nd February 2016
Monday 1:13 am
69533 spacer
>>69532
On some level I think these are all bad things, but I just can't help but want for them to happen. I don't know what it is, but I just like it a lot when everyone else is in the shitter with me. In fact, I am happiest then.
>> No. 69535 Anonymous
22nd February 2016
Monday 1:34 am
69535 spacer
>>69533
Everyone thinks big changes are bad until they happen. Who knows, western nations might start giving a shit about the people who live in them for once. They certainly don't currently.
>> No. 69536 Anonymous
22nd February 2016
Monday 2:08 am
69536 spacer
>>69533
Not to be a nihilist but I find it doubtful that any of this will truly impact our lives, even Brexit will be addressed through new treaties years into the future when we actually would leave.

I guess I'm suffering from political fatigue.
>> No. 69537 Anonymous
22nd February 2016
Monday 2:26 am
69537 spacer
>>69536
Nothing changes.
>> No. 69542 Anonymous
22nd February 2016
Monday 1:23 pm
69542 spacer
Some remarkable video editing skills here.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0tE6T-ecmg
>> No. 69549 Anonymous
22nd February 2016
Monday 4:13 pm
69549 spacer
>>69542
That was amazing.
>> No. 69556 Anonymous
22nd February 2016
Monday 8:23 pm
69556 spacer
>>69535
Who is benefiting instead of the people who live in western nations?
>> No. 69579 Anonymous
23rd February 2016
Tuesday 3:18 pm
69579 spacer
>>69556
The illuminati.
>> No. 69716 Anonymous
29th February 2016
Monday 4:37 pm
69716 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGc2nN9OguQ

Around the 17 minute mark is pretty scary.
>> No. 69735 Anonymous
29th February 2016
Monday 9:46 pm
69735 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nolbmguzvGk

Its amazing witnessing just how incompetent the American media is when trying to attack Trump.
>> No. 69740 Anonymous
29th February 2016
Monday 11:09 pm
69740 spacer
I think it's hilarious to look back at this thread and see everyone writing him off. He's definitely not going to win the nomination or any delegates at all because he's a prick and there are real politicians in the way and his poll numbers will never translate and the system is rigged against him and his supporters won't turn out and just look at that fucking hair. Yet here we are on the eve of Super Tuesday, with him already well out front and potentially set to win a majority of tomorrow's contests.

One thing is clear. He was only going to be stopped if there were someone to stop him, and clearly that hasn't happened. More accurately, anyone that could have stopped him was themselves restrained. Cruz and Rubio aren't doing each other any favours. If Rubio dropped out, Cruz might give Trump a run for his money. If Cruz dropped out, Rubio would almost certainly romp home. Sadly, it's too late for that. The biggest states on the calendar are Texas and California, and Cruz is set to win the former while the latter will be too late to make any difference.
>> No. 69745 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 3:55 am
69745 spacer
>>69716
I can't fucking stand that prick.
>> No. 69746 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 6:18 am
69746 spacer
>>69740

It's the Republicans fault for breeding nothing but dolphin rape and fear for the last decade. I suppose once again we're reminded in a very real way that you can never underestimate Americans.

And Cruz thinks he's on a mission from God so he's not dropping out.

>>69745

Would you care to share why?
>> No. 69747 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 6:33 am
69747 spacer
>>69746
Not really. Glad he's not on our television.
>> No. 69748 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 6:57 am
69748 spacer
>>69747

I'm genuinely curious to know why you hate him though.

Is it maybe that you don't have a real reason? Because you're a groupthink shitposter from beyond the Narrow Sea? Is that it? Feel free to claim otherwise.
>> No. 69752 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 10:08 am
69752 spacer
>>69740
Cruz's supporters are much more likely to support Trump, Cruz is very much anti-establishment, just of a more evangelical type, he even claims he'll build a wall also. They wouldn't go to Rubio, possibly Carson, but not Rubio.
>> No. 69753 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 10:19 am
69753 spacer
>>69752
The Cruz camp won't support Trump. He's a Bible-hating liberal who supports murdering babies. Ted himself wouldn't endorse The Donald unless he was the last man in the race. He's got a Senate seat to defend in 2018 so he doesn't want to piss off the establishment too much.
>> No. 69754 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 10:24 am
69754 spacer
>>69748
Not him, but the reason I find him irritating is because of his pandering to whatever the hot topic is at the time. And it's not a clever sort of pandering, it's an obnoxious exploitation of a worn out British stereotype. It's something that isn't a surprise when coming from the same creators of the John Stewart show, where they aim for the absolute lowest hanging fruit in terms of opponent insults.

That little report was good, but it was completely soured by the Drumpf slagging. Really now, John Stewart changed HIS name, not his family - while Trump's family changed their several generations before - a completely disingenuous insult to be fair.

It's just gets a bit nauseating, with all the smug self back-patting. It's literally no different to Fox news or whatever.
>> No. 69755 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 10:47 am
69755 spacer
>>69754
>pandering to whatever the hot topic is at the time
It is a topical humour show, that's sort of the point.
>> No. 69756 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 10:51 am
69756 spacer
>>69753
Trump might seem somewhat degenerate to the evangelicals but what's their alternative? Rubio himself is most likely a closet case and has shown he breaks under pressure very easily.

They want someone who'll beat Hillary, Trump can.

But don't just take my word for it -

>A CBS News poll of Republican primary voters nationally this month showed Mr. Trump leading Mr. Cruz among evangelicals 33 percent to 22 percent.

>In South Carolina, where Mr. Trump won a commanding victory, earning all 50 delegates, he carried evangelicals by six percentage points over Mr. Cruz and 11 percentage points over

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/donald-trump-despite-impieties-wins-hearts-of-evangelical-voters.html?_r=0
>> No. 69757 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 11:24 am
69757 spacer
>>69756
That doesn't suggest that those voters will break for Trump. In all likelihood, he's already got the evangelicals he's going to get.
>> No. 69758 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 11:41 am
69758 spacer
>>69755
Sure, but it still can be a bit more objective and less like some news cast. All these Colberts/Stewarts/Olivers are just tiresome to watch because it's the same smug prick picking at the lowest common denominator in terms of gaffs/faults in their subject.
I take these shows appeal to the average college stoner.
>> No. 69759 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 11:43 am
69759 spacer
>>69758
You're more than welcome to not watch them.
>> No. 69760 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 12:11 pm
69760 spacer
>>69759
Believe me, I go out of my way to avoid them. I don't purposefully watch adverts, but sometimes one comes on and I don't feel bothered but let it play and pass by. This is sort of similar, and I didn't rule out they aren't completely funny.

Olivers account of Trump is good, very good in fact - it gave us a great run down why he is a political cartoon character and should be discounted for that reason. But he had to fuck it all up by including shite about his name and some other dumb shit like his hair or whatever.
>> No. 69762 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 1:08 pm
69762 spacer
>>69760
Calm down, Tony.

Ask your grandparents.
>> No. 69764 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 1:26 pm
69764 spacer
>>69757
I think it does suggest that, there's nowhere else for Ted's supporters to go, the reason pundits, the media, and the majority of posters in this thread (who basically just repeat what they've been told by the "experts") were so caught unawares is because they don't see the big picture, this election is about establishment vs anti establishment. in the Anti corner we have Trump, Cruz and Carson, in the Establishment corner we have Rubio, Kasich and the fallen like Jeb.

Christie saw which way the wind was blowing and made a smart move, many more will follow.
>> No. 69766 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 2:33 pm
69766 spacer
>>69764
I would put Christie's endorsement down to spite more than political acumen. He was meant to be the frontrunner this year (and in 2012, when he declined to run), but found himself cut loose by the establishment. He could tolerate that when it was Jeb Bush who was being supported over him, but when he was ignored in favor of Marco Rubio, a freshman senator with no executive experience or notable political accomplishments (in Christie's eyes), I think he saw red and decided to burn it all down.

Alternatively, to pit a tinfoil hat on for a second, Trump knew Christie had a whole bunch of campaign debt and decided to once more engage in The Art of the Deal.
>> No. 69767 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 2:36 pm
69767 spacer
New GE matchup polling.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/cnn-orc-poll-super-tuesday

>Sanders led Trump with an 12-point lead, 55 to 43 percent. In the January iteration of the poll, Sanders only led by three points.

>Clinton beat Trump with an 8-point lead, 52 to 44 percent. This is a sharp increase from the 1- to 2-point leads she had over the real estate mogul in the December and January versions of the poll.

Ouch.
>> No. 69768 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 2:43 pm
69768 spacer
>>69766
>The Art of the Deal
Presumably the same tactics that have lost him half his value and seen his casino business go bankrupt four times, having never made a profit in its entire existence.

Speaking of which, has anyone seen that thing with Johnny Depp?
>> No. 69769 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 2:50 pm
69769 spacer

nate.jpg
697696976969769
>>69767
The pundits have been wrong about literally everything with this election so far, their reputation as objective analysts is in tatters after months of claiming the sky was falling for Trump.

First they were saying Trump wouldn't get any delegates

Then it was Trump could never be the Nominee

Now it's Trump can never beat Hillary
>> No. 69770 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 3:00 pm
69770 spacer
>>69769
I don't recall pundits saying that he actually wasn't going to get anything. You must be confusing them with the idiots that have posted in this thread.
>> No. 69771 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 3:17 pm
69771 spacer
>>69770
Those idiots were just echoing what the pundits were saying at the time.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/22/donald-trump-wont-win-republican-presidential-nomination

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-six-stages-of-doom/
>> No. 69772 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 3:18 pm
69772 spacer
>>69769
You seem to be confusing a poll with pundits.
>> No. 69773 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 3:37 pm
69773 spacer
>>69772
Don't be stupid, Nate Silver's statement of Trump only having a 2% chance of getting the nomination was from polls.

It's hard to say whether they were actually ignorant to the sea change that allowed this to happen or whether they were simply following orders from the establishment (which they undoubtedly themselves are a part of) to help will a Bush vs Clinton election into reality, which was always the dream.
>> No. 69775 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 3:46 pm
69775 spacer
>>69748
I don't know what you mean by that. If you're the guy who repeatedly posts with every sentence being a rhetorical question I also can't stand you.
>> No. 69777 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 3:53 pm
69777 spacer
Having read back the beginning of this thread I want him to win more than ever just to spite all the cunts having a teary about some words they find distasteful. Not even sure what they are.

Deportation is enforcing the law, guys.
>> No. 69778 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 3:56 pm
69778 spacer
>>69773
Er, no it wasn't, he explicitly gave Trump a low chance of success despite the polls. He emphasised the invisible primary and the effects of endorsements, as well as the fact that Trump's background did not resemble that of traditionally successful candidates.
>> No. 69783 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 4:41 pm
69783 spacer
>>69778
You'll also note that he gave a low probability, not zero probability. Given 100 simulations of the race, Trump still wins two of them. We're just seeing the unlikely paths play out. Trump winning the nomination is like Leicester qualifying for Europe. It was unlikely but not impossible at the start of the season.
>> No. 69784 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 4:54 pm
69784 spacer
>>69783
>It was unlikely but not impossible at the start of the season.

Bless those Thai hookers.
>> No. 69785 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 5:35 pm
69785 spacer
>>69783
His grave miscalculation can't be quite so charitably excused, for someone to have a mere 2% shot at something you would expect an extremely tight race to play out, it hasn't been one.

The sheer hatred for the establishment candidates felt by broad sections of the electorate had never even entered the equation.
>> No. 69789 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 6:13 pm
69789 spacer
>>69785
Mate, that's not how probability works.
>> No. 69792 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 6:36 pm
69792 spacer
Why are "the establishment" hated so much? It isn't like we are living in Russia. They aren't that corrupt. So why all the hate and the need to burn everything down?
>> No. 69793 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 6:42 pm
69793 spacer

hottest first lady.jpg
697936979369793
So who do you think will be his running mate? He says he wants someone who's already well established but I don't see him picking anyone as predictable as Christie or Kasich.
>> No. 69794 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 6:56 pm
69794 spacer
>>69792

It's not just hatred of the establishment that's propelled Trump to first place, it is xenophobia, in a big way, whatever Trump fans try to claim. Or don't, as the case may be.

As for your actual question, it's because they could change things but they don't. You say it's not Russia, but it's the same motives and a similar outcome. Powerful interests give money to powerful politicians and they, with varying degrees of directness, do their bidding. At least that's the complaint from a left wing perspective. Right wing Americans could think any old shit, as they're mad, completely and utterly mad.

>>69793

>Melainia Knauss
>Donald Trump

Is his name there because she's in his magazine, is his wife, or his alter-ego?
>> No. 69795 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 6:59 pm
69795 spacer

ap_ap-photo1067-wi-e1442500463861.jpg
697956979569795
>>69793
>> No. 69796 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 7:00 pm
69796 spacer
>>69792
Jobs shipped overseas, real unemployment being high.

The whole Middle East debacle from 9/11 to the present day.

The overall sense of cultural decay, that they're in decline.

Intellectual tyranny, racial and class divisiveness fostered by the liberal media (Trump taking a big shit on political correctness is a big reason why he's been so successful).

The near 20 Trillion debt.

The biased media, which is increasingly blatant with it's propaganda
>> No. 69798 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 7:02 pm
69798 spacer

melania-trump-donald-trump-harpers-bazaar.jpg
697986979869798
>>69794
It's his wife.
>> No. 69799 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 7:05 pm
69799 spacer
>>69794
The middle one. Knauss (or rather Knavs) is her maiden name. I haven't run it through Google Translate but I'm being the caption is something along the lines of "Donald's fallen for her charms, we find out why". Maybe our resident Eastern European (for we must have one) can explain.
>> No. 69801 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 7:11 pm
69801 spacer
>>69792
It's not just corruption, it's the whole thing, the sense of detatchedness and cold calculating statements and speeches and policies, candidates have become products rather than people.
>> No. 69802 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 7:17 pm
69802 spacer
>>69796
It's precious how some people think labour force participation rates are the REAL unemployment, and there's some conspiracy to conceal it.
>> No. 69805 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 7:42 pm
69805 spacer
>>69796

Haha, yeah, like when the "liberal media" demagogue Anderson Cooper was hounding the Republicans without mercy the other week. Oh, wait a minute, he asked what their favourite musicals were and whether they love their wives.

Ah, you must mean those wall to wall pro-Bernie reports CNN and MNSBC keep putting... no, hold up, that's nonsense too.
>> No. 69806 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 8:09 pm
69806 spacer
>>69805
How about when the media never turn the cameras at Trump rallies to show the thousands of supporters (they might have done once but only after Trump and the crowd literally demanded them to)?

Or how they kick up an almighty stink about David Duke saying he likes Trump, but never mentioned Obama's radical pastor who preached death to America.

I could go on and on here, but you're playing ignorant.
>> No. 69807 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 8:15 pm
69807 spacer
>>69806
The cameras are on Trump because it's Trump's fucking rally.

And it's weird that I know Jeremiah Wright's name if they never mentioned him. Maybe it came to me in a dream?
>> No. 69809 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 8:19 pm
69809 spacer
>>69805>>69802>>69794
Sanctimonious cunts like yourselves are why Trump will get the nomination, and most likely the Presidency.

Americans are sick and tired of being told to be ashamed of themselves, the liberals are really going to wish they didn't push people so far with the radical feminist bullshit, race baiting and censorship of anything that doesn't conform with their narrow totalitarian views.
>> No. 69810 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 8:40 pm
69810 spacer
What is this tendency to conflate liberalism with "the establishment?"

Political correctness gone mad.®
>> No. 69811 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 8:41 pm
69811 spacer
>>69806
>How about when the media never turn the cameras at Trump rallies to show the thousands of supporters (they might have done once but only after Trump and the crowd literally demanded them to)?
That's because Trump explicitly demands that they not do so, or else:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLs8OXpH8u4
>> No. 69812 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 8:43 pm
69812 spacer
>>69809

How is it "sanctimonious" to point out that the mainstream American media isn't "liberal" by any Liberal's standards, or that Trump's silly claim that 48% or whatever it is he's, and indeed other Republicans, claimed the unemployment figure really stands at relies on a total skewering of the numbers? These things are facts, but as usually Trump fans just hurl derision and ad-hominems whenever they come up against something real.

As for your bollocks about people being tired of "radical feminism", this is symptomatic of a life led almost entirely online, where extraordinary headlines are used to ply people into fits of rage, and hour long YT videos posted by countless egotists are what counts for "debate". All of this takes place in a bubble that looks and sounds nothing like what happens when real people have real discussions about gender, race, sexuality etc.

And yeah, bloody right xenophobia ought to be an embarrassment.
>> No. 69813 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 8:46 pm
69813 spacer
American Anglophone nations' politics are like reality TV shows. Especially during election times. It isn't really taken seriously, nor is it really respectable. It is basically a reality TV show. Dial this number to vote for the house-mate president/prime-minister you want to win. It is only natural that a reality TV star becomes the next US president.
>> No. 69814 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 8:48 pm
69814 spacer
>>69812
>All of this takes place in a bubble that looks and sounds nothing like what happens when real people have real discussions about gender, race, sexuality etc.

In my experience what happens online is simply a less inhibited version of what happens in real life. The same viewpoints exist in reality, its just that people are less willing to offend each other.
>> No. 69815 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 8:51 pm
69815 spacer

GO AHEAD.jpg
698156981569815
>>69811
You just posted a video of some asshole reporter kick and try to choke a security guy, fucking remnant.
>> No. 69816 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 8:52 pm
69816 spacer
>>69814
I take it you don't know what a bubble is, do you lad? I haven't been fisted, but if I stuck around a German fisting club, I'm sure I would be wearing diapers by now.
>> No. 69818 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 8:55 pm
69818 spacer
>>69815
Other way round, you daft cock.
>> No. 69819 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 8:59 pm
69819 spacer
>>69818
Security guy didn't touch him, spasticated reporter man kicks and lungs for his throat, crowd removes him as peaceably as possible.

Should've just kicked the guy out, literally.
>> No. 69820 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 9:01 pm
69820 spacer
>>69816

What if the bubble is inside out?
>> No. 69821 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 9:38 pm
69821 spacer
>>69820
It is still a bubble, smartarse. Stop living in one. I guarantee that you will become less of a misogynist and a racist if you simply stop visiting all the places you visit to make yourself angry. Say bye-bye to the bubble, lad. Don't feed it your soul.
>> No. 69823 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 9:41 pm
69823 spacer
>>69820

What if your brain is a bubble right, and get this yeah, that bubble is inside out within a larger bubble, which in turn is inside out within another bubble and as you zoom out you realise that all these bubbles make up a foam, and it's dribbling out your mouth as you participate in an utterly pointless debate in a politics thread on an obscure imageboard on the internet.
>> No. 69824 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 10:17 pm
69824 spacer
Why is it that from 99% of Trump supporters, all I see are insults and "dem liberals/leftists/etc"? I don't think I've seen people actually talk about Trump online without insults being thrown around. I'm genuinely curious as to how the people who support Trump rationalise his views on things like climate change, as well as the lies he's told.
>> No. 69825 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 10:31 pm
69825 spacer
>>69824
Trump supporters are mostly poorly-educated white men. Not all, but mostly. Make of that what you will.
>> No. 69826 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 10:32 pm
69826 spacer

bernie redpilled.jpg
698266982669826
>>69824
Being a gentleman, being a nice guy, doesn't work in politics, certainly not in the 21st century. If Sanders wasn't so submissive toward Hillary, if he had just an ounce of Trump's attitude he'd have the nomination easily.

But he's a nice guy, just like Ron Paul was, and it doesn't work.
>> No. 69829 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 10:41 pm
69829 spacer
>>69811
The security guy was attacked by the reporter.
>> No. 69830 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 10:42 pm
69830 spacer
>>69829
Also in either case he's CIA, not Trump's employee.
>> No. 69831 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 10:51 pm
69831 spacer
>>69829
To be clear, the photographer is the one with the glasses, while the security guy is the one grabbing his throat and throwing him to the floor. Just in case you were getting confused.
>> No. 69835 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 11:20 pm
69835 spacer
>>69831
Do you need it spelt out for you? He is taking you for a ride, you stupid fucking moron.

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 69836 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 11:21 pm
69836 spacer
>>69826
Not this nonsense again. Why must you imply that people like arseholes? Crawl back to your redpill cave.
>> No. 69837 Anonymous
1st March 2016
Tuesday 11:37 pm
69837 spacer

SandersBlackLivesMatter.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2.jpg
698376983769837
>>69836
Can you deny it though? People don't like weakness in a leader, they want niceness from people beneath them, or equals, but not from their leaders.

Giving up your podium, defending your opponent (Hillary). You can't have someone like that dealing with Putin, dealing with China, he'd let them walk all over America.
>> No. 69838 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 12:04 am
69838 spacer
Hillary on to get Georgia and Virginia, while Bernie is set to get Vermont.

Georgia looks to be a clear win for Trump, with Rubio competing in Virginia and Kasich in the running in Vermont.
>> No. 69839 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 4:14 am
69839 spacer
>>69837
>Can you deny it though?
Yeah.
>> No. 69840 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 4:23 am
69840 spacer
>>69839
Be content with being wrong.

It really does astound me how people can still think this way, it's glaringly obvious that people don't like 'nice guys' or whatever being leaders and they want strong people regardless of their outlook. It's shown time and time again yet you're in denial.
>> No. 69842 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 4:37 am
69842 spacer
>>69840
>Be content with being wrong.
Please teach me how, seeing as you're the master.
>> No. 69843 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 5:02 am
69843 spacer
The Democrats are done for the night. Hillary gets Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachussetts (just), Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. Bernie gets Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma and is on for a shut-out in Vermont.

Once all is said and done, Rubio should pick up around 100 delegates, Cruz around 150, and Trump around 250. Oh, and Ben Carson has three from Virginia and is presumably staying in the race as a result. Kasich is just about hanging in there in Vermont, where as I type Trump is just a few hundred in front, but an even split there is only worth 8 delegates.

In short: Trump extends his lead; Cruz is the man of the hour; Rubio salvages a state win and thinks the rest of the calendar will be easier; Kasich will be sticking it out until Ohio; and absent any actual statement still nobody knows what the fuck is going on in Ben Carson's head.
>> No. 69844 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 5:39 am
69844 spacer
>>69843
>Trump extends his lead; Cruz is the man of the hour
Pardon?

Carson is thinking he still has a free platform to convey his name, image, brand, book sales, political view, whatever. At no cost.
>> No. 69846 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 6:14 am
69846 spacer
>>69844

Is he wrong? Since he stopped making up mental stories and just started being sort of sleepy, even I'm warming to him.
>> No. 69850 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 9:01 am
69850 spacer
>>69843
I'm puzzled how Hillary is getting such near-landslide victories when all I hear about is Bernie Bernie Bernie... What is going on?
>> No. 69851 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 9:08 am
69851 spacer
>>69850
Romney got a lot of near-landslide victories despite the fact that there were a ton of people screaming Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul. Clinton has a significantly larger base of support, they're just not as loud as Sanders'.
>> No. 69852 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 9:15 am
69852 spacer
>>69850
Also, a lot of the states she's getting land-slides in have large minority populations. The Clintons have always been pretty popular with minorities, whereas Sanders has had issues with outreach, and is strongest with really really white people, e.g.:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSA_THiFhvc
>> No. 69853 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 9:38 am
69853 spacer
>>69852


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu6ilzcg9tg
>> No. 69854 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 10:43 am
69854 spacer
>>69852>>69851

So basically Bernie Sanders is the next Ron Paul?

Are we going to expect Hillary up against Trump? Trump will be treated like the next Sarah Palin, so my guess that it's going to be Hillary Clinton in office in 2017... That's quite a sickening thought... A political dynasty ruling America... Whatever, I reckon she'll be a fucking boring president, the odd scandal here and there, but she won't be a crazy fuckwit like Trump.
>> No. 69857 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 11:52 am
69857 spacer
>>69854
>So basically Bernie Sanders is the next Ron Paul?

In terms of being a factional candidate without much establishment support, yes. Not that that's an inherently bad thing. Paul had a significant effect on the direction of the GOP: auditing the fed is in the party's platform, support for the gold standard is, amazingly, now a fairly mainstream Republican position, and he won his son a senate seat. Bernie will probably have a more substantial legacy than Paul: his faction is bigger and broader, and he's had a bigger platform as part of a two horse race rather than the crowded field Paul found himself in.

I seriously doubt that Bernie ever held any real hopes that he would win. His goal, I believe, was to influence the party. Instead of Clinton simply coasting along uncontested to deliver Obama's third term (which has been her preferred strategy) and define her campaign by contrasting herself with those crraaazy Republicans, she has also had to weigh in on issues which would most likely have been swept under the rug, especially Bernie's pet issue of inequality, and has faced scrutiny on her ties to Wall St. and the not-particularly-left economic policies of the administration she was a part of (notably leading to her opposition to TPP).

It would be naive to think that this represents any fundamental shift in her actual outlook but, thanks to Sanders, it's clear now that the leftist/populist/"socialist" faction are a significant, vocal, and engaged segment of the Democratic coalition, and Clinton and the party would do well to keep that in mind when the general rolls around and in the years to come.
>> No. 69858 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 12:40 pm
69858 spacer
>>69854
>That's quite a sickening thought... A political dynasty ruling America...
Whaaaa? Do you not know anything about America's even very recent political history?
>> No. 69860 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 12:50 pm
69860 spacer
>>69824

Because he's basically a bigger, more glamorous American version of Jimmy Savile.

People aren't gonna vote for him because they have the slightest idea about his policies, but simply because they feel like he stands against all the politically correct "things you're not allowed to say or think anymore" kind of culture that they've come to hate.
>> No. 69861 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 1:11 pm
69861 spacer
>>69860
Are you sure Jimmy Savile is the analogy you're trying to go for? I don't think Jim'll is now or was ever an anti-PC icon, and likewise I can't quite make the connection between Trump and the sexual abuse of children.
>> No. 69862 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 1:17 pm
69862 spacer
>>69861 Doesn't Are Nige turn into the noncemaster general, in one of those hilarious substitution thingies?
>> No. 69863 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 1:24 pm
69863 spacer

johnquincyadams.jpg
698636986369863
>>69858
Or even their early political history. Despite the increase in concern, political dynasties have actually been waning in power in America for the better part of two centuries:

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Pedro_Dal_Bo/pd.pdf

To be slightly pedantic, a candidate following in the footsteps of their spouse isn't a dynasty, seeing as they don't share a common descent.
>> No. 69864 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 1:28 pm
69864 spacer
>>69863>>69858

You know what I mean...
>> No. 69865 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 1:32 pm
69865 spacer
>>69864
No, I really don't, because political dynasties are entwined with American government, so for you to posit it as 'a sickening thought' frankly just betrays a heavy amount of ignorance.
>> No. 69866 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 1:34 pm
69866 spacer
>>69864
What >>69865 said, but in a slightly less dickish tone.
>> No. 69867 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 1:36 pm
69867 spacer
>>69866
I'm sorry, I'm finding it hard not to be dickish. BUSH. THE BUSHES. PRESIDENT BUSH ONE. PRESIDENT BUSH TWO. SENATOR BUSH. BUUUUUSH.
>> No. 69868 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 1:45 pm
69868 spacer
>>69865
Tell me how you sleep at night knowing of all the internet injustices occurring, even on this very image board!
>> No. 69869 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 2:04 pm
69869 spacer
What do you know? Despite the Palin endorsement, Ted Cruz carried Alaska. He's almost certainly going to try and position himself as the Not Trump candidate now.
>> No. 69870 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 2:58 pm
69870 spacer
>>69869
Didn't think that would help much. She's not exactly well-loved in Alaska, seeing as she quit the governorship after a couple of years to become a reality TV star and pundit. Can't find a poll more recent than 2014, but back then she had a -19 net approval rating in the state.
>> No. 69871 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 3:01 pm
69871 spacer
>>69870
Is that not why he said 'despite'?
>> No. 69873 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 3:15 pm
69873 spacer
>>69871
Palin endorsed Trump, not Cruz.
>> No. 69874 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 3:31 pm
69874 spacer
>>69873
Erm, yes. Yes, she did. Your point?
>> No. 69875 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 3:39 pm
69875 spacer
>>69874
My point is that the sentence "Despite the Palin endorsement, Ted Cruz carried Alaska" means that despite Palin endorsing Trump, Cruz still placed ahead of him. I responded by saying that I never thought the endorsement would do Trump any good.
>> No. 69876 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 3:53 pm
69876 spacer
>>69875
>the sentence "Despite the Palin endorsement, Ted Cruz carried Alaska" means that despite Palin endorsing Trump, Cruz still placed ahead of him.
Great Scott, you're right! How on earth would we ever manage to understand anything on this board without you to explain things for us?
>> No. 69877 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 3:54 pm
69877 spacer
>>69873
>>69875
Right that makes sense. I've not been following the primaries close enough to know that, without context your sentence makes it sound like Palin was endorsing Cruz.
>> No. 69878 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 4:03 pm
69878 spacer
>>69876
The poster I was responding to seemed to believe that it meant that Palin had endorsed Cruz, and the endorsement was assumed to be a negative he won in spite of, so I clarified. Try being less of a cunt.
>> No. 69879 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 10:31 pm
69879 spacer
>Despite its impressive length, it's a nimble navigator, and some can be highly venomous


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKH6PAoUuD0

I'm enjoying these. They're good digests of Trump tearing the skin off anyone who challenges his GOP dominance.
>> No. 69880 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 10:47 pm
69880 spacer
>>69879
These are shitty pet projects by a 14 year old. With that being said, I can't lie, I liked it.
>> No. 69881 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 11:10 pm
69881 spacer
>>69880
Where do you think you're posting right now?
>> No. 69882 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 4:10 am
69882 spacer
I can't help but wonder why the Republican establishment hate Trump so much. Most of it seems broadly in line with their general outlook, the only difference being his more passive and insular 'stance' to foreign policy.

I put that in quotes because his stance on a lot of issues seems to flow with the general sentiment. Which is exactly what democracy is, funnily enough.
>> No. 69883 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 7:03 am
69883 spacer
>>69882
Because he cannot be bought. They cannot stump the Trump.
>> No. 69884 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 7:45 am
69884 spacer
>>69882
He's not in line with them at all. His policies on immigration, free trade, and social security are directly contrary to the orthodoxy.
>> No. 69885 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 8:12 am
69885 spacer
>Outsourcing Creates Jobs in the Long Run
>by Donald J. Trump
>Chairman, Trump University

>We hear terrible things about outsourcing jobs--how sending work outside of our companies is contributing to the demise of American businesses. But in this instance I have to take the unpopular stance that it is not always a terrible thing.

https://web.archive.org/web/20061207071233/http://donaldtrump.trumpuniversity.com/default.asp?item=98255

Hmmm...
>> No. 69886 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 8:27 am
69886 spacer
>>69885

Oh no, don't point out things Trump has done or said, his fans hate that!
>> No. 69887 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 8:33 am
69887 spacer
>>69882

Nobody knows what his stance is on any issue. His rhetoric changes constantly and has no apparent ideological basis. When challenged, he simply denies that he ever held his previous position.

For example, while talking to CNN's News Day on the 6th of October about the invasion of Afghanistan, Trump said ""We made a terrible mistake getting involved there in the first place". Two weeks later, he told the same programme "I've never said we made a mistake going into Afghanistan".

Besides his day-to-day vacillating on major issues, Trump has not consistently supported any party. He ran for nomination as a Reform Party candidate in 2000 and was a registered Democrat between 2001 and 2009. This (slightly sleazy) video by the conservative Our Principles PAC shows why establishment Republicans don't trust him:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcUCLwWCihE
>> No. 69888 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 8:52 am
69888 spacer
>>69887
>He ran for nomination as a Reform Party candidate in 2000
A race which he ended up dropping out from, citing the involvement of David Duke as a reason, the same David Duke he now has apparently never heard of.

It's amazing to me that any of his supporters can take this man's words seriously.
>> No. 69889 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 9:22 am
69889 spacer
>>69888

Well that's the thing, you take the future of the wealthiest and most powerful nation on Earth seriously, his supporters don't. They don't give a shit. Honestly, try talking to one, it's like they're an alien race.
>> No. 69890 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 10:04 am
69890 spacer
>>69887

The embed bug changed your video to the mentally challenged rap. I thought that was quite amusing
>> No. 69891 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 11:48 am
69891 spacer

tmp_23527-Screenshot_20160303-11481072546580.png
698916989169891
>>69890
Really? I got Kilroy. On the upside, the music thread is now hilarious.
>> No. 69892 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 1:59 pm
69892 spacer
>>69888

>It's amazing to me that any of his supporters can take this man's words seriously.

I just can't any more... I can't take this torrent of Donald Trump bollockery any more... At first I was morbidly curious at why people are so fascinated by him, but it made me depressed. The biggest mistake I've made so far is to go on r/Donald on reddit and watch the sickening writhing of his most rabid of supporters. The memes, the circle-jerkery, the delusions... it's all too much for me.

He IS NOT going to be the president, he is a cartoon character. Hillary will be in office next year, mark my words.
>> No. 69893 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 2:12 pm
69893 spacer
I can see exactly why he appeals to *channers - he fits their whole 'alpha' thing and (on the surface) seems to be doing it for no deeper reason than because he's rich and he can, which in some ways is more honest than many of his competitors. The question is whether these people will manage to extract themselves from their basements and go vote - evidence so far would seem to suggest so.
>> No. 69894 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 2:40 pm
69894 spacer
>>69893
>which in some ways is more honest than many of his competitors.

This is only distinguishing feature, and I'd hate to see Ted Cruz as president. But there is no point in talking about presidency because the Republicans won't come close, it'll be a Hillary 2017 nomination - a boring Obama 3rd term, which for the rest of the world should be OK... I don't know... Why do I care about American politics so much...
>> No. 69895 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 2:56 pm
69895 spacer
>>69894
That we have to is the real problem. America's power is far too great.
>> No. 69896 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 4:09 pm
69896 spacer
I know a lot of people have been calling Trump a phony, but it comes to something when the one leveling that accusation is, of all people, Mitt Romney.
>> No. 69898 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 4:24 pm
69898 spacer
>>69896

Well, to be fair to Mitt he did such a poor job of not looking like a hopelessly out of touch multimillionaire, one could almost be forgiven for not noticing it happen at all.

>>69894

Cruz is almost certainly a dominionist, which means he wants to turn America into theocracy, more or less. Given that Trump could do anything at any time, I can't say that this would be better or worse than a President Donald, but it would be at least as bad.

As for the rest of the world being "OK" under a Hillary presidency, that's just flat wrong. The woman's a total and complete neo-con. Look at Libya, that situation is massively her fault. I can't believe it isn't brought up more often.
>> No. 69899 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 4:27 pm
69899 spacer
>>69895
Unipolar worlds are safer worlds.
>> No. 69900 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 4:36 pm
69900 spacer
>>69892
To be honest I don't really care anymore. If they want this shit show as president of their country then let's just sit back and watch the resulting mess like it's a sequel to Idiocracy. It's clearly what they want.
>> No. 69903 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 6:15 pm
69903 spacer
>>69900
How would it be any Trump be any worse than Obama?

Oh no, he might stop illegal immigration, the fucking horror.

Oh no, we won't be humiliated by a ragtag bunch of British and French muslims playing Caliphate

Oh no, the FED may get audited

Oh no, they might stop being ripped off by other countries
>> No. 69904 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 6:21 pm
69904 spacer
>>69903

Deporting millions of people is no small task, nor is it without serious human consequences.

"Killing their families" is not an answer to the problem of the Islamic State. Also it's not even close to being mostly European in makeup.

>We

Oh. Wait.

MODS!
>> No. 69905 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 6:44 pm
69905 spacer
>>69904
"We" can mean the west in that context.
>> No. 69906 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 6:48 pm
69906 spacer
>>69903
That's some fine cherry picking there.
>> No. 69907 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 6:53 pm
69907 spacer
>>69906
Everything else boils down to feelings and parroting of what the media/establishment tells the proles to believe.
>> No. 69908 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 12:22 am
69908 spacer
>>69904
Deporting millions of people is enacting US law as Clinton did.

It shouldn't be controversial in the slightest.
>> No. 69909 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 12:26 am
69909 spacer
>>69908
The same should be true of us by the way.

At least they have a fucking idea of roughly how many illegals currently reside in their country in breach of law. Tesco etc. have already estimated our population is closer to 70-75 million on consumption habits.
>> No. 69911 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 12:34 am
69911 spacer
>>69909

>consumption habits.

Which, considering the food waste we have in this country, is probably inflated and skewed by greed.
>> No. 69912 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 12:45 am
69912 spacer
>>69911

If we have such a problem with food waste howcome the streets aren't piled up with out of date mince? The illegals come out at night and snaffle it all up, that's why.

Anyway I'm starting to think that Trump really is the lesser of all possible evils in this election. Maybe not for those unfortunate enough to live there, but for the rest of us, and planet Earth itself, perhaps it is.

I'm not sure entirely why, but I find Hilary's America twice as terrifying. The second coming of Thatcher, backed up by all the might of manifest destiny.
>> No. 69913 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 1:12 am
69913 spacer
>>69912
What on earth are you on about? How could Clinton be more like Thatcher than Trump?
>> No. 69914 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 1:21 am
69914 spacer
>>69913

Trump at least seems to have a more hands-off idea of what American foreign policy should be.

He may be firsther to the right in economic terms, but it's very hard to entertain the delusion Hilary Clinton is some sort of humanitarian socialist.
>> No. 69915 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 1:42 am
69915 spacer
>>69914
Sorry, I'm confused. I asked how Clinton is more like Thatcher than Trump. I didn't describe Clinton as a "humanitarian socialist".
>> No. 69916 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 2:29 am
69916 spacer
>>69904
>Deporting millions of people is no small task,
Neither is arresting burglars but we still do it. It's enforcing the damn law.
>nor is it without serious human consequences.
Again nor is arresting other perpatrators of other illegal activities.

>>69911
Why on earth would Tesco consider saying that off the basis of food waste?? You don't think they have the best data in the world on British consumption and waste habits of food, etc? They're just making it up to make a headline once every few years?

>>69914
If I were American I'd advocate a semi-islationist policy ASAP. Trump's position is uncertain to say the least but it's generally leaning toward taking a step back and if I were an American I would support that.
>> No. 69917 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 3:13 am
69917 spacer
>>69916
Arresting burglars doesn't rip apart families, lad. Not does it kill people, which the program Trump likes to compare his policy to, operation wetback, certainly did.

That's without even getting into the economic consequences. Fields upon fields of crops rotted on the vine when Arizona instituted harsh immigration policies, because there was nobody to pick them. Imagine that across the whole country.
>> No. 69918 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 3:28 am
69918 spacer
>>69917
>Arresting burglars doesn't rip apart families, lad.
I'm pretty sure it does mate.

What's the point in fucking having a law if you don't enforce it?

>Fields upon fields of crops rotted on the vine when Arizona instituted harsh immigration policies, because there was nobody to pick them.
Good, those who own those fields shouldn't have benefitted from illegal activity.

This isn't at all controversial, I don't know how people can consider it so.
>> No. 69919 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 4:23 am
69919 spacer
>>69918
It doesn't. Children born to illegal immigrants in the USA are US citizens. They can't be deported to their parents' country of origin, which they're often not even citizens of.

It isn't just the land owners who lost out, it's a whole local economy. If it's done on a national scale, it will be a national economy which ends up worse off.

Also if a lot of people think something is controversial, it becomes controversial. That's kind of how the word works, mate.
>> No. 69920 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 4:47 am
69920 spacer
>>69919
Nobody seems to be campaigning for a change in the law though. Just ignoring it.

>If it's done on a national scale, it will be a national economy which ends up worse off.

I can think of a lot of crimes in which the local economy becomes worse off as a result of. Crimes.

>Children born to illegal immigrants in the USA are US citizens.
So? Their parents aren't. Why do you say 'it doesn't'? That's just a lie.
>> No. 69921 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 9:33 am
69921 spacer
They really are fucking desperate now aren't they? Seems they're only taking Trump seriously when it's too late to stop him.

And surely bringing a failed candidate like Romney out at the 11th hour can only do the establishment harm? It's a big fat reminder of why they shouldn't go with an Electable™ candidate.
>> No. 69922 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 9:37 am
69922 spacer
>>69921
Oh, hi Ivanka. You know we can't actually vote for your daddy here, right?
>> No. 69923 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 9:40 am
69923 spacer
>>69922
It's just hilarious to see them scrambling, throwing everything and the kitchen sink at Trump and praying to the angel Moroni that it'll stick.
>> No. 69924 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 9:44 am
69924 spacer
>>69920
Er, immigration reform has been a top priority for the leadership of both parties for years, you're not paying terribly close attention if you think nobody wants to change the law.
>> No. 69925 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 9:51 am
69925 spacer
>>69920
Don't know why you're so hung up on repeating the word "crime". It isn't generally speaking a crime for an undocumented migrant to live in the US. And in this case it isn't a crime that makes the economy worse off, it's mass deportation with a view to remedying the "crime".
>> No. 69926 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 10:28 am
69926 spacer
>>69925
The words nose, spite and face come to mind.
>> No. 69927 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 10:53 am
69927 spacer
>>69923
Fun fact: Ted Cruz has carried all the "closed" states. Trump has carried only "open" and "semi-open" states. Think about the implications of that when Hillary is dominating on the other side.
>> No. 69928 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 11:14 am
69928 spacer
>>69927
The problem with Ted is that he doesn't have the star power of Trump nor the establishment backing, he's caught between two stools.

Hillary is going to be taken down a peg or twelve over the coming months by Trump, if there's one thing he's proven, it's that character assassination is his strong suit, and Hillary has lots of material.
>> No. 69929 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 11:46 am
69929 spacer
>>69927
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'closed' and 'open' states but if 'open' states are equivalent to marginal seats then surely dominating these will be more important when it comes to an election? Let's face it, I doubt the Cruz supporting states are going to vote Hillary/Sanders over Trump or any other republican candidate.
>> No. 69930 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 11:50 am
69930 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgUAQ4ZGtgk

The main thing I got from this is that they are all incredibly badly dressed compared to the UK version. That and Trump looks like some sort of Mafioso.
>> No. 69931 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 11:56 am
69931 spacer

CRDTA07[1].jpg
699316993169931
>>69930
Try comparing apples with apples.
>> No. 69932 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 11:58 am
69932 spacer
>>69931
Is that Jo Brand?
>> No. 69933 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 11:59 am
69933 spacer
>>69929
>I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'closed' and 'open' states but if 'open' states are equivalent to marginal seats then surely dominating these will be more important when it comes to an election?
They don't correspond to swing states really. Alabama, for example, is one of the most heavily Republican states in the US and Trump won their open primary. A voter has to be a member of the party to vote in closed primaries, whereas there is no such requirement for open primaries. Semi-open primaries are contests where you can change registration at the primary site (I think).

The reason this matters isn't anything to do with the general, it's because the contests coming up are mostly closed. Probably won't make much of a difference in the big picture, though, honestly.

>Let's face it, I doubt the Cruz supporting states are going to vote Hillary/Sanders over Trump or any other republican candidate.
Wouldn't be so sure. Iowa's Republican party is heavily evangelical and is rather to the right of the party generally, for example, but the state overall is very much in play, maybe even slightly more favourable to the Dems.
>> No. 69934 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 12:01 pm
69934 spacer
>>69932
Yes?
>> No. 69935 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 12:48 pm
69935 spacer
>>69934
Okay then?
>> No. 69936 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 1:56 pm
69936 spacer
>>69935
Was that a question?
>> No. 69937 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 1:57 pm
69937 spacer
>>69936
What do you think?
>> No. 69939 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 4:29 pm
69939 spacer
Where am I?
>> No. 69940 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 4:44 pm
69940 spacer
So in this week alone, we've had Trump shit all over a former friend (Mitt) "Get on your knees", we've heard him mumble about how amazing the ratings were on his TV shows and we've heard him talk about how big his cock is.

What in the actual fuck?
>> No. 69941 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 7:07 pm
69941 spacer
>>69940
Mitt endorsed him as a great human being 4 years ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-e92jqug0w , and then he stabbed in the back. Trump was within his rights to shut him down.

And his junk gibe was right after Rubiobot 1.0 made a comment about 'you know what they say about men with small hands'.

You can't handle how Trump is the only credible and manly character running for President right now.
>> No. 69942 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 8:27 pm
69942 spacer

EAGLETRUMP.gif
699426994269942
UNNNGH DONALD YOU'RE SO MANLY

SUCH A GREAT LOV- I MEAN LEADER
>> No. 69943 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 8:29 pm
69943 spacer
All this fucking desperation from the establishment.

Why don't they realise that he's winning because he's anti-establishment and that's precisely his appeal?

Trying to condescendingly tell voters they're making the wrong choice is only adding to his appeal.

Fuck me the PR of American politics is fucking atrocious.
>> No. 69944 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 8:55 pm
69944 spacer

immigration_van_lincoln_raid.jpg
699446994469944
I think we've got some illegals in our midst, UKBAlads.
>> No. 69945 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 9:58 pm
69945 spacer
>>69942
Never been made to feel so small and inadequate that I went fullcaps on /pol/ . What's wrong anon?
>> No. 69946 Anonymous
5th March 2016
Saturday 12:55 am
69946 spacer
>Tennessee Presidential Primary Winner Defends Penis Size, Promises War Crimes

Why can't we do politics like America? It's like the best reality tv show. Except everyone loses.
>> No. 69947 Anonymous
5th March 2016
Saturday 4:43 am
69947 spacer
>>69943
They can't control him. We're meant to believe this is a bad thing.
>> No. 69948 Anonymous
5th March 2016
Saturday 5:36 am
69948 spacer
>>69943
There is nothing they can do, they've made sure of that themselves.

The GOP has spent decades eroding trust in all sorts of institutions. They've relentlessly put forward the idea to their base that they can't trust the biased mainstream media, they can't trust the ivory tower far left universities, can't trust the so-called experts etc., you can only trust the strong principled conservatives in the GOP. A movement that took on board outside criticism from experts could never be the party of climate change denial or creationism promotion, after all.

They've also spent Obama's time in office pushing the urgent notion that America is being DESTROYED by Democrats. That's very good for motivating your base and creating a sense of urgency, but the GOP have failed to deliver in many ways (not their own fault for the most part, seeing as there's only so much you can do when a good chunk of the country keeps voting for the Destroy America Party). In the face of this !!!urgent crisis!!!, they now look to their base as either incompetent or corrupt. That's what sparked Tea Party primary challenges of even reliably conservative reps, and now it's playing out on a national stage with Trump.

Now, when the GOP want to show the base that Trump's dangerous, that he has poorly thought out policies, that he'll face legislative gridlock etc., they look to the media to do its job but UH-OH the base doesn't trust them for some reason, nor do they care what your "RINO" organisations like the AEI or Club For Growth have to say, and they especially do not give a fuck what Mitt Romney and others who failed (or never tried) to fight back against the destruction of America, have to say. It doesn't matter to Trump's voters what politician X or expert Y has to say about Trump's policies, or his past statements. What matters is that Trump looks and sounds authentic here and now.

The GOP fanned the flames, they boarded up every fire exit, and now the can't stand the heat.
>> No. 69949 Anonymous
5th March 2016
Saturday 9:57 pm
69949 spacer

Cc0GH_sWAAA2fR2.jpg
699496994969949
Trump's rallies sure are getting... Interesting...
>> No. 69950 Anonymous
5th March 2016
Saturday 10:21 pm
69950 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jx9rghDOF4
>> No. 69951 Anonymous
5th March 2016
Saturday 11:06 pm
69951 spacer
Kansas predicted as an even-money bet for Trump or Cruz. Cruz has carried it with over 50%. He's also not far off 50% in Maine, albeit on the back of only one of 22 counts, but if he holds on there he gets all 23 delegates. Louisiana is predicted to be a near certainty to Trump, but there are still around three hours before polls close there.
>> No. 69952 Anonymous
5th March 2016
Saturday 11:06 pm
69952 spacer
oh man, I really don't know why you guys care about our politics. I barely care enough to vote

Arizona here, gonna vote for bernie

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 69957 Anonymous
6th March 2016
Sunday 5:23 pm
69957 spacer
>>69948
Well said, although I think the anger is fully validated, just as the anger against Hillary is by the Bernie people.

Even Fox, which has been shitting on Trump harder than the left is now permitting vitriol towards the establishment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VMZSXzy7O0
>> No. 69958 Anonymous
6th March 2016
Sunday 5:57 pm
69958 spacer
Sanders gets more shit for white people voting for him than fucking Trump does. The media seems to find every and any excuse to dismiss any of his wins, it's ridiculous.
>> No. 69960 Anonymous
6th March 2016
Sunday 7:00 pm
69960 spacer

bzy3o329y0mlpris47pfaa[1].gif
699606996069960
>>69957
While I certainly don't blame people for wanting change and being dissatisfied, anger isn't particularly helpful. There should be far more political engagement, but if it's motivated primarily by anger, the divides will just get worse, compromise will become more unpalatable, and the US government will continue to barely function.

>>69958
That's because failing to appeal to minority voters is a bigger deal when those voters actually make up a substantial portion of your party's base.
>> No. 69973 Anonymous
6th March 2016
Sunday 11:35 pm
69973 spacer

pr.png
699736997369973
Aww, bless. He's got another one. Naturally he's going to stay on until Florida on Not Quite As Super As Super Tuesday But Still Pretty Super Tuesday.
>> No. 69974 Anonymous
6th March 2016
Sunday 11:40 pm
69974 spacer
>>69973
There were mutterings last week that he was thinking about dropping out before Florida because of the potential for embarrassment if he loses. God, I hope he loses.
>> No. 69984 Anonymous
7th March 2016
Monday 10:08 am
69984 spacer
>>69958
>>69960
Pretty amusing that he makes statements like this then. I guess blacks go for Clinton just because of the brand right? Sanders is the one who really wants to go "free shit" after all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xiT6nkCp8o
>> No. 69986 Anonymous
7th March 2016
Monday 10:54 am
69986 spacer
>>69984
>I guess blacks go for Clinton just because of the brand right?
Or because she has a history of engaging with minority issues compared to Bernie, who has only ever represented constiuents of a heavily white state, and she is regarded by a large swathe of the Obama coalition (which had a great deal of minority involvement) as a third term of Obama.

>Sanders is the one who really wants to go "free shit" after all.
Please don't.
>> No. 69992 Anonymous
7th March 2016
Monday 1:05 pm
69992 spacer
>>69986
>Or because she has a history of engaging with minority issues compared to Bernie

Yes, the man who fought segregation while Hillary was out campaigning for a candidate that wanted to overturn the civil right act is the one without a history of engagement with minority issues.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAd5gXpkXo0

I get it, Hillary has a more visible label but lets not pretend she has a longer history when it comes to fighting for minority issues. If anything I think Sanders is harmed among minority voters because they're to the right of him and vote democrat because the other option is the Republican party.
>> No. 69993 Anonymous
7th March 2016
Monday 1:22 pm
69993 spacer
>>69992

Killer Mike would be a better president than either of them.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDQoMv4WBlc
>> No. 70001 Anonymous
7th March 2016
Monday 4:32 pm
70001 spacer
>>69993
I like the southern african-american accent, am I weird?
>> No. 70004 Anonymous
7th March 2016
Monday 5:43 pm
70004 spacer
Just stumbled upon an interesting breakdown by a US citizen as to Trumps popularity: http://imgur.com/gallery/qpNZ7
>> No. 70005 Anonymous
7th March 2016
Monday 6:29 pm
70005 spacer
>>70001
It's lilting, certainly easier on the ears than shit you hear from the blacks in London, like nails on a chalkboard.
>> No. 70006 Anonymous
7th March 2016
Monday 7:39 pm
70006 spacer
>>69992
>Yes, the man who fought segregation while Hillary was out campaigning for a candidate that wanted to overturn the civil right act is the one without a history of engagement with minority issues.
Wow, a 17 year old from a highly conservative Republican family canvassed for a conservative Republican candidate. Who cares? Within a couple of years of going to college she was organising magistrate strikes in the aftermath of MLK's assassination, and ended up campaigning with Eugene McCarthy.

And that wasn't the kind of engagement I was referring to. It doesn't particularly matter what magistrate protests they were involved in. They're not running to be protester in chief.
>> No. 70010 Anonymous
8th March 2016
Tuesday 5:46 pm
70010 spacer
>>70006

But the only reason that poster has to bring it up at all is because Hilary's supporters are playing a dirty game of slandering Sanders whenever and however they can.

The idea that he, and all his supporters, are sexist has been raised once more after he told her not to interrupt him during a recent debate. An idea that's transparently false. If Bernie supporters went around saying "why are you voting against Bernie, are you a Jew hater?", people would rightly laugh that off, so why do so many people give any credence the "Bernie Bro" myth?

I sound like I'm ranting at the person I'm replying to but I'm not. It's just such a nonsense point that I keep seeing brought up in articles about him I had to get that off my chest.
>> No. 70015 Anonymous
9th March 2016
Wednesday 1:18 am
70015 spacer

mi.png
700157001570015
Well would you look at that.
>> No. 70016 Anonymous
9th March 2016
Wednesday 1:24 am
70016 spacer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mq5hrUDoYo

From the live stream:

> "our media and colleges have failed us! Except Florida, I had to drop that in. It's friendly territory...I hope. Go Gators!"

> "our nation knows we have gone too far in the right direction, and it is time to turn it around, and we will"

Jesus Christ, Marco.
>> No. 70017 Anonymous
9th March 2016
Wednesday 1:48 am
70017 spacer
Getting pretty fed-up with every second post on social media being some kind of attack on Trump. Do people not realise they are just playing up to the whole 'anti-establishment' thing that his supporters like?
>> No. 70018 Anonymous
9th March 2016
Wednesday 2:22 am
70018 spacer
>>70017

I assume these people are American?

Over 50% of your population believe in Angels and 10% of people under the age of 25 are on anti-psychotics, but you're incredulous at people "feeding the troll"?
>> No. 70019 Anonymous
9th March 2016
Wednesday 2:37 am
70019 spacer
>>70017
I imagine many of them are in turn getting pretty fed-up with this fly-by-night baby-killing liberal heathen from New York pretending to be a principled Christian conservative.
>> No. 70020 Anonymous
9th March 2016
Wednesday 2:43 am
70020 spacer
>>70018
>I assume these people are American?
Not him, but whenever I log in to NSAbook to see how everyone I don't talk to any more is doing, it's full of anti-Trump posts from English people.

I of course never engage them. I'm still scared there will be a leak of who voted UKIP like there was for the BNP a few years back. If there is I'm fucked.
>> No. 70049 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 3:58 pm
70049 spacer
As many had suspected he would for some time, Carson has endorsed Trump. A bit of unity in the crazy camp, though I suspect most of his voters had already made that move.

On the bigger numbers, Trump now needs around 800 to win, though his opponents need only 500 between them to block him at the first ballot, as there are around 100 delegates that aren't in play.
>> No. 70050 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 4:04 pm
70050 spacer
>>70049
If the establishment really tries to block him when he's the clear frontrunner and foist Romney or some other loser on them there will be blood, literally.
>> No. 70051 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 4:18 pm
70051 spacer

fe2-1[1].jpg
700517005170051
From a purely entertainment point of view, I'm praying for a brokered convention.
>> No. 70052 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 5:04 pm
70052 spacer
>>70050
The thing is that he's only the front-runner in the primaries. While his national primary support has been consistently high, his performance in hypothetical polling for the general is disastrous. With Trump as the candidate, Hillary does about as well as Barack in 2008, and Bernie easily hits 400+. He has a vocal minority in the party that's big enough to see off divided opposition. He doesn't yet have enough support to win in November. The RNC might well decide that entertaining the troops is not worth another eight years out of executive power.
>> No. 70053 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 5:14 pm
70053 spacer
>>70052
Yeah well we all know how accurate the experts have been this election. Trump has a much better chance than anyone else for a myriad of reasons these boffins just don't entertain, he hasn't even been on the debate stage with Hillary yet, any polls right now are total bunk.

The establishment would rather lose to Hillary than win with Trump, Bill Kristol and others have said as much.
>> No. 70054 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 5:17 pm
70054 spacer
>>70052
Entertaining the troops may well be the only way to prevent a split in the party.

And a compromise candidate is unlikely to do much good at enthusing the base come November (see Humphrey for example).

And hypothetical polling with other candidates in the race and viable is not very useful.
>> No. 70055 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 5:32 pm
70055 spacer
>>70053
>Yeah well we all know how accurate the experts have been this election.
Yeah, the polls had him at 42% but so far he's only managed 35-40% on average.
>> No. 70057 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 5:35 pm
70057 spacer
>>70054
>And hypothetical polling with other candidates in the race and viable is not very useful
n1 pollstas won no wot it em
>> No. 70058 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 5:37 pm
70058 spacer
>>70055
So much better than anyone else? I can imagine Cruz (who was likewise written off at the beginning) stole a few voters, there's some overlap.
>> No. 70059 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 5:46 pm
70059 spacer
So lads, why are we all so worried about the possibilities of what might happen if Trump wins, when we've seen pretty clearly over the last couple of decades that merely being the President of the United States of America, doesn't actually give you much fucking control over the place.

Look at Obama. Got elected because he was Black Jesus coming to save the poor people and bring about world peace, but in office ended up ordering more drone strikes than Bush ever did and still hasn't closed Gitmo.

It's like that old Bill Hicks routine, the forces that control America are quite seperate from those in government. It was asy to dismiss him as a drug addled tinfoil hack before, but we know for a fact agencies like the CIA have almost limitless authority now. Wether you love or hate Trump, you've got to be daft to think his presidency will have anything to do with the next 8 years of American policy.
>> No. 70060 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 5:51 pm
70060 spacer
>>70058
It's an example of how "wrong" the polls have got it, namely not very. According to match-up polling, out of the six candidates, Donald Trump is the only one who can't win. All of the other pairings are competitive. He turns off too much of the base and doesn't attract enough floating voters to stay in contention.
>> No. 70061 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 5:58 pm
70061 spacer
>>70060
Hillary hasn't even faced off against Trump, at least with the polls for the nomination we knew how the interactions would go down, it wasn't until the debates that Jeb made himself look like a "low energy" wallflower and lost his standing over Trump.

Hillary is going to get fucking demolished, she's only barely beating off Bernie, a guy who doesn't even want to win, and with the magic of superdelegates to boost herself to pole position.
>> No. 70062 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 6:19 pm
70062 spacer
>>70061
>Hillary hasn't even faced off against Trump
What does that matter? The only thing he's got going for him is the pigfucker tactic.
>> No. 70063 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 6:40 pm
70063 spacer
>>70062
Are you alluding to Cameron? I don't get it, Hillary is a weak candidate, always has been. And a laundry list of scandals that Trump will air, and make the media pay attention to, for once.
>> No. 70064 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 6:49 pm
70064 spacer
>>70059
The Republican establishment would rather throw the election than have Trump because that'd mean the jig is up for them, no more bleeding America dry to fill their own pockets.

Eventually, things would get very precarious for the traitors, they'd probably end up fleeing the country or finding themselves as lamppost decoration.
>> No. 70065 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 6:52 pm
70065 spacer
>>70063
Don't you have a debate to prepare for, Donald?
>> No. 70066 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 7:30 pm
70066 spacer
>>70057
Pollsters are well aware that their models are less accurate this far out and with a crowded field. I would say that she may well have an advantage closer to the event, but to say that because she's dominating him in head-to-heads now means she'll have an easy win come November is to ignore past experience.

>>70059
>It's like that old Bill Hicks routine, the forces that control America are quite seperate from those in government.
Alternatively, this is an example of checks and balances working in precisely the manner in which they're intended to in a Madisonian democracy. It's government which is preventing Obama from doing things like e.g. closing Gitmo. It would require a transfer of terror suspects into mainland US jails, and few members of congress are particularly eager to vote for any measure which puts those suspects in their jurisdiction.

And it's pretty worrying what Trump might do to the overall direction of the GOP, regardless of whether he wins the general. If a KKK approved candidate who displays open hostility towards journalists and free speech (among his other concerning positions) can win over the base, that says some very worrying things about the direction of the party.

>>70061
Hillary Clinton is a lot more experienced at dodging shit slung her way by political opponents than Jeb!, though. She is also winning even without counting superdelegates.

>>70063
Those scandals have been aired extensively, and the people who give enough of a fuck for it to effect their voting intentions are mostly solid R anyway.
>> No. 70067 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 7:38 pm
70067 spacer
>>70064
>The Republican establishment would rather throw the election than have Trump
There are more than a few whispers that if he is the nominee, they'll get behind a third-party candidate, possibly one of their own. Better to split the vote than the outside chance of him winning.

I'm looking at some numbers, and estimate that Trump need 774 more delegates to clinch an absolute majority through pledged delegates. With the combination of unpledged and uncommitted delegates, his opponents need only 532 to prevent him from reaching the magic figure through pledged delegates alone and thereby force a floor vote. John Kasich looks like he might actully rack up the 66 in Ohio, which would be around one-eighth towards that total.
>> No. 70068 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 8:10 pm
70068 spacer
>>70066
>checks and balances

A democracy that doesn't listen and respect the choice of the people is as democratic as the DPKR. Shit is going to get very ugly if they force Trump out.
>> No. 70069 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 8:17 pm
70069 spacer
>>70068
Checks and balances have nothing to do with keeping Trump out, it refers to the separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.

If the Republicans don't nominate Trump, that is a private political party refusing to "respect" the choices of its members/voters, which they are wholly entitled to do.
>> No. 70070 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 8:21 pm
70070 spacer
Also keep in mind that most Republicans aren't voting for Trump.
>> No. 70071 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 8:33 pm
70071 spacer
>>70069
You can prance about and play the sophist all day, if the Republicans cockblock Trump they're done as a party. Over. Finito.

>>70070

The anti-establishment camp, Trump+Cruz, is considerably stronger than the establishment one.
>> No. 70072 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 8:35 pm
70072 spacer
>>70070
This is important to remember. In a number of states with open contests, the substantial increase in participation in the Republican primaries has been accompanied with a substantial decrease in participation in the Democratic primaries. There is reason to believe that in those states a fair number of Democrats have reasoned that Clinton had tied up the vote in their state, so they might as well go manipulate the Republican contest instead.
>> No. 70073 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 8:39 pm
70073 spacer
>>70071
>You can prance about and play the sophist all day, if the Republicans cockblock Trump they're done as a party. Over. Finito.
And it's entirely their prerogative to make a decision that can lead to such an outcome. Their ability to do so does not reflect at all badly on America as a democracy.

>>70071
They aren't nominating a camp, they're nominating a candidate.
>> No. 70074 Anonymous
12th March 2016
Saturday 12:26 am
70074 spacer
>>70072
That's some pretty nice hamstering there, I won't expect you to back it up. If Dems really wanted easy prey they'd have voted for Jeb! Which was the plan all along, for another R stiff to play a foil against a female president.
>> No. 70075 Anonymous
12th March 2016
Saturday 12:36 am
70075 spacer

1454368944824.jpg
700757007570075
>>64276
as a man from the states, trump will win
you people get shit from liberal media, but look behind the media and you will see how good he will be
>> No. 70080 Anonymous
12th March 2016
Saturday 11:20 am
70080 spacer
>>70074
>If Dems really wanted easy prey they'd have voted for Jeb!
Yes, if they wanted an easy win against a candidate nobody would vote for, they'd have voted for a former governor of Florida, a state where you need people on both sides to vote for you, with a massive war chest from the wealthiest Republican donors around.
>> No. 70098 Anonymous
12th March 2016
Saturday 7:43 pm
70098 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuMKCqgm0Gg
>> No. 70099 Anonymous
12th March 2016
Saturday 7:44 pm
70099 spacer
>>70080
You're pretty hilarious, pal. I think you need to adjust your clock to 2016. Jeb is a laughably weak candidate, and the Bush name is toxic.
>> No. 70101 Anonymous
12th March 2016
Saturday 8:14 pm
70101 spacer
It's getting dirty, blood will be spilled one way or another this election, anyone who doesn't see this lacks foresight.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06d4t1704N8
>> No. 70102 Anonymous
12th March 2016
Saturday 8:22 pm
70102 spacer
>>70101
American pigs.
>> No. 70103 Anonymous
12th March 2016
Saturday 8:40 pm
70103 spacer
>>70101
Its a shame we're not allowed to buy his hats because I can guarantee that no matter what happens they will appreciate in value pretty rapidly as the years go by. This is one of the most entertaining elections in history.
>> No. 70104 Anonymous
12th March 2016
Saturday 8:47 pm
70104 spacer
>>70101
Hahahaha, I was literally wondering how long it would take for them to start chanting USA.
>> No. 70105 Anonymous
12th March 2016
Saturday 8:53 pm
70105 spacer
>>70101


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XTiI1e-wVc
>> No. 70106 Anonymous
12th March 2016
Saturday 9:34 pm
70106 spacer
>>70099
Hindsight is 20/20, mate.
>> No. 70107 Anonymous
12th March 2016
Saturday 10:03 pm
70107 spacer

wy.png
701077010770107
Trump getting stumped in Wyoming.

29 delegates at stake. By comparison, the "big prize" in Ohio is 66. Wyoming is a single-district state, but ticks every single one of the bonus boxes. It also means progress towards not having to amend Rule 40 for a contested convention.
>> No. 70108 Anonymous
12th March 2016
Saturday 10:22 pm
70108 spacer
>>70107
The big prize is actually Florida at 99, Ohio is still important.
>> No. 70109 Anonymous
12th March 2016
Saturday 10:42 pm
70109 spacer
>>70108
There is a prize on offer in Ohio, and it's a big one. The other three big numbers (IL, MO, NC) are proportional to varying degrees, whereas Ohio and Florida are winner-take-all.
>> No. 70111 Anonymous
12th March 2016
Saturday 11:58 pm
70111 spacer
Trump wants to censor the Internet: http://fortune.com/2015/12/08/donald-trump-bill-gates-internet/

Trump suggested that Microsoft MSFT founder Bill Gates, could possibly help censor parts of the online world. “We’re losing a lot of people because of the Internet,” Trump said. “We have to see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way.”
>> No. 70112 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 12:00 am
70112 spacer
>>70111
That's months old.
>> No. 70113 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 12:00 am
70113 spacer
>>70111
He doesn't even try not to sound like a moron. No wonder America want him to be president.
>> No. 70114 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 12:26 am
70114 spacer
>>70111
Because Gates runs the internet and has an on/off switch at home. I bet Bill would tell him to get fucked.

Anyway, this caricature of the person goes up and down in my head. On one hand he is a strong character, on the other - a complete blubbering imbecile.
>> No. 70115 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 12:38 am
70115 spacer

B2avkr0CMAA7RG6.jpg
701157011570115
>>70114

Everyone knows that Stephen Hawking has the off switch hidden on his wheelchair.
>> No. 70116 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 7:19 am
70116 spacer
>>70115
On the news last night they covered a computer beating some Chingaling at Go and I thought it was a bit cruel that they've given the computer the same voice as Hawking.
>> No. 70117 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 8:36 am
70117 spacer
>>70112

And I suppose that with a candidate as prone to flip flopping as Trump, and as dull witted as his supporters are, that's much, much too long for anyone to deem relevant.
>> No. 70118 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 12:59 pm
70118 spacer
>>70117
>flip flopping

You're talking about when he was a businessman and not a presidential candidate. He's just playing the game, like he says, he funded everyone. And Hillary is the Queen of flip flop.

>dumb supporters

I'd wager they have a higher IQ than Obama's supporters, feel free to try and prove me wrong but the only evidence you'll find is against you - http://www.unz.com/isteve/romney-voters-had-higher-iqs-than-obama-voters/

Even so, in a democracy everyone's vote is equal.

.co.uk/2015/03/romney-voters-smarter-than-obama-voters.html
>> No. 70119 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 1:06 pm
70119 spacer
>>70118
>You're talking about when he was a businessman and not a presidential candidate. He's just playing the game, like he says, he funded everyone.
He has changed track on plenty of positions since he has become a candidate, sometimes outright denying that he has ever said things which he has been recorded saying.

And, uhhh, Romney supporters and Trump supporters aren't the same thing.
>> No. 70123 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 1:12 pm
70123 spacer
>>70119
Most voters only "supported" Romney because they had to, he never engendered passion.
>> No. 70125 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 1:16 pm
70125 spacer

pres iq.png
701257012570125
And while we're on the subject of IQ, Trump's is estimated to be 156.

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2015/08/donald-trump-is-a-genius-but-thats-just-his-iq-3038790.html

Which puts him in elite company should he be President.
>> No. 70126 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 1:22 pm
70126 spacer
>>70123
Your point? GOP voters in the 2012 GE and Trump supporters in the 2016 primary are not the same groups.

I would bet my life that if Clinton and Trump were in a race with a Bloomberg spoiler to suck up the high-income, high-education Republican vote, Trump's supporters would come bottom of the intelligence pile by a long, long distance.
>> No. 70127 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 1:25 pm
70127 spacer
>>70125
Call me a cynic, but I'm reluctant to take at face value reports from a website with an "UPLOAD NEWS!" button at the top of the page.

Having said that, at least there's one website out there willing o ask the hard questions, like "Why Are The Illuminati Planning To Crash the Global Economy?".
>> No. 70128 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 1:30 pm
70128 spacer
>>70126
Third party voters have the highest IQ every election no matter which election you're talking about. In which case it would most likely go Bloomberg>Trump>Clinton.
>> No. 70129 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 1:36 pm
70129 spacer
>>70128
>Third party voters have the highest IQ every election no matter which election you're talking about
Not if we were talking about a hypothetical third party Trump run.

The single best indicator of Trump support is a lack of a college education. They're, uh, really not as smart as you appear to think.
>> No. 70130 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 1:47 pm
70130 spacer
>>70129
And there's nothing wrong with that, they're the ones getting shafted by the 1% after all, oh wait, the poor and disadvantaged don't count if they're white, silly me.

I'm sure you weren't bringing this stuff up when Obama voters were shown to have a lower incidence of college education than Republicans.
>> No. 70131 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 1:56 pm
70131 spacer
>>70130
I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, their intelligence is far from the most worrying thing about them.

I actually have brought this stuff up to people who have claimed Republicans are dumb as an overall group.
>> No. 70132 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 2:04 pm
70132 spacer
And you shouldn't compare Obama voters with Republicans, those are different categories. Compare Obama voters with Romney voters and compare Republicans with Democrats.
>> No. 70133 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 2:34 pm
70133 spacer
>>70129
Actually that is a myth bandied about by the media. While it is true that those without a college degree a more inclined to vote Trump the likelihood is at 11%.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/5-myths-about-trump-supporters-220158

You do have to marvel at how incompetent the American media is by weaving this narrative. I mean this is the nation of Jacksonian democracy for fucks sake.
>> No. 70134 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 2:42 pm
70134 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlV2lOJuUPU
>> No. 70135 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 2:58 pm
70135 spacer
>>70133
Nothing in that article contradicts the post you're responding to. Did you read the part where it said:

>Still, voters without a college education are Trump’s core base of support

Nobody thinks Trump's supporters are uniformly uneducated, but that's where they skew as a group, and lack of college education is the single best predictor of Trump support.
>> No. 70136 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 3:08 pm
70136 spacer
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/03/10/surprise-nsa-data-will-soon-routinely-be-used-for-domestic-policing-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-terrorism/

Looks like the US has just ended the Fourth Amendment. I wonder if any candidates will use this, saying they'll reverse it. I know Bernie keeps saying he wants to end the patriot act, so maybe he'll bring this up.
>> No. 70137 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 3:20 pm
70137 spacer
>>70133
>Actually that is a myth bandied about by the media.
No, it isn't. Go look at the actual results.
http://imgur.com/a/mX2tW
>> No. 70138 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 3:28 pm
70138 spacer
>>70137
Where? You've linked to unsourced graphs you uploaded yourself.
>> No. 70139 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 4:12 pm
70139 spacer
>>70138
Those look like NYT graphs.
>> No. 70140 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 4:15 pm
70140 spacer
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html
>> No. 70141 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 4:30 pm
70141 spacer

trump.png
701417014170141
"Our shows"

- A description by serious presidential candidate Donald Trump of his campaign events
>> No. 70142 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 5:03 pm
70142 spacer

stumped.png
701427014270142
Stumping confirmed.
>> No. 70143 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 5:19 pm
70143 spacer
>>70142
I'm sure losing buttfuck Wyoming and Guam will Stump the Trump, let's just ignore all the other states that matter.
>> No. 70144 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 5:22 pm
70144 spacer
And in case you're confused, that was a closed convention, only 945 votes were cast.
>> No. 70145 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 5:38 pm
70145 spacer
>>70143
>>70144
The delegates and states/territories all count. You need outright majorities to qualify for the convention ballot.
>> No. 70147 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 5:55 pm
70147 spacer
>>70145
The next Tuesday with Florida, Ohio and the others matter, as Super Tuesday and the early states did, holding up tiny outliers like this as a loss is just sad and pathetic.
>> No. 70148 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 6:02 pm
70148 spacer
>>70147
He's certainly still in a good position to win the nomination, but they are a loss. He lost. If you can't stand to hear that without having a tantrum, maybe you shouldn't be such a sensitive little flower.
>> No. 70149 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 6:05 pm
70149 spacer
Hahahah he played this at his rally:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgIhGgrhQeE

This is like Team America, but worse.
>> No. 70150 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 6:20 pm
70150 spacer
>>70147
In case you hadn't noticed, there are a couple of other guys trying to stop him from winning. Stopping him from reaching 1237 on the first ballot won't make a difference if he's the only one eligible to receive votes on the second ballot.
>> No. 70151 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 8:49 pm
70151 spacer
The 'intelligence' of voters is irrelevant.
>> No. 70152 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 9:21 pm
70152 spacer
>>70151
Irrelevant to what?
>> No. 70153 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 10:41 pm
70153 spacer
I'm beginning to believe that people only think Trump is outrageous because of his delivery, a bit like how Chris Rock jokes about very safe pabulum but the audience acts shocked like he just raped a moose on stage.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw3K0F6Gs5A
>> No. 70154 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 10:45 pm
70154 spacer
>>70153
What a fucking stupid thing to believe.
>> No. 70155 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 10:59 pm
70155 spacer
>>70154
I don't know, securing borders, not shipping jobs overseas and not getting involved in the middle east seems like a pretty sane, rational stance. I guess I'm not cut out for The Current Year.
>> No. 70156 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 11:08 pm
70156 spacer
I don't know why, but it still amazes me how angry people get over politics. It's possible to discuss things without foaming at the mouth and insulting everyone.
>> No. 70157 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 11:09 pm
70157 spacer
>>70155

You sure know how to make xenophobic isolationism seem rational.
>> No. 70158 Anonymous
14th March 2016
Monday 12:12 am
70158 spacer
>>70155
The US border is plenty secure, "shipping jobs overseas" is an oversimplification worthy of, at most, 8 year old's understanding of free trade, and "bombing the shit" out of the middle east, as Trump has promised to do, is getting involved, in my book.

What is outrageous is reluctance to disavow endorsements from the fucking Klan, promising to ban a religious group from entry to the US, to censor the internet, to "open up" libel laws to make life harder for the people daring to fact check him, to deport millions of law abiding undocumented immigrants in a way modeled on the lethal operation wetback, etc. etc.
>> No. 70159 Anonymous
14th March 2016
Monday 12:15 am
70159 spacer
>>70157
Not him but I find its quite rational that someone who illegally enters the country should be deported because law and stuff.

Similarly its not irrational to argue that the US holds no obligated to play the free market globalisation game especially when everyone plays it like they are in it for themselves. Take a look at the damage reduced tariffs with Japan did to the American car industry, sure the Yanks can't put together a Lego set these days but a key factor in the decline is that Japan never lowered its own barriers to trade making competition unfair.
>> No. 70160 Anonymous
14th March 2016
Monday 12:25 am
70160 spacer
>>70159
>Not him but I find its quite rational that someone who illegally enters the country should be deported because law and stuff.
Well your eloquence and irrefutable reasoning is certainly convincing.
>> No. 70161 Anonymous
14th March 2016
Monday 12:42 am
70161 spacer
>>70160
Well done, you've mastered sarcasm. Here comes the bit where you actually make an argument but will you be able to cut the mustard on this next hurdle?
>> No. 70162 Anonymous
14th March 2016
Monday 1:22 am
70162 spacer
>>70161
nah, m8, think I'll meet "because law and stuff" with a counter-argument of equal effort, that is, none.

And you don't cut mustard, you spread it.

Preferably not on hurdles.
>> No. 70163 Anonymous
14th March 2016
Monday 2:59 am
70163 spacer
Trump isn't nearly as extreme as people want to believe, that's just come about because of his abrasive rhetoric and style rather than anythign he's actually adovcated.
>> No. 70164 Anonymous
14th March 2016
Monday 3:00 am
70164 spacer
>>70152
Anything other than observational research.
>> No. 70165 Anonymous
14th March 2016
Monday 3:15 am
70165 spacer
>>70163
He's extreme on immigration, and that's about it. It's been said that one of the many pull factors he has is the way that the party has swung massively to the right in the past few years, leaving the party's moderate wing with nowhere to go, and his liberal stance on many issues gives those people something they can get behind.
>> No. 70166 Anonymous
14th March 2016
Monday 3:24 am
70166 spacer
>>70163
He is nothing on anything. He's whatever it takes to win.
>> No. 70167 Anonymous
14th March 2016
Monday 3:31 am
70167 spacer
>>70165
He's also extreme on torture, curtailing first amendment protection, and whatever outrageous opinion he thinks will get more angry ignorant xenophobes to caucus that week.
>> No. 70168 Anonymous
14th March 2016
Monday 5:45 am
70168 spacer
>>70165
>He's extreme on immigration
Not even that really, the wall idea is a bit bizarre, the only extreme position is the banning muslims bit.

>>70167
He's one of the two frontrunners which have comparable views on torture, and despite what any US president has said, none has ever done anything but turn a blind eye to it, whether he advocates it or is against is really of no consequence.
>> No. 70169 Anonymous
14th March 2016
Monday 10:49 am
70169 spacer
>>70168
Yes, he's one of two extremist frontrunners with extremist views.

And yes, pet, whether he advocates "waterboarding and so much worse" is consequential.
>> No. 70170 Anonymous
14th March 2016
Monday 11:25 am
70170 spacer
>>70169
They're not that extreme in the context of the party as it stands right now.
>> No. 70171 Anonymous
14th March 2016
Monday 1:31 pm
70171 spacer
>>70170
The party's rhetoric has been veering towards the extreme for years, but there have been competent political actors balancing that with a more reasonable approach to actual governance.

That approach is not sustainable, however, and is coming to bite them in the arse. See >>69948
>> No. 70172 Anonymous
14th March 2016
Monday 2:42 pm
70172 spacer
I can't be bothered to look on facebook again, but apparently Ben Carson had a dream which proved Hillary Clinton was sent by the devil. This from a man who somehow performed brain surgery.
>> No. 70173 Anonymous
14th March 2016
Monday 3:49 pm
70173 spacer
>>70172
Alas, in a bitter twist of fate, the only brain he can not fix is his own.
>> No. 70174 Anonymous
14th March 2016
Monday 3:54 pm
70174 spacer
>>70172
I looked it up for you, he was talking about Saul Alinsky wanting to subvert the nation, being a radical, like the devil. and Hillary being friends with him (Saul).

It makes more sense when you see Alinsky's book, Rules For Radicals, has "Dedicated to Lucifer" in it.

But the fact that you're getting your news from facebook headlines explains quite a lot of the posts in this thread.
>> No. 70175 Anonymous
14th March 2016
Monday 4:12 pm
70175 spacer
Nothing about Pharaoh Carson makes more sense when you look into it. It only gets worse.
>> No. 70176 Anonymous
14th March 2016
Monday 4:52 pm
70176 spacer
>>70173
He was a pediatric surgeon. A brain-nonce, if you will.
>> No. 70177 Anonymous
14th March 2016
Monday 10:04 pm
70177 spacer

game of primaries resized because britfags is an a.jpg
701777017770177

>> No. 70178 Anonymous
15th March 2016
Tuesday 1:31 am
70178 spacer
>>70177
Well I wonder who this chap supports.
>> No. 70179 Anonymous
15th March 2016
Tuesday 10:08 am
70179 spacer
>>70177
Tyrion was never friendly with Cersei.
>> No. 70180 Anonymous
15th March 2016
Tuesday 12:27 pm
70180 spacer
>>70177

Obama's just resigned to sustain the status quo, assuming he ever had machinations on disrupting it to begin with. How that's remotely like Joffrey I don't know.

And Stannis doesn't give a monkeys about his wife.
>> No. 70181 Anonymous
15th March 2016
Tuesday 4:08 pm
70181 spacer
>>70180

Resigned?
>> No. 70182 Anonymous
15th March 2016
Tuesday 5:08 pm
70182 spacer
>>70181
He means the adjective, not the verb.
>> No. 70201 Anonymous
16th March 2016
Wednesday 5:50 pm
70201 spacer
https://www.instagram.com/p/BDBS8bYGhWr/?taken-by=realdonaldtrump
>> No. 70205 Anonymous
16th March 2016
Wednesday 6:56 pm
70205 spacer
Then there were three.

Excluding Missouri, because we still don't know what's happening there (both contests have come down to margins of around 1500 votes), some fag-packet calculation suggests that Trump needs under 600 to win, and the rest need under 400 to stop him at the first ballot. Looking down the calendar, this means the carnival should last through April and likely into May.
>> No. 70211 Anonymous
16th March 2016
Wednesday 10:14 pm
70211 spacer
>>70205
Kasich is a non-entity, it's Trump vs Cruz for all intents and purposes, and both are outsiders, quite a pickle for the establishment.
>> No. 70212 Anonymous
16th March 2016
Wednesday 10:19 pm
70212 spacer
>>70211
I think if Cruz wins, it will be a great leap forward for America. What better sign of progress than to go from the first black president to the first president with 95% rodent DNA.
>> No. 70213 Anonymous
16th March 2016
Wednesday 10:50 pm
70213 spacer
>>70212
But if Cruz wins, then we won't get echoes of Jesse Jackson in 2008 with John Boehner crying over how Trump has achieved the thing he had wanted so much for himself, becoming America's first orange president.
>> No. 70214 Anonymous
16th March 2016
Wednesday 10:50 pm
70214 spacer
>>70212
Well, he'd be the ugliest President since Carter at least, a bit short too since being 6 foot is practically a requirement.
>> No. 70217 Anonymous
17th March 2016
Thursday 7:05 am
70217 spacer
>>70214

I thought Bush Jr. was an inch or two shy, also.

Odd game, politics.
>> No. 70273 Anonymous
21st March 2016
Monday 6:43 pm
70273 spacer
>>70214

Did anyone else find it painful how even here in the UK, in the last two general elections, the party leaders have all been comfortably just above six foot - practically the same height, all of them - as if to yield in the height stakes even by an inch would prove fatal?

I appreciate that height correlates with important things like intelligence (and it correlates extremely weakly, mind you, which people fail to realize), but a meritocracy of the tallest people winning everything is a horrifically shit way to run a meritocracy.
>> No. 70274 Anonymous
21st March 2016
Monday 6:46 pm
70274 spacer
>>70273
No, not at all.
>> No. 70275 Anonymous
21st March 2016
Monday 7:49 pm
70275 spacer

Skoodge_001[1].png
702757027570275
>>70273
COULD YOU GET ANY SHORTER?
>> No. 70276 Anonymous
22nd March 2016
Tuesday 2:10 am
70276 spacer
>>70273

>I appreciate that height correlates with important things like intelligence

If anyone can provide evidence of this I'd be fascinated. Otherwise this is one of the weirdest statements I've heard on the subject outside my own parents who insisted there was a correlation between intelligence and ear lobe size.

For one thing being Chinese has a pretty strong correlation with intelligence and they aren't known for their height.

Mind you the IQ test is fucked around with so much for political reasons (so that different demographics will all score about 100 on average) the idea of it being an accurate measure of intelligence is laughable.
>> No. 70277 Anonymous
22nd March 2016
Tuesday 2:15 am
70277 spacer
>>70276
Yeah mate, that's why it's laughable.
>> No. 70278 Anonymous
22nd March 2016
Tuesday 2:58 am
70278 spacer
>>70277

Have you ever noticed, when other people give a closed answer that you are wrong, as if they know something better but without explaining as to why they come across as a smug ignorant cunt? Because at the moment you come across as a smug ignorant cunt, for all I know you might have a point, but unless you demonstrate that let us presume that you don't.
>> No. 70280 Anonymous
22nd March 2016
Tuesday 10:55 am
70280 spacer
>>70276
>chocolate biscuits are delicious, cheese is delicious, therefore cheese is made of chocolate biscuits
>> No. 70281 Anonymous
22nd March 2016
Tuesday 11:36 am
70281 spacer
>>70280
cheese tastes horrible, your argument makes no sense.
>> No. 70282 Anonymous
22nd March 2016
Tuesday 1:12 pm
70282 spacer
>>70278
>Have you ever noticed, when other people give a closed answer that you are wrong, as if they know something better but without explaining as to why they come across as a smug ignorant cunt?
No.
>> No. 70283 Anonymous
22nd March 2016
Tuesday 2:37 pm
70283 spacer

CeJ4-EQXEAAIyEd[1].jpg
702837028370283
I'm sure at a certain point it will become more worrisome than funny that the potential future leader of the world's premier superpower gives answers like a wrestler trashing his opponents from the ring side when asked serious policy questions. But that point is not today.
>> No. 70284 Anonymous
22nd March 2016
Tuesday 2:58 pm
70284 spacer

2014-06-30-111historicalmedianmaleheight.png
702847028470284
>>70276

Height and intelligence are both strongly correlated with maternal and childhood nutrition. Average height has increased enormously across the developed world because of the eradication of malnutrition.

There are some significant genetic confounds, but nutrition still has a substantial role to play. Stunted development remains widespread across Africa and South-East Asia, which has dramatic effects on height, intelligence and general health. Deworming initiatives are some of the most cost-effective forms of humanitarian aid, because intestinal parasites play a substantial role in childhood malnutrition.

Young Chinese people are drastically taller than their parents and grandparents, mainly due to the Great Chinese Famine of 1959-1961. Young men in the wealthy cities of Shanghai and Beijing have an average height of 174cm, which is on a par with Italy and Spain. Average male height in rural China is just 166cm, lagging far behind the developed world.

Lead poisoning may also play a role, although the relationship between lead exposure and adult height is less clear.
>> No. 70285 Anonymous
22nd March 2016
Tuesday 3:25 pm
70285 spacer
>>70284
Anecdotally I encounter far more tall people at university than I do in and around my hometown. This may be influenced by the larger number of sportsmen/women at university though. Incidentally I also see far fewer obese people and smokers at university, even comparing amongst people of the same age.

I am aware that being highly educated is a distinct concept from being intelligent/having a high IQ.
>> No. 70316 Anonymous
22nd March 2016
Tuesday 10:07 pm
70316 spacer
>>70284

Thanks for the explanation, makes sense. It sounds rather like the ice cream violent crime correlation to me, in that the key detail is the linking factor of nutrition. Not that genetically taller people with similar background as genetically shorter people should be more intelligent as >>70273 implied.
>> No. 70322 Anonymous
22nd March 2016
Tuesday 10:43 pm
70322 spacer
It's Tuesday, which means it's primary day again. This week it's Arizona and Utah, but fuck staying up until 4am for the numbers. There's also something in American Samoa, but their entire delegation is unpledged so there's nothing on offer there today. The models suggest Trump winning Arizona and Cruz hitting the winner-take-all threshold in Utah. Based on those assumptions, that leaves Trump at 500 to win or 300 to block.
>> No. 70441 Anonymous
25th March 2016
Friday 4:00 am
70441 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s1TqVNOL0w
>> No. 70442 Anonymous
25th March 2016
Friday 4:43 am
70442 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uejARI5WJH4
>> No. 70443 Anonymous
25th March 2016
Friday 5:48 am
70443 spacer
>>70442
Bet putting that on facebook got you a few likes, snoblad.
>> No. 70444 Anonymous
25th March 2016
Friday 6:58 am
70444 spacer
>>70443
I don't even have Facebook. Relax mate.
>> No. 70449 Anonymous
25th March 2016
Friday 2:42 pm
70449 spacer
>>70443
Who's the snob?
>> No. 70457 Anonymous
25th March 2016
Friday 3:22 pm
70457 spacer
>>70443

He's admitting he likes his followers stupid, and therefore has no interest in enlightening them. That's not a good thing in a leader, daftlad.
>> No. 70458 Anonymous
25th March 2016
Friday 3:30 pm
70458 spacer
>>70457
Not everyone needs to go to University, America was built by the non-college educated.

Also, you can be an autodidact and learn far more than most people who simply went through the motions at university, a degree doesn't mean you have an IQ the high side of 100 by any means.
>> No. 70459 Anonymous
25th March 2016
Friday 4:19 pm
70459 spacer
>>70458
Don't cheapen his BA in History like that. He is obviously so enlightened.
>> No. 70460 Anonymous
25th March 2016
Friday 4:20 pm
70460 spacer
>>70458
They certainly didn't teach me what 'autodidact' meant at university.
>> No. 70461 Anonymous
25th March 2016
Friday 4:22 pm
70461 spacer
>>70460
It means someone who couldn't afford to go to university but still thinks they're clever.
>> No. 70463 Anonymous
25th March 2016
Friday 4:27 pm
70463 spacer
>>70458
>America was built by the non-college educated
No it wasn't.
>> No. 70466 Anonymous
25th March 2016
Friday 4:45 pm
70466 spacer
>>70461
I've learnt more from self education than university, but then again I'm an artist. Also the rate of progression that universities take with languages is laughable in my experience when compared to what you can achieve just sat down with your books and the internet.
>> No. 70467 Anonymous
25th March 2016
Friday 4:49 pm
70467 spacer
>>70466
>but then again I'm an artist
What is it with all the poor spelling here lately?
>> No. 70469 Anonymous
25th March 2016
Friday 4:51 pm
70469 spacer
>>70458
You can't really compare the British and US college/university systems, they are completely different.
>> No. 70471 Anonymous
25th March 2016
Friday 5:13 pm
70471 spacer
>>70467
What's wrong pedantlad? Artist doesn't have to start with a capital you know.
>> No. 70472 Anonymous
25th March 2016
Friday 5:15 pm
70472 spacer
>>70471

I assume he was making an artist/autist joke.
>> No. 70474 Anonymous
25th March 2016
Friday 5:34 pm
70474 spacer
>>70457
No snoblad, 'less educated' does not mean 'stupid'. Working class people, like those who see their jobs outsourced to Mexico, and see Trump as the only one who might use measures to keep industry closer to home, aren't stupid for seeing the rest of the politicians for the backstabbers who take all their money from big corps.
>> No. 70475 Anonymous
25th March 2016
Friday 5:41 pm
70475 spacer
>>70474

It's nitpicking, but Trump says 'poorly educated', which suggests some deficiency in basic schooling rather than the working class.

I'm another poster and broadly agree with you, though. There are legitimate reasons why people are rallying behind Trump, one being an entirely justified disillusionment with mainstream politics.
>> No. 70476 Anonymous
26th March 2016
Saturday 6:00 am
70476 spacer
Cruz finally released a statement about the recent sex scandal aka the Cuban Mistress Crisis.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLGZgjTo5BU

> Cruz: ‘Donald Trump May Be a Rat But I Have No Desire to Copulate With Him’
>> No. 70477 Anonymous
26th March 2016
Saturday 11:03 am
70477 spacer
>>70476
Operation Pigfucker in full effect.
>> No. 70527 Anonymous
31st March 2016
Thursday 1:20 am
70527 spacer

outrageoustrumpquote#1488.png
705277052770527
>>70475
In case anyone is unaware, "ratfucking" is an actual American political term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucking

In other news, Trump refuses to rule out nuking Europe.
>> No. 70528 Anonymous
31st March 2016
Thursday 1:32 am
70528 spacer
>>70527
Damn right? What's the point of having nukes if you give anyone the impression you're not prepared to use them?

It's all a cover, that's the whole point.
>> No. 70529 Anonymous
31st March 2016
Thursday 1:39 am
70529 spacer
>>70527

I liked his line on abortion; "err, blerrr, feelings, lots of feelings". Very strong, very big.

You know he has lots of very important Muslim friends too that guy.

>>70528


Yeah, gotta' make sure those Dutch know who's the fucking boss.
>> No. 70530 Anonymous
31st March 2016
Thursday 1:41 am
70530 spacer
>>70528
Generally speaking, giving your allies the impression you may use nuclear weapons in their country is poor form.
>> No. 70531 Anonymous
31st March 2016
Thursday 2:07 am
70531 spacer
>>70527
Most of Russia's population is in Europe, so it's hardly a diversion from American orthodoxy.
>> No. 70532 Anonymous
31st March 2016
Thursday 2:18 am
70532 spacer

MagnifiedHair.jpg
705327053270532
>>70531
>> No. 70533 Anonymous
31st March 2016
Thursday 3:51 am
70533 spacer
>>70530
>>70529
He said nothing other than he wouldn't rule out using them in Europe, which, circumstances permitting, is exactly what you'd hope for.
>> No. 70534 Anonymous
31st March 2016
Thursday 4:13 am
70534 spacer
>>70533
No, what I, personally, would actually hope for is that he would rule out fucking nuking Europe.
>> No. 70535 Anonymous
31st March 2016
Thursday 4:17 am
70535 spacer
>>70534
It's not a deterrent if people know you won't use it. Ask any parent who had their bluff called and didn't follow through on their threats.
>> No. 70536 Anonymous
31st March 2016
Thursday 4:29 am
70536 spacer
>>70535

I'm not sure ISIS are going to be deterred by the idea of western capitals being glassed. Just a hunch, but a solid one, in my opinion.
>> No. 70537 Anonymous
31st March 2016
Thursday 11:54 am
70537 spacer
>>70533
Words hard. Bombs easy.
>> No. 70650 Anonymous
6th April 2016
Wednesday 1:05 am
70650 spacer

Trump-Effect[1].jpg
706507065070650
https://vid.me/Okvs

This vid is fucking great.
>> No. 70651 Anonymous
6th April 2016
Wednesday 3:50 am
70651 spacer
>>70536
Who said anything about ISIS?

This fucking idea that Europe should be a nuclear free zone is ridiculous - cross a particular line of some random foreigners in country 1 vs. country 2 and sure we'll reprieve you of nuclear fire, Satan.
>> No. 70733 Anonymous
7th April 2016
Thursday 9:04 pm
70733 spacer
Why should Europe be a nuclear free zone? If any twat European country misbehaves, it should get glassed.
>> No. 70743 Anonymous
7th April 2016
Thursday 10:26 pm
70743 spacer
>>70650
This video has been suspended either due to a copyright claim, or for violating the terms of use.
>> No. 70746 Anonymous
7th April 2016
Thursday 11:07 pm
70746 spacer
>>70743
It's called Trump Effect, it's got mirrors everywhere.
>> No. 70795 Anonymous
9th April 2016
Saturday 9:31 am
70795 spacer
Hopefully EA have stopped trying to take it down now.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F082JKzJqE
>> No. 70822 Anonymous
10th April 2016
Sunday 9:16 pm
70822 spacer
>>70795
Oh so this is actually serious.
>> No. 70823 Anonymous
10th April 2016
Sunday 9:24 pm
70823 spacer
In other news, this:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/307643341/Trump-Fake-Front-Page-Boston-Globe
>> No. 70851 Anonymous
11th April 2016
Monday 11:48 pm
70851 spacer

benis.png
708517085170851
Trump needs 495, I've decided he's been stumped.
>> No. 70853 Anonymous
12th April 2016
Tuesday 12:26 am
70853 spacer
>>70851
He's fucked it at the last minute with all the anti-women sentiment.
>> No. 70857 Anonymous
12th April 2016
Tuesday 1:13 am
70857 spacer
>>70853
I think he was done before that, the numbers difference is too great.
>> No. 70859 Anonymous
12th April 2016
Tuesday 1:40 am
70859 spacer
>>70853

What? The last minute from 6 months ago?
>> No. 70863 Anonymous
12th April 2016
Tuesday 2:27 pm
70863 spacer
>>70851

How do you figure Sanders' chances, spreadsheetlad?
>> No. 70866 Anonymous
12th April 2016
Tuesday 3:00 pm
70866 spacer
>>70851
Oh I think it's still possible by the way but would require results about 5% better than he expects (I did Pensylvania wrong because I don't fully understand how they apportion delegates, I left Washington and South Dakota blank because there's no state wide polling on them for the republican primary, I'd expect SD to be Cruz as hell and Washington generally pro trump, but I still don't think it'll be enough. I think it'll be very tight but I think the likelihood is Trump won't make it, he'll have between 470 and 495 I think, he needs 495 for the nomination.

This is discounting any shit like happened in Colorado.

>>70863
I'll do the numbers for my expectations later, but without looking too closely he hasn't really got a chance. This is mostly because of the superdelegates which are not decided by popular vote but at their own whim. It's possible that some that have already declared for Clinton/those who haven't declared (declaring is not binding at this point) will turn over to Sanders if Sanders wins more delegates/vote at that point, but I find it very unlikely. The big remaining states are Pennsylvania, New York and California which account for 1049 of the remaining 1959 delegates to be apportioned, and they're all showing pretty solid Clinton leads.

I'd give Trump a 30% chance of getting it, I'd give Sanders a lot less than that.

A Trump/Sanders election would be hilarious.

The biggest two questions now regarding November is what trick the Republican party pulls to force Trump out and who they pick at the convention if they manage to do so. They might even pick Cruz which would be ridiculous really, but then Kasich doesn't have the momentum or weight to pull it off (Cruz certainly can't win the presidency). 2016 seems to be a writeoff for the Republicans unless Trump gets it, in which case it's not really the Republicans that win. They're really committing some real self harm trying to stop him. If Labour tore themselves to pieces over Corbyn tomorrow it'd be nowhere near as bad for them as I think what they're doing would be for the Republicans if Trump doesn't win.
>> No. 70868 Anonymous
12th April 2016
Tuesday 3:19 pm
70868 spacer
>>70866
Pennsylvania Republicans give out the statewide prom of their delegates, pledged, to the winner of the presence poll, but each district elects its three delegates separately and directly. In an attempt to prove he's not racist, Trump has been fielding delegate candidates with "ethnic" names, but his racist supporters haven't been voting for them. Apparently cost him several delegates in Illinois. Colorado also doesn't have a preference poll, but given its location and typical attitude, one can assume that the sort of person who would be picked as a delegate might well be the sort to get behind Never Trump, hence why it appears that around 30 of their delegates have declared for Cruz, but they're technically unpledged.

On the other side of the aisle, Bernie looks beached. He's won seven in a row, but apart from Washington none of them have been pretty big, so he hasn't been making ground. For instance, in Wyoming he won 54%, which yielded a net gain of 0 delegates (7-7 split). What's really cost him is that he's been eating out Hillary while she's been pounding him. Effectively she's winning on goal difference. Unless he somehow romps home in California and pulls off an upset in New York preventing Clinton from running away with the majority there, he's not going to have the numbers. He may get some more supers, but if Hillary arrives at the convention 300 in front, many will see that she has a clear lead and vote to put her over the top. If things are closer, the supers may split in recognition, while still giving her the win.

Some fag packet calculations suggest that The Donald needs around 500 to win, while Everyone Else needs under 300 to block a pledged majority, and 400 to block a majority completely.
>> No. 70869 Anonymous
12th April 2016
Tuesday 3:26 pm
70869 spacer
>>70868
495 is what he needs, he'll get strong showings in New Jersey and New York and a decent shot in California, I think it's the little states that'll swing it for Trump at this stage though, particularly Washington. He'll probably get all the New York delegates which is 95 alone. He could take it if he's lucky in California.
>> No. 70872 Anonymous
12th April 2016
Tuesday 5:52 pm
70872 spacer
>>70869
The exact number is not known at this stage as not every state and territory has a certified delegate count. All published totals are projections and estimates
>> No. 71008 Anonymous
19th April 2016
Tuesday 5:52 pm
71008 spacer
New Yorkers are heading to the polls today.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgUf1mJPqcY
>> No. 71009 Anonymous
19th April 2016
Tuesday 5:59 pm
71009 spacer
>>71008
When you're up by 30 points you can afford to be off by two.
>> No. 71010 Anonymous
19th April 2016
Tuesday 6:02 pm
71010 spacer

hqdefault[3].jpg
710107101071010
>>71008
At least he wasn't outright lying about snipers or something. I've got more time for Trump than any other candidate in this fight.
>> No. 71013 Anonymous
19th April 2016
Tuesday 6:31 pm
71013 spacer
>>71008

I don't really get the uproar.

Is it all over the news/ internet because it's funny, or are people trying to imply that a slip of the tongue means he subconsciously disrespects New Yorkers or something?

I dislike Trump as a politician but can't help feeling I'd make a few slips if I were as busy as him.

The way he's treated is fucking outrageous.
>> No. 71014 Anonymous
19th April 2016
Tuesday 6:36 pm
71014 spacer
What's the big deal?

He's talking about how much he respected the policemen, firemen and construction workers at the local convenience store.
>> No. 71015 Anonymous
19th April 2016
Tuesday 6:45 pm
71015 spacer
>>71013
>The way he's treated is fucking outrageous.
Yeah, they shouldn't have such high standards of people who want to be President.
>> No. 71016 Anonymous
19th April 2016
Tuesday 6:58 pm
71016 spacer
>>71015

Nice strawman, I never said they shouldn't.
>> No. 71017 Anonymous
19th April 2016
Tuesday 7:02 pm
71017 spacer

firestation.png
710177101771017
>>71014

Actually he was talking about the first fire department to respond, hence New Yorkers knowing this and why the crowd doesn't respond when he says it.
>> No. 71018 Anonymous
19th April 2016
Tuesday 7:12 pm
71018 spacer
>>71016
How else were we supposed to interpret it? You said "The way he's treated is fucking outrageous" and he's being treated little differently from any other candidate. If that's "fucking outrageous" it's because his candidacy is "fucking outrageous".
>> No. 71019 Anonymous
19th April 2016
Tuesday 7:17 pm
71019 spacer
>>71018

You know full well my post wasn't saying that the standards for presidency should be low. You're just being another 14 year old on britfa.gs/* making a non-argument so you can feel smug.

I'm talking about the way the media disproportionately covers him in a negative light, despite candidates saying equally racist/horrendous/ plain unacceptable things.


The fact that in an unprecedented move the RNC in two states decided to forego a vote and just award delegates to the establishment candidate etc.

For the life of me I can't figure out why you're immediate conclusion would be to say 'Yes let's lower standards then hurrr' unless you've not been following this race at all, or more likely, you're just a troll.
>> No. 71022 Anonymous
19th April 2016
Tuesday 7:25 pm
71022 spacer
>>71010
If you think Trump's above outright lies I have some very bad news for you.
>> No. 71023 Anonymous
19th April 2016
Tuesday 7:38 pm
71023 spacer
>>71019
Nah m8, Trump says outrageous things at a far higher rate than anyone else in the race. That's kind of his selling point.

And they get covered a lot because he's the front runner, genius.

And they did not "decide to forgo a vote" at all, please seek to understand what you're talking about before spewing such hysteric bilge.
>> No. 71026 Anonymous
19th April 2016
Tuesday 7:43 pm
71026 spacer
>>71023

Once again misrepresenting what I say to argue against something completely different. Good work, genius. Oh look, I was sarcastic and condescending too, please validate my argument.
>> No. 71027 Anonymous
19th April 2016
Tuesday 7:43 pm
71027 spacer

spunklyn bridge.jpg
710277102771027
>>71017
>> No. 71028 Anonymous
19th April 2016
Tuesday 7:47 pm
71028 spacer
>>71027

I'm ashamed of myself for finding this mildly amusing.
>> No. 71029 Anonymous
19th April 2016
Tuesday 7:54 pm
71029 spacer
>>71026
No, lad, I dealt directly with what you said. If you have difficulties expressing yourself, you need to work on that instead of blaming others.
>> No. 71030 Anonymous
19th April 2016
Tuesday 7:59 pm
71030 spacer
>>71029

I said

>The way he is treated is outrageous
You said
>I am implying support for lower standards for presidential hopefuls

>The media disproportionately covers him a negative light
You said
>He's a front runner he gets a lot of coverage (,genius)

There's no point having a discussion with somebody who doesn't actually want to discuss, but just make a point. There's two types of lads you can chat with on here, and a common theme with the lads who just want to argue/ make a point/ think they have to have a tennis match with you of 'I'm more correct' and that's that those who do feel like that often try and attack what you say disingenuously by suggesting you meant something/ said something completely different.

I work in a PR job, I can express my written English just fine.
>> No. 71031 Anonymous
19th April 2016
Tuesday 8:07 pm
71031 spacer
>>71030
>I work in a PR job

Not who you are responding to but I wouldn't use this as evidence of being in any way knowledgeable or capable of logical thought.
>> No. 71032 Anonymous
19th April 2016
Tuesday 8:08 pm
71032 spacer
>>71031

Very edgy but what is this even meant to mean? It seems almost as lazy as the 'all politicians are just scroungers' argument.
>> No. 71033 Anonymous
19th April 2016
Tuesday 8:42 pm
71033 spacer
>>71030
I didn't say anything about standards for candidates, lad, you might want to add "understand the basics of how an anonymous imageboard works" to the growing list of things you ought to brush up on.

I am saying that Trump says outrageous things at a far higher rate than anyone else in the race and they get covered a lot because he's the front runner. And he knows his inflammatory remarks get him coverage and support, that's why he does it, which is plain to see for anybody with brain cells over double digits. He is not being treated unfairly, he is being given precisely the treatment he merits. Comprende?
>> No. 71034 Anonymous
19th April 2016
Tuesday 8:43 pm
71034 spacer
>>71032
It means that working in a PR job is not evidence of knowledge or logical thinking. Comprehension looks like it could use a little work too.
>> No. 71035 Anonymous
19th April 2016
Tuesday 8:50 pm
71035 spacer
>>71030
>discussion with somebody who doesn't actually want to discuss
You're implying that there's something to discuss

You said the way there treating him is outrageous. They're treating him exactly as they should. Their coverage is not disproportionately negative, it's proportionately negative. He's generally being a massive dick rather than a serious contender for political office. His rallies seem to be taking the sort of soundbites you see extracted from the substance of a rally and just repeating them over and over again. China. Build a wall. We're gonna win. Terrible deal with Iran. The Art Of The Deal. Look at my crowds. The cameras don't show the crowds (because I told them not to). That's it. No serious policy positions, just soundbites over and over. That's what they criticise him for because that's all he offers them. They're merely applying a standard of scrutiny. There's literally no way to say that Trump is being treated unfairly without implying the media should apply lower standards. Cannot be done. End of story. It's a bit like suggesting the media should ease off on constantly portraying the Kim lads as ruthless totalitarian dictators.
>> No. 71037 Anonymous
19th April 2016
Tuesday 9:13 pm
71037 spacer
>>71034

Wasn't the PR relevant in the sense that it verified the grasp on the English language and not anything else?

Maybe it's you who needs a little extra work putting in.
>> No. 71038 Anonymous
19th April 2016
Tuesday 9:16 pm
71038 spacer
>>71033
>>71035

This place man, this place. I'd love to know what you all look like.
>> No. 71039 Anonymous
19th April 2016
Tuesday 9:24 pm
71039 spacer
>>71037
Not really, seeing as I only explained what the post meant to our comprehension impaired friend, I didn't make it.
>> No. 71040 Anonymous
19th April 2016
Tuesday 9:32 pm
71040 spacer
>>71039

The post reads 'I work in PR, my written English is fine' or something very similar.

It's clear it wasn't being used as a creditor for good knowledge of logical thinking. It was clear that it was being used as a support for the argument that the communication through written English was adequate.

Your explanation doesn't really make sense in the context. I'd try reading it again.
>> No. 71041 Anonymous
19th April 2016
Tuesday 9:37 pm
71041 spacer
>>71040
>support for the argument that the communication through written English was adequate
Sadly, as it turned out, the argument didn't stand up.
>> No. 71042 Anonymous
19th April 2016
Tuesday 9:53 pm
71042 spacer
>>71041

Irrelevant to what I'm explaining to you/ that chap.
>> No. 71046 Anonymous
20th April 2016
Wednesday 12:27 am
71046 spacer
>>71040
I explained what the post was "meant to mean" to someone who was somehow confused, lad, I didn't make or endorse the post. Christ.
>> No. 71047 Anonymous
20th April 2016
Wednesday 2:30 am
71047 spacer
95/95
>> No. 71048 Anonymous
20th April 2016
Wednesday 6:56 am
71048 spacer
>>71046

My mistake, I see your point.
>> No. 71056 Anonymous
20th April 2016
Wednesday 4:54 pm
71056 spacer
>>71048
Way to ruin a cunt-off.
>> No. 71058 Anonymous
20th April 2016
Wednesday 5:50 pm
71058 spacer
>>71056

Contrary to what some lads on here believe, misreading a post or being wrong can be admitted - I am in fact still alive and breathing. Who knew you didn't have to cunt-off into the ground with it to try ad save face on an anonymous imageboard?
>> No. 71084 Anonymous
20th April 2016
Wednesday 8:27 pm
71084 spacer
>>71058
What do you think about inheritance tax?
>> No. 71086 Anonymous
21st April 2016
Thursday 12:25 am
71086 spacer
So New York was a good showing, I think he'll be disappointed not to get the full 95 on his home state but it blows some more wind in his sails. He's already noticably toned down his rhetoric, this is probably a calculated manoeuvre both with an eye to the potential convention and the future general election, he knows his rhetoric doesn't cut it on the whole and I reckon behind the scenes he's reassuring/bribing some influential people about his position on several issues.

My new estimation of him securing the nomination is about 25%, he needs a good showing in any two of Oregon, Washington, California and Pennsylvania and no poor results.

Personally I hope he wins.
>> No. 71093 Anonymous
21st April 2016
Thursday 8:27 am
71093 spacer
>>71086
He's not going to do well in Penn thanks to the rules there. Only 17 delegates are available through the preference vote. The rest are elected directly, and he's had difficulty with this method so far.
>> No. 71095 Anonymous
21st April 2016
Thursday 3:42 pm
71095 spacer
>>71093
If he wins that 17 though those delegates will have a hard time spitting in the face of the Republican elecorate there though.
>> No. 71096 Anonymous
21st April 2016
Thursday 4:11 pm
71096 spacer

rfullballot_mob.png
710967109671096
>>71095
That's not how the Pennsylvania primary works.
>> No. 71119 Anonymous
21st April 2016
Thursday 9:02 pm
71119 spacer
>>71086
He'll win the nomination, sure. Not much else.
>> No. 71128 Anonymous
22nd April 2016
Friday 12:56 am
71128 spacer
>>71119
>He'll win the nomination, sure.
It's on a knife edge at the minute mate.

I repeat, he's toned down his rhetoric a lot recently, he's preparing for the convention and the potential general election.
>> No. 71129 Anonymous
22nd April 2016
Friday 1:14 am
71129 spacer
>>71128

He went as far as to say TG people should be able to use whichever toilet the identify with. That will confuse and scare a lot of his core support.
>> No. 71133 Anonymous
22nd April 2016
Friday 1:43 am
71133 spacer
>>71129
His core support has done its job already. Now is the time to win the thing, not get the ball rolling.
>> No. 71196 Anonymous
25th April 2016
Monday 8:18 pm
71196 spacer
Another big one tomorrow. It's looking increasingly like he's going to miss 1237 on pledged votes alone. He would be relying on unpledged delegates to get him over the top in the first ballot, which in itself seems unlikely, given that we already know a little under half of them prefer Ted Cruz. If that doesn't happen, then he's not getting the nomination. He can only really rely on delegates he's put forward to keep voting for him, as happens in states like Illinois and West Virginia. In states where the votes are apportioned, the local parties have had difficulty filling his allotment with delegates that support him. He has 42 votes in Georgia, but so far only around 9 actual delegates. It's thought that at least a dozen of the actual bums on those seats belong to Cruz supporters who would likely vote for Ted come the second ballot.

Cleveland is going to be fun.
>> No. 71214 Anonymous
26th April 2016
Tuesday 7:39 pm
71214 spacer
New TV spot from the God-Emperor


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnLNWulLTEg
>> No. 71216 Anonymous
26th April 2016
Tuesday 8:18 pm
71216 spacer
>>71214

>God-Emperor

The fervor surrounding this half-insane, cunt of a candidate is such that questions need to be asked of your sarcasm and self-awareness in that statement.
>> No. 71217 Anonymous
26th April 2016
Tuesday 8:31 pm
71217 spacer

1456036100654.jpg
712177121771217
>>71216
m8, I think you're the one with a problem if you can't tell when people are having a bit of fun.
>> No. 71218 Anonymous
26th April 2016
Tuesday 8:37 pm
71218 spacer
At least supporting Trump is actually fun. The alternatives are Shillary's unbearable voice, Sanders's irritating fanboys who are constantly begging you to phonebank and give them money (all while telling you you're an idiot if you don't 'feel the Bern') or Cruz, who wants to outlaw the five knuckle shuffle.
>> No. 71219 Anonymous
26th April 2016
Tuesday 10:05 pm
71219 spacer
>>71218
The purpose of politics is not to provide you with amusement, dear.
>> No. 71220 Anonymous
26th April 2016
Tuesday 10:09 pm
71220 spacer
>>71219
Better than letting it make you mad - like you!
>> No. 71222 Anonymous
26th April 2016
Tuesday 10:25 pm
71222 spacer
>>71220
Oh, you got me. Furious, I am.
>> No. 71229 Anonymous
27th April 2016
Wednesday 2:57 am
71229 spacer

donald-trump-hair-001-700x465[1].jpg
712297122971229
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2016/apr/26/acela-primary-live-results-election-democrats-republicans-maryland-connecticut-pennsylvania-delaware-rhode-island


Well well well.
>> No. 71268 Anonymous
27th April 2016
Wednesday 11:51 pm
71268 spacer

penis.png
712687126871268
I reckon he's got it. This is excluding Washington and PN's delegates altogether (according to CNN at least half of PN's delegates will go with their district or statewide vote, which is at least 27 extra (all districts went to Trump)) and it leaves him on 1270, well past 1237. A lot of it relies on him riding the momentum of yesterday and taking Indiana, the ball is in Cruz court.
>> No. 71277 Anonymous
28th April 2016
Thursday 8:23 am
71277 spacer
>>71268
That's a bit optimistic. WV is a lot more complicated than that, since they directly elect the delegates as in PA, except that the statewide delegates are picked from a list of 220. There is an expectation that a good number of people won't cast all 22 votes, and in similar contests elsewhere delegate candidates with the "wrong" names have missed out. The Donald's poll lead in IN isn't convincing and Cruz is still favoured there. On those numbers, he may expect to at least carry the rural districts. My own reckoning has him at 1100 not counting CA. Of course, what we may see by then, as we've seen in previous contests, is an element of voter resignation, where they accept that Trump is far enough in front that he wins easily.
>> No. 71280 Anonymous
28th April 2016
Thursday 1:22 pm
71280 spacer
Trump will get a sizable portion of the black vote, certainly more than any other possible candidate they could field.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=367psk5ZdpU
>> No. 71290 Anonymous
28th April 2016
Thursday 5:16 pm
71290 spacer

trumpfavorability.png
712907129071290
>>71280
Compelling evidence though a youtube video of Ice Cube may be, there are better ways of gauging what black voters think about Trump and other candidates. Such as asking them.

https://mediarelations.gwu.edu/sites/mediarelations.gwu.edu/files/GWBattlegroundPoll58-crosstabs.pdf
>> No. 71291 Anonymous
28th April 2016
Thursday 5:25 pm
71291 spacer

trumpfavorability2.png
712917129171291
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/03/23/fox-news-poll-national-general-election-32316/

4%?! Now that's what I call support amongst the blacks!
>> No. 71293 Anonymous
28th April 2016
Thursday 5:45 pm
71293 spacer
>>71291
Such polling isn't worth much yet, when it - officially - comes to Trump vs Hillary a whole different game is going to play out.

That's not say the Dems won't have the majority of the black vote, they will, but Trump will get more than any other Republican could barring a black nominee.
>> No. 71294 Anonymous
28th April 2016
Thursday 6:05 pm
71294 spacer
>>71291

You say that as if it's specific to Trump, black votes for the Republican candidate always levels at about 5-8%
>> No. 71297 Anonymous
28th April 2016
Thursday 6:34 pm
71297 spacer
>>71293
He has abysmally low support and record unfavourability amongst blacks, which has only worsened as the campaign has gone on (you might want to look at what the numbers were the last time some retard in this thread thought that Donald Trump would win over blacks because rappers: >>67617). He is not going to suddenly turn that around in a few weeks.

>>71294
No, I say it as if Donald Trump won't get a sizeable portion of the black vote, as the Ice Cube fan believes.
>> No. 71298 Anonymous
28th April 2016
Thursday 6:50 pm
71298 spacer
>>71297
>few weeks

Few months m8.
>> No. 71299 Anonymous
28th April 2016
Thursday 7:10 pm
71299 spacer
>>71291

The most fascinating numbers I find there is the independents. The fact that more of them are persuaded to vote for Trump then Clinton intrigues me as to what negative things we don't see about Hilary and what positive things we don't see about Trump.
>> No. 71300 Anonymous
28th April 2016
Thursday 7:40 pm
71300 spacer
>>71299
Don't confuse independents with swing voters. They overwhelmingly lean towards one party or another, and reliably and predictably vote for their party's nominee, they just like to think of themselves as independents, even if they vote straight ticket.

Actual "swing" voters with zero partisan preferences are usually just hideously uninformed.
>> No. 71301 Anonymous
28th April 2016
Thursday 8:27 pm
71301 spacer
>>71298
Nope. His deadline is the first week of June. Charles Koch has come out saying he'd rather back Hillary than any of the current Republican candidates. The GOP are looking at a potential third consecutive term out of office for the first time since 1941, given the polling shows Trump is the only candidate left in either major party who can't win in November. If he can't turn his numbers around by then, they'll really kick up the fuckery to ensure he doesn't get the nomination.
>> No. 71303 Anonymous
28th April 2016
Thursday 9:07 pm
71303 spacer
>>71301
Has this election taught you nothing? Jeb had all the funding anyone could possibly want, he flopped in epic fashion. And all the pundits have made complete fools of themselves with their projections.

Hillary is Jeb, big name, well funded, but totally unable to handle herself with anyone who doesn't play nice, the fact that she can't win the nomination with aplomb when her only competition is an American brand Corbyn makes it abundantly clear how weak she truly is.
>> No. 71304 Anonymous
28th April 2016
Thursday 9:21 pm
71304 spacer
I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers even out once these two can really launch attacks.
>> No. 71305 Anonymous
28th April 2016
Thursday 9:29 pm
71305 spacer
>>71303
It's admirable that you're trying, but come back when you actually know anything about American politics.
>> No. 71306 Anonymous
28th April 2016
Thursday 9:39 pm
71306 spacer
>>71305
You win, I can't beat a well thought out and informative post like this. Grats.
>> No. 71307 Anonymous
28th April 2016
Thursday 10:07 pm
71307 spacer
>>71306
Says the poster of
>Hillary is Jeb
>> No. 71308 Anonymous
28th April 2016
Thursday 10:12 pm
71308 spacer
>>71303>>71306

He's entirely right, you know next to nothing about American politics.
>> No. 71309 Anonymous
28th April 2016
Thursday 10:13 pm
71309 spacer
>>71303
>Hillary is Jeb
Except she will actually be attacking Trump, which Jeb avoided doing for almost his entire run, and she doesn't need to worry about alienating her base in doing so, which is the problem Trump's Republican rivals have.

>totally unable to handle herself with anyone who doesn't play nice
Did you miss the occasion a few months ago when she sat down for 11 hours in front of a House Select Committee which was specifically set up to not play nice with her and handled herself well enough to make the committee a laughing stock?

There are a lot of bad things you can say about the Clintons. Not knowing how to handle their enemies is not one of them. At all.

>the fact that she can't win the nomination with aplomb when her only competition is an American brand Corbyn makes it abundantly clear how weak she truly is
She has already won, mate. Sanders has already shifted back to talking about influencing the party platform, rather than winning, because that would make him appear delusional at this point.

And uh, I shouldn't have to spell this out, but the weak points which Sanders, your so-called American brand Corbyn, has been attacking her on are not weaknesses that Trump will be in a position to exploit.
>> No. 71311 Anonymous
28th April 2016
Thursday 10:15 pm
71311 spacer
Going to say it again, America elections are won on turnout, can you really see people making a point of going out to vote Hillary Clinton?
>> No. 71312 Anonymous
28th April 2016
Thursday 10:28 pm
71312 spacer
>>71311
Surely some vagina people will be unusually enthused.
>> No. 71313 Anonymous
28th April 2016
Thursday 10:37 pm
71313 spacer
>>71312
Doesn't really seem to be the case to be honest.
>> No. 71314 Anonymous
28th April 2016
Thursday 11:40 pm
71314 spacer
>>71313
>>71312

Do we have a any figures showing how women voted for Thatcher? I have a feeling it's only a minor tip of the scales.

It's entirely possible that thinking women will vote tribally for Hilary, in the same way blacks did for Obama, is a flawed assumption. Race is a much more poignant issue than gender politics. The first black president simply carries much more weight that the first vagina having one.
>> No. 71315 Anonymous
28th April 2016
Thursday 11:46 pm
71315 spacer
>>71314
Don't need them. We have figures showing how women are intending to vote in November, namely 53-34 in favour of Clinton.
>> No. 71316 Anonymous
28th April 2016
Thursday 11:48 pm
71316 spacer
>>71314

Women had always been more likely to vote Conservative than men, so it's slightly tricky to separate out the specific effect of Thatcher.

http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9780511998164&cid=CBO9780511998164A017
>> No. 71367 Anonymous
30th April 2016
Saturday 6:38 pm
71367 spacer
>>71315
Because that's definitely going to be the ratio come the election, nothing could possibly happen in the next 6 months, the Figures are absolute.
>> No. 71368 Anonymous
30th April 2016
Saturday 6:41 pm
71368 spacer

jpeg-640x349[1].jpg
713687136871368
>>71367
I'm hoping that The Don will be able to turn the outstanding operation he ran against Marco the Rat and Lyin' Ted against Crooked Hillary.
>> No. 71370 Anonymous
30th April 2016
Saturday 7:47 pm
71370 spacer

flyingpigs_764478c.jpg
713707137071370
>>71316
You're right. In just 5 months he's managed to go from 57-31 to 53-34. He can totally turn that around in six weeks.
>> No. 71410 Anonymous
2nd May 2016
Monday 1:00 pm
71410 spacer
Is it safe to say that Sanders isn't going to get the nomination since New York? I've heard a lot being made of Rhode Island, but I honestly don't know much about the American electoral system.

I'm hoping things don't break down and lose momentum among his supporters if Sanders does capitulate. It would be quite depressing to see another potential popular movement break apart over whether it's acceptable to hold their nose and vote for Clinton.
>> No. 71411 Anonymous
2nd May 2016
Monday 1:21 pm
71411 spacer
>>71410
>Is it safe to say that Sanders isn't going to get the nomination since New York?
Yes, Sanders even started talking about his purpose in continuing the campaign even if a loss is inevitable (i.e. pushing Clinton to be more progressive). It would take something catastrophic on Hillary's side like an FBI indictment. Even then the DNC might just select someone else like Biden if Sanders doesn't have enough delegates.

>I'm hoping things don't break down and lose momentum among his supporters
Well that's definitely already happening to an extent, but it's hard to say how much that's just a visible minority. I'm broadly optimistic though that by 2020, the same support will still be there for anyone who wants to try something similar to Sanders, especially since there will be a whole load of new voters who are currently too young to vote in this election but adore Sanders.
>> No. 71412 Anonymous
2nd May 2016
Monday 1:22 pm
71412 spacer
>>71410
Due to the way delegate slots are allocated, he needs to win the remaining states by large margins. California has over 100 delegates for the state, but the other almost 400 are based on district results, so a modest win gives a bigger gain than other states, but not enough to bank on. 55/45 yields 10 statewide, but that is within the wide margin of error for district delegates. Districts have between four and nine seats, meaning that he could win the state but still walk away with fewer delegates.

Basically, unless Hillary gets shot or ends up in prison, we're not going to see President Bernie this time.
>> No. 71420 Anonymous
2nd May 2016
Monday 8:39 pm
71420 spacer

Capture.png
714207142071420
It's fucking on now, chaps.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/278366-poll-trump-has-2-point-lead-over-clinton
>> No. 71421 Anonymous
2nd May 2016
Monday 8:49 pm
71421 spacer
>>71420
This is unbelievable... I previously dismissed the idea of him even getting the nomination (which is now entirely possible without even going to a brokered convention), but now this? It's only one poll but it's still massively alarming and I honestly can't make sense of it.

Is the protest vote against the establishment so strong that they would rather watch the world burn on their own terms, rather than the terms of the political and corporate elites?
>> No. 71422 Anonymous
2nd May 2016
Monday 8:52 pm
71422 spacer
>>71421
>'Alarming'

I am far more alarmed by the prospect of an outright violent psychopath like Clinton become POTUS. She is a fucking witch.
>> No. 71423 Anonymous
2nd May 2016
Monday 9:25 pm
71423 spacer
>>71422
Understandable, but would you vote for Trump above her? Or would you just abstain or spoil the ballot if you actually had to vote (given that a single vote has fuck all influence anyway so voting strategically is pointless)? Perhaps that's what I am missing here - Trump is pulling ahead only in relative terms because of apathy or resentment from the other side?
>> No. 71424 Anonymous
2nd May 2016
Monday 9:30 pm
71424 spacer
>>71423

I think many just hate the image of her as this progressive woman whose much calmer and rational than Trump when she completely is not. I say this as a UK Labour voter who naturally would go for Democrats anyway.

Personally I'll never get the video of her saying 'we came, we saw, he died' with a fanatic smile when she thought she was off camera talking about Gadaffi.

She wouldn't get my vote.

Not that guy btw.
>> No. 71425 Anonymous
2nd May 2016
Monday 9:43 pm
71425 spacer
>>71421
>This is unbelievable
Not really. It's a Rasmussen poll. Their "house bias" is a few points to the Republican side. It's also, as you pointed out, only one poll.
>> No. 71426 Anonymous
2nd May 2016
Monday 9:46 pm
71426 spacer
>>71423
Yes I would. And unlike the other lad I'm actually a Labour member. Clinton sickens me.
>> No. 71427 Anonymous
2nd May 2016
Monday 9:54 pm
71427 spacer
>>71420
Seems like either way they're fucked now, though I think that's long been the view anyway. I definitely wouldn't vote for either of them.
>> No. 71429 Anonymous
3rd May 2016
Tuesday 12:50 am
71429 spacer
>>71424
>woman whose much calmer and rational than Trump when she completely is not
And you're basing this on a short clip of her celebrating the death of a human rights-violating dictator? Whatever you may think of Gaddafi, and whatever you may think of someone's foreign policy judgement when they make facile and misguided comments like that, Clinton's reaction is no more outrageous than you would expect from the average American. Meanwhile Trump is willing to stand in front of televised rallies and go on record making policies that discriminate against all Muslims and all Mexicans. I know which one is the 'outright psychopath' and it is not Clinton.
>> No. 71430 Anonymous
3rd May 2016
Tuesday 12:59 am
71430 spacer
I know next to nothing about US politics, but one thing has always confused me - why are the name of the two main parties almost synonyms for each other? I mean, sure the UK is an example of a non-republican democracy but I doubt that the Democrats are Monarchists. And who ever heard of an undemocratic Republic?

At least Labour and Conservatives make it clear who they are championing/fucking over.
>> No. 71431 Anonymous
3rd May 2016
Tuesday 1:07 am
71431 spacer
>>71430
Full explanations for both can be found on Wikipedia but what it boils down to is historical context. The USA is not very old, and the parties chose names to represent the ideals they most valued at a time when the national identity was not fully formed. Believe it or not, the word 'democratic' was originally used by opponents of that party to denigrate them, and it was only later that they adopted the word themselves.
>> No. 71432 Anonymous
3rd May 2016
Tuesday 1:09 am
71432 spacer
>>71429
The average American doesn't want Muslims entering his country, careful what you say.
>> No. 71433 Anonymous
3rd May 2016
Tuesday 1:12 am
71433 spacer
>>71430
Well having things like democracy and republicanism in your names, which no-one can be opposed to, certainly help entrench a two-party system...

But five minutes on Wikipedia have told me that the first political parties in America were the Federalists who wanted strong central government and friendly relations with Britain, and the Democratic-Republicans who wanted the opposite. The latter evolved into the Democratic Party, while the Republican Party, which was born out of the anti-slavery movement, was named in homage to the old Democratic-Republican Party. So basically the names of the two parties originated because both parties believed in the same thing, which kind of links back to my original point that neither concept is opposed in American politics.
>> No. 71434 Anonymous
3rd May 2016
Tuesday 1:30 am
71434 spacer
>>71431

That's not terribly different to "Tory".
>> No. 71435 Anonymous
3rd May 2016
Tuesday 2:09 am
71435 spacer
>>71430
They're not quite synonyms. Americans (particularly conservative Americans) are fond of repeating "America is a republic, not a democracy", usually whenever something the American in question approves of happens despite popular opinion not being on their side. And they're right. America was specifically set up not to be overly democratic.

In the words of James Madison, founding father, 4th president and primary author of the US constitution:

>In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.

The founding fathers weren't nearly so unanimous in their support of democratic institutions as popular history in the states would have it. Or even republicanism: Alexander Hamilton was in favour of an elective monarchy, for example, and John Adams, possibly thinking of his own intention to take the office, pushed for the proper title of the President to be established as "His Highness, the President of the United States, and Protector of the Rights of the Same".
>> No. 71436 Anonymous
3rd May 2016
Tuesday 2:49 am
71436 spacer
>>71432
I don't think the average American realises Muslims aren't just brown-eyed people.
>> No. 71438 Anonymous
3rd May 2016
Tuesday 3:09 am
71438 spacer
I find the north/south inversion of thirty years ago interesting. Not many really realise that theSouth was hardcore democrat until relatively recently. The political seesaw faced another direction back then though.
>> No. 71448 Anonymous
3rd May 2016
Tuesday 10:12 pm
71448 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz44wKKQJh0
>> No. 71450 Anonymous
3rd May 2016
Tuesday 11:31 pm
71450 spacer
Coming from Lyin' Ted, this is beyond comedy.
>> No. 71453 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 12:00 am
71453 spacer

tmp_16550-Screenshot_20160503-2359192068621621.png
714537145371453
Like the tarantula it's killing, this centipede has two curved hollow fangs.
>> No. 71454 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 12:07 am
71454 spacer
>>71453
I suppose the good news for the Republicans is that at this rate they won't be facing a third-party Trump.
>> No. 71455 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 12:12 am
71455 spacer

tmp_16550-Screenshot_20160504-0012191484395873.png
714557145571455
>>71453
THIS CENTIPEDE IS A PREDATOR.
>> No. 71456 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 12:17 am
71456 spacer
>>71455
Does this mean he is going to win the while republican thing?
>> No. 71457 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 12:19 am
71457 spacer
Apparently, there's a primary on the other side too. Bernie needs a landslide to close the gap. Currently it's Hillary by 3.
>> No. 71458 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 12:27 am
71458 spacer
>>71456
It's improved his chances considerably. Even doling out the winner-take-all states (except New Jersey) for Ted Cruz shows that the competition still needs around 125 delegates to block a pledged delegate majority, and we now think that around 40 of the unpledged delegates may vote for him. All of which means that the party's delegate fuckery may all be for naught unless they can find some way of disqualifying Trump, in which case they risk all hell breaking loose in Cleveland.
>> No. 71459 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 12:32 am
71459 spacer

in06.png
714597145971459
For some reason I find myself drawn to the House primary in the 6th district.
>> No. 71460 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 1:34 am
71460 spacer
Conflicting messages coming out right now. CNN has a strap reading "TED CRUZ TO DROP OUT" while both his speech and Carly Fiorina's introduction seem as defiant as usual.
>> No. 71461 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 1:42 am
71461 spacer

trump emperor.jpg
714617146171461
It's over, Cruz has just dropped out.
>> No. 71462 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 1:44 am
71462 spacer
>>71460
... and he's gone. In typical Ted Cruz fashion it took him almost twenty minutes to deliver the important bit.
>> No. 71463 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 2:00 am
71463 spacer

in.png
714637146371463
Looks like Indiana may be feeling the Bern.
>> No. 71464 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 2:50 am
71464 spacer
TOLD YOU LADS.
>> No. 71467 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 3:05 am
71467 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri0co3YRVU

Overestimating the American public is a deeply foolish thing to do. Of course they want to elect Trump, he's a thicko with money, that's the American apex.
>> No. 71469 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 6:21 am
71469 spacer
>>71467
The alternative was Cruz, who is an outright religious extremist who wants to ban masturbation. I'd vote for him too.

Why the fuck do you have to just be such a cunt about an entire country. At least Trump actually spoke to normal Americans who worry about their jobs disappearing to Mexico. He ran a good campaign and I hope he beats Hillary.
>> No. 71471 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 7:32 am
71471 spacer
>>71469
>Why the fuck do you have to just be such a cunt about an entire country.
We're British. It's what we do. Stereotyping foreigners is a national pastime, up there with cricket, queuing and obsessing over house prices.
>> No. 71472 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 7:47 am
71472 spacer
>>71471
Hahahaha, you're right #soBritish #BritishPeopleProblems
>> No. 71475 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 8:10 am
71475 spacer
>>71472
You forgot '*sips tea*'
>> No. 71479 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 6:26 pm
71479 spacer
Even Kasich is out, you can take a nice long rest now spreadsheetlad, it's over.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36201042
>> No. 71480 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 6:58 pm
71480 spacer
>>71479
To think that with Cruz out he actually had a shot at almost winning Washington and Oregon. As more than one commentator pointed out last night, he was sitting in fourth in a two-man race.
>> No. 71481 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 7:05 pm
71481 spacer
Baffles me how even now people don't take Trump seriously. Right from the start he's been a populist running on the FUCK YEAH MURRICA platform that just works over there. We don't have a real equivalent, but you only have to look at the gay racists' popularity to understand the sort of angle it's coming from.

Over here, we're a very connected, "metropolitan" kind of nation, so that kind of nostalgic, sentimental appeal to base nationalistic instincts only gets so far. But we are talking about America, a place where a good number of educated and otherwise normal people would struggle to place France on a map. It's simply different over there.

The thing I'm struggling to figure out is if we should all be worried or not. Conventional logic says yes, because he'll be in charge of the most influential country in the world, but at the same time, America has been declining for a while. He seems to favour more isolationist policies. He will almost certainly be a bad thing for the USA's foreign relations and world position. Maybe it's time for America to step down from it's global high-chair, and wether intentionally or not, Trump could well end up facilitating that.

One of Obama's spokespeople regarding the EU referendum, said "Friends don't let friends drive drunk." But I have a feeling that in international terms, a good number of other countries would happily give America the keys after their tenth pint regarding Trump.
>> No. 71482 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 7:08 pm
71482 spacer
>>71481
This post was horrible to read.
>> No. 71483 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 7:14 pm
71483 spacer
>>71479
I'm wondering how well Trump supporters will take his inability to meet his promises, no matter how vaguely worded they are.
Interesting times.
Has Clinton made any promises? Has anyone paid attention to a word she's said?
>> No. 71484 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 7:15 pm
71484 spacer
>>71482
It was a really silly post.
>> No. 71486 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 7:18 pm
71486 spacer
Why did Cruz drop out? Couldn't he have caught up to Trump or something? Or was Indiana just too important? I'm afraid I don't understand.
>> No. 71487 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 7:20 pm
71487 spacer
>>71481
>a good number of educated and otherwise normal people would struggle to place France on a map.

I love a good ol' yank bashing, but in fairness I doubt I'd be able to place US states on a map any better than the average American could place European countries.
>> No. 71488 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 7:22 pm
71488 spacer
>>71487
Ah! Yes. The old American states = European nations. Very fun.
>> No. 71489 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 7:23 pm
71489 spacer
>>71482
Not the poster you're responding to but why exactly? It seems mostly grammatically correct, correctly punctuated and uses paragraphs. All of which makes it easier to read than many posts I see on here.
>> No. 71490 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 7:23 pm
71490 spacer
>>71482
>>71484

We currently inhabit a reality in which there is a very real possibility of Donald Trump becoming president of the United States.

What was so silly of me by contrast? At least engage with me chaps, I'm not even here to troll.
>> No. 71491 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 7:24 pm
71491 spacer
>>71486
He was fucked after the 5 state sweep of Trump's last week, Indiana made it impossible, he decided to leave with some dignity.
>> No. 71492 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 7:34 pm
71492 spacer
>>71488
I wasn't implying that they were equivalent in all ways, I was saying that my ignorance of US geography is as bad as the average American's ignorance of European geography.
>> No. 71493 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 7:37 pm
71493 spacer
>>71492

It's still not really a direct comparison, it's not only geography that one has to be ignorant of to not know where a place like France is. Somewhere like Missouri, on the other hand, doesn't have much historical significance.

If I had said that the average Yank can't place Latvia on a map then it might be a valid defence. Where the hell is Latvia anyway? Is it near Estonia? And where's Estonia?
>> No. 71496 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 7:48 pm
71496 spacer
>>71493
>doesn't have much historical significance

I mean, I agree that France certainly has a longer and more interesting history than Missouri, but the significance of history rather depends on your perspective.

Regardless, being aware of the French revolution doesn't really help in placing France on a map.
>> No. 71498 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 7:51 pm
71498 spacer
>>71492
And my ignorance of the Sydney underground system is as bad as the average American's ignorance of the planets in our solar system.

Have some shame, lad.
>> No. 71499 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 7:55 pm
71499 spacer
>>71496

No, but you would hope that something like, say, the D-Day landings is still more popularly known.
>> No. 71500 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 7:55 pm
71500 spacer
>>71498
I wasn't aware that the size of the average Sydney underground station was of the same order of magnitude as that of a planet.
>> No. 71501 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 7:57 pm
71501 spacer
>>71486
He knew long ago that he likely wouldn't win, but his strategy was based on the reality that Trump would be unlikely to win at a contested convention were it to go to a second ballot. It's thought that he had a couple of hundred Trump-pledged and unpledged delegates set to vote for him as soon as they could vote freely. Last week's sweep wasn't really relevant, since anyone that's been watching reasonably closely will have seen that coming back in March. In order to carry out his strategy of killing Trump on the second ballot, Ted Cruz needs to be able to prevent him winning on the first ballot, and after what looks to be a shut-out in Indiana it now looks like he won't be able to do that. Particularly since the Pennsylvania delegates have been bucking the trend and saying that they would support Trump.
>> No. 71503 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 8:00 pm
71503 spacer
I like how he quit by lowkey elbowing his wife in the face.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me-lMngEtMg
>> No. 71506 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 8:06 pm
71506 spacer
>>71503
I assume he'd found out that, just like everyone else, she didn't really like him either.
>> No. 71509 Anonymous
4th May 2016
Wednesday 8:41 pm
71509 spacer
>>71500
I wasn't implying that they were equivalent in all ways, I was saying that my ignorance of how to cook pasta is as bad as the average American's ignorance of Pythagoras theorem.
>> No. 71655 Anonymous
6th May 2016
Friday 12:13 pm
71655 spacer
>>71509
You might want to put down the crack pipe, lad.
>> No. 71657 Anonymous
6th May 2016
Friday 12:28 pm
71657 spacer

trump future.jpg
716577165771657
The emperor's already making plans to make us the 51st state. Fucking A.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36219612
>> No. 71668 Anonymous
6th May 2016
Friday 4:56 pm
71668 spacer
>>71657

"Us", I'm sure.
>> No. 71678 Anonymous
6th May 2016
Friday 8:19 pm
71678 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W9YWVQAIxM

UNSTUMPABLE.
>> No. 71683 Anonymous
6th May 2016
Friday 8:39 pm
71683 spacer
I'm quite disappointed in the internet froth surrounding his campaign. It's all sneering and poking fun, treating the entire ordeal as though it were a joke rather than a genuine threat and an indication of a massive systemic failure in US politics. Perhaps it's partially the fault of the constant media coverage, at once trying to profit from and discredit him by way of his cartoonishness. Part of me also suspects that the coverage was designed to distract the public from Sanders, who also represented a genuinely disaffected class of people, but had a more tangible way of addressing their concerns.
>> No. 71691 Anonymous
6th May 2016
Friday 9:58 pm
71691 spacer
>>71683
The internet (mostly the other /pol/) has played a not insubstantial role in fueling Trump's rise, humour is now the province of the right, or alt-right as it's sometimes called, (the best the left could do was fucking Drumpf and lame comics in legacy media) and it's this irreverence and sass which has been so successful in the framing of the election.

Trump is funny because he isn't shackled by political correctness like the gelded left, neither is the internet, it's a match made in heaven.
>> No. 71693 Anonymous
6th May 2016
Friday 10:18 pm
71693 spacer
>>71691
>The internet (mostly the other /pol/) has played a not insubstantial role in fueling Trump's rise
Wow, it looks like /pol/ has started to believe its own bullshit.
>> No. 71694 Anonymous
6th May 2016
Friday 10:31 pm
71694 spacer
>>71693
I think you'd be hard pressed to say they played no role, they fixed all the online polls early on when he was trailing Jeb and the rest to give the impression that he had massive support, had their memes filter into the mainstream media (such as the cuckservative shiv) and even made Ted Cruz's wife deny that her husband was the Zodiac killer.
>> No. 71707 Anonymous
6th May 2016
Friday 11:20 pm
71707 spacer
>>71694
>Ted Cruz's wife deny that her husband was the Zodiac killer.
What? Am I in the real world?
>> No. 71730 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 12:01 am
71730 spacer
>>71707

No, they call it the United States.
>> No. 71743 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 1:22 am
71743 spacer
>>71694
Nobody has ever cared about online polls, particularly when they've been so obviously jumped upon by one community or another, cuckservative is just another term for RINO, and The Ted Cruz Zodiac killer stuff was going on for years, had nothing to do with /pol/, and the only people who know or care about Heidi Cruz's reaction to it are people who sought that out, it was not a widespread thing.

The only person whose internet posting impacted Trump's rise is Trump himself.
>> No. 71753 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 9:34 am
71753 spacer
>>71743
Actually I didn't say it was only /pol/, but that is the largest base of Trump support on the internet.

>online polls

No, they're not a gold standard of proof, but they get the ball rolling, even the word association, "Trump" and "Winning" is a form of persuasion.

But then you're the kind of Nate Silver-esque stiff who doesn't even understand how this kind of psychology works, Trump is an absolute genius with his use of language and word assosiation. But to you it's all accidentally misspelled tweets, and low syllable bombast.

No wonder you can't fathom what's happened.

>Cuckservative

This is a far more cutting and accurate term than the ambiguous "RINO", maybe it has less mainstream usage, but guess what? Old media is rapidly declining, the internet is taking over and trust in the established media is at all time low (much like it is in politics).

The cuck meme, as puerile and contained as you probably think it is has caused ripples all over the place.

>Zodiac Killer meme been around forever

Yes, memes don't have to be created from scratch, that's kind of the idea. Dear God. Next thing you're going to tell me Pepe isn't an imageboard creation because he started life in the comic series Boy’s Club.
>> No. 71755 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 10:34 am
71755 spacer
>>71753
>Trump is an absolute genius with his use of language and word assosiation.
This sounds like something you read somewhere else, and you spelled "association" wrong. Forgive me for not taking your judgement on the matter too seriously.

Almost everything I've seen Trump write and say has been clumsy and ham-fisted. Taking you at your word, he may be playing some kind of "how outrageously offensive, aggressive, and un-PC can I be in order to get media coverage" game, and this spiel may appeal to a small group of angry young white men,* but that seems like an obviously flawed strategy to me.

* Reddit's /r/the_donald certainly seem to like him, and there's 123,000 of them, with >3000 active on there right now - significantly larger than /pol/ and I'd wager far more impactful. (They're a shower of cunts, in my opinion.)

(Also, I'm not the lad you're arguing with, incidentally.)
>> No. 71758 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 11:07 am
71758 spacer
>>71753
>Cuckservative

>This is a far more cutting and accurate term than the ambiguous "RINO"
Oh dear.
>> No. 71761 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 11:35 am
71761 spacer
>>71755
>Almost everything I've seen Trump write and say has been clumsy and ham-fisted.

This is the fallacy of the Bern victim; you think politicians should appeal to university-educated liberals like yourself. In the real world, it's the communicator who reaches the majority who has succeeded, so your mewling about Trump's prose not being as elegant as you'd like is completely irrelevant.
>> No. 71762 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 11:41 am
71762 spacer
>>71761
Great point, apart from, y'know, the fact that Bernie has greater appeal amongst the electorate than Trump.
>> No. 71763 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 11:45 am
71763 spacer

dUbjRd0[1].jpg
717637176371763
>>71762
I guess that explains his campaign's amazing success and his imminent nomination for the Democratic Party.

Oh, wait!
>> No. 71765 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 12:07 pm
71765 spacer

BCbs2K[1].jpg
717657176571765
There's some fabulous meme magic that comes out of The_Donald.
>> No. 71768 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 12:41 pm
71768 spacer
Bernie's the only one that will do anything about the US banking system (that's the one that shagged the western world's economy open in 2007/08), if you're not an American and you want anyone else to win, you're either a complete fuckhead or a Chinese agent.

What a miserable thread.
>> No. 71769 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 1:22 pm
71769 spacer
>>71755
Oh no, I misspelled one word, better call the grammar police.

/pol/ is one of the fastest boards on 4chan, over 70 million posts, and there's about 90 lurkers for every poster. There is another /pol/ on 8chan also.

You refuse to even try to understand how Trump has won control of the party, you're made blind by a fanatical devotion to your religion of political correctness. Trump is a genius, just because he speaks on a grade school level is of little relevance, sophistry will not win elections.

>>71758
It is. Cuck, (etymologically derived from the Cuckoo bird and the middle ages slur cuckold) is far more biting than any word in recent memory. To surrender your principles, your land, your women to hostile ideologies, people and men is exactly what the Establishment "conservatives" have been doing (and the left for the latter two but they're proud of it), they fetishize defeat.

It works on a primal level, and it stings, because it's true. Only "racist" has similar impact, and that's became more stale with each passing year.

>>71768
Bernie doesn't care about the obscene level of debt, just like Corbyn doesn't, he'd take America into a depression like they had in the 30's.
>> No. 71771 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 1:25 pm
71771 spacer
>>71768

>will do anything about the US banking system


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ytv15ono5J0

On the upside, this means you don't have to worry too much about the damage Trump might do either.
>> No. 71772 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 1:26 pm
71772 spacer
>>71768
>>)a complete fuckhead or a Chinese agent.

I've seen a fair bit of vocal British, and other non-American, support for Trump in the comments section of various news sites and Facebook pages, such as God save our gracious meme. I started too look at the profiles of the commenters and it seems most are actual teenlads or manchildren in their twenties and occasionally thirties, constantly complaining about "leftie cucks", "Londonistan" and voting UKIP. They are either trolling edgelords or racists but not the right demographic to attend EDL marches or similar. So yes you are right.
>> No. 71773 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 1:29 pm
71773 spacer
>>71769
About the lurkers thing, it follows this basic principle which holds fast across almost all of the web.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture)

Moot dropped some stats back in the day and the lurkers do indeed outnumber posters by a vast degree.
>> No. 71774 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 1:29 pm
71774 spacer
>>71769

>Bernie doesn't care about the obscene level of debt, just like Corbyn doesn't, he'd take America into a depression like they had in the 30's.

Funny because I was under the impression that same depression had been caused by laissez-faire policy and uneven income distribution, and it took the election of one of America's most socialist presidents to begin the recovery.

Apparently it was the other way round, I've been wrong all this time...
>> No. 71775 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 1:30 pm
71775 spacer
>>71769

>Oh no, I misspelled one word, better call the grammar police.

Fresh off the Boaty McBoat Face, I see.

Also the fact you think "cuck" is some withering insult that does anything more than highlight its user as a intellectually bankrupt numpty is, almost, funny.
>> No. 71778 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 1:35 pm
71778 spacer
>>71775
Been here since 2011, ladmate.

Cuck works, it ruffles feathers, visibly yours. But you're right that it's not some sophisticated putdown, it's a kick in the balls.
>> No. 71781 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 1:54 pm
71781 spacer
>>71778

If you've been here for 5 years then you should have realised we have actual grammar police then, shouldn't you?

And, no, it doesn't. I mean, it is a bit annoying, but only because I realise that the person I'm communicating with is an idiot. It's the same as "sheeple", in that yes, you will illicit a reaction from me, but it will be one of only disdain and dismissal.

>a kick in the balls

I've never known anyone react to a knock to the goolies with copious eye rolling.
>> No. 71782 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 2:08 pm
71782 spacer
>>71781
It's ok lad, most people roll their eyes when you call people you don't like fascists, racists, misogynists or The Next Hitler™.
>> No. 71783 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 2:25 pm
71783 spacer
>>71782

But Trump is a racist. We know that because of how he spent years and years trying to convince people Obama wasn't from the US. And the shit he said about Mexicans right at the start of campaign.

See, I can show that because "racist" is an actual word, not a load of old guff like "cuck".
>> No. 71784 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 2:47 pm
71784 spacer
>>71783
>Racist

Someone who dislikes members of another people, who prefers his own ethnic group and wants to see them prosper, doesn't want his women mixing with others.

>Cuck

Someone who dislikes members of his own people, and prefers racial outsiders (who still think the old way and look after number one), wants to see his women and daughters conquered by foreign men.

"Cuck" is a more potent insult that works on a psychosexual level, "Racist" is what we naturally are as humans, we prefer our own kind. It will fall by the wayside just like "Bourgeoisie" did.

"Racist" is actually a very recent word, I'm not sure as to it's exact first usage, but it was no earlier than the 20th century, before then it would be ridiculous to castigate someone who prefers their own people. It isn't innately insulting, it only makes sense within a particular value system. "Cuckold" is ubiquitous around the world and has been since time immemorial, because cuckolding is the male equivalent of rape.
>> No. 71787 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 3:12 pm
71787 spacer
>>71784
If you mean "Cuckold" in the real sense then race has absolutely nothing to do with it. If you mean "Cuck" in the sense it's used on the internet then it's gone beyond having any sort of specific meaning except "someone who has something taken from them", and even then only vaguely. You're talking out of your arse. Or perhaps someone else's arse.
>> No. 71788 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 3:17 pm
71788 spacer

western nations.jpg
717887178871788
>>71786
It has the same fundamental meaning, to care more for outsiders than your own kind, the individual act of cuckoldry is indeed horrible, but the same thing is happening on a macro level in the west. This is why it sticks, why it resonates, why it pisses you off.

You call it a made up word, but so is "racist", as least this one has a pedigree.
>> No. 71789 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 3:38 pm
71789 spacer
>>71784

Yeah, it's just a stupid fetish racists have, but it upsets their stupid world view so they project it onto left wingers.

>wants to see his women and daughters conquered by foreign men

You literally can't look at a black bloke or a white woman without imagining one shagging the other. It's deranged.
>> No. 71790 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 4:19 pm
71790 spacer
>>71788
>It has the same fundamental meaning, to care more for outsiders than your own kind
No, in the original sense it means that your partner cheated on you, in the recent sense it means that someone else has taken advantage of you. Nothing to do with "caring more for outsiders". You're either totally misinformed, insane or simply trolling.
>> No. 71791 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 4:34 pm
71791 spacer
>>71790
It meant that your wife cheated on you and/or had a child with another man and passed it off as yours, hence why it originally derives from the Cuckoo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckold

Now, what is it the other bird does with the Cuckoo chick? Can you tell me lad?
>> No. 71792 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 5:10 pm
71792 spacer
>>71791
>Now, what is it the other bird does with the Cuckoo chick?
That's like asking "Now, what is it those Islamists do when they get on a plane?"
>> No. 71793 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 5:15 pm
71793 spacer
>>71755
>and there's 123,000 of them, with >3000 active on there right now - significantly larger than /pol/
I doubt this heavily.
>> No. 71794 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 7:08 pm
71794 spacer
>>71763
Party nominations aren't up to the electorate, dear. And the same is true for Hilary in any case.
>> No. 71796 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 9:04 pm
71796 spacer

jampasty.jpg
717967179671796
>That's like asking "Now, what is it those Islamists do when they get on a plane?"

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, I'VE HAD IT WITH THESE MUTHAFUCKIN ISLAMISTS ON THIS MUTHAFUCKIN PLANE(t), EVERYBODY STRAP IN. I'M ABOUT TO OPEN SOME FUCKIN WINDOWS...
>> No. 71860 Anonymous
8th May 2016
Sunday 3:47 am
71860 spacer
>>71791
I see you didn't actually read the article you're using as evidence.
>A cuckold is the husband of an adulterous wife.
>> No. 71882 Anonymous
8th May 2016
Sunday 11:36 am
71882 spacer
>>71793
I'm not sure which bit you doubt, but it doesn't really matter. Right now the_donald has 124,531 subscribers and 3,639 active users. Even if you could find traffic stats for /pol/ (and then take a stab at making a meaningful comparison, given the differences in site format) it would be irrelevant, as /pol/ isn't dedicated to Donald Trump.
>> No. 71952 Anonymous
9th May 2016
Monday 12:17 am
71952 spacer

R-S_mk2.gif
719527195271952
So it begins. Trump now tells us he wants higher taxes on the rich and a higher federal minimum wage.
>> No. 71957 Anonymous
9th May 2016
Monday 10:54 am
71957 spacer

duterte bond villain.jpg
719577195771957
Even The Philippines gets its own Trump, when's it going to be our turn?
>> No. 71960 Anonymous
9th May 2016
Monday 4:38 pm
71960 Consider the following:
ARE NIGE.jpg
719607196071960
>>71957

We already had one and the threat of the tartan menace uniting with Labour was enough to ensure people voted tory.
>> No. 71961 Anonymous
9th May 2016
Monday 8:19 pm
71961 spacer
>>71960

Every picture of Jimmy seems to portray a jovial man desperately trying to hide something. I don't think he is a nonce, but there is sone deviancy there.
>> No. 71962 Anonymous
9th May 2016
Monday 9:01 pm
71962 spacer
>>71961

I think he is just a lad that has to hide behind a social conservative veneer. I wouldn't be shocked in the slightest to see footage of him sniffing cocaine out of the small of a hookers's back or something though.
>> No. 71963 Anonymous
9th May 2016
Monday 10:00 pm
71963 spacer
>>71957
This sounds funny. Who did he say this to?

Anyway, he promised to murder all drug dealers and addicts. He is the mayor of Davao City, and has been its mayor for some two decades. During that time, his executions of drug traffickers, criminals, gang members and other lawless bastards transformed the city from one of the bloodiest and dangerous place in Philippines, to a city considered to be one of the safest in all of south east Asia. Sometimes you need a tough hand to correct things. Ultimately, he has brought peace and greater riches to his city.
>> No. 71964 Anonymous
9th May 2016
Monday 10:01 pm
71964 spacer
>>71962

Small what?
>> No. 71965 Anonymous
9th May 2016
Monday 10:38 pm
71965 spacer
>>71964

The small of a hookers back.
>> No. 71967 Anonymous
9th May 2016
Monday 10:41 pm
71967 spacer
>>71963
Not sure, but it's not the most outrageous thing he's said, he said to Pope Francis "‘Pope, son of a whore, go home. Don’t visit anymore." for causing a traffic jam, and made a joke about how he wished he'd been invited to the rape of an Australian missionary woman.

But yeah, he made Davao city the safest place in the Philippines, I've been myself, feels safe and spacious, like an American suburb. The tap water is actually drinkable there, you try that anywhere else in the region and you're going to be shitting diarrhea in your pants for the next few days.

He's tipped to win, and he may just turn the country around.
>> No. 71968 Anonymous
9th May 2016
Monday 10:59 pm
71968 spacer
>>71967
Short documentary on the guy here if anyone's interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NrIcuBf7iU

You can probably expect the country to have a strict smoking ban enforced and a early closing of clubs and bars at 1AM when he's President, all good things imo.
>> No. 71969 Anonymous
9th May 2016
Monday 11:30 pm
71969 spacer
>>71965

The small what of herhis? back?
>> No. 71974 Anonymous
10th May 2016
Tuesday 7:32 am
71974 spacer

tmp_28181-Screenshot_2016-05-10-07-30-282063320475.png
719747197471974
Filipino Judge Dredd won!
>> No. 71979 Anonymous
10th May 2016
Tuesday 2:59 pm
71979 spacer
>>71974
Got to say I'm more interested in this guy than Trump now. I wonder what things are going to be like over there now.
>> No. 71980 Anonymous
10th May 2016
Tuesday 3:35 pm
71980 spacer
>>71979
But where is he going to build a wall in the Phillippines?
>> No. 71981 Anonymous
10th May 2016
Tuesday 4:56 pm
71981 spacer
>>71980

Where ever he likes. He is El Presidente now.
>> No. 71983 Anonymous
10th May 2016
Tuesday 6:28 pm
71983 spacer
India already has its own Trump with Narendra Modi. He basically allowed a pogrom against several hundred muslims, is a Hindu nationalist and was banned by the cucks here from entering the UK. At least until he became PM.

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 71985 Anonymous
10th May 2016
Tuesday 6:51 pm
71985 spacer
>>71983

Modi is the most deluded politician on the planet. He thinks he is divinely ordained as a Dharmaraja, which is sort of a religious king. How this chai wallah cheated the caste system and other barriers to people like him getting into power I still do not understand.
>> No. 71986 Anonymous
10th May 2016
Tuesday 6:59 pm
71986 spacer
>>71983
He even has his own laplander version of the blackshirts. Is cuck a wordfilter?
>> No. 71989 Anonymous
10th May 2016
Tuesday 8:05 pm
71989 spacer
>>71986

Laplanders are the ones getting killed by Modis SS.

I hope cuck is a word filter, because if it's not it means we have idiots posting.
>> No. 71993 Anonymous
10th May 2016
Tuesday 11:36 pm
71993 spacer

mobile-4592-1462876459-5.jpg
719937199371993
>Bernie Sanders trolls try to trick his supporters into blowing themselves up with fake, dangerous glowstick recipe

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/10/trolls-are-trying-to-trick-bernie-sanders-fans-into-blowing-them/
>> No. 71994 Anonymous
11th May 2016
Wednesday 1:47 am
71994 spacer
>>71993
>chlorinating

Yeah, you'd have to be an idiot to try this.

Also, it boils my piss that the Telegraph now make the site unusable with ad-blockers enabled.
>> No. 71995 Anonymous
11th May 2016
Wednesday 2:18 am
71995 spacer
>>71994
Works for me (Chrome/uBlock).
>> No. 71996 Anonymous
11th May 2016
Wednesday 4:07 am
71996 spacer
>>71993

>Sander's

My piss is boiling, like an idiot's chemistry set.
>> No. 71997 Anonymous
11th May 2016
Wednesday 11:48 am
71997 spacer
In Nebraska last night, the only candidate in the race managed to poll a mere 61%, while two candidates who are no longer in the race managed almost 30%. The Donald has a lot of work to do in the coming weeks.
>> No. 71998 Anonymous
11th May 2016
Wednesday 12:16 pm
71998 spacer
>>71997
>The Donald

Aye, let's not do this.
>> No. 71999 Anonymous
11th May 2016
Wednesday 12:51 pm
71999 spacer
>>71998
Au contraire, let's not not do this.
>> No. 72000 Anonymous
11th May 2016
Wednesday 1:39 pm
72000 spacer
>>71994

>Also, it boils my piss that the Telegraph now make the site unusable with ad-blockers enabled.

NoScript
>> No. 72001 Anonymous
11th May 2016
Wednesday 2:12 pm
72001 spacer
>>72000
Yes, make one site usable by making the entire internet unusable. What a brilliant idea.
>> No. 72002 Anonymous
11th May 2016
Wednesday 3:01 pm
72002 spacer
>>72001

To be fair, once you've got the Telegraph, what other sites do you even need?
>> No. 72003 Anonymous
11th May 2016
Wednesday 3:50 pm
72003 spacer
>>71974
This guy is just all over the board. On the one hand he seems insane and has death squads, but on the other he's made efforts to increase security in public areas, protect indigenous people, and he supports LGBT rights and gay marriage too.
>> No. 72004 Anonymous
11th May 2016
Wednesday 4:11 pm
72004 spacer
>>72003
So he's not really a Pinoy Trump?
>> No. 72005 Anonymous
11th May 2016
Wednesday 4:48 pm
72005 spacer
>>71994

Get a better ad-blocker. uBlock Origin has ad-blocker blocker blocking.
>> No. 72006 Anonymous
11th May 2016
Wednesday 6:44 pm
72006 spacer
>>72003
The death squads are exactly what improved security, western style leniency and comfy jail cells don't work in a place like the Philippines, either you kill them all or nothing changes.

It's a very different culture, he may support gays and ladyboys (they're pretty accepted anyway) but he'll still make a bunch of fag jokes.
>> No. 72007 Anonymous
11th May 2016
Wednesday 7:01 pm
72007 spacer
>>72006
Not just death squads, but he also did things like making sure community centres and shopping malls all had HD CCTV cameras installed. Things like that, coupled with his Judge Dredd approach to crime, have gained him a lot of support. From what I understand things were ridiculously out of hand in some areas.
>> No. 72036 Anonymous
12th May 2016
Thursday 6:50 pm
72036 spacer

mwugumua96ss21nbwA1JOLCR7PiqTzq2FgEZDqGW0UI[1].jpg
720367203672036
Even if you have a critical view of Trump you can't deny the reality of the meme magic The_Donald and others have managed to come out with.

https://archive.is/oGwXc
>> No. 72038 Anonymous
12th May 2016
Thursday 7:51 pm
72038 spacer
>>72036

If I could go back in time and strangle imageboard culture while it was still in its cot, posting on the other place all those years ago, I'd do it without hesitation.

My mother sharing memes on Facebook, the Tumblr and Twitter versions of political activism, a presidential campaign featuring /pol/ level rhetoric... I'd even give you up, .gs, if it meant I could correct this fucking bizarre turn of events.

Maybe I need to keep off the 'social' side of the internet for a while.
>> No. 72039 Anonymous
12th May 2016
Thursday 7:57 pm
72039 spacer
>>72038
Why? It is so funny and I enjoy it a lot. It is just so insane, and I keep thinking everyone's insane. It's fun--like playing a shitty glitchy game... Only it is real life.
>> No. 72040 Anonymous
12th May 2016
Thursday 7:58 pm
72040 spacer
>>72036

You have nothing, you are an empty vessel and all your stupid jokes are a constant stream of admissions that you're just a fool and I don't care for fools.

Nice troll account, if tedium is your fucking oxygen.

>>72039

Empty headed twat.
>> No. 72041 Anonymous
12th May 2016
Thursday 8:05 pm
72041 spacer
>>72040
Why are you so angry?
>> No. 72042 Anonymous
12th May 2016
Thursday 8:14 pm
72042 spacer
>>72041

Constant bewilderment in the face of unrelenting idiocy.

Why are you so useless?
>> No. 72043 Anonymous
12th May 2016
Thursday 8:16 pm
72043 spacer
>>72042
What do you want done? How should everyone act?
>> No. 72048 Anonymous
12th May 2016
Thursday 8:34 pm
72048 spacer
>>72043

Like you have a gut. Not as thought you're a giggling imbecile. The bar's really that low.
>> No. 72051 Anonymous
12th May 2016
Thursday 9:00 pm
72051 spacer
>>72048
I don't understand you.
>> No. 72055 Anonymous
13th May 2016
Friday 6:57 pm
72055 spacer

clinton.jpg
720557205572055
A pro-Trump tweet on Clinton's twitter page.
>> No. 72056 Anonymous
13th May 2016
Friday 7:05 pm
72056 spacer
>>72055
I can see how pro-Trumpers would think it was pro-Trump, as they tend to take things at face value.
>> No. 72057 Anonymous
13th May 2016
Friday 7:10 pm
72057 spacer
>>72056

I'm not a pro-Trumper, I just don't see how that quote is supposed to paint Trump in a negative light. He basically re-stated the "equal pay for equal work" mantra.
>> No. 72058 Anonymous
13th May 2016
Friday 7:38 pm
72058 spacer
>>72057
Even when it's read as an answer to the question 'how should the gender pay gap be closed?'
>> No. 72059 Anonymous
13th May 2016
Friday 7:47 pm
72059 spacer
>>72057
No, he's implying that the reason women don't get equal pay is that they're not doing equal work.
>> No. 72060 Anonymous
13th May 2016
Friday 7:56 pm
72060 spacer
>>72059
That is kind of true. Aren't some people pushing for days off for women with bad period pains or somewhat?
>> No. 72062 Anonymous
13th May 2016
Friday 8:05 pm
72062 spacer
>>72055
I think Clinton's campaign is interpreting it as 'men will get good pay anyway'.

Which, of course, is false.
>> No. 72063 Anonymous
13th May 2016
Friday 8:08 pm
72063 spacer
>>72060
>That is kind of true.
Are you seriously suggesting that women's hourly rates being 20% less than men is because they're donng a 20% worse job?
>> No. 72068 Anonymous
13th May 2016
Friday 8:31 pm
72068 spacer
>>72063
Yes, and also, the 20% rubbish is not true.
>> No. 72070 Anonymous
13th May 2016
Friday 8:52 pm
72070 spacer
>>72068
So the reason some fields are male-dominated is because women are just shit at the job? I eagerly await your next paper, professor.
>> No. 72071 Anonymous
13th May 2016
Friday 9:00 pm
72071 spacer
>>72063
'Do 20% less work' != 'do things 20% worse'.

I suspect women tend to be more restrictive with their work. Taking several months off for maternity, and then often being unwilling to work away from the 9-5. I suspect men are far more likely to work away, do unsociable hours, and so on.
>> No. 72073 Anonymous
13th May 2016
Friday 9:13 pm
72073 spacer
>>72071
Which part of "hourly rate" is causing you trouble there, lad?
>> No. 72074 Anonymous
13th May 2016
Friday 9:14 pm
72074 spacer
>>72070
No, not really shit. They just don't want it. They don't want it, maybe because they really are shit at it.

Hey, if I could make a living off of women's studies and endless complaining, I would do it too. Why would anyone pick STEM over that?
>> No. 72075 Anonymous
13th May 2016
Friday 9:31 pm
72075 spacer
>>72071
I wish I was even half as lazy as your stereotypes.
>> No. 72076 Anonymous
13th May 2016
Friday 9:38 pm
72076 spacer
>>72075
Are you hot?
>> No. 72077 Anonymous
13th May 2016
Friday 11:38 pm
72077 spacer
>>72075
What 'stereotype' is that? The stereotype of women giving birth and taking maternity leave?
>> No. 72078 Anonymous
13th May 2016
Friday 11:41 pm
72078 spacer
>>72077
Not all women are like that, mate.
>> No. 72079 Anonymous
13th May 2016
Friday 11:55 pm
72079 spacer
>>72078
Pretty sure most working women who give birth do take maternity leave, lad.
>> No. 72080 Anonymous
13th May 2016
Friday 11:58 pm
72080 spacer
>>72079
It doesn't matter if some do it. Not all women are like that.
>> No. 72081 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 12:09 am
72081 spacer
>>72080
80% of women have had at least one child by the age of 45.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/fertility-analysis/cohort-fertility--england-and-wales/2012/sty-cohert-fertility.html
>> No. 72082 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 12:14 am
72082 spacer
>>72081
But that's not all women. So again, not all women do that. Are you counting housewives as workers?
>> No. 72083 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 12:26 am
72083 spacer
>>72082
>But that's not all women.

So? And neither do all women earn 20% less than contemporaries. Why are you pretending you have a point here?
>> No. 72084 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 12:37 am
72084 spacer
>>72083
Why do you hate women? Of course they earn less than men thanks to sexists like you. Not all women fit into your shitty box and they deserve to be treated the same as men, if not better.
>> No. 72085 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 1:00 am
72085 spacer
>>72084
I'll admit I'm pretty tired right now, but I genuinely can't tell if this is someone having a giggle or not.

When did the bar get this low?
>> No. 72086 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 1:55 am
72086 spacer
>>72081
>80% of women have had sex by 45

If I were female I'd feel better about this.
>> No. 72087 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 1:59 am
72087 spacer
There is no discussion over women's pay to be had other than academic discussion. They are paid the same amount per unit hour worked per job done.
>> No. 72088 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 2:16 am
72088 spacer
>>72086
Why don't you just be yourself? I'm sure you can get someone that way.
>> No. 72089 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 2:41 am
72089 spacer
>>72087
>They are paid the same amount per unit hour worked per job done.
No, they're not, and that's the problem, you sexist cunt.
>> No. 72091 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 6:00 am
72091 spacer
>>72089

No need to be rude.

It depends on the industry and also the region. For instance women in full-time work actually earn more on average than full-time employed men in Northern Ireland.
>> No. 72092 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 8:46 am
72092 spacer
Holy shit. Trump is playing 4D chess with the media while everyone else is playing snakes and ladders.

What a fucking madman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-5daajOopI
>> No. 72093 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 12:26 pm
72093 spacer
>>72091
Northern Ireland is a third world shithole that's almost entirely dependent on the public sector, so it doesn't count.
>> No. 72094 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 3:13 pm
72094 spacer
>>72089
Actually it's very likely that they are. Don't get me wrong, I believe everybody should be paid a fair wage for what they do, and if someone is earning less solely because of their gender then that isn't right. The US actually as the 1963 Equal Pay Act that makes it illegal to be discriminated against based on gender, so employers can be taken to court, thanks to JFK. It was even amended in 1964 in the Civil Rights Act. The problem is, most studies don't account for the different job types men and women statistically go for. For example, elementary school teaching is a field dominated by women, it is also a lower paying job. Whereas high risk jobs such as miners, lumberjacks, a variety of fields in the oil business, police, etc are dominated by men and the pay is much higher.

Women are also statistically more likely to get to a position they're comfortable with and then stick with it, whatever the pay. Whereas men are more likely to always be looking for a promotion. Personally if I had a job I liked and was in a comfortable position, I wouldn't want to take on more responsibility and pressure just for more money. Oh it might also be worth noting that currently, a great deal of female CEO's are out earning the men. Anyway my point is it's not so simple, and needs to be broken down by job type, experience in that field and things like any qualifications they have that will improve their worth in that field. If by the end of that, a woman is still being paid less than a man in the same position, she should probably take her employer to court.
>> No. 72095 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 6:23 pm
72095 spacer
>>72094
I think you've fundamentally misunderstood the problem. (I also think a number of activists on both sides have contributed to this by themselves misunderstanding and misrepresenting the problem.) The problem isn't so much that women get paid less than men. They certainly do, and no amount of procto-statistics will change this. The evidence is, by now, irrefutable.

>Actually it's very likely that they are.
No, it really isn't. The gap is certainly lower in the public sector and in low-paid work, where pay policies are more rigid, and in the public sector in particular it's getting smaller as those with longer service and retained terms (mainly men) are retiring. However, in higher-paid occupations, where pay is frequently negotiated rather than dictated, women are consistently paid less for the same roles. Anecdotal evidence suggests that women are more likely to simply take the offer on the table rather than negotiate for more (as a result, those few women that do negotiate look like they get a better deal than men because they're outliers). Jennifer Lawrence was underpaid for American Hustle because she asked for and accepted less than her fellow stars. If the budget was $10m, and she'd asked for $12m, then the executives would have tried to talk her down, but given she only asked for $7m, understandably they weren't going to just offer more.

>The US actually as the 1963 Equal Pay Act that makes it illegal to be discriminated against based on gender, so employers can be taken to court, thanks to JFK. It was even amended in 1964 in the Civil Rights Act.
Yes, and as it turns out, it's something that's very difficult to enforce. Many employers in the US have pay secrecy policies, and unlike in the UK their staff tend to stick to them given their employment is at-will. The courts have repeatedly found that discriminatory side-effects are not in and of themselves actionable, and that if the directly discriminatory action happened to loo long ago, then you are deemed to have tolerated it and have no case.

>The problem is, most studies don't account for the different job types men and women statistically go for.
No, that's not the problem at all. The problem is people who think this is the problem. Gender distribution in the workforce is a contributing factor to the pay gap, not a confounding one. Lower-paid professions like primary education and teaching are dominated by women. Have a think about why that may be the case. If your answer involves adults making a choice, you've missed the mark by at least a decade.

Ultimately a lot of the counter-argument in the debate misunderstands the pay gap as being a purely economic problem when it's primarily a social one, caused by soclialisation into specific gender roles and the perceptions that result.
>> No. 72096 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 6:28 pm
72096 spacer
>>72095
>They certainly do, and no amount of procto-statistics will change this. The evidence is, by now, irrefutable.
Shut the fuck up for fuck's sake you stupid fucking cunt.

You've had this point refuted in great detail, why must you continue to blather these untruths?
>> No. 72097 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 7:15 pm
72097 spacer
>>72095
> Lower-paid professions like primary education and teaching are dominated by women. Have a think about why that may be the case. If your answer involves adults making a choice, you've missed the mark by at least a decade.

So what's the alternative? That all female primary teachers have been forced at gunpoint by 'the patriarchy' into working a low-paid job that they hate?

Sure, people's choices in jobs are influenced by the environment they find themselves in, but then the same could be said of all choices people make ever - it's still fundamentally 'a choice', influenced by uncountably many factors. To claim that some shadowy 'patriarchy' or whatever is forcing women into low-paid jobs they dislike is laughable.
>> No. 72098 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 7:31 pm
72098 spacer
>>72097
A lot of feminists only seem to accept womens choices when those choices adhere to their ideology.
>> No. 72099 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 7:33 pm
72099 spacer
>>72095

> Ultimately a lot of the counter-argument in the debate misunderstands the pay gap as being a purely economic problem when it's primarily a social one, caused by soclialisation into specific gender roles and the perceptions that result.

Isn't it a biological problem as well? Women just don't have the strength and stamina needed for a lot of well-paying jobs that involve hard labour. You can't socialise someone into having a vagina.
>> No. 72100 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 8:07 pm
72100 spacer
>Women just don't have the strength and stamina needed for a lot of well-paying jobs that involve hard labour.

Regressive idiot.
>> No. 72101 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 8:23 pm
72101 spacer

nBOtZy[1].jpg
721017210172101
Enough of this cunt offing troll lad trying to divert this thread away from the Trump train, stop taking the bait and exercise some discretion, mods - unless you're closet Shillary fans, anyway.
>> No. 72102 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 8:29 pm
72102 spacer
>>72100

Boring contrarian.
>> No. 72103 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 8:35 pm
72103 spacer
>>72099
I mean, sure that explains why we see fewer women than men working as labourers, or in the armed forces. But it doesn't really explain the disparity in office jobs. The more significant 'biological' factor is the propensity for women to take months off of work due to child-birth.

I also think an important fact is that for women, working your way up the career ladder just isn't seen as something you need to do to be considered 'successful' by your peers, or to increase your chances of attracting a partner. Although you do of-course get career-minded women, I think men are on the whole 'hungrier' for chasing the next promotion, or to squeeze every drop out of their next pay-rise.
>> No. 72104 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 8:39 pm
72104 spacer
>>72103
Well in those 'office jobs', to get ahead you often need to work away (or abroad), work unsociable hours to get a critical project completed, or worse. This isn't the sort of behaviour that suits raising children, which women just tend to assume the responsibility for in Britain, especially if the man in the house is working in an office environment trying to get ahead by enduring the same labours.
>> No. 72105 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 9:03 pm
72105 spacer
It is close to impossible to raise a family while both parents work.
>> No. 72106 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 9:07 pm
72106 spacer
>>72105
My line manager is doing it, but she takes Fridays off and works 8-4 so she can fuck off in time for the kids coming home from after school activities. I suspect this is the end of the ladder for her, can't fault her as she's on a decent wage but she isn't going to be a real mover and shaker in the firm. Don't think she really wants to be.
>> No. 72107 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 9:17 pm
72107 spacer
>>72103
> I think men are on the whole 'hungrier' for chasing the next promotion, or to squeeze every drop out of their next pay-rise.

I think we might see a change in this, and perhaps already are. As predominantly men were seen as the bread winners of the household, especially in the US with their ideal American family/dream. For years they've been driven to earn more for their families, but now, with more opportunities for more people and stereotypical gender roles changing, that sort of drive may start to lessen.
>> No. 72108 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 9:43 pm
72108 spacer
>>72096
>You've had this point refuted in great detail
No, you haven't refuted anything. Away, think, etc.
>> No. 72109 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 9:48 pm
72109 spacer
>>72097
>So what's the alternative?
I don't know. Did you try maybe reading the rest of the post to find out?

Again, have a good long think about why it is that women end up dominating the "caring" professions. Hint: It's not because "women have a preference for it" and it's not because they're naturally predisposed to it. Go on. Exercise that part of your brain responsible for critical thinking for a bit. It obviously hasn't seen action for a few years so you'll be doing it a favour.
>> No. 72110 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 9:51 pm
72110 spacer
>>72109
Perhaps you could have a go at the bit responsible for sentence structure, because you're starting nearly all your posts with 'again', and continuing on with poor grammar (like a misused colon instead of a semicolon) and boring clichés.

This is a trait strongly associated with the autistic spectrum, you know.
>> No. 72111 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 9:55 pm
72111 spacer
>>72110
If you can't counter the argument, complain about the writing. 60% of the time, it works every time.
>> No. 72112 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 9:57 pm
72112 spacer
>>72109
If you're so sure that something isn't getting picked up by the posters here, why don't you just tell them? Instead of insulting them. Perhaps more people would receive you more kindly, then.
>> No. 72113 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 9:58 pm
72113 spacer
>>72111
You didn't counter that other guy's argument, you just engaged the autistic mass between your ears and churned out a predictable pile of nonsense to the tune of 'use your brain moron!!!'.

Do you need to run to your hugbox because you're getting salty?
>> No. 72114 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 10:01 pm
72114 spacer
>>72112
>If you're so sure that something isn't getting picked up by the posters here, why don't you just tell them?
You say "isn't getting picked up", I say "being ignored". As I suggested, had he simply continued reading the post to the end, he'd have found the answer he was looking for and wouldn't have needed to ask.
>> No. 72115 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 10:06 pm
72115 spacer
>>72107
It's possible, but personally I think that such a change is still quite a way off. Women being the primary bread-winner and men being the stay-at-home partner is still the exception rather than the norm. Will be interesting to see how things go with the current generation of university leavers 10 or so years down the line however.

>>72109
Oh right, of course it's ludicrous that the gender whose body is designed for carrying and birthing children could possibly be any more naturally inclined to care for others. It's definitely the fault of a shadowy organisation of misogynists pulling the strings from the background. Occam's razor definitely isn't a thing.

>>72110
I agree that the poster's grammar is pretty terrible but there's a certain irony to calling someone out on grammar and then accusing them of autism.
>> No. 72116 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 10:10 pm
72116 spacer
>>72115
You don't really 'accuse' someone of autism any more than you 'accuse' someone of having a cold, or needing vision correction.
>> No. 72117 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 10:19 pm
72117 spacer
I hate most women, frankly.
>> No. 72118 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 10:27 pm
72118 spacer
>>72114
I'm assuming you are referring to:

>Ultimately a lot of the counter-argument in the debate misunderstands the pay gap as being a purely economic problem when it's primarily a social one, caused by soclialisation into specific gender roles and the perceptions that result.

"Traditional gender roles cause people to choose roles dictated by their gender" is a classic example of correlation not implying causation. People choose roles for a variety of reasons no sociologist can claim to fully understand, and it is these same root causes that mean we have traditional gender roles.
>> No. 72119 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 10:28 pm
72119 spacer
>>72116
You can't really claim to be a psychologist any more than you can claim to be a doctor or an optician.
>> No. 72120 Anonymous
14th May 2016
Saturday 11:19 pm
72120 spacer
>>72119
You're not one of those bed blockers that goes to the GP to ask if they have a cold, are you?
>> No. 72121 Anonymous
15th May 2016
Sunday 9:41 am
72121 spacer

CidqHFVWUAAbbjs[1].jpg
721217212172121
He can basically say anything and change his mind later with impunity.
>> No. 72122 Anonymous
15th May 2016
Sunday 9:42 am
72122 spacer

CidqHFhWsAAYFo6[1].jpg
721227212272122

>> No. 72123 Anonymous
15th May 2016
Sunday 5:57 pm
72123 spacer
Meanwhile, some material from an exclusive event Hillary addressed has come to light:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGsTYUl9IDQ
>> No. 72150 Anonymous
17th May 2016
Tuesday 10:02 pm
72150 spacer
Well I never. It looks like You're Fired/I Quit might actually be a possibility.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/05/15/ben_carson_sarah_palin_is_on_list_of_potential_vp_picks_for_donald_trump.html
>> No. 72151 Anonymous
17th May 2016
Tuesday 10:07 pm
72151 spacer

scott brown.jpg
721517215172151
>>72150
Scott Adams thinks there's a 90% chance of it being this guy, reason being his good looks and last name which, on a subconscious level, would appeal to non whites.

You can smirk all you like, but he's been more right about this election than every pundit out there.
>> No. 72152 Anonymous
17th May 2016
Tuesday 10:08 pm
72152 spacer
>>72151
bqhatevwr you say mate.
>> No. 72153 Anonymous
17th May 2016
Tuesday 10:20 pm
72153 spacer
>>72152
Calm down, Nate.
>> No. 72154 Anonymous
17th May 2016
Tuesday 11:07 pm
72154 spacer
>>72151
He was a senator for Massachussetts for those couple of years after the Democrats tested the theory that they could put up a pig for election and still win. With Trump hailing from New York, he's from the wrong part of the country. There has been talk of Giuliani, which might cause a problem if two New Yorkers on the ticket somehow causes them to win New York and consequently one of them has to forego the electoral votes.
>> No. 72155 Anonymous
17th May 2016
Tuesday 11:29 pm
72155 spacer
>>72154
If Trump turns New York red (he won't) then he'll have more than enough electors to compensate.

Or Guiliani could just do what Cheney did and register to vote in another state.
>> No. 72156 Anonymous
17th May 2016
Tuesday 11:46 pm
72156 spacer
>>72155
>If Trump turns New York red (he won't) then he'll have more than enough electors to compensate.
Not necessarily. Home-state advantage and all that, which goes double if his veep is from there too. Cheney only got to register as being from Wyoming as he'd held the state's single House seat for a decade before being tapped for the Bush (41) administration. At a push, Trump might be able to pretend to be from Florida, but then he'd be trading in outside possibility of his VP missing out on NY's votes to the very real possibility of being painted as a carpetbagger in a swing state and losing out entirely there.
>> No. 72429 Anonymous
22nd May 2016
Sunday 8:25 pm
72429 spacer

trump vs clinton polls.png
724297242972429
Well now.
>> No. 72434 Anonymous
22nd May 2016
Sunday 9:29 pm
72434 spacer
>>72429
Looks like a cock.

Anyway, I hope he wins. Would be nice for someone who isn't a career politician winning and burning shit.
>> No. 72472 Anonymous
23rd May 2016
Monday 11:38 am
72472 spacer
>>72434
>Looks like a cock.
Yes, he does. Won't stop people voting for him, though.
>> No. 72501 Anonymous
23rd May 2016
Monday 7:06 pm
72501 spacer
>>72472
Well done lad, you've gone through denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally arrived at acceptance.
>> No. 72567 Anonymous
26th May 2016
Thursday 5:24 pm
72567 spacer
>The US Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has reached the number of delegates needed to secure the party's presidential nomination, Associated Press reports.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36392084

YOU CAN'T STUMP THE TRUMP.
>> No. 72569 Anonymous
26th May 2016
Thursday 5:40 pm
72569 spacer
>>72567
Oh America.

Thank fuck women run the vote there.
>> No. 72572 Anonymous
26th May 2016
Thursday 7:02 pm
72572 spacer
>>72569
Why do you support a lying, deceitful psychopathic hoor, who is personally responsible for Benghazi, committed espionage with top secret information and will literally say anything to gain more power?
>> No. 72573 Anonymous
26th May 2016
Thursday 7:09 pm
72573 spacer
>>72572
Who said he supported Trump?
>> No. 72574 Anonymous
26th May 2016
Thursday 7:14 pm
72574 spacer
>>72573
That kind of joke is rarely funny, and in your case makes you look like a particularly lazy reddit karma whore.
>> No. 72576 Anonymous
26th May 2016
Thursday 7:45 pm
72576 spacer
>>72574

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDuN7deFdeM
>> No. 72577 Anonymous
26th May 2016
Thursday 8:15 pm
72577 spacer
>>72572
I can't believe a British person is spouting this Benghazi nonsense.
>> No. 72582 Anonymous
27th May 2016
Friday 12:37 am
72582 spacer
>>72572

>hoor

Do you think spelling it wrong changes who can see it or something?
>> No. 72583 Anonymous
27th May 2016
Friday 12:39 am
72583 spacer
>>72582
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hoor
>> No. 72584 Anonymous
27th May 2016
Friday 1:01 am
72584 spacer
>>72583

>Scottish

So it's spelt wrong, yeah.
>> No. 72585 Anonymous
27th May 2016
Friday 1:21 am
72585 spacer
>>72584
Haud yer wheesht, ye wee jobby jabber.
>> No. 72588 Anonymous
27th May 2016
Friday 1:21 pm
72588 spacer
>>72585
Awa' an' boil yer heid, ye blethering clarty bampot.
>> No. 72594 Anonymous
27th May 2016
Friday 4:54 pm
72594 spacer
Looks like Trump and Bernie might be having a special one on one debate before Hillary steals gets the Democratic nom.

I think that could be the most entertaining political debate humanly possible.
>> No. 72595 Anonymous
27th May 2016
Friday 7:10 pm
72595 spacer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36401174?sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

>Donald Trump would 'cancel' Paris climate deal

I think this is the thing that worries me most about Trump. He doesn't believe climate change is real and it seems like he'd be taking huge steps backwards.
>> No. 72597 Anonymous
27th May 2016
Friday 7:28 pm
72597 spacer
>>72594
Can't believe Hilary was so brazen about her theft. "Getting more votes" is such a devious trick.
>> No. 72598 Anonymous
27th May 2016
Friday 7:29 pm
72598 spacer
>>72595
Don't worry, it's just a "suggestion".

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-everything-i-say-suggestion-223157
>> No. 72599 Anonymous
27th May 2016
Friday 7:30 pm
72599 spacer
>>72595
He probably believes in it, he just knows there's not much point in conservativeing ourselves while China et al can shit out as much pollution as they want.
>> No. 72600 Anonymous
27th May 2016
Friday 7:33 pm
72600 spacer

flump.jpg
726007260072600
>>72599
>> No. 72601 Anonymous
27th May 2016
Friday 7:33 pm
72601 spacer
>>72597
Without superdelegates she probably won't get the nomination.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/05/27/can_clinton_clinch_nomination_without_superdelegates_130685.html
>> No. 72602 Anonymous
27th May 2016
Friday 7:35 pm
72602 spacer
>>72599
For one thing, China's pollution per capita is far lower than western countries', and much of their industrial pollution is directly from production for exports to western countries. It's our pollution, we just outsource it and let them deal with the consequences. For another, China actually does pay very close attention to the types of reforms pursued by the US.
>> No. 72603 Anonymous
27th May 2016
Friday 7:38 pm
72603 spacer
>>72602
>per capita

That's nice, China has like 4 times the population of the US though.
>> No. 72604 Anonymous
27th May 2016
Friday 8:01 pm
72604 spacer
>>72602
I think saying we've outsourced our pollution to them is a very good way of putting it.
>> No. 72606 Anonymous
27th May 2016
Friday 8:04 pm
72606 spacer
>>72594
Does this mean that after months of satirical shows we might actually get Trump vs Bernie for real?
>> No. 72607 Anonymous
27th May 2016
Friday 8:08 pm
72607 spacer
>>72601
Candidate wins nomination by following selection process shocker.

To win without the supers, Hillary needs to be ahead by as many as there are. She is currently around 300 ahead, with no way for Bernie to catch up without doing things like winning California by 50 points. Going into the convention, she has a legitimate case for telling supers that she's the nominee and they should back her.
>> No. 72608 Anonymous
27th May 2016
Friday 8:35 pm
72608 spacer
Trump is right. All this half-arsing of trying to be green and all is pointless since it doesn't change much and we lose economically too. So fuck it.
>> No. 72609 Anonymous
27th May 2016
Friday 8:36 pm
72609 spacer
>>72608
>we
Back to /zoo/ with you, septiclad.
>> No. 72610 Anonymous
27th May 2016
Friday 9:11 pm
72610 spacer
>>72601
Who cares? That's just an irrelevant element of how the Democratic nomination system works. If she was behind and onloy being propped up by it, it would certainly be an issue. But it isn't. As well as having more superdelegates, she has more delegates, and more votes. She is winning fair and square.
>> No. 72611 Anonymous
27th May 2016
Friday 9:29 pm
72611 spacer
>>72607>>72610

Do you pair really think being perceived as having hundreds more delegates isn't going to effect the voting? It instantly makes it look like she's the more popular candidate, and if you're voting based on who you think can win a general election that's an awfully big factor.

>>72608

YEAH! I fucking hate fresh air too! How many tens of thousands is air pollution killing now? Whatever it is it's not enough!
>> No. 72612 Anonymous
27th May 2016
Friday 9:41 pm
72612 spacer
>>72611
>Do you pair really think being perceived as having hundreds more delegates isn't going to effect the voting?
The superdelegates are important party actors. They are people who have a role in influencing the party's direction. Whether they're counted as delegates or not isn't particularly important: they're people with experience organising and running successful campaigns, people who are influential with their local party apparatus.

Yes, they affect the voting. Why on earth shouldn't they?
>> No. 72616 Anonymous
28th May 2016
Saturday 2:52 am
72616 spacer
>>72611
'Fresh air' 'global warming' aren't nearly the same thing you dumb cunt.
>> No. 72642 Anonymous
28th May 2016
Saturday 7:15 pm
72642 spacer
http://time.com/4351330/trump-california-no-drought/

>Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump told California voters Friday that he can solve their water crisis, declaring that: “There is no drought.”

He's only gone and solved the drought in California. He's on a roll!
>> No. 72878 Anonymous
31st May 2016
Tuesday 10:27 pm
72878 spacer

hpNj7rK[1].jpg
728787287872878
Some liberal 'artist' tried to stump the Trump, and ended up making him look fucking great.
>> No. 72879 Anonymous
31st May 2016
Tuesday 10:43 pm
72879 spacer
>>72878
Why do they keep failing in trying to make him look bad? I guess snarkiness doesn't work outside their bubbles.
>> No. 72880 Anonymous
31st May 2016
Tuesday 11:04 pm
72880 spacer

trump grope.jpg
728807288072880
>>72878
Ben "unloading my 9 at the welfare line" Garrison's comics have the best depictions.
>> No. 72884 Anonymous
1st June 2016
Wednesday 2:38 am
72884 spacer
>>72878>>72879>>72880

Go back to /pol/, you fucking ponces.
>> No. 72885 Anonymous
1st June 2016
Wednesday 4:20 am
72885 spacer
>>72879
The biggest problem, I think, is that they keep playing on his terms. Trump looks worst when he's actually addressing policy, where it's obvious that he finds himself utterly out of his depth more often than not. Instead of using this, his oppenents seem to think that, because Trump prefers sliging insults rather than talking policy, they should do the same to replicate his success. So next thing we have "dangerous Donald", "Chaos candidate", and Marco Rubio going on stage to talk about how Donald Trump has a little dick.

This is really dumb, because for one thing, Trump is simply better at it then they are by far. He's a consummate performer and entertainer playing politics, and a politician playing entertainer is never going to match him. For another, the people who are turned off by Trump's lowering the tone will likewise be turned off by his opponents joining him. And they're certainly not going to turn any Trump supporters by doing a bad impression of the man.

It'll be interesting to see how he does with one on one debates. It's much easier to come across as the adult in the room there, if Hillary has any sense, that'll be her strategy.
>> No. 72886 Anonymous
1st June 2016
Wednesday 9:39 am
72886 spacer
>>72880
TRUMP: PINCHING THE ARSE OF AMERICA
>> No. 72887 Anonymous
1st June 2016
Wednesday 9:39 am
72887 spacer
>>72885
>It'll be interesting to see how he does with one on one debates. It's much easier to come across as the adult in the room there, if Hillary has any sense, that'll be her strategy.
He's going to destroy her in any debate they have. It's going to be glorious.

Trump has had months of shit slinging, they've thrown everything they have at him and he's still come out smelling of roses. Nobody has even begun to bring up the dirt on Hillary and we all know there's plenty to choose from.

I would watch any debate between them live. It's going to be political theatre the likes of which is rarely seen.
>> No. 72888 Anonymous
1st June 2016
Wednesday 9:44 am
72888 spacer

temp.jpg
728887288872888
>>72880
>Ben "unloading my 9 at the welfare line" Garrison's comics have the best depictions.
It's hilarious how now Ben loves the other place. After all that bullshit trying to sue moot etc he finds out the person making the edits to his comics was Joshua Goldstein. Then eventually after crying abouit being trolled by 4chan for years, someone anon shows him Patreon and /pol/ starts funding him. Now he cranks out whatever the boys at 4chan want and doesn't give a fuck any more.

Also he's started trolling people who get upset at him on twitter, go check his replies and scroll back. He's now a /pol/ financed shitposter.
>> No. 72889 Anonymous
1st June 2016
Wednesday 11:34 am
72889 spacer
>>72887
Whatever you say, "Miller".
>> No. 72890 Anonymous
1st June 2016
Wednesday 12:12 pm
72890 spacer
>>72887
Actually, after months of shit slinging, Trump is regarded less favourably by the US public han Hillary is after literal decades of the same.
>> No. 72891 Anonymous
1st June 2016
Wednesday 12:53 pm
72891 spacer
>>72890
It's over lad.

On the last HIGNFY, even when they were taking the piss out of Trump, they called him President Trump. They've accepted it.
>> No. 72892 Anonymous
1st June 2016
Wednesday 1:54 pm
72892 spacer
>>72891
I'm hardly a scholar of the American electoral system, so I could be wrong here, but as far as I know their elections aren't usually decided by jokes on Have I Got News For You.
>> No. 72893 Anonymous
1st June 2016
Wednesday 4:24 pm
72893 spacer
>>72892
This, and also BUILD THE WALL CROOKED HILLARY TRADE WAR isn't really debate-winning material.
>> No. 72894 Anonymous
1st June 2016
Wednesday 4:59 pm
72894 spacer
>>72893
Posturing and theatrics was basically how Biden won the VP debate against Paul Ryan. Al Gore was a masterful debater, but he was beaten by the plain spoken W.

Body language, tone of voice, persuasion etc are what matters, Ted Cruz would've won the primary if DEBATING was what mattered.

Communication is only 7% verbal, everything else is just non-verbal leftover animal shit
>> No. 72895 Anonymous
1st June 2016
Wednesday 5:04 pm
72895 spacer
>>72894
>Al Gore...was beaten

No he wasn't.
>> No. 72896 Anonymous
1st June 2016
Wednesday 5:09 pm
72896 spacer

al naughty.jpg
728967289672896
>>72895
Someone's bitter.
>> No. 72897 Anonymous
1st June 2016
Wednesday 5:17 pm
72897 spacer
>>72895
This is what the Bush vs Gore debates were, in a nutshell.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAUcyfKESts
>> No. 72898 Anonymous
1st June 2016
Wednesday 5:30 pm
72898 spacer
>>72894
>Posturing and theatrics was basically how Biden won the VP debate against Paul Ryan
It really wasn't. Not that it matters, given how irrelevant the VP debate actually is. All Trump has for the debates so far is repeating the same old rubbish over and over. Look how well that worked for Marco Rubio. The Presidential debates are much more tightly controlled than the primary debates. The tactics that worked for Trump then will not work in the real thing. People pay attention to the debates. At this point, all the people who couldn't care less about the primaries will be watching the candidates carefully on those three evenings.
>> No. 72899 Anonymous
1st June 2016
Wednesday 5:35 pm
72899 spacer
>>72898

I don't really have a horse in this race, so to speak, but I'm starting to get a sense of deja vu. Back before the primaries it was all "Trump might have impressed people in the nominations, but he'll never get through!" and before that it was all "Trump might be making a big media storm, but he'll never get nominated!"

He's well on track and it's starting to sound like a lot of folks are simply in denial. It's not like the Brexit debate which is a very close call- It's obvious that Trump has a lot of momentum for someone that his opponents keep trying to paint as just the bigger, louder, brasher Yank equivalent of Are Nige.
>> No. 72900 Anonymous
1st June 2016
Wednesday 5:38 pm
72900 spacer
>>72894
>Ted Cruz would've won the primary if DEBATING was what mattered
Cruz didn't do well at all in the primary debates, and they are an entirely different beast to the one-on-one kind coming up. Most of the time, the candidates were competing desperately for attention, and Trump excels at that. He talked so much shit that even when he wasn't being asked a question, he was being discussed half the time. He starved his opponents out of the spotlight. He can't do that that it's just him, a moderator and Hillary.

>Communication is only 7% verbal
That's a nice pub fact, but what you're referring to is a "rule" that refers to body language usually being a more reliable indicator of intent than mere words, e.g. if your partner is folding their arms and looking away from you but claims they're not upset or angry, chances are they're not being truthful. It does not refer to some law of the jungle, "everybody follow the gorilla who beats his chest the hardest" bullshit.

>>72896
Al Gore won women voters by 10 percentage points, so...
>> No. 72901 Anonymous
1st June 2016
Wednesday 5:42 pm
72901 spacer
>>72899
Before, people were coming up with reasons why his lead wouldn't translate to votes. There is no lead to make excuses for now.

And it is, currently, a very close call, Clinton has a narrow lead in polling aggregates (although given the time left until the actual election, that's not particularly meaningful).
>> No. 72902 Anonymous
1st June 2016
Wednesday 5:55 pm
72902 spacer
>>72898
These debates are all about zingers lad, that's what the news replays ad nauseum, the debates do get a fair amount of viewers, and these ones will likely break records, but it's the memorable quips and putdowns that "win" the debate.
>> No. 72952 Anonymous
2nd June 2016
Thursday 5:40 pm
72952 spacer
>>72899
UKIP had momentum too, but look where they got in the general. Close in lots of ways, but no cigar. I think Trump will come close too.
>> No. 72956 Anonymous
2nd June 2016
Thursday 6:10 pm
72956 spacer
>>72952

It's hardly the same. The British media establishment pretty much railed against Saville from the start, in a quite unified manner; and even the party's extensive success was only about a tenth of vote share.

In the States, Trump is nowhere near as much of an outsider. He looks like it to us, but not to them. If America had an equivalent of Britain First, it would pass as mainstream opinion pretty much everywhere apart form the big coastal centres. I try not to watch such brain-cancer inducing drivel, but I imagine FOX news and the like are all over him.

Trump winning doesn't seem nearly as ridiculous of a prospect as it should- Especially considering how Hilary is far from a "lesser evil" to choose from.
>> No. 72958 Anonymous
2nd June 2016
Thursday 7:18 pm
72958 spacer
>>72952
They're not really comparable. We may be seeing the start of a US political inversion, with states like Washington seemingly pro Trump vs. Clinton and states like Georgia being pro Clinton vs. Trump.

It'll be a fascinating contest either way.
>> No. 72959 Anonymous
2nd June 2016
Thursday 7:34 pm
72959 spacer
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36423319

NORTH KOREA BACKS TRUMP. I've always wondered what it'd be like to live in the Fallout games.
>> No. 72977 Anonymous
3rd June 2016
Friday 2:23 pm
72977 spacer
Paul Ryan has finally come on board, so I guess this means it's officially over.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/03/us/politics/paul-ryan-donald-trump.html

For those of you who somehow missed the primary campaign here's a handy summary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJUIzfmJvfs
>> No. 72979 Anonymous
3rd June 2016
Friday 3:28 pm
72979 spacer
>>72959
I don't know what Kim Jong Un would find praiseworthy about an authoritarian with terrible hair whose success was inherited from his father.
>> No. 72980 Anonymous
3rd June 2016
Friday 4:53 pm
72980 spacer
>>72977
>For those of you who somehow missed the primary campaign here's a handy summary:

There are two different types of YTP. Half-decent ones, and fucking appalling ones.
That was terrible lad.
>> No. 72982 Anonymous
3rd June 2016
Friday 5:10 pm
72982 spacer
>>72980
Your mum was terrible m7.
>> No. 72984 Anonymous
3rd June 2016
Friday 5:12 pm
72984 spacer
>>72982
I know but I don't post videos of her on youtube.
>> No. 72987 Anonymous
3rd June 2016
Friday 6:02 pm
72987 spacer
>>72984
Bit late for that, innit Phil?
>> No. 72988 Anonymous
3rd June 2016
Friday 6:30 pm
72988 spacer
https://twitter.com/Jacobnbc/status/738580604736786434

But it's the Trump fans who are violent and hateful, isn't it.
>> No. 72989 Anonymous
3rd June 2016
Friday 6:42 pm
72989 spacer
>>72988

I really fucking hate egg throwers and people swearing and just being abrasive in somebody's face.


What says 'I have no argument' more than being a complete cock end?
>> No. 72990 Anonymous
3rd June 2016
Friday 6:51 pm
72990 spacer
>>72989
>What says 'I have no argument' more than being a complete cock end?
Now I'm confused, are you for or against Trump?
>> No. 72991 Anonymous
3rd June 2016
Friday 6:57 pm
72991 spacer

reddit-logo[1].png
729917299172991
>>72990
So original! Who saw that hilarious joke coming?
>> No. 72994 Anonymous
3rd June 2016
Friday 9:30 pm
72994 spacer

skin.png
729947299472994
But that just makes you look even m- Oh, never mind...
>> No. 72995 Anonymous
3rd June 2016
Friday 9:59 pm
72995 spacer
>>72994
I don't think Hillary is going to win with these kinds of tactics lad, she's a fucking stiff, even Obama joked about that.
>> No. 72996 Anonymous
3rd June 2016
Friday 10:21 pm
72996 spacer
>>72995
Hm...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN0YP2EX
>> No. 72998 Anonymous
3rd June 2016
Friday 10:30 pm
72998 spacer

trump at work.jpg
729987299872998
>>72996
You found a poll with Hillary ahead, well done lad, I can find a bunch with Trump ahead.

Putting all the polls together they're about the same, I mean it's largely irrelevant seeing as we're 5 months away, but talk about being dishonest.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Really though lad, do you not feel just a twinge of shame at cherry picking one poll, as if that proved anything? Just a little twinge?

What am I saying, you're probably one of those morons who said Trump would never in a million years get the nomination a few hundred posts ago.
>> No. 73001 Anonymous
3rd June 2016
Friday 11:19 pm
73001 spacer
>>72998
I posted the most recent poll, dullard.
>> No. 73002 Anonymous
3rd June 2016
Friday 11:41 pm
73002 spacer
>>72998
National polling doesn't really matter.
What matters is the state polls.

Considering the "blue wall" of 242 EVs from states that have voted for the Democrat every time since Bill the following numbers from states that Trump needs to win tell an interesting story:
Florida: Clinton +2.3
Ohio: Clinton +1.4
Pennsylvania: Clinton +5.3
Virginia: Clinton +4.3
Georgia: Trump +4.2
New Hampshire: Clinton +6.5
Arizona: Clinton +1.0

On these numbers, Hillary wins comfortably even if The Donald manages to flip a couple of states in the "blue wall". He's got a lot of work to do. For a start, he absolutely has to win Florida, and right now he's pissing off the normally solid Republican Hispanics there.
>> No. 73006 Anonymous
4th June 2016
Saturday 9:57 am
73006 spacer
>>73001
And there are recent polls with Trump ahead, which is why anyone who isn't a shameless propagandist doesn't use individual polls to prove a point, they look at all of them, you ethically bankrupt fucking mong.

>most recent

Drink bleach, you knew exactly what you were doing.

>>73002
In spite of my bile towards the intellectually dishonest cretin back there about polls, polls are not very relevant right now, Hillary hasn't even officially got the nomination (there's a not improbable chance it might be Biden or something yet), too much can and will between now and November to start obsessing over polls yet.

And many different states are going to be in play than a normal election, even the stumped pundit class acknowledges that.
>> No. 73009 Anonymous
4th June 2016
Saturday 10:54 am
73009 spacer
>>73006

>disagrees with poll that shows Hillary ahead posts link to spread of poles where average shows Hillary ahead and 60 of the 74 polls agrees Hillary is ahead.

>Everyone else must be an shameless propagandist and is cherry picking for thinking they show that Hillary is ahead.

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 73010 Anonymous
4th June 2016
Saturday 11:13 am
73010 spacer
>>73009
Yes, you are absolutely shameless, she's 1.5% ahead according to the average right now, and Trump was 0.5% ahead last week, if you're going to be posting individual polls showing Hillary ahead between now and November this is going to be a long and very tedious thread.

This is how the tards earlier in the thread kept convincing themselves Trump couldn't clinch the nomination, even when most people realised he was probably going to get it, they kept looking at the polls they wanted to see showing Trump way behind.
>> No. 73012 Anonymous
4th June 2016
Saturday 11:48 am
73012 spacer
>>73010
>Trump was 0.5% ahead last week

Again an accurate representation given that he was briefly ahead for 3 days for the first and only time in the last 11 months, so not even 'last week' technically since most of it he was behind. So at Hilary's lowest point she was 0.5% behind Trump for 3 days, You would call that too close to call would you?
>> No. 73014 Anonymous
4th June 2016
Saturday 12:19 pm
73014 spacer
>>73006
I'm terribly sorry. In future I will ensure that I don't make the mistake of looking for the most recent available data, and will instead seek out cherry picked data that doesn't hurt your feelings.
>> No. 73030 Anonymous
4th June 2016
Saturday 5:13 pm
73030 spacer
>>73009
Who are you quoting?
>> No. 73032 Anonymous
4th June 2016
Saturday 5:15 pm
73032 spacer
>>73014
The only cherry picking is by you, you pathologically lying cunt, a polling average of dozens of different polls is the total opposite of cherrypicking as it consolidates any outliers.

Do everyone a favour and take a power drill to your temple.
>> No. 73033 Anonymous
4th June 2016
Saturday 5:38 pm
73033 spacer
>>73030
Your mum.
>> No. 73042 Anonymous
4th June 2016
Saturday 6:46 pm
73042 spacer
>>73032
Yep, she's ahead in the aggregates too, and the most recent poll is an even better demonstration of the fact that "these kinds of tactics" aren't doing too badly for the general perception of her. Now calm down, you silly billy, I don't think anybody amongst us believes impotent aggression improves threads.
>> No. 73043 Anonymous
4th June 2016
Saturday 7:59 pm
73043 spacer
>>73042

>I don't think anybody amongst us believes impotent aggression improves threads.

I admire your optimism.
>> No. 73088 Anonymous
6th June 2016
Monday 1:00 am
73088 spacer
People are already speculating about potential VP picks. On both sides, expect them to be nobodies used as tokens to try and bring different demographics on board, since nobody serious is going to want the job. Hillary's VP is going to have to compete with Bill for her attention, and is likely to end up in the wilderness and find themselves in no position to ascend come 2024. Some are suggesting Elizabeth Warren, but while in terms of policy and ideology she'd be a great pick, realistically she'd be wasted in the role, and the Republican governor of Massachussetts would likely appoint a Republican to her seat (in a fine case of Democrats being hoist by their own petard, naturally), so many don't want to risk it. Trump is unlikely to give his VP the time of day, let alone listen to them, so they'd have the baggage of being associated with him without the ability to do anything about it other than resign and possibly line up a (probably doomed) primary challenge in 2020.
>> No. 73090 Anonymous
6th June 2016
Monday 6:29 am
73090 spacer
>>73088

I think Clinton is likely to go for a pale horse she can ride from rally to rally, and Trump's probably going to angle for someone like Dobby the House Elf.
>> No. 73117 Anonymous
6th June 2016
Monday 11:05 pm
73117 spacer
Not long before the primaries are all over. New Jersey closes at 1am UK time Wednesday morning. Hillary is around 50 votes away from a majority, and NJ has 126 on offer on the night. If she's projected to win it as soon as the polls close, she could have the nomination sewn up before California has finished voting.

That means that having come so close, California would be robbed of its relevance in the Presidential race just a couple of hours before polls close, and therefore the race to watch there will be the Senate primary. California uses an all-in blanket primary for the Senate, which means that all the candidates for all parties appear on the same ballot and the top two duke it out in November. There aren't any strong Republicans in that race, but there are two strong Democrats that are different enough that they won't necessarily be splitting the vote. Kamala Harris is a progressive from the north of the state who would play well in and around the Bay Area. Loretta Sanchez is a Blue Dog from the south of the state who is a good fit for conservative electorate there. Polling suggests Harris will come out on top, and Sanchez is likely to finish second. If none of the Republican candidates can overhaul Sanchez, then the Democrats will have won a Senate seat five months before the actual election.
>> No. 73131 Anonymous
7th June 2016
Tuesday 6:37 pm
73131 spacer

map0607.png
731317313173131
Apparently enough supers came out for Clinton in the last couple of days for AP to call the nomination race for her. So I guess that means it's safe to start the wild speculation about November.

RCP's national polling average puts Clinton 2.0 points ahead. Using that number and Charlie Cook's state PVI gives Clinton 285 electoral votes, with Ohio undecided (R+1 PVI on a D+2.0 margin yields a tie). Throwing in RCP's state polling averages where they're available and include polling from the past two weeks gives Clinton 314 - the latest data from Ohio is more than two weeks old, but that currently favours Clinton. Considering only states where this projection yields a lead of five points or more still gives Clinton 237 to Trump's 175. On those numbers, Trump would have to either win Florida or win all of the other close states. Don't forget the "Never Trump" crowd. While the clock has run down on getting a spoiler candidate to run, don't be surprised if they start pouring money towards Gary Johnson.

This is the map he's facing, and he's got five months to turn it around.
>> No. 73132 Anonymous
7th June 2016
Tuesday 6:57 pm
73132 spacer
>>73131
Superdelegates don't cast their vote until the convention, and can theoretically change their minds at any time, it's quite disingenuous of the press to imply that they're bound to Hillary, I don't like The Young Turks at all, but the guy from there put it well against an obviously biased CNN chap.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07XpqAPj7lM

Of course in reality Hillary will get all the superdelegates because she's the establishment choice, their raison d'être is to cockblock candidates like Bernie.
>> No. 73138 Anonymous
7th June 2016
Tuesday 7:45 pm
73138 spacer
>>73132

Oh, feck, Cenk's on TV.

It's weird seeing internet people on TV.
>> No. 73144 Anonymous
7th June 2016
Tuesday 9:03 pm
73144 spacer
>>73138
He was an MSNBC anchor in 2010, lad.
>> No. 73150 Anonymous
8th June 2016
Wednesday 12:37 am
73150 spacer
>>73144
Do you think he's an American or something? Why would he know that?
>> No. 73151 Anonymous
8th June 2016
Wednesday 12:42 am
73151 spacer
>>73150
You're right. It's not like that sort of information could be found on Google or anything.
>> No. 73161 Anonymous
8th June 2016
Wednesday 7:17 pm
73161 spacer
>>73151
Why would he Google nobody Americans?
>> No. 73162 Anonymous
8th June 2016
Wednesday 7:19 pm
73162 spacer
This is all so silly. Delegates, super delegates, super duper delegates. I don't even know what is going on.
>> No. 73165 Anonymous
8th June 2016
Wednesday 8:18 pm
73165 spacer
>>73162

American politics is a literal joke. There is no logic or reasonable system - it's a cluster fuck of buzzwords and real-life clickbate shite.
>> No. 73166 Anonymous
8th June 2016
Wednesday 8:23 pm
73166 spacer
>>73165
It is, however, extremely entertaining, much more so than our own elections. And I do like that the system allows a non-politician to run and win.
>> No. 73168 Anonymous
8th June 2016
Wednesday 9:01 pm
73168 spacer
>>73162
It's pretty simple, at a fundamental level. To win the nomination, a candidate has to get a majority of votes at a party's national convention. Regular delegates are awarded in state contests based on the results of a vote in a primary or caucus. Super delegates are (in the Democratic process anyway) elected officials and party leaders, who automatically get to vote at the national convention.
>> No. 73169 Anonymous
8th June 2016
Wednesday 9:17 pm
73169 spacer
>>73168
The Republicans have the same thing, only there are far fewer of them, and unlike previous contests this time most of them have to vote as they're told.

They key thing to remember is that while there are a number of alternative ways of allocating the Democratic superdelegates, whichever way you do it Hillary still gets a majority and gets the nomination. Award them to the winner in each state? Hillary crosses the line with around 2600. Award them proportionally like the regular delegates? Hillary crosses the line with over 2500. Do away with them entirely? Hillary crosses the line with over 2100.

The Democrats give delegate votes to their members of Congress and various previous dignitaries for two main reasons:
1. It removes them from a potential tug-of-war between their colleagues and the voters.
2. Faced with said tug-of-war, many such people were simply not turning up to the convention, particularly if they had a primary campaign to fight at the time.
>> No. 73172 Anonymous
8th June 2016
Wednesday 11:40 pm
73172 spacer
Who fancies watching a car crash in slow motion?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ25U6kEyQk
>> No. 73209 Anonymous
9th June 2016
Thursday 11:14 pm
73209 spacer

trumpca.png
732097320973209
Seems like the Donald has some expectations which could charitably be called... "Overoptimistic".

(All those states have voted Democratic in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections, all except PA have Democratic legislatures and exclusively Democratic senators)
>> No. 73210 Anonymous
9th June 2016
Thursday 11:36 pm
73210 spacer
>>73209
I've said earlier, the usual electoral metrics dont seem to be holding up - Georgia is seemingly very pro Clinton for example.
>> No. 73212 Anonymous
10th June 2016
Friday 12:43 am
73212 spacer
>>73209
Penn only has a PVI of D+1, so conceivably could be in play. Indeed, RCP puts Clinton's lead at 3.1 nationally but 4.0 in PA when the PVI suggests that should be 5.1. But of all the states with recent polling, that's the only one where he's beating the tilt - he's underperforming by 1.2 in VA, 1.4 in NH, 1.9 in NC, and 2.5 in FL. He's outperforming in MI by almost three points and underperforming in GA by almost five points, but those two lean hard enough that neither number is big enough to flip the state.

To look at the national figure, going only by PVI alone The Donald would need a poll lead of around three points to win (with 305 EVs). That's a seven-point turnaround. It's interesting to hear him talk of bringing "blue wall" states into play, but looking at the polling data so far it would seem this is just a bluff to get his opponents to doubt themselves and spend some of their vast war chests (expected to be around three times richer due to donor flight on the GOP side).
>> No. 73341 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 7:30 am
73341 spacer

fab.png
733417334173341
This man outdoes himself in fabulousness.
>> No. 73342 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 8:05 am
73342 spacer
>>73341

Because he took his title from a meme image on the internet?
>> No. 73343 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 8:08 am
73343 spacer

5B9oTm[1].jpg
733437334373343
>>73342
Because he isn't just meekly standing by and mumbling 'not all muslims not all muslims, blame the guns!' like our own media would.

I just heard Radio 4's coverage of the shooting, the guy's 'links to radical Islam' were covered in about 10 seconds, a minute into the brief. More time was spent on 'the issue of gun control', because the idea that a mainstream religion could motivate terrorism is anathema to the politically correct western consensus.
>> No. 73344 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 8:26 am
73344 spacer
>>73342
He's a bandwagon jumping cunt. Fuck him.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_OLjg0jOQY
>> No. 73352 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 1:40 pm
73352 spacer
>>73343
>the guy's 'links to radical Islam' were covered in about 10 seconds, a minute into the brief
What did they neglect to cover that you believe makes the time allocated inadequate?
>> No. 73355 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 3:47 pm
73355 spacer
>>73352
The 'gunman' was not described in any way until nearly a minute into the recording. Instead of giving proportionate time towards what is known about the guy (dad is Afghan, was interviewed by FBI concerning Islamic terrorism, ISIS have since claimed him as one of their own) have been downplayed. He was an Islamic extremist terrorist, but everyone is pretending this isn't the obvious factor in why he went and perpetrated a mass murder of 'deviant kafirs'.

What's especially pitiful is the 'feature' on BBC news about the 'AR15 military assault rifle with a 45 round per minute fire rate' (this is verbatim) as the centrepiece of the article. Millions and millions of Americans own AR15s and comparable firearms, far fewer are Islamic terrorists, yet the onus is on the big bad gun once again.
>> No. 73356 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 4:20 pm
73356 spacer
>>73355
>The 'gunman' was not described in any way until nearly a minute into the recording.
Why should he be? The story isn't all about him.

>dad is Afghan
Kids of Afghans should not own guns?

>was interviewed by FBI concerning Islamic terrorism
Are you sure? I'd heard it was for something else.

>ISIS have since claimed him as one of their own
ISIS would claim a paper bag as one of their own. That's how they maintain the "global caliphate" charade.

>He was an Islamic extremist terrorist
He was apparently mentally ill and known to local mental health practitioners.

>'deviant kafirs'
Your words or his?

>the 'AR15 military assault rifle with a 45 round per minute fire rate' (this is verbatim)
Is this statement untrue?

>Millions and millions of Americans own AR15s and comparable firearms, far fewer are Islamic terrorists, yet the onus is on the big bad gun once again.
Millions and millions of people are Muslims, far fewer are gun-toting terrorists, yet the onus is on the big bad religion once again.
>> No. 73357 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 4:42 pm
73357 spacer
Reminds me of that mad Jewish guy who started stabbing people at a Pride parade because the Torah said gays are bad. Does that make him a Jewish terrorist? Admittedly he only had a knife so the damage he could do was limited but that just makes it a question of scale.
>> No. 73359 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 5:06 pm
73359 spacer
>>73357
He's a Jewish crazy. Only Muslims can be religious terrorists, didn't you know?
>> No. 73360 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 5:30 pm
73360 spacer
>>73355
>Instead of giving proportionate time towards what is known about the guy (dad is Afghan, was interviewed by FBI concerning Islamic terrorism, ISIS have since claimed him as one of their own) have been downplayed
The information about the attack and shooter that I've heard has been pretty much exclusively through the BBC and somehow I am aware of all of this. Weird.
>> No. 73363 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 7:16 pm
73363 spacer
>>73356
>Why should he be? The story isn't all about him.

The perpetrator of a crime should obviously be a priority piece of information in any story. Within at least the first 25-30 seconds.

>Kids of Afghans should not own guns?

Nice try but what I actually said was that the coverage should have given the known details about the perpetrator, such as that his dad was a known Afghan Taliban supporter ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the-orlando-shooters-afghan-roots/2016/06/13/d89a8cd0-30e4-11e6-ab9d-1da2b0f24f93_story.html ). But nice try.

>Are you sure? I'd heard it was for something else.

Google it you lazy cnut.

Rest of your post is utter shit. You're going for the classic delaying tactic of demanding basic clarifications like 'what is an AR15?' as a means of altering the discourse away from the obvious conclusion - there is a global problem with violent muslim terrorists, and this example is just one of many.
>> No. 73364 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 7:17 pm
73364 spacer
>>73360
If you'd paid any attention, you'd have read that I was referring to the 8am Radio 4 headline news, not every thing the BBC have published all day.
>> No. 73365 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 7:24 pm
73365 spacer
>>73363
Yeah, obviously it's because he was a Muslim, and nothing to do with the fact that he was a mentalist in a state with easy access to an assault rifle.

>demanding basic clarifications like 'what is an AR15?'
Mate, you're the one that took issue with their description of it.
>> No. 73367 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 7:27 pm
73367 spacer
>>73365
There are millions of people in Florida, and presumably tens of thousands of 'mentalists'. Please give an explanation of why it's disproportionately muslims who are the ones bombing the Boston marathon, shooting up San Bernardino and waltzing into a Floridian gay nightclub and perpetrating the worst terrorist attack on US soil since September 11, and not the overwhelming majority of armed, nonmuslim 'mentalists'.
>> No. 73368 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 7:35 pm
73368 spacer
>>73367
It's not disproportionately Muslims killing people in the US. It's disproportionately angry young black men killing other angry young black men because gangs and angry young men killing people in general because mental illness.
>> No. 73369 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 7:39 pm
73369 spacer
>>73368
Not what I said though, is it? I said
>why it's disproportionately muslims who are the ones bombing the Boston marathon, shooting up San Bernardino and waltzing into a Floridian gay nightclub and perpetrating the worst terrorist attack on US soil since September 11, and not the overwhelming majority of armed, nonmuslim 'mentalists'.

Where are all the white religious mentalists walking into gay nightclubs and killing 50 people, or bombing marathons? Given that Muslims only make up 1% of the population in the USA, why the disproportionate record holding?

Your recourse to low grade sophistry is a poor effort, regressivelad.
>> No. 73370 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 7:40 pm
73370 spacer
>>73367
>There are millions of people in Florida, and presumably tens of thousands of 'mentalists'. Please give an explanation of why it's disproportionately muslims
That's easy. You're a cherry-picking cunt who wants to see BUT DEM FUCKIN MUZZIES INNIT and cheerfully ignores all the other mass shootings and terrorist attacks carried out by non-Muslims.
>> No. 73371 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 7:47 pm
73371 spacer

_83760335_burningflag.jpg
733717337173371
>>73369
>Where are all the white religious mentalists walking into gay nightclubs and killing 50 people, or bombing marathons?
>> No. 73372 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 7:52 pm
73372 spacer
>>73370
Muslims are less than one percent of the US population.
>> No. 73373 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 7:57 pm
73373 spacer
>>73372
The price of haddock at Peterhead almost halved this week.
>> No. 73374 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 7:58 pm
73374 spacer
>>73369
I ignored what you said because you deliberately just picked out some Muslim related things.
>Given that Muslims only make up 1% of the population in the USA, why the disproportionate record holding?
There have been 136 mass shootings in the US this year so far. I can't be bothered to read all the incident reports but I'm sure if any of the others were done by Muslims we'd have heard about it. That means Muslims are responsible for less than 1% of the incidents, which means they're disproportionately more peaceful.
I'm not using sophistry, which means that in accusing me of it, you are. I suggest you keep quiet now.
>> No. 73375 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 8:09 pm
73375 spacer
Can anyone screenshot this article for me please? I've used up my free allowance for this month so it's been paywalled. Thanks in advance

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/homophobic-murder-will-gays-become-new-jews/
>> No. 73378 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 8:32 pm
73378 spacer
>>73375
Does the usual trick of googling the headline and/or retrieving from cache not work?
>> No. 73379 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 8:54 pm
73379 spacer
>>73373
Tell me more.
>> No. 73380 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 8:54 pm
73380 spacer
>>73375

> Will gays become new jews?

Sounds like an enthralling article full of open minded world views and insights.
>> No. 73381 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 9:12 pm
73381 spacer

a.png
733817338173381
>>73375
>> No. 73382 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 9:18 pm
73382 spacer
>>73379
tl;dr the bloke that supplies your local chippy will make a bit more money this week.
>> No. 73384 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 9:49 pm
73384 spacer
>>73371
I never claimed there aren't white terrorists. My point is that violent Islamic terrorism is disproportionately represented - and bloody.

As for 'white religious maniac', you are aware that Roof made his attack on a church service, right? He released some sprawling 2,400 word manifesto, which as far as I know made no mention of religion whatsoever. The media reported that he was a 'church member' ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/19/dylann-roof-religion-church-lutheran_n_7623990.html ) but no mention was made of whether he actually attended. I'm probably still listed as a 'church member' at my parents' church at home, having been baptised there, but I've not gone in for about a decade.

>>73374
A 'mass shooting' is just any shooting of 4 or more, whether a terrorist or . We weren't talking about 'mass shootings' specifically, we are talking about terrorist attacks, including bombings, like the Boston bombings. Your attempts to spin this exchange are so transparent, it is embarrassing.
>> No. 73385 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 9:53 pm
73385 spacer
>>73364
Yes, and the 8am news mentioned every fucking thing you mentioned, idiot.
>> No. 73386 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 10:00 pm
73386 spacer
>>73363
>The perpetrator of a crime should obviously be a priority piece of information in any story
Great idea mate. Goes directly contrary to the advice of psychologists who assess the impact of reporting on future incidence of mass shootings, but I'm sure you know better than them, eh?
>> No. 73387 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 10:04 pm
73387 spacer
>>73364

>The gunman who killed 50 people in America's worst mass shooting was interviewed three times by the FBI on suspicion of links to terrorism, but no action was taken

Literally the first fucking sentence of the 8am news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07ffb1x
>> No. 73388 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 10:06 pm
73388 spacer
>>73386
I'm not giving 'advice' you stupid cunt, journalism is a business, and getting the pertinent information out is the aim of the game.
>> No. 73389 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 10:08 pm
73389 spacer
>>73387
Where's the mention of his dad, who had gone on TV supporting the Afghan Taliban? This had been public knowledge all morning. Doesn't help that the media went straight to the dad who did the whole crocodile tear act of 'oh I never knew my son might have terrorist tendencies' when he's the one who has gone on record claiming 'God will punish the gays'.
>> No. 73390 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 10:15 pm
73390 spacer
>>73388
I said that psychologists interested in responsible reporting which mitigates the risk over coverage inspiring similar incidents are the ones giving advice, and that advice is directly contrary to your apparent belief that details of the perpetrator should "obviously" be given prominence.
>> No. 73391 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 10:15 pm
73391 spacer
>>73384
>we are talking about terrorist attacks
Right, so we're not talking about the attack in Orlando because that was just a mass shooting. Or do you have some more mental gymnastics that'll let you define this lone, self-motivated gunman as a terrorist?
What about Harris and Klebold, were they terrorists or mass shooters? Does McVeigh count as a terrorist or would you say no? Or Breivik?
>> No. 73392 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 10:20 pm
73392 spacer
>>73391
>'self motivated'

This is utterly meaningless in an age where someone can go online, watch a bunch of ISIS music videos, read a few copies of Inspire and function as an autonomous cell.

The guy publicly pledged allegiance to ISIS before kicking off, he is evidently an Islamic terrorist and your poor attempt to spin this discourse off away from the topic will not lead me on anywhere.
>> No. 73393 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 10:20 pm
73393 spacer
>>73390
Pretty easy to give details about a perpetrator, like their background and motivation, without giving personal 'glorifying' details like their name.
>> No. 73394 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 10:21 pm
73394 spacer
>>73391
Lads, stop this bollocks. Whether he was mad or not doesn't matter. What matters is that he was an Islamic terrorist.
>> No. 73395 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 10:23 pm
73395 spacer
>>73389
I don't know, mate, I only listened for a minute. Although, given that after listening for that minute I heard them bring up every fucking thing you lied about them not mentioning, I wouldn't be surprised if they did mention that also.
>> No. 73396 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 10:26 pm
73396 spacer
>>73393
Yes, and giving basic details is not the same thing as making coverage of the shooter himself a "priority".
>> No. 73397 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 10:28 pm
73397 spacer
>>73396
But no background details, like his dad's support for the Taliban, or even that the guy was a practising Muslim (the report only alludes to 'theorised links to radical Islam') were given.
>> No. 73398 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 10:29 pm
73398 spacer
Old Charlie pretty much nailed it a few years ago.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4
>> No. 73399 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 10:34 pm
73399 spacer
>>73384
No, lad. The goalposts were just fine where they were.
>> No. 73400 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 10:37 pm
73400 spacer
>>73397
If you can't work out that a terrorist of Afghani extraction with links to radical Islam is a Muslim without it being spelled out for you then maybe you should give Radio 4 a miss and stick to Newsround in future, mate.
>> No. 73401 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 10:37 pm
73401 spacer
He was employed by G4S, no less. Not much attention on them so far though, I'm still surprised they're going after how many fuck ups they've had over the years.
>> No. 73402 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 10:51 pm
73402 spacer
>>73397
The Taliban are vastly different from ISIS.
>> No. 73403 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 10:53 pm
73403 spacer

zarmina1[1].jpg
734037340373403
>>73402
Why would you even think it worth making an effort to defend the Taliban's reputation?

http://www.rawa.org/2hang.htm
>> No. 73404 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 10:57 pm
73404 spacer

Stoning_in_afghanistan[1].jpg
734047340473404
>>73403
They even have public stoning. Keeping it retro up in the Stan!
>> No. 73405 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 11:04 pm
73405 spacer
>>73403
Wasn't defending anyone, m8.
>> No. 73407 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 11:06 pm
73407 spacer
>>73405
Why would endorsing the Taliban be any less foul than endorsing ISIS? What compelled you to make this point?
>> No. 73408 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 11:09 pm
73408 spacer
>>73401
Actually their shares dived a bit.
>> No. 73409 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 11:14 pm
73409 spacer
I'm not entirely sure why this bloke bothered with the guns. I thought ISIS standard practice for bumders was to just throw them off the roof.
>> No. 73410 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 11:30 pm
73410 spacer
>>73407
>Why would endorsing the Taliban be any less foul than endorsing ISIS?
Because the Taliban aren't as bad as ISIS, which anyone with even a cursory awareness of Islamist politics and terrorism understands.
>> No. 73411 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 11:36 pm
73411 spacer
>>73410
They are both toxic groups full of scum that should be exterminated, and any cunt who mouths off on the internet about how 'the Taliban aren't as bad' should be given an express ticket to Guantanamo. The Taliban have been around to practise their Eskimo bullshit far longer than ISIS. Anyone, like this guy's dad, who endorses them, is a cunt and no better than any ISIS supporter.
>> No. 73412 Anonymous
13th June 2016
Monday 11:54 pm
73412 spacer
>>73410
I was planning to post in agreement with you but just a scan through their Wikipedia article shows they've done pretty much an equal amount of evil. Even the destruction of pre-Islamic antiquities wasn't missed off the list. So why don't you justify your assertion.
>> No. 73414 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 12:01 am
73414 spacer
>>73378
I'm not sure, I'll try that next time because I didn't know about that trick, but it's been capped by a kind person a few posts down from yours.

>>73381
Thank you for this! I've been out at a vigil so haven't been able to take a look yet.
>> No. 73416 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 12:18 am
73416 spacer
>>73412
I mean it's probably because he, like others, have been following these things for a long time and know the history of these groups, and aren't just scanning Wikipedia articles. Nobody's saying they haven't done bad things, or things on par with what ISIS has done, or making any excuses for anyone. It's just it's a lot more complicated than "They're exactly the same". I can see how that makes it nice and simple, but it isn't and I personally can't be arsed right now to type an essay up on here as to why, it'd probably only derail things anyway. It has been a long day.
>> No. 73417 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 12:20 am
73417 spacer
>>73411
>>73412
Do you lot support the Afghan invasion after 9/11?
>> No. 73418 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 12:23 am
73418 spacer
The "evils" of the Taliban are all cultural and part of the Afghan society. These are farmers with fucked up cultural practices who picked up weapons to fight off bandits, Americans, corrupt Afghan militaries and everything in between.
>> No. 73423 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 12:53 am
73423 spacer
>>73411
Yep, the Taliban sure are bad. ISIS are even worse. Sorry if this hurts your head, lad.
>> No. 73426 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 6:50 am
73426 spacer
>>73418
Nope. This is completely wrong. The Taliban in fact outlawed a great deal of pashtun cultural things, like costume, kite flying, music and much else.

>>73423
Give one way in which the Taliban are any better than ISIS.
>> No. 73429 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 1:14 pm
73429 spacer
>>73426
Six hours later....
>> No. 73430 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 2:11 pm
73430 spacer

il_570xN.667722636_nhin.jpg
734307343073430
Happy birthday, Don!
>> No. 73431 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 2:50 pm
73431 spacer
>>73417
I'm 73412 and no I didn't. Why?
>> No. 73432 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 3:33 pm
73432 spacer
>>73430
Have to say he looks remarkably good for his age, compare him to Hillary's better half for instance.
>> No. 73433 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 4:00 pm
73433 spacer
>>73432
It's a racial thing. Orange people don't age so quickly.
>> No. 73434 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 4:38 pm
73434 spacer
>>73423
Stop applying moralising bullshit to this. There is no objective scale of 'badness' you can apply to ISIS and the Taliban. The reason we are in conflict with them is because they are both fundamentally opposed to Western values and ways. Saying 'x is less bad than y' is a completely meaningless statement.
>> No. 73437 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 5:12 pm
73437 spacer
>>73429
Believe it or not, some people don't find instantly responding to everyone arguing on the internet productive or practical.

As regards what makes ISIS worse, they have fewer compunctions about slavery and genocide against religious and ethnic minorities. And have a coherent political objective of instituting an Islamist regime in Afghanistan instead of nihilistic fantasies of a global caliphate.

>>73434
>The reason we are in conflict with them is because they are both fundamentally opposed to Western values and ways
Weird how "we" aren't in conflict with the Saudis then.

Even ignoring that, I don't quite understand your point. I agree that ISIS and the Taliban (and the Saudis) should be opposed because of their hostility to western values. But that's because I think those values are morally superior.
>> No. 73438 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 5:19 pm
73438 spacer
>>73437
>But that's because I think those values are morally superior.

That's known as cultural imperialism mate. The difference is that the Saudis aren't coming to western nations and killing people opposed to their ideology in the name of Saudi dominance.
>> No. 73440 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 5:26 pm
73440 spacer
>>73438
>That's known as cultural imperialism mate
And?

>The difference is that the Saudis aren't coming to western nations and killing people opposed to their ideology in the name of Saudi dominance
And that difference is morally irrelevant if you think that the lives of gay people in Saudi Arabia are as valuable as the lives of gay people in Orlando.
>> No. 73441 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 5:33 pm
73441 spacer
If there's one thing on this earth that absolutely disgusts me, it's moral absolutism.
>> No. 73444 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 5:41 pm
73444 spacer

National_Park_Service_9-11_Statue_of_Liberty_and_W.jpg
734447344473444
>>73438
>The difference is that the Saudis aren't coming to western nations and killing people opposed to their ideology in the name of Saudi dominance
Yeah, it's a good thing the Saudis keep to themselves and didn't do anything horrible like develop and export the entire ideology that underpins modern Islamist terrorism. Oh wait.

Well, at least it's not Saudi themselves who are actually engaging in the terrorism. Oh wait.
>> No. 73446 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 5:57 pm
73446 spacer
>>73438
Quite. The Saudis prefer to pay other people to do the dirty work for them
>> No. 73447 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 6:03 pm
73447 spacer
>>73440
And, most people stopped supporting moral imperialism in this country some time after the Victorian age. Do keep up darling.
>> No. 73453 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 6:26 pm
73453 spacer
>>73447
Sorry mate, but if it isn't too much trouble, could you try to articulate what's actually wrong with the position that democracy is good and sets of values which respect human rights are morally superior to those that don't?

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think shouting imperialism and calling those ideas Victorian (despite the fact that the concept of a global human rights culture is a distinctly post-war innovation) is very compelling.
>> No. 73454 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 6:46 pm
73454 spacer
>>73453

Because you only believe what you believe because you were brought up in a culture that teaches you those things are good. Judging by the present state of the countries we have forcibly democratised in the middle east, it's clearly not a universal truth (as indeed, is the case for almost any moral value).

The most successful forms of imperialism have always been those which allow cultures to do more or less as they had before; British colonial rulers in India and Africa shrewdly delegated their administrations to the existing local "noble" classes. This arrangement proved remarkably stable, whilst the biggest rebellions occurred when we tried to stop the savages doing, well, savage things, such as having beards or burning women alive.

In short, interfering with other cultures never works out well, and they are best left alone. If indeed concepts such as human rights and democracy are of a higher moral standard, then these cultures can only achieve it via their own enlightenment. It has rarely proved possible to "uplift" a barbarous culture.

Furthermore, the form of "morally superior" democracy you are talking about, from a foreign policy perspective, really just means "neo-liberal capitalism". Hence why Saudi Arabia isn't our enemy despite being utterly fucking backward.
>> No. 73455 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 6:56 pm
73455 spacer
>>73454
I asked you to explain what's wrong with the position that democracy is good and sets of values which respect human rights are morally superior to those that don't, not what's wrong with forcing that position on other countries. Could you address the actual question now? Thanks.
>> No. 73456 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 7:01 pm
73456 spacer
>>73455

I answered that in the first paragraph, and it wasn't me you were asking.

Now go have a bath and do your homework, it's getting late.
>> No. 73457 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 7:08 pm
73457 spacer
>>73456
No you didn't. The first sentence makes an assumption about why I take that position, without actually addressing the position itself. The second addresses the consequence of forcing that position on other countries, not the position itself. I'll ask again: would you like to respond to the question I posed, not the one you would like to answer?
>> No. 73458 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 7:16 pm
73458 spacer
>>73457

Yes I did. In short it's because your position is moral absolutist hogwash.

Your position implicitly assumes the imposition of those values onto foreign cultures, because otherwise, what's the fucking point? Sitting here and saying "Yes well, those Taliban are obviously morally inferior to us" and then doing nothing about it? I hardly find that compelling.

Your "position" appears to be nothing but a very poor hypothetical construct, which doesn't define the nature of what is morally good, and what is morally bad. Nor to whom this value of good or bad is supposed to apply. It has no relevance to the real world.

I explained to you comprehensively what's wrong with "the position that democracy is good and sets of values which respect human rights are morally superior to those that don't" and the answer is it's wrong because it's like saying "vegetarians who don't wear fur are morally superior to meat eaters who do"- That's just like, your opinion, man, and in the cold vast emptiness of the cosmoss there actually is not "morality scale" on which your actions are being recorded. It's all just an illusion of consensus value.

You are backtracking and attempting to debate on semantics, now fuck off.
>> No. 73459 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 7:17 pm
73459 spacer

trump tweet.png
734597345973459
#GaysforTrump
>> No. 73461 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 7:38 pm
73461 spacer
>>73458
I'm afraid you've been reading rather a lot into my position that I haven't said at all. Other cultures should be encouraged to respect democracy and human rights via the use trade, diplomacy, media and other uses of soft power. You quite correctly pointed out that the forcible imposition of these values via hard power has a poor track record, and I don't think it could be justified in any but the most extreme circumstances.

And I don't at all agree with the idea that the belief that one set of values is superior to another is inherently absolutist. See http://www.nyu.edu/classes/gmoran/3RORTY.pdf

>That's just like, your opinion, man, and in the cold vast emptiness of the cosmoss there actually is not "morality scale" on which your actions are being recorded
And?
>> No. 73467 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 8:19 pm
73467 spacer
I really thought I'd seen it all on /pol/ but a poster having a meltdown at the idea that someone could think ISIS and the Taliban are morally questionable because "that's just your opinion" is a new one.
>> No. 73468 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 8:27 pm
73468 spacer
>>73461
Backtracking, lad? I thought you wanted to bomb them into democracies, those filthy brown bastards.
>> No. 73469 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 8:33 pm
73469 spacer
>>73467

Keep in mind it started out as a very well reasoned response to someone trying to deny that cultural imperialism is cultural imperialism.

You'll probably find that the only people who don't find ISIS/Taliban morally questionable, are Islamic fundamentalists... Which is kind of the point.
>> No. 73470 Anonymous
14th June 2016
Tuesday 8:40 pm
73470 spacer
>>73468
In order to backtrack from a position, you first have to, you know, express it. Where on earth did I say or imply that I wanted to bomb anyone?

>>73469
If believing that cultures which respect human rights and liberal democratic values are morally superior to the culture of ISIS is cultural imperialism then what exactly is the problem with it?
>> No. 73545 Anonymous
16th June 2016
Thursday 12:32 am
73545 spacer

Omar's father.jpg
735457354573545
Something very weird about the whole Orlando thing, apparently the shooter was a cake boy himself and frequented the place for years, he appeared in a movie as well

https://streamable.com/vmgj

And his father has connections to the US government, the Taliban, and has been photographed outside Hillary Clinton's office.

I think we're going to see quite a few conspiracy theories, if there aren't some already.
>> No. 73546 Anonymous
16th June 2016
Thursday 12:54 am
73546 spacer
>>73459
#GaysAgainstIslam, surely.
>> No. 73553 Anonymous
16th June 2016
Thursday 5:31 am
73553 spacer
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36540388

>Up to now, Mr Trump has been a strong supporter of protecting gun rights and his candidacy was endorsed by the NRA, a powerful gun lobby, last month.
But on Wednesday, he tweeted: "I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns."

I mean you think that'd be common sense anyway, since why object to that? But I wonder how his supporters will see this.
>> No. 73555 Anonymous
16th June 2016
Thursday 8:54 am
73555 spacer
Still find it fucking hilarious how this guy thinks all the other Muslims know who the extremists are, and it's simply a case of them speaking up/ratting them out then problem solved. What I wouldn't give to see his thought process.
>> No. 73566 Anonymous
16th June 2016
Thursday 1:20 pm
73566 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbM6WbUw7Bs
>> No. 73574 Anonymous
16th June 2016
Thursday 3:04 pm
73574 spacer
>>73553
>But I wonder how his supporters will see this.

They'll be perfectly happy with it.
No matter how fervently in favour of having guns they are, the people who will support this will believe that such extra restrictions will only effect brown-eyed people, and would never ever have any impact on themselves.
>> No. 73577 Anonymous
16th June 2016
Thursday 3:09 pm
73577 spacer
>>73574
That's not how it's playing out so far. Many of the responses to his tweet have been MUH GUNS and MUH DUE PROCESS.
>> No. 73580 Anonymous
16th June 2016
Thursday 3:38 pm
73580 spacer
>>73553

> I mean you think that'd be common sense anyway, since why object to that?

Yeah, let's prevent people on often arbitrary government watch lists (especially the no fly list) from exercising their constitutional rights. What a splendid idea.
>> No. 73581 Anonymous
16th June 2016
Thursday 3:49 pm
73581 spacer
>>73580
Because it's their constitutional right to walk into a bar and shoot 100 people with an assault rifle.
>> No. 73582 Anonymous
16th June 2016
Thursday 4:13 pm
73582 spacer
>>73580
>Yeah, let's prevent people on often arbitrary government watch lists (especially the no fly list) from exercising their constitutional rights. What a splendid idea.
The right to bear arms is already subject to plenty of qualifications.
>> No. 73583 Anonymous
16th June 2016
Thursday 4:35 pm
73583 spacer
>>73582

YOU CAN TAKE MY NUCLEAR ICBMs FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS.
>> No. 73604 Anonymous
16th June 2016
Thursday 7:31 pm
73604 spacer
>>73566
That was amazing.
>> No. 73611 Anonymous
16th June 2016
Thursday 8:33 pm
73611 spacer
>>73566
This is fucking hilarious. 2016 might just be the best year so far. Everyone's lost their minds.
>> No. 73655 Anonymous
16th June 2016
Thursday 11:32 pm
73655 spacer
>>73611
This election is becoming actually mental. Truly the most gruesome of reality shows. Hilary will obviously, cliff hanger, controversy and dramatic music get it, but it will be wonderfully engaging all the same. I hate myself for loving it.
>> No. 73751 Anonymous
18th June 2016
Saturday 2:41 am
73751 spacer

SHQ8heK[1].png
737517375173751
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/17/politics/reince-priebus-donald-trump-republican-convention/index.html
Man, the convention can not come soon enough.
>> No. 73753 Anonymous
18th June 2016
Saturday 4:12 am
73753 spacer
http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/ct-trump-gays-lgbt-street-cred-response-20160616-story.html

Good job, Donald.
>> No. 73754 Anonymous
18th June 2016
Saturday 5:33 am
73754 spacer
>>73753
It's unreal how he keeps boasting about how great his relationship with blacks, Hispanics, women and now gays is, despite the fact that he is objectively held in a historically low regard by those groups.

I read an article with a bunch of fact checkers weighing in on Trump, and they pointed out that while other politicians are often caught out lying, they'll try to put a spin on what they "really" meant, or at the very least stop repeating it. With Trump, no matter how many times he's proven wrong, no matter who it is proving him wrong, he just keeps saying the same bullshit. It really is incredible.
>> No. 73755 Anonymous
18th June 2016
Saturday 6:06 am
73755 spacer
>>73754

My theory is this is the logical end game of a culture that is too sensitive to say something is simply wrong. People don't want to declare something incorrect so we give bullshitters an ambiguity to hide behind.
>> No. 73761 Anonymous
18th June 2016
Saturday 11:01 am
73761 spacer
>>73755
That's a good point. I'd say Trump is particularly well placed to lie egregiously, given that the crowd he's playing for have been living in an increasingly deranged unreality for years.
>> No. 73767 Anonymous
18th June 2016
Saturday 12:02 pm
73767 spacer
>>73754
>how great his relationship with blacks, Hispanics, women and now gays is
Or as The Donald likes to call them, the blacks, the Hispanics, the women and the gays.
>> No. 73772 Anonymous
18th June 2016
Saturday 12:54 pm
73772 spacer
>>73754
And this is the heart of why he won't beat Clinton. There are a lot of angry white men in the US who will end up voting for Trump - but that won't be enough.

>>73767
It is hilarious.
>> No. 73800 Anonymous
18th June 2016
Saturday 2:52 pm
73800 spacer
>>73772
Bigly hilarious.
>> No. 73852 Anonymous
19th June 2016
Sunday 2:02 am
73852 spacer
>>73800
The hilarity is yuuuuuge.
>> No. 73853 Anonymous
19th June 2016
Sunday 2:10 am
73853 spacer

pooojxn.jpg
738537385373853
VOTE TRUMP

NO PUTOS IN MY HOOD GET WHAT AM SAYIN
>> No. 73941 Anonymous
20th June 2016
Monday 10:53 pm
73941 spacer
http://www.gq.com/story/hope-hicks-mystifying-triumph-donald-trump

>While Trump nurses an obvious addiction to cable news, the reading that's put in front of him is largely confined to a topic he already knows well. Every morning, staffers print out 30 to 50 Google News results for “Donald J. Trump.” He then goes at the sheaf with a marker, making circles and arrows and annotating things he likes or doesn't like. The defaced article gets scanned and e-mailed to the journalist or the person quoted who has drawn Trump's attention, under the subject line “From the office of Donald J. Trump.”
>> No. 73943 Anonymous
20th June 2016
Monday 10:58 pm
73943 spacer

ClbKMuOWAAId3LX[1].jpg
739437394373943
Trump has yet to start ad buys.

He has some thoughts on Clinton's though:

>"Believe me folks, they're false ads," he recently told supporters in California. "They are so false. Ah, some of them aren't so false. Mostly."
>> No. 73944 Anonymous
20th June 2016
Monday 11:10 pm
73944 spacer
>>73943
>Trump has yet to start ad buys.
That's mainly because he doesn't have any money. I can only guess when he thought up the "self-funding" line he didn't think he'd actually win the nomination.
>> No. 73945 Anonymous
20th June 2016
Monday 11:43 pm
73945 spacer
>>73944
He doesn't need ads. Every ad by Clinton is an ad for him.
>> No. 73946 Anonymous
20th June 2016
Monday 11:55 pm
73946 spacer
>>73945
Still in denial, Corey?
>> No. 73947 Anonymous
21st June 2016
Tuesday 6:23 am
73947 spacer

ClcLnalXIAAJeOy.jpg
739477394773947
>>73944
To be fair, he is self funding. Only thing is, he's funding himself from the campaign coffers, not the other way around.
>> No. 73949 Anonymous
21st June 2016
Tuesday 12:11 pm
73949 spacer
Some drippy looking British lad just tried to assassinate the Donald.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36582770

>According to the court papers, Mr Sandford said he had never fired a gun before but went to a range in Las Vegas on 17 June to learn how to shoot.

>At Saturday's rally at the Treasure Island Casino, he allegedly tried to grab the officer's weapon because it was in an unlocked position and therefore, he said, the easiest way to get a gun to shoot Mr Trump.

>Court documents say Mr Sandford acknowledged he knew he would only be able to fire one or two rounds, and expected to be killed during an attempt on Mr Trump's life.


Well, I don't think he was going to get very far. But still, why are the left so intolerant? There're far more assassinations and attempts from them than vice versa.
>> No. 73950 Anonymous
21st June 2016
Tuesday 12:14 pm
73950 spacer
>>73949
Did you miss the MP being assassinated by the National Front (or whatever they're called this week) literally a few days ago?
>> No. 73951 Anonymous
21st June 2016
Tuesday 12:31 pm
73951 spacer
>>73950
Relevant people, you know, Heads of state, not someone no-one had heard of before.
>> No. 73952 Anonymous
21st June 2016
Tuesday 12:35 pm
73952 spacer
>>73951

Oh okay. Why's the right so intolerant? They'll even assassinate irrelevant people, ones nobody has ever heard of before. Why are they such cowards? Killing defenceless people who don't have any sort of body guards and hoping to get away with it instead of expecting to be gunned down after the deed.
>> No. 73953 Anonymous
21st June 2016
Tuesday 12:40 pm
73953 spacer
>>73952
You mean like what muslims do every day?
>> No. 73954 Anonymous
21st June 2016
Tuesday 12:47 pm
73954 spacer
>>73953
You mean the highly conservative religious people, the muslims?
>> No. 73955 Anonymous
21st June 2016
Tuesday 12:54 pm
73955 spacer
>>73951
Trump isn't a head of state.
>> No. 73956 Anonymous
21st June 2016
Tuesday 12:57 pm
73956 spacer
>>73954
How are they conservative if they overwhelmingly vote left wing?

>>73955
Close enough, it's either him or Hillary as head of state next year.
>> No. 73957 Anonymous
21st June 2016
Tuesday 1:00 pm
73957 spacer
>>73949
>Well, I don't think he was going to get very far. But still, why are the left so intolerant? There're far more assassinations and attempts from them than vice versa.
Wrong. Obama has faced three times as many assassination attempts than his predecessors.
>> No. 73958 Anonymous
21st June 2016
Tuesday 1:02 pm
73958 spacer
>>73956
The muslims in muslim countries are not the ones voting in this country. Sharia law is a right wing system.
>> No. 73959 Anonymous
21st June 2016
Tuesday 1:04 pm
73959 spacer
>>73957
And anyone who suggests dolphin rape as even a possible explanation is a screeching white-male-hating SJW resorting to petty name-calling.
>> No. 73961 Anonymous
21st June 2016
Tuesday 1:12 pm
73961 spacer
>>73958
By western neoliberal standards most countries are right wing, undeveloped and developed ones like Japan.

Muslims in the west are leftists, they vote for Labour and the Democratic Party.
>> No. 73963 Anonymous
21st June 2016
Tuesday 1:22 pm
73963 spacer
>>73961

Yes, and the people who are killing other people on a regular basis are in the undeveloped countries.
>> No. 73965 Anonymous
21st June 2016
Tuesday 1:27 pm
73965 spacer
>>73963
Eh, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates are perhaps the most developed places in the world, they still stone people to death.
>> No. 73966 Anonymous
21st June 2016
Tuesday 1:29 pm
73966 spacer
>>73961
78% of Muslims voted for Bush in 2000.

Now they're 70% Democratic.

I wonder what happened.
>> No. 73967 Anonymous
21st June 2016
Tuesday 1:29 pm
73967 spacer
>>73965
So the Saudi royal family are leftists now?
>> No. 73968 Anonymous
21st June 2016
Tuesday 1:30 pm
73968 spacer
>>73967
What's the matter, lad? Has nobody told you about the Grand Islamomarxist Conspiracy?
>> No. 73969 Anonymous
21st June 2016
Tuesday 1:37 pm
73969 spacer
>>73965
They don't vote left-wing though do they? You're pretty obviously being stupid on purpose.
>> No. 73974 Anonymous
21st June 2016
Tuesday 2:50 pm
73974 spacer
>>73947
It continues:

http://time.com/4376249/donald-trumps-campaign-cycles-6-million-into-trump-companies/

>Through the end of May, Trump’s campaign had plunged at least $6.2 million back into Trump corporate products and services, a review of Federal Election Commission filings shows. That’s about 10 percent of his total campaign expenditures.

He's out-grifting Carson's glorified book tour of a campaign, which is impressive.
>> No. 73978 Anonymous
21st June 2016
Tuesday 3:37 pm
73978 spacer
Wish Trump would do a rally here when he visits, just for a laugh.
>> No. 73983 Anonymous
21st June 2016
Tuesday 4:17 pm
73983 spacer
I hope he takes the Mexican flag on his golf course down by hand.
>> No. 73984 Anonymous
21st June 2016
Tuesday 5:51 pm
73984 spacer
>>73974
$6.2 million is nothing for a real billionaire. I can only assume this means Trump isn't one after all.
>> No. 73987 Anonymous
21st June 2016
Tuesday 6:10 pm
73987 spacer

cuban.png
739877398773987
>>73984
That is verified billionaire Mark Cuban's take.
>> No. 73988 Anonymous
21st June 2016
Tuesday 6:47 pm
73988 spacer
>>73984
>>73987
Go back to jail, Michael.
>> No. 73990 Anonymous
21st June 2016
Tuesday 8:27 pm
73990 spacer
Don't make the fatal mistake of going to r/The_Donald. You may lose a few brain cells along the way.
>> No. 73991 Anonymous
21st June 2016
Tuesday 8:43 pm
73991 spacer
>>73990
I don't have any to lose after being on .gs for all these years.
>> No. 74488 Anonymous
25th June 2016
Saturday 12:04 pm
74488 spacer
After the Euro, I'm starting to think anything is possible. If you mobilise enough stupid people to vote, strange things can happen. For the first time I think that Trump could win.
>> No. 74491 Anonymous
25th June 2016
Saturday 12:10 pm
74491 spacer

Screen-Shot-2016-06-24-at-14.13.52.png
744917449174491
The only thing that cheered me up yesterday was that he was given the traditional Scottish welcome on his untimely visit to their fair land.
>> No. 74522 Anonymous
25th June 2016
Saturday 5:53 pm
74522 spacer
>>74491
He believes they "Took their country back" and all. It's hilarious.
>> No. 74560 Anonymous
25th June 2016
Saturday 9:38 pm
74560 spacer
>>74522
I'd happily take our country back but I think I've lost the receipt.
>> No. 74579 Anonymous
25th June 2016
Saturday 11:33 pm
74579 spacer
>>74491
That is a fantastic image.
>> No. 74598 Anonymous
26th June 2016
Sunday 1:19 am
74598 spacer
>>74491

nothing traditional about some obnoxious lefty cunt living up to type
>> No. 74610 Anonymous
26th June 2016
Sunday 2:01 am
74610 spacer
>>74598

Did you just stick up for Trump by calling someone else obnoxious? Oh, and nice grammar, shit brains.
>> No. 74900 Anonymous
29th June 2016
Wednesday 3:54 pm
74900 spacer

CmIDGfvWQAIENIr.jpg
749007490074900
He just tweeted this out.

Apparently polls showing him losing by a smaller margin than average are all the Trump campaign has left to celebrate at this point.
>> No. 74901 Anonymous
29th June 2016
Wednesday 4:11 pm
74901 spacer
>>74900
Hillary must be in trouble, with that two point lead in the headline, and the inherent two point lead from the Electoral College. At this rate she's only going to beat him by around 50-60 EVs.
>> No. 74996 Anonymous
1st July 2016
Friday 5:55 am
74996 spacer

jim jordan.jpg
749967499674996
Jim Jordan should be his VP. You literally cannot refute this.

>NCAA Divison I Wrestling Champion
>From Ohio
>Strong Conservative
>BTFO'd Hillary on Benghazi
>BTFO'd IRS on Scandal
>Took Down Boehner
>Head of Freedom Caucus
Come on, /pol/. We need to use all of our power to get this man as Trump's VP.
BTFOing Hillary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2PLNngNtQc

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 74997 Anonymous
1st July 2016
Friday 7:36 am
74997 spacer
>>74996

Think you might be lost lad.
>> No. 74998 Anonymous
1st July 2016
Friday 7:48 am
74998 spacer
I didn't imagine "strong conservative" dickheads from the House Freedom Caucus were 4chan /pol/'s type, but there you go.

As far as Trump's VP pick goes, he is apparently vetting Newt Gingrich and Chris Christie. Which is insane, seeing as you can just Google their names and find thousands of reasons why they shouldn't ever be VP, but well...
>> No. 75019 Anonymous
1st July 2016
Friday 6:08 pm
75019 spacer

newt.jpg
750197501975019
>>74998

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmKVRVX4q-k
>> No. 75020 Anonymous
1st July 2016
Friday 6:22 pm
75020 spacer
>>75019
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/vanityfair4.html

>Kip Carter, who lived a few doors down from the couple, saw more than he wanted to. "We had been out working a football game --I think it was the Bowdon game-- and we would split up. It was a Friday night. I had Newt's daughters, Jackie Sue and Kathy, with me. We were all supposed to meet back at this professor's house. It was a milk-and-cookies kind of shakedown thing, buck up the troops. I was cutting across the yard to go up the driveway. There was a car there. As I got to the car, I saw Newt in the passenger seat and one of the guys' wives with her head in his lap going up and down. Newt kind of turned and gave me his little-boy smile. Fortunately, Jackie Sue and Kathy were a lot younger and shorter then.
>> No. 75027 Anonymous
2nd July 2016
Saturday 12:02 am
75027 spacer
>>75019

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPIeCDiwAFA
>> No. 75037 Anonymous
2nd July 2016
Saturday 3:01 am
75037 spacer
>>74998

No one on /pol/ actually has an opinion.
>> No. 75039 Anonymous
2nd July 2016
Saturday 3:35 am
75039 spacer
>>75037
I can see why they like Trump so much.
>> No. 75241 Anonymous
6th July 2016
Wednesday 7:15 pm
75241 spacer

greatrelations.png
752417524175241
There's that great relationship with the blacks again.
>> No. 75242 Anonymous
6th July 2016
Wednesday 8:33 pm
75242 spacer
>>75241
Actually m8, blacks love celebrities and Trump is mentioned as a synonym for wealth in a load of rap songs, therefore polls and reality mean nothing.
>> No. 75408 Anonymous
10th July 2016
Sunday 11:36 pm
75408 spacer
Good news for The Donald: a couple of recent nationwide polls have put him in front.

Bad news for The Donald: they're all by the same house with a known Republican leaning.
>> No. 75610 Anonymous
14th July 2016
Thursday 9:30 pm
75610 spacer
A poll in Ohio puts Boris Johnson level with Donald Trump among black voters. They're both on 0%. In other news, at least one poll asked people whose ads they remember, and apparently found a large number of people saying they remember seeing Trump's general election campaign ads despite him not actually having run any yet anywhere.
>> No. 75625 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 12:35 am
75625 spacer
>>75610
They asked African Americans about Boris?
>> No. 75626 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 1:20 am
75626 spacer
>>75625
Of course not.
>> No. 75627 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 1:27 am
75627 spacer
>>75626
I'm confused. Are blacks here and black there one and the same?
>> No. 75646 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 4:21 pm
75646 spacer
>>75627
>I'm confused.
I'm not sure we can help you with that.
>> No. 75653 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 5:20 pm
75653 spacer

zarrovootsfound.png
756537565375653
>>75625
No, they asked them about Trump, and this was the answer. 848 registered voters, 11% black.
>> No. 75666 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 9:41 pm
75666 spacer
>>75653
How can it be zero? Looks odd.
>> No. 75667 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 10:00 pm
75667 spacer
>>75666
That's easy. Out of the ninety-something black people they asked, not a single one of them said they would vote for Trump right now, which is somewhat understandable.
>> No. 75668 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 10:03 pm
75668 spacer
>>75667
>ninety something

Clearly a representative sample size then.
>> No. 75670 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 10:08 pm
75670 spacer
>>75668
Sizes don't impart representation, daftlad.
>> No. 75671 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 10:12 pm
75671 spacer
>>75668
That's the second state poll in which he's polled at 0% with blacks. It certainly doesn't mean there isn't a single black person in Ohio/Pennsylvania who will vote for him, but it does mean that they're a very rare breed as of right now.
>> No. 75672 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 10:18 pm
75672 spacer
>>75671
To be fair, the margin of error on the black sub-sample means that his actual support could be as low as -10%.
>> No. 75673 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 11:00 pm
75673 spacer
>>75671
That's silly. They asked less than a hundred black people.
>> No. 75674 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 11:04 pm
75674 spacer
>>75673
I'm sorry, what is it you think to be "silly"?
>> No. 75675 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 11:41 pm
75675 spacer
>>75673
You sound almost as bad as the true believers on the other /pol/. "B-b-but the polls are skewed!" they keep saying, without knowing how any of it works.
>> No. 75676 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 11:59 pm
75676 spacer
>>75673

You don't need to conduct many experiments to learn that a gunshot wound to the head is fatal. Statistical significance is related to sample size and effect size. With a difference this big (1% vs 40%), you only need a very small sample to achieve statistical significance.

The sample size and the representativeness of the sample are entirely unrelated. I could poll 1,000,000 Daily Mail readers and erroneously conclude that 95% of the population supports the Tory party - the sample size is huge, but it is entirely unrepresentative of the population as a whole.

It is absolutely beyond doubt that Trump has no significant support among black Americans.
>> No. 75677 Anonymous
16th July 2016
Saturday 12:03 am
75677 spacer

Family Fortunes Irishman 6.jpg
756777567775677
We asked one hundred black people in Ohio who they would vote for if the election was tomorrow. You said Donald Trump; our survey says ...

The coat stays where it is. You both knew this was coming.
>> No. 75678 Anonymous
16th July 2016
Saturday 3:13 pm
75678 spacer

CnavTiqWgAAg2kY.jpg large.jpg
756787567875678
Nice to see the campaign officially acknowledge how badly Mike Pence will be fucked if Donald wins.
>> No. 75679 Anonymous
16th July 2016
Saturday 8:11 pm
75679 spacer
>>75678

I don't know much of anything about this Pence chap, one assumes he's a prick. Regardless the ending of Turmp's name and the beginning of Pence's get caught all over one another, terrible choice for a VP candidate.
>> No. 75680 Anonymous
16th July 2016
Saturday 8:33 pm
75680 spacer
>>75679
It has a nice ring to it, you can contract it into one word that sounds like "tuppence".
>> No. 75714 Anonymous
17th July 2016
Sunday 4:09 am
75714 spacer
>>75679
Pence seems to be an anti-abortion, anti-LGBT evangelical type, but otherwise fairly dull. May have suggested forcing women who have abortions to pay for a funeral for their foetus, but I can't remember where I read that nugget - if true, it suggests he might be entertainingly demented (as long as they don't win).
>> No. 75747 Anonymous
17th July 2016
Sunday 11:48 pm
75747 spacer
Programme for the GOP convention is out.

Here are the bios for some senators:

>U.S. Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas)
>For nearly five years, Cotton served as an infantry officer in the U.S. Army. He completed two combat tours, serving in Iraq with the 101st Airborne and in Afghanistan. Upon returning home, Cotton worked for McKinsey & Co. and served one term in the U.S. House of Representatives. In 2015, he was elected to the U.S. Senate, where he represents the state of Arkansas.


>U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama)
>U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions is serving his third term representing the people of Alabama. A senior member of the Armed Services Committee and the Budget Committee, he is also a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of its subcommittee on Immigration and National Interest. A strong advocate for securing the border, Sessions was the first U.S. Senator to endorse Donald Trump and has acted as a liaison between the Trump campaign and Capitol Hill.

>U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)
>U.S. Senator Joni Ernst has dedicated her life to Iowa and her country, having served in the military for over 23 years and now in the United States Senate. In November 2014, Ernst was elected as the first woman to serve in federal elected office from the State of Iowa and also became the first female combat veteran elected to serve in the United States Senate.

Here's the bio for Rudy Giuliani, Mayor of 9/11:

Rudy Giuliani, Former Mayor of New York City
>Giuliani was wrapping up his second term in office when New York City was attacked on September 11, 2001. Immediately following the attack, Giuliani coordinated rescue operations that saved as many as 20,000 lives. Because of his strong leadership in the aftermath of September 11th, Americans came to see him as a voice of reassurance and consolation during an uncertain time.

Here's the bio of Ben Carson, world renowned neurosurgeon with a famously inspirational lifestory:

>Dr. Ben Carson, Neurosurgeon
>A candidate for the presidency in this year’s Republican primary, Ben Carson grew up in a poor, single-parent household in Detroit, Michigan. Initially a student earning mediocre grades, his mother encouraged him to read and cultivated his love of learning. Between his degrees, Carson worked as an X-ray technician, a bank teller, a school bus driver, a supervisor for highway cleanup crews, and a crane operator in a steel factory.

Compare and contrast to the bio of Trump's wife:

>Melania Trump, Businesswoman and Wife of Donald Trump
>Melania married Donald Trump in January 2005. In March 2006 they had their first child, Barron William Trump. Born on April 26, 1970 in Slovenia, Melania Knauss began her modeling career at the age of sixteen. At the age of eighteen, she signed with a modeling agency in Milan. After obtaining a degree in design and architecture at University in Slovenia, Melania was jetting between photo shoots in Paris and Milan, finally settling in New York in 1996. Melania is dedicated to helping others, and her generosity has been noted. She was Honorary Chairwoman for Martha Graham Dance Company in April 2005; is an active member of the Police Athletic League which honored her with Woman of the Year 2006; has been an Honorary Chairwoman for The Boy’s Club of New York for five consecutive years; and in 2005, the American Red Cross awarded her with Goodwill Ambassador, which she has proudly served for four years. In April of 2008, Melania was asked by Love Our Children USA and NASDAQ to participate in the Fifth Annual National Love Our Children Day and the beginning of National Child Abuse Prevention month by ringing the closing bell at NASDAQ.
>> No. 75748 Anonymous
18th July 2016
Monday 1:40 am
75748 spacer
"I think I am actually humble. I think I'm much more humble than you would understand."
>> No. 75749 Anonymous
18th July 2016
Monday 1:57 am
75749 spacer
>>75747
Monday headline: Melania
Tuesday headline: Donald Jr
Wednesday headline: Eric
Thursday headline: Ivanka

Also, I'm surprised Lyin' Ted and Little Marco agreed to turn up, let alone speak. Presumably they're there to plug their 2020 and Senate campaigns respectively.
>> No. 75750 Anonymous
18th July 2016
Monday 2:59 am
75750 spacer
>>75749
"Ted Cruz is no longer a liar, we don’t say Lyin' Ted anymore," Trump told the crowd. "We love Ted, we love him, right? We love him. Now we don’t want to say Lyin' Ted. I'd love to pull it out and just use it on lying, crooked Hillary because she is a liar."
>> No. 75751 Anonymous
18th July 2016
Monday 3:18 am
75751 spacer
http://www.wisn.com/politics/trump-on-pences-iraq-war-vote-i-dont-care/40755330

>Throughout his presidential campaign Donald Trump has relentlessly criticized Hillary Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq War.

>But confronted with his newly-tapped running mate's own "yes" vote in 2002, the presumptive Republican nominee offered a very different response.

>"I don't care," Trump said on CBS's "60 Minutes" in his first joint interview with Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, whom Trump announced Friday will join him on the Republican ticket.

>"He's entitled to make a mistake every once in a while," Trump said of Pence, who was a congressman from Indiana at the time.

>"But she's not?" CBS interviewer Lesley Stahl pressed.

>"No. She's not," Trump replied.

>Still, Trump insisted that Pence voted to authorize the U.S. invasion of Iraq because he, like others, were "misled."

(Trump said the exact same thing to justify Clinton's Iraq vote in 2006: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/23/opinion/23dowd.html?_r=0 )

>He thinks John McCain has lost the 2008 election by pushing to send more troops to Iraq but that Hillary should be forgiven for her “horrendous” vote to authorize the war. “Don’t forget that decision was based on lies given to her,” he says. “She’s very smart and has a major chance to be our next president.”

How anyone takes a single thing he says seriously continues to confound me.
>> No. 75752 Anonymous
18th July 2016
Monday 9:57 am
75752 spacer
>>75751
In his defence, it took him a couple of years to realise what a mistake it was. Which of course doesn't excuse him saying that he was against it from day 1.
>> No. 75753 Anonymous
18th July 2016
Monday 10:19 am
75753 spacer
RNC chair has said it's not a big deal if the Bushes aren't turning up, since the Bushes didn't turn up in 2012 either.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIB0aTmm-s8

Whoops.
>> No. 75754 Anonymous
18th July 2016
Monday 2:22 pm
75754 spacer
>>75748

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R42mFx3_ss
>> No. 75762 Anonymous
19th July 2016
Tuesday 4:56 am
75762 spacer
His wife just plagiarised Obama's wife in her convention speech

https://twitter.com/JarrettHill/status/755242423991709697?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

This is insane.
>> No. 75763 Anonymous
19th July 2016
Tuesday 12:58 pm
75763 spacer

crook.jpg
757637576375763
>>75762

I'm starting to seriously believe my half-jokey theory from a year back is true: Trump is an agent of the Clintons. He's in the Republican Party to destroy it, all so the She-Clinton can fulfill her therapeutic goal of becoming President.
>> No. 75766 Anonymous
19th July 2016
Tuesday 7:39 pm
75766 spacer
>>75754
It's as if he wants to fuck up... The problem being that many of his idiot supporters lap up any diarrhea he shits out, if he said "I want to shit down chimneys and fuck dogs", they would start wearing t-shirts and hats with that on.

It's a bit frightening.
>> No. 75767 Anonymous
19th July 2016
Tuesday 7:48 pm
75767 spacer
>>75766

He could adopt Obama's entire 2012 platform and I'd put good money on them cheering themselves silly regardless.
>> No. 75768 Anonymous
19th July 2016
Tuesday 8:47 pm
75768 spacer
Honestly can't believe the Republican base are actually more interested in xenophobia than cutting capital gains tax. Who could've seen that coming?
>> No. 75770 Anonymous
19th July 2016
Tuesday 10:26 pm
75770 spacer
>>75766
You can already hear the chants. FUCK THE DOGS! FUCK THE DOGS!
>> No. 75771 Anonymous
19th July 2016
Tuesday 10:59 pm
75771 spacer
A mate of mine and I sat down for lunch and had a talk about this campaign and the people. Fewer things are more revealing than Trump supporter's love for violence as an end-all to social problems.

This was the documentary he referred to:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62gfHioSYbs
>> No. 75772 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 4:29 am
75772 spacer
https://t.co/QEftnTTwy3

HOW
>> No. 75773 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 6:39 am
75773 spacer

fred-dineage-how-2-641394.jpg
757737577375773
>>75772
FOR NOW.
>> No. 75946 Anonymous
22nd July 2016
Friday 8:17 pm
75946 spacer
I've not become aware of anything Trump has said on African-Americans, but I imagine their position (given how much they've suffered for generations) is like that Chris Rock bit: "I'm American, fuck all those Muslims! I'm American, fuck all those Mexicans! And then I started listening, because niggеrs and Jews is next."
>> No. 75960 Anonymous
22nd July 2016
Friday 9:38 pm
75960 spacer
>>75946
He often talks of ethnic minorities and how poorly America serves them, he did so yesterday. He got cheers from the crowd for that by the way.
>> No. 75961 Anonymous
22nd July 2016
Friday 9:52 pm
75961 spacer
>>75960
>He often talks of ethnic minorities
Oh he sure does. Like that time he said an American Judge of Mexican heritage couldn't judge him because of the obvious conflict of interest.

>He got cheers from the crowd for that by the way.
Yeah, the same cheers that Republicans have been giving the "Democrats are still the party of slavery, they just use welfare instead of chains!!" for years.
>> No. 75965 Anonymous
22nd July 2016
Friday 10:42 pm
75965 spacer
>>75961
Well I watched the thing, you have no idea what he said.
>> No. 75966 Anonymous
22nd July 2016
Friday 10:52 pm
75966 spacer
>>75946

There's nothing Trump can do to win over black voters when he's running under the slogan "Make America Great Again". Black people don't have fond memories of the good old days. The emotional core of Trump's campaign (and it is an emotional campaign) is utterly repulsive to black voters.
>> No. 75968 Anonymous
22nd July 2016
Friday 11:03 pm
75968 spacer
>>75966

And yet Trump has black supporters. I think you're underestimating the power of stupidity - a defect that doesn't recognise race boundaries.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAeB_yl2E90
>> No. 75974 Anonymous
23rd July 2016
Saturday 1:57 am
75974 spacer
>>75965
I watched the whole thing too...
>> No. 75975 Anonymous
23rd July 2016
Saturday 2:02 am
75975 spacer
>>75968
>And yet Trump has black supporters
Yes, shockingly in a country with millions of black people, there are some who like Trump. That hardly indicates widespread support.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/13/new-polls-in-pennsylvania-and-ohio-show-donald-trump-with-0-percent-of-the-black-vote/

http://time.com/4389251/donald-trump-1-percent-support-poll/
>> No. 75978 Anonymous
23rd July 2016
Saturday 8:38 am
75978 spacer
>>75975

That's quite different to what was expressed here >>75966
>> No. 76002 Anonymous
24th July 2016
Sunday 1:39 pm
76002 spacer
The Republican convention in short: Trump wins the nomination, Cruz wins the convention, Clinton wins the election.
>> No. 76005 Anonymous
24th July 2016
Sunday 1:56 pm
76005 spacer
I'm off work for the week - will the DNC be on tv so I can stream it or am I subject to what trickles through on reddit/ the media.
>> No. 76008 Anonymous
24th July 2016
Sunday 3:05 pm
76008 spacer
>>76005
BBC Parliament are carrying the C-SPAN feed from 9pm local (2am here). Formal business starts at around 4pm each day, so this may not include the ballot.

Also, just like the other side, the convention convenor won't be doing anything other than their formal duties. Paul Ryan wanted to keep a healthy distance from the shitstorm on the floor. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has become emboriled in a scandal involving leaked emails which suggest that some in Bernie's campaign might have had a point when they said they had the system against them.
>> No. 76009 Anonymous
24th July 2016
Sunday 4:06 pm
76009 spacer
>>76005
It should be live on youtube, as far as I know.
>> No. 76010 Anonymous
24th July 2016
Sunday 4:24 pm
76010 spacer
>>76008
>>76009

Top lads, many thanks.
>> No. 76015 Anonymous
24th July 2016
Sunday 5:47 pm
76015 spacer
>>76008
Just her?

I find it amazing how these emails have been ignored by the media.
>> No. 76016 Anonymous
24th July 2016
Sunday 5:56 pm
76016 spacer
>>76015
They haven't been ignored, they're just not really news.
>> No. 76017 Anonymous
24th July 2016
Sunday 6:23 pm
76017 spacer
>>76016
I couldn't escape Trump's wife plagiarising a speech. Why can I escape what is in effect a stitch up, dolphin rape and just sheer lies from a woman's team vying to make her th emost powerful woman on the planet?
>> No. 76018 Anonymous
24th July 2016
Sunday 6:32 pm
76018 spacer
>>76017
The Democratic party is, ironically, not a democratic body. The more hysterical of Bernie's following are acting like this is comparable to election rigging. In reality, the only thing to stand in the way of the DNC putting their thumb on the scale is their own commitment to not do so, and it's hardly surprising that they were more sympathetic to the long time party grandee than a guy who became a Democrat months before, solely for the purposes of running for the nomination. Anybody with a brain knew that the DNC were on Hillary's side, if anything the leaks have shown they were rather more restrained than I'd have imagined.

For a comparable situation, you are aware that Theresa May became Conservative leader and Prime Minister this month without a vote being cast by a Conservative outside Parliament?
>> No. 76019 Anonymous
24th July 2016
Sunday 6:35 pm
76019 spacer
>>76018

Right? But they shouldn't charade as such and let us be honest, it's not how they sell themselves and not how they set up the rules. The rules of their own body state that they should be neutral.

We all knew they were on her side, but they shouldn't have been racist, shouldn't have lied about Trump and set up fake adverts or tried to use Bernie being a Jew against him.

You're trying to make this into an issue of democracy, nobody is shocked by that, I am shocked by one of the two major bodies that put forward a candidate who will become president has been caught out in lies of such magnitude when they claim to be against the sort of dirty values they were using to campaign.

Save your patronising tone, too, mate. If you want to be condescending about a completely different point go post shit on a Facebook comments section.
>> No. 76020 Anonymous
24th July 2016
Sunday 6:42 pm
76020 spacer
>>76019
Sorry if I came across as patronising, that's not the intent.

There wasn't much pretence that they weren't on Hillary's side, and if they'd made it more obvious people would be even more incensed. And my point is that an organ of a political party breaking their own rules to favour a long time and influential member over an outsider using the party as a vehicle isn't really news.

What "lies of such magnitude" are you shocked by?
>> No. 76021 Anonymous
24th July 2016
Sunday 6:54 pm
76021 spacer
>>76016

Is this sarcasm? If so, it's missed the mark.
>> No. 76023 Anonymous
24th July 2016
Sunday 6:56 pm
76023 spacer
>>76017
>Why can I escape what is in effect a stitch up, dolphin rape and just sheer lies from a woman's team vying to make her th emost powerful woman on the planet?
It's been widely reported in the US.
>> No. 76127 Anonymous
27th July 2016
Wednesday 8:47 pm
76127 spacer
>Donald Trump to Russia: hack and publish Hillary Clinton's 'missing' emails

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/27/donald-trump-russia-hillary-clinton-emails-dnc-hack

The absolute madman.
>> No. 76129 Anonymous
27th July 2016
Wednesday 9:07 pm
76129 spacer

13710061_10153862141990819_2169388571359129705_n.jpg
761297612976129
I don't really get this. What they seem to be ignoring is that if Trump is bleach, Hilary is concentrated hydrochloric acid.

Even as bonkers as he is, Trump genuinely seems like the preferable choice in terms of world peace and stability. The situation is certainly looking bleak.
>> No. 76130 Anonymous
27th July 2016
Wednesday 9:11 pm
76130 spacer
>>76127
I don't know why he bothered. The last I heard they not only have them but already turned them over to Wikileaks.
>> No. 76131 Anonymous
27th July 2016
Wednesday 9:12 pm
76131 spacer
>>76129
Don't you have an AMA to do, Donald?
>> No. 76133 Anonymous
27th July 2016
Wednesday 10:22 pm
76133 spacer
>>76129
>Even as bonkers as he is, Trump genuinely seems like the preferable choice in terms of world peace and stability
Er, no, lad, no he doesn't.

>>76130
Those were DNC emails, not Hillary's emails.
>> No. 76135 Anonymous
27th July 2016
Wednesday 10:27 pm
76135 spacer
>>76133
No, I'm definitely thinking of Hillary's emails. It was several weeks ago, but buggered if I can find anything now because all Google turns up is eleventy billion articles and mirrors of articles about Trump being an idiot.
>> No. 76137 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 12:14 am
76137 spacer
>>76129
Its an old trick to keep potential third party voters in line. Now articles are suddenly being published like 'Privilege is what allows Sanders supporters to say they’ll “never” vote for Clinton' are an attempt to cow the left-of-centre.

http://qz.com/644985/privilege-is-what-allows-sanders-supporters-to-say-theyll-never-vote-for-clinton/

Naturally while Sanders voters are being told to vote Kang people like Jill Stein are being ignored and even vilified.

'How dare these sore losers even consider other parties!' they say in vindictive tones completely ignoring the fact that Hillary is a corporate robot 'Just look at how much she agrees with Sanders on the key issues, she loves those Puerto Ricans and Negros (as long as they don't move next door)'

The same tactic was used to attack Nader voters after 2000. It doesn't matter that they didn't agree with the democrats policies because the choice is the puppet on the left or the puppet on the right.

Full disclosure: I don't support Hillary or Trump and I wouldn't vote for either of them. Wouldn't normally vote Green either but its who I get when I do the isidewith quiz.
>> No. 76138 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 12:38 am
76138 spacer
>>76135
You're not thinking of the emails he is talking about, which were deleted from her server.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/gowdy-clinton-wiped-her-server-clean-116472

>>76137
I would find it very, very difficult to convince myself to vote for Clinton, but Jill Stein is shite and deserves to be ignored. Unlike our greens, the American green party is totally dominated by their "Crystals cure leukaemia and nuclear power is satan" faction. On top of that, she's said she's open to a joint ticket with Gary Johnson, so so much for purity.
>> No. 76139 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 1:04 am
76139 spacer
>>76137

Blame the broken electoral system, not the people who try to get the best out of it. In the US system, a third party vote is a wasted vote, that's just objectively true. Nobody likes choosing the lesser of two evils, but you'll regret it if you leave that choice to others.
>> No. 76140 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 2:34 am
76140 spacer
>>76139
While the US system is more broken than ours, that's true in the UK as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gv4Abt3sZU

Though when it's as bad as Trump/Clinton I wouldn't want to dignify either option even if it did mean a wasted vote. With something like Bush/Gore I could justify it to myself to hold my nose, but not Trump/Clinton. That's when you break out symbolically voting CPUSA or something.
>> No. 76141 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 2:51 am
76141 spacer
>>76139
>>76140
Can we please make a distinction here between the FPTP we use to elect governments, not individuals. It is far more ridiculous to use it to elect individuals.
>> No. 76142 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 3:36 am
76142 spacer
>>76138
>You're not thinking of the emails he is talking about, which were deleted from her server.
No, I'm definitely thinking of those emails. It was reported a few weeks ago that someone had got their hands on them and was going to leak them.
>> No. 76143 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 12:43 pm
76143 spacer
>>76139

Hillary is in no way a lesser evil. She's evil in different and more insidious ways.

It's getting right on my tits how people are touting that warmongering cunt as the "lesser evil" just because she's on the blue team. Americans should be exercising that second amendment they keep banging on about, if you ask me.
>> No. 76144 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 2:18 pm
76144 spacer
>>76143
>Hillary is in no way a lesser evil
She is if you're an American who doesn't particularly want to see white nationalism make it big.
>> No. 76145 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 3:57 pm
76145 spacer
Can someone explain, in clear unambiguous terms, what would make Hillary as bad a president as Trump?

Because, granted, I've not looked into her too closely, but all I see from her is a typical US politician saying a lot of the same things as politicians before her, whereas Trump makes no attempt to hide the fact he is a racist, dangerous lunatic.
>> No. 76146 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 4:03 pm
76146 spacer
>>76145
Why is he dangerous and racist?
>> No. 76147 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 4:09 pm
76147 spacer
>>76146
What, I seriously have to explain this? Then no wonder people in this thread are struggling to see any difference between the two candidates.
>> No. 76148 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 4:16 pm
76148 spacer
>>76146
Presumably because he thinks it will win him the election.
>> No. 76149 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 4:35 pm
76149 spacer
>>76147
I want to hear what you have to say.
>> No. 76150 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 5:18 pm
76150 spacer
>>76149
But I asked my question first. I'm not here to explain my position. I want to know what makes Hillary an objectively worse potential president than Trump.
>> No. 76151 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 6:46 pm
76151 spacer
>>76144
Dunno it seems his most controversial views focus on those that aren't Americans rather than bringing race into it.

To me he seems like a used car salesman gone mad. In fact that explains most of his platform.

>>76145
She is fervently pro-war to the level where you could see dogfights with Russian jets over Syria in her first term. In fact she has been the 'wellies in the mud' voice in every one of Obama's diplomatic crises.

Foreign Policy did a good article on her from a realist perspective that I think I've posted before:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/03/there-is-an-international-disease-which-is-hillary-clinton/

Domestically she is the establishment candidate of corporations mixed in with state incompetence. There is a car crash meeting with coal miners you can watch shortly after she said she was going to drive coal mining out of business.

[Pay attention to the Souther twang she puts on when speaking the American South]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AAkDMdQEvU

Obama was able to defeat her in 2008 for a good reason even with the party machine working overtime for her. In fact she is often lampooned as a robot for good reason. Sanders did well against her despite the race being nothing but a coronation procedure because unlike her he actually represents the working class.
>> No. 76152 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 6:58 pm
76152 spacer
>>76151
A good effort, none of which answers his question. They're all valid criticisms, but none of them paint her as worse than Trump.
>> No. 76153 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 7:08 pm
76153 spacer
>>76152

The fact all her lunacy is disguised under this whole "but she's a Democrat and ooh a female president!" slant is precisely why she's worse than Trump.

Trump has even expressed a wish to see American dominance within NATO reconsidered. He's running on a platform of solving America's problems first and foremost instead of expensive interventions in foreign affairs. He might not like Mexicans, but how is that any better or worse than sending fucking drones out to bomb the shit out of countless middle eastern countries and civilians?

What you're missing is the perspective of what America is, and is supposed to be, and how it affects the rest of us. Hilary is secretly crazier and bloodthirstier than Tony fucking Blair, but she has the might of the US military to back her up.
>> No. 76154 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 7:13 pm
76154 spacer
>>76153
Again, a nice try, but you still haven't answered the question.
>> No. 76156 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 7:22 pm
76156 spacer
>>76154

No lad, you're just shifting the goalposts. You're entitled to disagree with the summary, but you can't just claim it doesn't answer the question.

How about you explain why Trump is definitely worse than the woman who will almost certainly begin at least two new American military interventions on Russia's doorstep?
>> No. 76157 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 7:23 pm
76157 spacer
>>76151
>She is fervently pro-war

Yeah, Trump's never said anything about going to war, or the measures he'd take overseas, right?
>> No. 76158 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 7:25 pm
76158 spacer
>>76152
Hillary is worse than Trump because she's a Democrat. Democrats are supposed to be the good guys. You expect better from them. The Republicans could nominate Montgomery Burns and you wouldn't be surprised, because they're Republicans, it's what they do.

Faced with the choice between similarly abysmal Democrat and Republican candidates, I'll pick the Republican because they're easier to complain about and impotent complaint is the only thing I've got (not being a US citizen.)
>> No. 76159 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 7:33 pm
76159 spacer
>>76156
No, lad. He can claim you haven't answered the question because you have not, in actual fact, answered the question. Nobody asked for reasons you don't like Hillary Clinton. You were asked specifically for "what makes Hillary an objectively worse potential president than Trump". Of course, I'm probably not the only one who suspects you can't find any, since the moment you try and find a point of comparison you won't be able to pin it down.
>> No. 76160 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 7:36 pm
76160 spacer
>>76152
Easy Tiger, you asked what makes her 'as bad' not worse. Trump is an assclown who will set America back 30 years and Hillary is an assclown who will send America forward 30 years into dystopia.

Neither should be POTUS and the way you rank them is by asking yourself what you would do if you had a gun with only one bullet.
>> No. 76161 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 7:39 pm
76161 spacer
>>76160
>I want to know what makes Hillary an objectively worse potential president than Trump.
>> No. 76162 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 7:43 pm
76162 spacer
>>76161
No lad.
>>76145
>Can someone explain, in clear unambiguous terms, what would make Hillary as bad a president as Trump?
>> No. 76163 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 7:58 pm
76163 spacer
>>76161
>>76162
I asked both questions, but you're just splitting hairs if you think there's a significant difference. "As bad as", "worse than", it doesn't really matter, I'm just trying to pin down how all the criticism of Hillary would drive an otherwise well-informed and intelligent person to vote for Trump as the lesser of two evils, or a third-party in the knowledge it wouldn't stop Trump from winning.

>>76159
To be fair, if he hasn't answered my question, what would? Hillary being more jingoistic than Trump would be a decent answer, though I have serious doubts as to the truth of that assertion.
>> No. 76164 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 8:20 pm
76164 spacer
>>76153
>her lunacy
Except being relatively hawkish and pro-corporate isn't lunacy.

>Trump has even expressed a wish to see American dominance within NATO reconsidered
Haha, he has expressed a wish to extort America's allies, dickhead. He wants more American domination than the unconditional mutual guarantees offered within NATO provide.

>He might not like Mexicans, but how is that any better or worse than sending fucking drones out to bomb the shit out of countless middle eastern countries and civilians?
... You are aware that Trump has promised, word for word, to "bomb the shit" out of middle eastern countries?
>> No. 76165 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 8:28 pm
76165 spacer
>>76158
>Faced with the choice between similarly abysmal Democrat and Republican candidates, I'll pick the Republican because they're easier to complain about and impotent complaint is the only thing I've got (not being a US citizen.)
Good point, this sounds like a great reason to choose pseudo-fascism over lukewarm hawkish centrism.
>> No. 76166 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 8:48 pm
76166 spacer
>>76164
NATO provides no guarantees other than recognition.

>he has expressed a wish to extort America's allies, dickhead.
No he hasn't, he said they can't expect American help if they don't pull their weight in the alliance of which they are both part. The US is under no obligation to respond to threats to the Baltics militarily.
>> No. 76167 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 8:49 pm
76167 spacer
I can't think of anything particularly odd about Trump's policies except for a foreign affairs revolution with regard to Russia that should've happened in the early 90s, but the West rejected Russia, and the bizarre wall.
>> No. 76168 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 8:52 pm
76168 spacer
>>76163
The trouble with trying to paint Hillary as worse than Trump is that it requires knowing where Trump stands, and with the notable exception of That Fucking Wall he hasn't really put forward any coherent policy consistently.
>> No. 76169 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 8:54 pm
76169 spacer
>>76167
Replace 'policies' with 'positions' or 'attitudes' because he doesn't really have any solid policies.
>> No. 76170 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 8:54 pm
76170 spacer
>>76166
Nice try, Trumplad.
>> No. 76172 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 8:59 pm
76172 spacer
>>76167
What should have happened in the early 90s? American presidential candidates should have started openly requesting Russia to compromise US national security?

Trump barely has any policies, just a few platitudes followed by "it's gonna be great, trust me".
>> No. 76173 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 9:10 pm
76173 spacer
>>76170
What do you mean nice try? You can start by reading the oft-cited Article 5 and see for yourself.

>>76172
Russia was rejected and shunned whilst eastern europe was embraced, effectively forming a 'new frontier' which lead to essentially a mafia state with a populace that has been rejected by the west twice despite the shift in politics and economic chance of the 90s that lead to immense suffering. Modern Russia is a fault of the West as well as Russia itself.

Whether or not Trump recognises this is a different matter but it is certainly a more cooperative attitude than any US politician since the fall of the USSR. Meanwhile Clinton is more likely to trigger world war three.
>> No. 76176 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 9:17 pm
76176 spacer
>>76173
>Meanwhile Clinton is more likely to trigger world war three
I've been posting here since 2009 and this is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever seen anyone post. Congrats.
>> No. 76177 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 9:20 pm
76177 spacer
>>76173
>You can start by reading the oft-cited Article 5 and see for yourself.
I have. You clearly haven't, otherwise you'd know it's pretty unambiguous.
>> No. 76178 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 9:27 pm
76178 spacer
>>76177
Yes, it states that an attack on one is considered an attack on all. It does not necessitate response, only recognition.

>>76176
Why? Because you don't like Trump whilst repeating that he's pro Russian? Meanwhile Clinton is fervently anti Russian and would be aggressive as hell regarding Russia.
>> No. 76179 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 9:31 pm
76179 spacer
>>76178
>It does not necessitate response, only recognition.
You must be looking at a different Article 5 to the rest of us.
>> No. 76180 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 9:32 pm
76180 spacer
>>76173
>Russia was rejected and shunned
>which lead to essentially a mafia state
Yes, just like cooling causes evaporation.
>> No. 76181 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 9:37 pm
76181 spacer
>>76163
>you're just splitting hairs if you think there's a significant difference. "As bad as", "worse than", it doesn't really matter

I think you will find there is a substantial and important difference. I made it very clear which question I was answering in my original response (I did quote it after all).

>or a third-party in the knowledge it wouldn't stop Trump from winning

Do I live in a trolley problem? No I won't pull the leaver towards the track that you believe kills less people. I understand democracy is all about compromise but there comes a point when you cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate despite the opposition.

>>76164
>Haha, he has expressed a wish to extort America's allies, dickhead. He wants more American domination than the unconditional mutual guarantees offered within NATO provide.

Not the other lad but there is a public misconception of what Article 5 actually entails. Yes an attack against one is viewed as an attack on all but a nation under attack still has a range of options in how to respond.
>> No. 76182 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 9:39 pm
76182 spacer
>>76181
>Yes an attack against one is viewed as an attack on all but a nation under attack still has a range of options in how to respond
A range of options which does not include shrugging, saying "shouldn't have been a freeloader" and treating it as inconsequential, which is what Trump is proposing.
>> No. 76183 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 9:41 pm
76183 spacer
>>76179
> , each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary,

I.e. we cannot enforce anything and you have no obligations, you've just signed a charter that signifies a gesture toward actually doing anything.
>> No. 76184 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 9:42 pm
76184 spacer
>>76182
In which article is that stated?

NATO is weak. At the bare minimum Trump is suggesting Europe invest in its own defence, and he's correct that they're freeloading. We're doing the same, the only way we meet our 2% military spending obligation is through accounting tricks introduced by Cameron.
>> No. 76186 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 9:45 pm
76186 spacer
>>76181
>a nation under attack still has a range of options in how to respond
Yes, they do. The other members, however, are not so fortunate. If the nation under attack decides to invoke Article 5, they are bound to respond.
>consequently [the Parties] agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them [...] will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
>> No. 76187 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 9:45 pm
76187 spacer
>>76165
Taking an entirely different tone, but continuing a tract of genuine if irrational emotions: At least the fascist (No. Stop it. No. He's not a fascist, fascism is a specific ideology and not just a word for things you dislike. Fascism's origins lie in...) will be interesting. Given the choice between nothing changing and things changing for the worse, setting things on fire just to watch them burn is looking increasingly attractive. The world of Adam Curtis' The Trap must be destroyed come what may, for it is a dreadfully boring and meaningless one.

Boring managerial centrism doesn't even belong on the garbage-heap of history. It needs outright Damnatio memoriae.
>> No. 76191 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 9:55 pm
76191 spacer
>>76187
Sorry, but the world isn't here to amuse you, go fucking move to Syria if you think chaos is fun.
>> No. 76193 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 9:59 pm
76193 spacer
>>76184
>At the bare minimum Trump is suggesting Europe invest in its own defence
Which Obama has managed to do without saying "maybe let's throw the entire world order out the window".

It's almost as a dollars and cents grabbing businessman/reality TV star lacks the temperament and perspective to conduct US foreign policy.
>> No. 76197 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 10:06 pm
76197 spacer
>>76191
Cutting away from the emotional desire for chaos, there's a pseudo-rational case for purging the kind of centrism I'm getting at so that those with a proper ideology can take power again. 5-10 years of chaos so that his successors can build something better from the ashes.

The emotional desire is rooted in more than being amused. It's rooted in resentment. It's rooted in spite. It's rooted in the arbitrary third thing to make a list look pretty.
>> No. 76199 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 10:38 pm
76199 spacer
>>76197
Liberal democratic capitalism is a proper ideology. It's such a pervasive and successful one that it's convinced you that it's post-ideological.

That is not a rational case at all.
>> No. 76200 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 11:45 pm
76200 spacer
>>76199
>That is not a rational case at all.
"I don't like this all-pervasive ideology and will be glad to see the death of it." is completely rational.

The complete lack of serious ideological contest is how we got here in the first place. If not Trump, someone else will come along. I want to see consensus smashed in my lifetime.
>> No. 76204 Anonymous
29th July 2016
Friday 9:25 pm
76204 spacer
>>76200
Hmm, seems like a sound, empirically supported political theory.

Doesn't at all sound like you're basically the political equivalent one of those sad fucks who spends his life fantasising about and preparing for the zombie apocalypse.
>> No. 76210 Anonymous
30th July 2016
Saturday 1:46 am
76210 spacer
>>76204

Zombies are just a thought excercise to help you plan the end. It will probably be something else.
>> No. 76211 Anonymous
30th July 2016
Saturday 1:49 am
76211 spacer
>>76210
Yeah, cancer or heart disease, statistically.
>> No. 76214 Anonymous
30th July 2016
Saturday 3:20 am
76214 spacer
>>76204
I don't need a political theory to feel good about ongoing events. Nor do I need to plan to enjoy the theater of it all.
The world may not be here to amuse me, but it's not here to calm you either.

Now then: What exactly do you want empirical support for?
That I don't like the current brand of managerial centrism?
That if Trump wins and pushes aside managerial centrism, I will be happy?
That substantial numbers of people resent the current way of doing things? (Bugger, that's actually something I could cite, but I'm not doing your Scottish Independence referendum 30% > 45% support, UKIP polling 15%, Brexit victory, Trump-on-the-Ballot paper homework for you.)
That if Trump fails, someone else will come along? (Why wouldn't they? You think Trump's defeat will stop the disaffected being fed up and vengeful? "No" didn't stop the SNP, though the disaffected voters they courted did destroy Labour in Scotland.)
That I'd like to see consensus smashed in my lifetime? (Thank god for that, now I get to end on a silly note: Dibble Flibble Wibbly Woob.)
>> No. 76215 Anonymous
30th July 2016
Saturday 3:34 am
76215 spacer
>>76214
Sorry to break it to you, but what you're calling managerial centrism is actually Madisonian democracy, which is an excellent way to balance the interests of various groups in an extremely ideologically divided society. It isn't in the power of any President to "push aside"
>> No. 76216 Anonymous
30th July 2016
Saturday 11:47 am
76216 spacer
>>76215
Great Britain has her own managerial centrist infestation, and she is most certainly not a Madisonian democracy.
>> No. 76217 Anonymous
30th July 2016
Saturday 12:59 pm
76217 spacer
>>76214
I imagine he'd want support for all the unfounded and unstated assumptions you made in that post.
>> No. 76218 Anonymous
30th July 2016
Saturday 2:57 pm
76218 spacer
>>76217
Given he is almost certainly making assumptions of his own about my points (likely on a loose foundation - not nonexistent, but reading into things that aren't there or such.), it would help greatly if he would make specific requests for what he wants support for, instead of just using a wordier [citation needed] as a response to something which would require multiple distinct citations.

Otherwise we lead to a situation where I'm expected to make assumptions about his assumptions of what my assumptions are.
>> No. 76219 Anonymous
30th July 2016
Saturday 3:40 pm
76219 spacer
>>76218
As a general rule, you should probably just assume that any broad, sweeping judgement you make needs to be backed up if you want anyone to care about what you have to say.
>> No. 76220 Anonymous
30th July 2016
Saturday 3:42 pm
76220 spacer
>>76218
Oh, you're one of those idiots.
>> No. 76221 Anonymous
30th July 2016
Saturday 4:03 pm
76221 spacer
>>76219
>>76220
These examples of specific areas of issue are wonderful. Their use of specific quoted assumptions and requests for proof to demonstrate their origination is just perfect. I'm sure from these I can furnish the desired evidence or basis for my statements.

Actually, I'm now becoming convinced !!ASSUMPTION ALERT!! that no evidence is actually desired, and that ultimately this is just a line being taken in an attempt to dis-engage with a conversation that isn't going to go anywhere by making an impossible request to which I'm supposed to stop and go "Well, I can't do that, better disengage." instead of making an effort to actually clear up any issues raised. !!END OF ASSUMPTION!!
>> No. 76222 Anonymous
30th July 2016
Saturday 4:14 pm
76222 spacer
>>76221
>B-b-but I don't need to back up anything I say because I know I must be right because I'm always right! Wh-why won't you just believe me?
>> No. 76223 Anonymous
30th July 2016
Saturday 4:16 pm
76223 spacer
>>76222
Welcome to /pol/.
>> No. 76224 Anonymous
30th July 2016
Saturday 4:16 pm
76224 spacer
>>76221
If substantiating what you say is an "impossible request" to you, then yeah, no conversation you have will go anywhere, sorry to say.
>> No. 76225 Anonymous
30th July 2016
Saturday 4:36 pm
76225 spacer
>>76222
Yes. When I said "If you tell me exactly what you want substantiated, I'll substantiate it" what I really meant was "I don't have to back up anything I say."
>>76223
>>76224
I'm prepared to substantiate any specific claim you bring to me by quoting what you believe to be my assumption. What I'm not prepared to do is substantiate every single possible assumption made in a post

You can't seriously expect to take a post with infinite possible imaginable claims (Including obvious things it's reasonable to assume the reader knows, such as that the UK voted to leave the EU.) and say "Substantiate that", well substantiate what? Which particular thing that I said was it that you want substantiated?

I'm not going to find you a philosophical proof that we're not all brains in vats just because the style of my post held some implication about reality to a user who read too deeply into things.
>> No. 76227 Anonymous
30th July 2016
Saturday 4:41 pm
76227 spacer
>>76225
All anyone really wants is some kind of hint that you're not basically spewing shit, because it looks an awful lot like you're spewing shit. This isn't the other /pol/.
>> No. 76228 Anonymous
30th July 2016
Saturday 4:44 pm
76228 spacer
>>76225
You were rebuked for posting political theory with nothing to substantiate it, dickhead, which should have made it fairly obvious that the thing people wanted substantiated was the only thing in your post that came close to resembling a theory of politics, namely:

>The complete lack of serious ideological contest is how we got here in the first place. If not Trump, someone else will come along.

But you're right that nobody actually wants to have a discussion with you, and that's on account of the fact that you have come across as such a monumentally thick headed Dunning-Kruger fuckwit that it could be of no benefit to anything on this fucking planet, save perhaps your ego.
>> No. 76229 Anonymous
30th July 2016
Saturday 5:45 pm
76229 spacer
>>76228
That's not a theory, that's a hypothesis. But hurray, we've arrived! Someone has taken a specific line and said "Substantiate this!" like I initially requested!

So now we've got too claims:
1. We got here because of a lack of serious ideological contest: I'm having some difficulty finding a pretty source, but it's a recurring theme of coverage that Trump supporters enjoy the fact he's from outside the political establishment, and because they hold viewpoints similar to his on selected matters such as immigration (Where he's made statements far more extreme than the Republicans would ordinarily do)
Similarly, Sanders and his support base are to the left of the Democratic party and resent Clinton's establishment nature and centre-right-hawk appearance. Both parties would generally moderate themselves to ensure maximum support, with the result of promising minimum noticeable change. (Versus building a massive wall just to make a point.)

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/new-hampshire-exit-poll-results-how-donald-trump-won-n515241 (Sub-ideal source on outsider status: "...His best showing came from voters who wanted a candidate who...want a president from outside the political establishment (61 percent).)
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/donald-trump-voters/401408/ A vaguely interesting look at some Trump supporter viewpoints. Obviously essentially anecdotal evidence, but it provides some insight. See, for example:
Trump is Low-Risk, High-Reward: "The two party system has a stranglehold on the voting public. Our choices are limited to way left or way right. There is no party that represents me"
Trump Knows It’s All a Joke: "The political system has been set up against the public for years. There is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats"
Trump is Not Rehearsed: "In all the other candidates, this one foundational factor, truth, is not found… honor and integrity is lacking in one fashion or another, replaced by spin and sleight of hand." [A natural result of having almost no real ideological difference from your opponent, needing lots of spin to play up small differences.]
Bush Was a Disaster and Obama Felt Like One: "The two parties: So basically, going with your gut failed (Bush) and going with your brain feels like a failure too (Obama). ", "How is that related to pro-choice and gay marriage? IT ISN'T. I DON'T CARE. I AM NOT INTERESTED. STOP TALKING ABOUT IT! "
A Bernie Sanders Supporter Who’d Vote Trump Over Clinton: "While he might not deliver on his promises, he would certainly be a bull in the China shop of contemporary American politics, which has long needed destroying and rebuilding."

As a fun bonus, there are also those who back Trump out of a desire for chaos.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/trump-supporters-independent-vote-poll-222416 (Majority of his supporters at the time of the admittedly dated poll would back him as an independent candidate, showing a degree of non-partisanship and support for him personally.)
https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/publication/republicans-get-behind-trump-not-all-his-policies actual poll!
On parts of the centrist consensus like international trade:
>They [Trump supporters] are considerably less likely than Republicans who supported a non-Trump candidate to say that international trade is good for the US economy (40% core Trump vs. 57% other candidate), consumers like them (54% vs. 73%), and their own standard of living (49% vs. 65%).

I can, if desired, attempt to furnish slightly less terrible sources. Finding "Hmm, interesting..." polls (such as "Reasons given for supporting Trump") is more difficult than doing the same for matters British politics, and this post has started to become unwieldy.

2. If not Trump, someone else will capitalize on this.
Do you think overnight all of the people who supported him are going to die, or make good on threats of moving to Canada? I'd draw the (rather incompatible in many ways, but visualizes the idea) analogy to Scotland: Disaffected voters get hyped for independence/Trump, lose, are capitalized on, turn around and do something major in 2015/"Eventually"

An increase in turnout at the 2015 election compared to 2010 may also be relevant, assuming the majority of that increased turnout went to the SNP or UKIP. Turnout at the EU referendum was up on the 2015 election (where one can see UKIP flounder), and if 2020 is around 70% turnout it may be fair to say those who were disengaged were engaged by the proceedings as they were in Scotland.

Both of these would serve the general idea of "Disaffected back risky decision against consensus, remain engaged after doing so."

>Dunning-Kruger
I've never pretended I'm intelligent. I'm not convinced I have any particular intelligence. I repeatedly asked for clarification and eventually found one can get blood from a stone.
>save perhaps your ego.
I don't see where ego comes into it. There's nothing egotistical about wanting to provide an explanation.
>> No. 76230 Anonymous
30th July 2016
Saturday 6:05 pm
76230 spacer
>>76229
>I'm having some difficulty finding a pretty source, but it's a recurring theme of coverage that Trump supporters enjoy the fact he's from outside the political establishment, and because they hold viewpoints similar to his on selected matters such as immigration (Where he's made statements far more extreme than the Republicans would ordinarily do)
Yet neither this nor the paragraph that follows it supports the claim:
>We got here because of a lack of serious ideological contest

>If not Trump, someone else will capitalize on this.
This is an empty platitude. It's unbounded and therefore says nothing of value.
>> No. 76231 Anonymous
30th July 2016
Saturday 6:19 pm
76231 spacer
>>76229
That's a nice word salad. But saying Trump and Sanders supporters liked their candidate because they expressed views they agreed with (shocking!) and were outside of the political establishment and does precisely fuck all to demonstrate that a) there is complete lack of serious ideological contest and b) that "is how we got here in the first place", so I don't know why you chose those ingredients.
>> No. 76233 Anonymous
30th July 2016
Saturday 6:35 pm
76233 spacer
>>76230
Yes, there's no implication that the USA is lacking in serious ideological contest or an overarching resentment with a political class that shares the same basic ideology. Lines like:
>There is no party that represents me
>There is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats
> I DON'T CARE. I AM NOT INTERESTED. STOP TALKING ABOUT IT!
>contemporary American politics, which has long needed destroying and rebuilding
Arise when people are provided with serious choices.

>It's unbounded and therefore says nothing of value.
I'll give you a bound then: If in 2020 Clinton is facing down an establishment Republican using traditional campaigning methods on a platform more moderate in policy and in speech than Trump on immigration and race-issues, I will concede I was wrong.

If in 2024 Clinton's successor is an establishment Democrat along similarly boring moderate lines, I'll concede I was completely without merit.
>> No. 76234 Anonymous
30th July 2016
Saturday 6:40 pm
76234 spacer
>>76232
Nope, none of that supports your claim whatsoever. "Nobody represents me" doesn't even remotely translate into "there's no contest" and "There is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats" is verifiably wrong.

>I'll give you a bound then
Nope, sorry, that's a bound the same way "sorry if I offended anyone" is an apology.

>If in 2020 Clinton is facing down an establishment Republican using traditional campaigning methods on a platform more moderate in policy and in speech than Trump on immigration and race-issues, I will concede I was wrong.
I've got a better idea. Nip down the bookie and put lots of money on the opposite. If you're right, in 2020 you'll be rich as fuck.
>> No. 76235 Anonymous
30th July 2016
Saturday 7:48 pm
76235 spacer
>>76233
That's correct, even when there are serious ideological decisions to be made, you will still have enough people saying lines like that to fill an Atlantic article.

Frustration with the political establishment goes hand in hand with frustration at congressional gridlock, which is a product of ideological divides and an unwillingness to compromise. You really couldn't be any more cack handed in your analysis.
>> No. 76237 Anonymous
31st July 2016
Sunday 1:47 am
76237 spacer
>>76229

>As a fun bonus, there are also those who back Trump out of a desire for chaos.

I'm beginning to think that nihilistic contempt for everything plays enough of a role in contemporary politics to at least swing elections. It might explain the EU Referendum.
>> No. 76238 Anonymous
31st July 2016
Sunday 1:56 am
76238 spacer
>>76237
But why? They share the same earth as us, why would they want to see all this shit? Don't they have a stake in it all?
>> No. 76239 Anonymous
31st July 2016
Sunday 11:29 am
76239 spacer
>>76238

That's precisely the point you're missing lad. In short, no. No they don't.

Propping up the current order of affairs is something you may believe is in your own interests, but a) it probably isn't and b) these people don't share that belief.
>> No. 76240 Anonymous
31st July 2016
Sunday 3:02 pm
76240 spacer
>>76239
Go home, Andrea. You lost.
>> No. 76510 Anonymous
12th August 2016
Friday 12:23 am
76510 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoXDe8HxHBA
>> No. 76665 Anonymous
22nd August 2016
Monday 10:29 pm
76665 spacer
>>76237
In the case of Trump, people backing him as a "chaos candidate" are far from numerous. They're just sensational enough for liberals to enjoy penning righteous think pieces condemning their irresponsibility.

In reality, Trump's supporters' motives can, for the most part, be explained simply with his slogan: they want America to be great again. For them anyway. A lot of patronising (and reductive to the point of laziness really) leftist analysis assumes that they're economically insecure and latching on to someone who gives them hope. If you actually look at his demographics, however, you'll see that the average Trump supporter is doing significantly better economically than most Americans. But they feel insecure financially (and they are certainly less secure than their parents in many cases), they feel like crime is at an epidemic level etc. etc. Recent developments in American and global society have given them class anxieties that Trump is perfectly poised to exploit. Fascism is, after all, a petite bourgeois phenomenon.
>> No. 76666 Anonymous
22nd August 2016
Monday 10:40 pm
76666 spacer
>>76665
So, what you're saying is that, in essence, when they're getting riled up it's because liberal writers are hurting their feelings?
>> No. 76667 Anonymous
22nd August 2016
Monday 11:04 pm
76667 spacer
>>76666
No, not even remotely.
>> No. 76669 Anonymous
22nd August 2016
Monday 11:12 pm
76669 spacer

race0822.png
766697666976669
So I've been following the polls since June. There are indications that the national polls are swinging towards Trump, but this not a national election. The red/blue lines in the middle of this represents kind of a UNS model, in that it takes the national poll and shifts it by the Cook PVI. Effectively, it shows what the result would be if each state votes as it has previously relative to the national vote (and the lines diverge where a state ends up tied). The areas represent the same thing, but with RCP's polling averages used where there are more than two recent polls (and dropping out if they age too far). Solid areas show leads of 5 points or more. It's looking like at times he's made gains in the national polls but hasn't been doing the business in the competitive states.
>> No. 76670 Anonymous
22nd August 2016
Monday 11:32 pm
76670 spacer

map0822.png
766707667076670
>>76669
Here are those states ...
>> No. 76671 Anonymous
22nd August 2016
Monday 11:32 pm
76671 spacer

map0822all.png
766717667176671
>>76670
... and without any ties.
>> No. 76678 Anonymous
23rd August 2016
Tuesday 1:14 am
76678 spacer
Filesize is too large for this place, but here's an updated "heretics Smote" list.
http://i.imgur.com/LnLBUAV.jpg
>> No. 76679 Anonymous
23rd August 2016
Tuesday 1:34 am
76679 spacer
>>76678
What is the point of that, exactly?
>> No. 76680 Anonymous
23rd August 2016
Tuesday 1:35 am
76680 spacer
>>76679
It's a laugh, innit?
>> No. 76681 Anonymous
23rd August 2016
Tuesday 2:21 am
76681 spacer
I find it bizarre how Trump is both concurrently supposed to start world war three and cosy up with otherwise frictional powers.
>> No. 76683 Anonymous
23rd August 2016
Tuesday 2:58 am
76683 spacer
>>76681
I think it demonstrates he has no coherent policy positions.
>> No. 76684 Anonymous
23rd August 2016
Tuesday 3:28 am
76684 spacer
>>76683
I don't see how.
>> No. 76685 Anonymous
23rd August 2016
Tuesday 3:31 am
76685 spacer
>>76684
You think being perceived as both aggressive and friendly towards America's geopolitical rivals is coherent?
>> No. 76686 Anonymous
23rd August 2016
Tuesday 5:07 am
76686 spacer
>>76685
Not him, but I think the problem of perception lies with you.

They just smear him with anything they can think of, from any direction. You can't see this?
>> No. 76687 Anonymous
23rd August 2016
Tuesday 5:19 am
76687 spacer
>>76685
No, because I don't think it's genuine perception, it's shoehorned in criticism.
>> No. 76692 Anonymous
23rd August 2016
Tuesday 11:10 am
76692 spacer
>>76686
>>76687
OK, sum up Trump's foreign policy in a sentence.
>> No. 76695 Anonymous
23rd August 2016
Tuesday 11:28 am
76695 spacer
>>76692
Build wall.
>> No. 76699 Anonymous
23rd August 2016
Tuesday 12:24 pm
76699 spacer
>>76692
Why? Describe your sex life in four words.
>> No. 76700 Anonymous
23rd August 2016
Tuesday 12:29 pm
76700 spacer
>>76699

Not all that great.

This is fun. Next up; let's summarise queen Elizabeth II in the form of a thirty-second interpretive dance.
>> No. 76702 Anonymous
23rd August 2016
Tuesday 1:41 pm
76702 spacer
>>76700
Does it have to be that long? Can i not just put on a wig and dance around with a crown for a few seconds?
>> No. 76703 Anonymous
23rd August 2016
Tuesday 2:29 pm
76703 spacer
>>76699
>Why?
If you can't, then you have no idea what his foreign policy actually is.
>> No. 76704 Anonymous
23rd August 2016
Tuesday 3:02 pm
76704 spacer
>>76702

I mean you could I suppose, but it wouldn't exactly be fucking imaginative would it? At least throw in a bit where you squat down while miming looking at your watch to symbolise how long she's been on the throne and some blithe head-tossing as mockery to an invisible waiting Charles in the corner, never to be king.
>> No. 76705 Anonymous
23rd August 2016
Tuesday 6:00 pm
76705 spacer
>>76704
Get the names right, lad. It's Lyin' Liz and Crooked Charles. Don't forget Little Phil either.
>> No. 76707 Anonymous
23rd August 2016
Tuesday 6:10 pm
76707 spacer

TrumpBClinton.png
767077670776707
>>76681
The line between friend and enemy isn't particularly difficult to cross with egomaniacs.
>> No. 76708 Anonymous
23rd August 2016
Tuesday 6:16 pm
76708 spacer
>>76703
That you can't describe something in a sentence doesn't mean you don't have an understanding of it. I'm not sure even Stephen Hawking could describe General Relativity in a sentence. Not that I think that Trump's foreign policy is comparable to that, but it's entirely possible that it is sufficiently complicated not to be describable in a sentence.
>> No. 76787 Anonymous
24th August 2016
Wednesday 9:35 am
76787 spacer
>>76708

>I'm not sure even Stephen Hawking could describe General Relativity in a sentence.

If I can, I am pretty certain Hawking can as well. Don't project your failures on others, Trumplad.
>> No. 76788 Anonymous
24th August 2016
Wednesday 10:13 am
76788 spacer
>>76787
Go on then.
>> No. 76789 Anonymous
24th August 2016
Wednesday 12:22 pm
76789 spacer
>>76788

Everything's relative, innit blud.
>> No. 76817 Anonymous
24th August 2016
Wednesday 9:34 pm
76817 spacer

nige jenga.jpg
768177681776817
Guess who's going to be at the Trump Rally tonight.
>> No. 76842 Anonymous
25th August 2016
Thursday 9:43 am
76842 spacer
>>76817
Apparently it was a rally in Mississippi. Things must be getting pretty desperate for Trump if he's having to campaign in states he should be walking.
>> No. 76843 Anonymous
25th August 2016
Thursday 9:47 am
76843 spacer
>>76842
Seeing the mental gymnastics of the left here is brilliant. The petulant, dummy spitting posts.
Of course you play somewhere you're gonna get a good crowd. These people want to see him. He is a man of the people, after all.
>> No. 76845 Anonymous
25th August 2016
Thursday 11:00 am
76845 spacer

tmp_16938-used-tv-cinema-projector-dark-3508862044.jpg
768457684576845
>>76843
>> No. 76850 Anonymous
25th August 2016
Thursday 5:10 pm
76850 spacer
>>76843
>Of course you play somewhere you're gonna get a good crowd
Not really got a firm grasp on the whole battleground & swing states thing, eh lad?

He's a presidential candidate, not a travelling performer. Supposedly, anyway.
>> No. 76854 Anonymous
25th August 2016
Thursday 5:41 pm
76854 spacer
>>76850
In other "He's a presidential candidate, not a <insert pejorative here>" news, he's jacked up the rent he charges his campaign in Trump Tower, and has just had his campaign buy thousands of copies of his book at full retail price. It's starting to look more and more like he's running a money-making scheme rather than an actual political campaign. Mind you, he's probably paid a fair bit of money to ARE NIGE'S TITS for the appearance last night.
>> No. 76855 Anonymous
25th August 2016
Thursday 7:14 pm
76855 spacer

Cuckservative Callout #7 - Poofter Powerslam Editi.png
768557685576855
Hillary's about to make a speech about the Alt-Right as soon as she's finished in the bathroom, reasonable chance of 4chan being mentioned.
>> No. 76857 Anonymous
25th August 2016
Thursday 7:49 pm
76857 spacer
>>76855

Could you actually manage fucking yourself to death, please.
>> No. 76860 Anonymous
25th August 2016
Thursday 8:29 pm
76860 spacer
>>76855

It's scary what gets started on 4chan. Remember when Ainsley Harriot was just a /v/ meme?
>> No. 76864 Anonymous
25th August 2016
Thursday 8:40 pm
76864 spacer
>>76860

It's fair to say he'd had something of a presence beforehand, it's not as though they plucked him off Google street view.
>> No. 76879 Anonymous
25th August 2016
Thursday 10:31 pm
76879 spacer
The great moment in all its glory. The payoff is well worth waiting for.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU9FlseFAsQ
>> No. 76883 Anonymous
25th August 2016
Thursday 11:23 pm
76883 spacer
>>76855 I still find it hard to understand that people willingly identify as "right wing". To me being right wing conjures up images of oppression, violence and ignorance.

Honestly, if anyone can help me understand why people want to identify as right wing or why they think right wing politics is a good thing I would be really interested to hear it. To me it just seems backwards.
>> No. 76886 Anonymous
25th August 2016
Thursday 11:33 pm
76886 spacer
>>76883
Do sod off.
>> No. 76887 Anonymous
25th August 2016
Thursday 11:35 pm
76887 spacer
>>76886 I have at least a dozen different ways I could interpret that.

You're probably right though, /pol/ should just stick to shit flinging and cunt offs.
>> No. 76889 Anonymous
25th August 2016
Thursday 11:39 pm
76889 spacer

Douglas Carswell.jpg
768897688976889
When will we make this man with a wonky chin prime minister?
>> No. 76895 Anonymous
26th August 2016
Friday 1:45 am
76895 spacer
>>76889

Never, because MI5 have a huge file on his "interests".
>> No. 76905 Anonymous
26th August 2016
Friday 12:29 pm
76905 spacer
>>76883

Our political debate is hamstrung by the arbitrary concept of left/right. All sorts of perfectly reasonable political positions are both or neither or somewhere in between. We'd be better off if we focused on the dual spectra of economic and social liberalism vs authoritarianism.

For example, the BNP are usually described as "far right", but economically they are well to the left of the Labour party. They are racists, but racists who supported nationalisation of industry and higher benefits and minimum wage.

The Soviet Union clearly demonstrated that oppression, violence and ignorance are not mutually exclusive with economic equality. You can have a society that is both economically fair and brutally oppressive. The communists were authoritarian in both axes, controlling every aspect of economic and social life.

Conversely, libertarians and classic liberals are laissez-faire in every respect - they believe in a government that taxes and spends very little, but also a government that respects individual rights to the greatest possible degree.

"Left wing" and "right wing" have become tribal affiliations more than political ideologies, largely devoid of any real substance.
>> No. 76913 Anonymous
26th August 2016
Friday 2:47 pm
76913 spacer
>>76905
Left and right wing are useful terms to describe attitudes towards egalitarianism.

>Conversely, libertarians and classic liberals are laissez-faire in every respect - they believe in a government that taxes and spends very little, but also a government that respects individual rights to the greatest possible degree.
No, they believe in a government which respects property rights to the greatest possible degree. See this charming excerpt from the work of the highly influential libertarian Murray Rothbard:

>Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.

>Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children.
>> No. 76916 Anonymous
26th August 2016
Friday 3:03 pm
76916 spacer
>>76913

No, not property rights. Libertarians define rights in terms of the absence of coercion, the so-called negative model of rights. To a libertarian, respecting rights means that you don't coerce other people and they don't coerce you. Leftists define rights in positive terms - the right to jobs or houses or dignity. These models fundamentally conflict in ways that aren't simply to do with property.

Paternalism is the obvious example; to a libertarian, it's your basic right to ride a motorcycle without a helmet or inject heroin into your eyeballs. To most leftists, it is entirely uncontroversial that the government ought to be able to coerce you into acting in your own best interests. This is often justified by other forms of collectivism, e.g. "you have to wear a seatbelt, because otherwise the NHS will have to deal with the consequences".

I don't subscribe to either philosophy, but I don't think either can be dismissed as prima facie nonsense. Go far enough towards libertarianism and you've got something closely resembling anarchy; go far enough towards socialism and you've got totalitarian communism. I don't want to live in a society where people can abandon their children in the streets, but I also don't want to live in a society where the government decides what I can eat or drink.
>> No. 76921 Anonymous
26th August 2016
Friday 3:18 pm
76921 spacer
>>76916
Nope. Property rights override individual rights (even the right to life, as shown above) in libertarianism. It's a joke of an ideology which wouldn't be anywhere near as well known as it is today but for the psychopath billionaires who have a vested interest in patronising its proponents.
>> No. 76943 Anonymous
26th August 2016
Friday 8:06 pm
76943 spacer
>>76921
You aren't coming across as the person in this argument who knows what they are talking about mate, just to let you know.
>> No. 76947 Anonymous
26th August 2016
Friday 8:24 pm
76947 spacer
>>76921
In my experience there are also a lot of "smart" engineer/STEM types who think that solving politics is like solving an equation, and that writing laws is like writing code. "Tax = theft" and such are very appealing to a hardcore rationalist viewpoint, even when the greater complexity of the issues should be obvious to anyone who peers into the consequence of such a simplistic approach to governance.
>> No. 77262 Anonymous
31st August 2016
Wednesday 9:47 pm
77262 spacer

THE WALL.jpg
772627726277262
It's gonna be GRANDE.
>> No. 77263 Anonymous
31st August 2016
Wednesday 11:06 pm
77263 spacer
>>77262
>Trump said the two discussed his proposed wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, but, “we didn’t discuss who pays for the wall.” Trump wants Mexico to pay for it and has made it a central slogan of his rowdy U.S. political rallies. Peña Nieto has said Mexico will not do that.
>> No. 77498 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 8:45 pm
77498 spacer
National polls continue to tighten. But of course this isn't strictly a national election. In state polls he's not gaining ground where it matters. Then there was the utter shitshow that was the Commander-in-Chief Forum, wherein he again suggested that he knows better than the generals, and when pressed said he'd hire other generals, and somehow Clinton failed to capitalise and put on something of a shitshow of her own.

In other news, Gary Johnson responded to a question on Aleppo with "What is Aleppo?" and late candidate Evan McMullin (no, me neither) put a placeholder name for VP. The only trouble is that in some states he can't change the name and in others the deadline for making changes comes up in just a few days. On the upside he's a Mormon and he's on the ballot in Utah so there's an outside chance he might make things interesting.

It's starting to look like there really is no stopping the crazy train.
>> No. 77502 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 9:47 pm
77502 spacer
>>77498
>In other news, Gary Johnson responded to a question on Aleppo with "What is Aleppo?"

Gold.
>> No. 77503 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 10:03 pm
77503 spacer
In case anyone thinks that was hyperbole:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hrAVCAwTl0
>> No. 77509 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 10:55 pm
77509 spacer

ba.jpg
775097750977509
>>77503

I can't quite believe this - am I crazy?

Reagan, Bush, Palin, Bachman, Cain, Trump, this guy... How the hell does the US have an empire? And on the other side, Clinton II?! A-am I hallucinating all this as I paint a wall with excrement?

I hope for all your sake's I am.
>> No. 77510 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 11:16 pm
77510 spacer
>>77503>>77509

As a staunch libertarian it's not like he intends to do anything as president.

And Trump's saying stuff twice that bizarre every other day, but the rapidity of his derangement means it's all lost in a hurricane of nonsense.
>> No. 77511 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 11:35 pm
77511 spacer
>>77509
He's no Hank Johnson


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs23CjIWMgA
>> No. 77512 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 11:48 pm
77512 spacer
>>77510
I think it's more to do with people wanting a sane alternative to Trump and slowly discovering that there isn't one.
>> No. 77513 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 11:51 pm
77513 spacer
>>77511

He's speaking like a man who's halfway to winning a bet he can stay awake for 96 hours.
>> No. 77514 Anonymous
9th September 2016
Friday 11:55 pm
77514 spacer
>>77503
He claims he just wasn't thinking straight and thought Aleppo was some kind of acronym. I think that's fair enough, given the contextless nature of the question ('What would you do if elected about Aleppo') and all the acronyms that get bandied around in politics (ISIS, NATO, etc.)
>> No. 77515 Anonymous
10th September 2016
Saturday 12:21 pm
77515 spacer

trump supporters.jpg
775157751577515
>>77514

>Trump supporter Dom Howard, who rode his bicycle to the rally, said of Clinton: “She doesn’t shave her arms and legs, and she’s sick. She’s going to die. She’s having seizures on TV.”

Oh God, America, you are the beacon of humanity, right?
>> No. 77516 Anonymous
10th September 2016
Saturday 1:02 pm
77516 spacer
>>77515
Whether or not the President is going to die matters in the US.
>> No. 77517 Anonymous
10th September 2016
Saturday 1:31 pm
77517 spacer
>>77516

Neither the image or the quote was referring to that bit, m7.
>> No. 77522 Anonymous
11th September 2016
Sunday 4:19 am
77522 spacer
>>77516
Also worth bearing in mind the Hillary's 'health issues' are nonexsistent - she actually released a full medical report from a competent doctor (unlike Trump's bizarre letter) which stated that she's in pretty good health for her age. The idea that she's ill and having seizures on TV is tinfoil-hat nonsense.
>> No. 77523 Anonymous
11th September 2016
Sunday 5:51 am
77523 spacer
>>77522
Wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uoPLclnDRM
>> No. 77524 Anonymous
11th September 2016
Sunday 9:48 am
77524 spacer
>>77522
Sure thing, I guess this was just the old hag trying out some new techno dance moves.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJjHTeo6mVw
>> No. 77525 Anonymous
11th September 2016
Sunday 10:06 am
77525 spacer

minister.jpg
775257752577525
Move along, nothing to see here.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUrRaasNHwI

http://www.jpost.com/US-Elections/Dr-Drew-show-cancelled-after-remarks-about-Clintons-health-466157
>> No. 77526 Anonymous
11th September 2016
Sunday 11:49 am
77526 spacer
>>77524

I don't like either them, but it's clear Hilary is the lesser evil, but this really doesn't help with her appearance as a normal person.

'You gotta try the chai latte!'

What the fuck?
>> No. 77527 Anonymous
11th September 2016
Sunday 12:14 pm
77527 spacer
So this is the way the Trump campaign is going to stop Clinton? 'Don't you think she looks tired?'
>> No. 77528 Anonymous
11th September 2016
Sunday 12:15 pm
77528 spacer

whodat.jpg
775287752877528
>>77525

That's funny. A similar type of substance of enters my mouth every time I hear "Clinton".

>>77526

What's with this lesser evil nonsense, what has that ever got us anywhere?

There's Jill Stein - whose views correlate strongly with the American majority - so why not support her? It's tiresome that people still don't understand how representative democracy works.

Anyway, I don't suppose it matters much, they'll be a civil war whoever's elected.
>> No. 77529 Anonymous
11th September 2016
Sunday 12:50 pm
77529 spacer
>>77526

How is Hillary the lesser evil? She's the biggest war hawk among the candidates.
>> No. 77530 Anonymous
11th September 2016
Sunday 2:13 pm
77530 spacer
>>77528
>What's with this lesser evil nonsense
Duverger's law, lad. 51 single-winner contests for the same office means you have exactly two options. You can have Clinton or you can have Trump. Everyone else in the race is irrelevant.
>> No. 77531 Anonymous
11th September 2016
Sunday 2:17 pm
77531 spacer
>>77529
Damn right. Also, that guy that would have taken over after the July bomb plot was a filthy meat-eater.
>> No. 77532 Anonymous
11th September 2016
Sunday 3:12 pm
77532 spacer
>>77528
>There's Jill Stein - whose views correlate strongly with the American majority - so why not support her?
>It's tiresome that people still don't understand how representative democracy works
Hahahaha, oh lord.
>> No. 77534 Anonymous
11th September 2016
Sunday 3:56 pm
77534 spacer

rove.jpg
775347753477534
>>77532

Heh.

Most voters generally support things like social security, worker rights, universal healthcare, environmental protection, punishing criminal execs, and even equal support for Palestine in that whole thing; they just turn into hate-filled monsters when they hear buzzwords like "welfare claimant", "Obamacare", "EPA", "Arabs" or hear that "wealth creators" are being threatened. The largely-Republican effort to turn people against their own interests - and against their own moral standards - with linguistic cues has been well documented (ever heard of Karl Rove?).

A few examples below - you're welcome to do your own research, or carrying on trying to convince strangers you're laughing for some reason.

https://www.isidewith.com/poll/317926575

http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-funded-healthcare-system.aspx

https://www.isidewith.com/poll/965633

https://www.isidewith.com/poll/49861415

http://www.gallup.com/poll/195245/slim-majority-again-sees-unions-helping-economy.aspx?g_source=ECONOMY&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles

(Although, fuck, I was surprised and sickened to find a majority of Americans support the use of torture: https://www.isidewith.com/poll/2121995048)
>> No. 77535 Anonymous
11th September 2016
Sunday 4:01 pm
77535 spacer
>>77534
Is their own interest really Palestine and all that shit?
>> No. 77536 Anonymous
11th September 2016
Sunday 4:11 pm
77536 spacer
>>77534
I was laughing at the idea of someone calling ignorance of a political system "tiresome" in the same breath as advocating a third party vote.
>> No. 77537 Anonymous
11th September 2016
Sunday 4:15 pm
77537 spacer
>>77535

See:
>and against their own moral standards

Two sides in a dispute: one lavished with arms and diplomatic support; the other with neither. Wouldn't you consider equal treatment a basic moral necessity? Most Americans do: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/08/05/u-s-should-be-even-handed-on-israel-palestinians-wsjnbc-poll/

Anyway, do you have a point, or are you just wasting my time?
>> No. 77538 Anonymous
11th September 2016
Sunday 4:31 pm
77538 spacer
>>77537
And?
>> No. 77539 Anonymous
11th September 2016
Sunday 4:42 pm
77539 spacer
>>77534
>A few examples below - you're welcome to do your own research, or carrying on trying to convince strangers you're laughing for some reason.
You're welcome to do better research than cite fucking "I Side With" as representative of American opinion.
>> No. 77540 Anonymous
11th September 2016
Sunday 6:16 pm
77540 spacer
>Caught on video: The moment Hillary Clinton collapses as she is helped into her van after being rushed from 9/11 memorial - but her aides try to explain it away as 'overheating'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3784098/Hillary-Clinton-rushed-9-11-memorial-service-following-medical-episode.html

Does Hillary actually have health issues? I just assumed it was 4chan playing silly buggers.
>> No. 77541 Anonymous
11th September 2016
Sunday 7:48 pm
77541 spacer

hillary-clinton-staircase-600.jpg
775417754177541
>>77540
Yes, it's fucking obvious to anyone who isn't a deluded supporter and has two working eyes, most of the media doesn't report on it much (can you imagine if it were Trump? You'd never hear the end of it) so it was only alt media making a fuss of it, now it's so bad it simply can't be ignored, so it's the main story on the BBC News website and others.

>>77522>>77523>>77527
Thank you for Correcting The Record™
>> No. 77542 Anonymous
11th September 2016
Sunday 8:01 pm
77542 spacer
>>77540
Yep, namely the fact that she's like 70
>> No. 77543 Anonymous
11th September 2016
Sunday 8:07 pm
77543 spacer
>>77541
>>77542
Back to the other place, lads.
>> No. 77544 Anonymous
11th September 2016
Sunday 8:11 pm
77544 spacer
>>77543
Just admit that you were a disingenuous cunt for once. She has health problems.
>> No. 77545 Anonymous
11th September 2016
Sunday 8:34 pm
77545 spacer
>>77538

You have no point then. Could've saved us both some time by not posting.

>>77544

I just hope she lives long enough to be publicly executed in the glorious Patriot's Republic.

(I started writing that sentence facetiously and ended up convincing myself that's exactly what'll happen by the end.)
>> No. 77548 Anonymous
11th September 2016
Sunday 8:48 pm
77548 spacer
>>77544
Still here, chanlad?
>> No. 77550 Anonymous
11th September 2016
Sunday 10:48 pm
77550 spacer
>>77543
"Back to the other place" for mentioning that Clinton, a woman in her late 60s, has the health of a woman in her late 60s. Right...

Think you might need to calm down there.a little bit m8
>> No. 77552 Anonymous
11th September 2016
Sunday 11:18 pm
77552 spacer
PASS IT TO BERNIE! IT'S NOT TOO LATE!
>> No. 77553 Anonymous
11th September 2016
Sunday 11:25 pm
77553 spacer
>>77550
My mums in her late 60's and she's not collapsing or stealth vomiting.
>> No. 77554 Anonymous
11th September 2016
Sunday 11:35 pm
77554 spacer

finally.png
775547755477554
>>77552
I guess if she croaks it'll go to her boring VP.

They just admitted she's got pneumonia anyway.
>> No. 77555 Anonymous
12th September 2016
Monday 1:47 am
77555 spacer
>>77554
Bit of penicillin and she'll be sorted in no time.
>> No. 77556 Anonymous
12th September 2016
Monday 11:36 am
77556 spacer
Make of this what you will:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr1IDQ2V1eM
>> No. 77557 Anonymous
12th September 2016
Monday 12:11 pm
77557 spacer

hillary-clinton-health-troubles-aides-rush-to-cand.jpg
775577755777557
>>77555
Pneumonia isn't that easy to clear up, especially for someone her age, that is if they're telling the truth about her condition, which is highly suspect.

Debates are in two weeks, 90 mins of having to stand at a podium, live. I don't think she can do it.
>> No. 77558 Anonymous
12th September 2016
Monday 12:30 pm
77558 spacer
>>77557
>that is if they're telling the truth about her condition, which is highly suspect.
And that sort of nonsense is why you're told to go back to the other /pol/.
>> No. 77559 Anonymous
12th September 2016
Monday 1:17 pm
77559 spacer
>>77558
Thank you for Correcting The Record.
>> No. 77560 Anonymous
12th September 2016
Monday 1:46 pm
77560 spacer
>>77556

""Doctor"" who has a bias against Clinton, says she is dying from a few youtube videos. Shocker.
>> No. 77561 Anonymous
12th September 2016
Monday 1:52 pm
77561 spacer

typical.jpg
775617756177561
Why are there people who shill so hard for Clinton on here?
I can understand you not liking Trump (even though he's awesome) but Hillary is orders of magnitude worse. All the dodgy deaths, all the Saudi money...I could actually type enough to hit post limit about why she's awful.

But there seems to be a neverending stream of people willing to Correct The Record whenever she is mentioned.

Given we know Hillary has spent millions of dollars hiring online trolls to defend her, I just can't take anyone posting as her supporter seriously. I just see some poor fat chump in a telesales office somewhere being paid £0.05 for each post they make.

I know they have proxies, but I'd love to see the great firewall back in action. Might stop a few of them.
>> No. 77562 Anonymous
12th September 2016
Monday 2:11 pm
77562 spacer
>>77561
Despite all those misgivings about her, she is leagues ahead of competence and political experience than trump who is a narcissistic thin-skinned retard. Also you sound like a tween, so fuck off back to /r/the_donut.
>> No. 77563 Anonymous
12th September 2016
Monday 2:19 pm
77563 spacer
>>77562
Thank you for Correcting The Record.
>> No. 77564 Anonymous
12th September 2016
Monday 2:28 pm
77564 spacer
>>77561

Because of you, lad.
>> No. 77565 Anonymous
12th September 2016
Monday 2:34 pm
77565 spacer
>>77561
>Given we know Hillary has spent millions of dollars hiring online trolls to defend her

You seem to be suggesting Trump didn't.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-internet-trolls-and-donald-trump-2016-7
>> No. 77566 Anonymous
12th September 2016
Monday 2:37 pm
77566 spacer
>>77565

Yeah, I was about to ask where he got the fucking money from.

Russiananalystlad here. I would have done the same.
>> No. 77567 Anonymous
12th September 2016
Monday 2:46 pm
77567 spacer
I suppose if it comes to it she'll be replaced by Biden, or a possible third term attempt by Obama.

Don't think the DNC has any interest in fielding a nobody (Kaine) or Bernie.
>> No. 77569 Anonymous
12th September 2016
Monday 2:54 pm
77569 spacer
>>77565
>"likely"
That article is pathetic. It's "likely" that some Russians were hired by the Kremlin to post pro Trump stuff? Not a fact, just "likely".
It's just Rusky anons from the other place who have seen Trump say pleasing things about Putin. And - nowhere in that article does it say Trump was the person funding them.

Do I have to post a link about CTR? It's like apples and oranges. Plus, all the info about Hillary's hired team is proven as fact.

But nice try at Correcting The Record.
>>77567
I've heard they might put Sanders up in place of her.
>> No. 77570 Anonymous
12th September 2016
Monday 3:07 pm
77570 spacer

sand.png
775707757077570
>>77569

>I've heard they might put Sanders up in place of her

Which the DNC should have done from the very start, rather than undermining him. In choosing Clixon, they've shown themselves to be pathologically pro-status quo to the point of suicidal.
>> No. 77571 Anonymous
12th September 2016
Monday 3:09 pm
77571 spacer

bernie-sanders-crying.png.jpg
775717757177571
>>77570
I heard wikileaks have some stuff on Sanders being threatened and forced out. Also look at this picture. It's from the day he dropped out.
Notice the mark on his face? That wasn't there the day before. Wonder who roughed him up.
>> No. 77572 Anonymous
12th September 2016
Monday 3:56 pm
77572 spacer
>>77567
Obama is constitutionally ineligible as he's term-limited.
>> No. 77573 Anonymous
12th September 2016
Monday 4:00 pm
77573 spacer
>>77569
Back to Reddit, lad.
>> No. 77574 Anonymous
12th September 2016
Monday 4:29 pm
77574 spacer

ctr_on_britfags.png
775747757477574
>>77573
Wow, you sure blew me out with that insightful and informative post. Thanks for Correcting The Record.
>> No. 77575 Anonymous
12th September 2016
Monday 4:48 pm
77575 spacer
>>77574
Still here, tearybumderlad?
>> No. 77576 Anonymous
12th September 2016
Monday 5:03 pm
77576 spacer
>>77575
You didn't Correct The Record with that post. Try harder.
>> No. 77577 Anonymous
12th September 2016
Monday 5:05 pm
77577 spacer
>>77573
>>77575

Good grief, you're irritating.
>> No. 77579 Anonymous
12th September 2016
Monday 5:21 pm
77579 spacer
>>77562
Why not just have an incompetent president who hands everything off to his advisers?

I'd say Hilary's competence just makes her more complicit in everything bad about her. Trump promises to deport Muslims? Fine: He's a fucking idiot anyway, he's just talking nonsense like any non-political person who starts sentences with "Why can't we just..?", when someone refuses to let him actually do it then that'll be that. Hillary? She's got years of experience behind her so she can bludgeon her way to getting nasty shit done.
>> No. 77580 Anonymous
12th September 2016
Monday 5:23 pm
77580 spacer
>>77577
Turnabout is fair play, m7.
>> No. 77581 Anonymous
12th September 2016
Monday 5:37 pm
77581 spacer
>>77579

Why do you care? Do you have a sense of patriotism? We gave those shitty attempts at colonies back to themselves.
>> No. 77585 Anonymous
13th September 2016
Tuesday 2:31 am
77585 spacer

Pepe WW3.jpg
775857758577585
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/

> That cartoon frog is more sinister than you might realize.

Surreal.
>> No. 77588 Anonymous
13th September 2016
Tuesday 12:05 pm
77588 spacer
>>77585
That's some serious Correcting Of The Record going on there.

This American election is the most hilarious thing I've ever seen. It's better than any sitcom.
>> No. 77589 Anonymous
13th September 2016
Tuesday 6:28 pm
77589 spacer
>>77588

It really is fucking bizarre, isn't it?

Modern American culture resembles the kind of satirical dystopia you would expect to be depicted in a Rockstar videogame. Except it's real.

It's beyond words.
>> No. 77590 Anonymous
13th September 2016
Tuesday 6:34 pm
77590 spacer
>>77585

This is mental.

In thousands of years to come some poor bastard will be trying to understand this whilst doing his PHD.

It's slightly unreal that 4chan has managed to pervade into the US election.
>> No. 77591 Anonymous
13th September 2016
Tuesday 7:12 pm
77591 spacer
>>77590

> It's slightly unreal that 4chan has managed to pervade into the US election.

This is all just the (il)logical conclusion of giving any kind of IRL credence to online presences / echo chambers. The warning signs have been there ever since mainstream media started quoting twitter accounts, accelerated up through media blowouts like the Protein World debacle and finally leaves us here in a reality tunnel where rare pepes are being used to combat a Clinton.
>> No. 77592 Anonymous
13th September 2016
Tuesday 7:16 pm
77592 spacer
>>77590
Maybe one day they'll see the Electro Swing Trump rap I did for youtube and analyse it.

Maybe one day I'll tell my grandkids I fought in the Great Meme War.
>> No. 77593 Anonymous
13th September 2016
Tuesday 7:21 pm
77593 spacer
>>77592

You're doing us all a huge disservice by not linking it.
>> No. 77594 Anonymous
13th September 2016
Tuesday 8:17 pm
77594 spacer
>>77591
>finally leaves us here in a reality tunnel where rare pepes are being used to combat a Clinton.
Mirth.
>> No. 77595 Anonymous
13th September 2016
Tuesday 8:19 pm
77595 spacer
>>77594

Also got a smile out of me, great comment.
>> No. 77597 Anonymous
13th September 2016
Tuesday 8:38 pm
77597 spacer
>>77596
>You're doing us all a huge disservice by not linking it.
Last time I posted a video from that channel (which was a video that mocks Comrade Corbyn) I got banned by some completely reasonable moderator and told to not bring anything from the other place here. Never mind that it was me who had made it, not a poster from anywhere else.

So I can't do that I'm afraid. It's easy to find it on youtube though. Just search "trump electro swing" and it's the video done in the style of Cassetteboy. Difference between me and him is I write all the music as well for my videos.
>> No. 77602 Anonymous
13th September 2016
Tuesday 9:33 pm
77602 spacer
>>77597

I'm sure there is some massive conspiracy there should you wish to a a little bit of research.
>> No. 77603 Anonymous
13th September 2016
Tuesday 9:42 pm
77603 spacer
>>77597
>Never mind that it was me who had made it
Your youtube account name is "polhumour" and the icon for it is a britball. Who made it is neither here nor there if the content is clearly intended for a 4chan audience.
>> No. 77607 Anonymous
13th September 2016
Tuesday 10:17 pm
77607 spacer
Was Obama that good or are these two running to replace him just that bad?

I can't work it out. Policy agreement or not, at least Obama comes across as extremely presidential yet human and most importantly competent.
>> No. 77610 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 12:02 am
77610 spacer
>>77607
I think overall, Obama's been a good representative of the US, he's been pretty diplomatic with other countries and done some good at least. I can't imagine Trump making a good impression on other countries as a few seem to dislike him already and others might figure him for a fool and try to take advantage of that. He generally doesn't seem very tactful as it is. As you put it, coming across as human and competent may well be two of the most important qualities for a president to have, as you end up being the face of your country.
>> No. 77611 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 12:45 am
77611 spacer

tumblr_nk1b2mB4ir1qbc9sxo5_1280.png
776117761177611
>>77610
This reads like satire, Obama is a laughing stock on the global stage (look at his recent misadventures in Asia), and both he and Hillary seem really fucking keen on starting up the Cold War again.

But somehow, just somehow, Trump is the crazy one for not wanting that or fucking up in the middle east further and removing strongmen that keep/kept things like ISIS from taking over.
>> No. 77612 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 1:02 am
77612 spacer
>>77611
Didn't he sack you already, Corey?
>> No. 77613 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 1:05 am
77613 spacer
>>77612
If you don't have an argument you should really just fuck off ladm8chap.
>> No. 77614 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 1:13 am
77614 spacer
>>77611
He hasn't even said what his plan for tackling ISIS is. Apparently he has a "secret plan" and their days are numbered. Great stuff.
>> No. 77615 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 1:16 am
77615 spacer
>>77613
No need to get upset, Trumplad.
>> No. 77616 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 1:28 am
77616 spacer
>>77611
I don't understand non-Americans who are so invested in American politics to the point of fanaticism. Maybe it is just the other place brainwashing them, hopefully.
>> No. 77617 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 1:35 am
77617 spacer
>>77616
>>77615
I don't know, maybe geopolitics affect us? It sure did a decade ago, seems like a legitimate subject for debate to me.

You lot were probably well against that back in the day when it was Dubya at the helm, but now you're shilling for a corrupt neocon thirsting for war, but now it's ok, because it's a Democrat, with a fanny.

Useful idiots as they say.
>> No. 77618 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 1:52 am
77618 spacer
>>77617
I'm not seeing much debating, just name calling from both sides.
>> No. 77619 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 2:54 am
77619 spacer
>>77617
They have one up on you, lad, you're not even useful.
>> No. 77621 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 7:50 am
77621 spacer
>>77616

I imagine Britons living in the epoch of Imperium Romanum were equally fascinated by that empire (if not more).

It's not all that strange to be interested in the political and social forces affecting your life, you know.
>> No. 77622 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 8:10 am
77622 spacer
>>77619

>thinking geopolitics affects us = idiot

Hm...

Did the excitement of seeing a chance to use that tired old line ("you're not even useful") grab you so fast you didn't even think about what you were implying?
>> No. 77624 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 8:50 am
77624 spacer
>>77617
See what I mean? Absurd.
>> No. 77625 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 9:03 am
77625 spacer
>>77603
Yeah, I know. But the video was really relevant to the discussion I posted it in. Attacking a video because of who made it (or who it was made for) rather than the content of the video (not just the channel icon) smacks of ad-hom to me.

Well, not my site, I don't make the rules etc. so I'll play by them.
>> No. 77634 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 4:01 pm
77634 spacer
>>77597

Militant anti-Corbynites also like electro swing...who here is surprised?
>> No. 77635 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 4:12 pm
77635 spacer
>>77625

You seem to browse the other place's /pol/. That's surely grounds for a lifetime ban.
>> No. 77636 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 4:17 pm
77636 spacer
>>77625
Do fuck off, there's a good chap.
>> No. 77637 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 4:22 pm
77637 spacer
>>77611
I agree.
>> No. 77638 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 4:38 pm
77638 spacer
>>77635

Why do you think that?
>> No. 77639 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 5:02 pm
77639 spacer
>>77561
"Some of Trump's best friends are black".

Why does this troll go on to repeat the phrase "Correcting the Record"? What the fuck is he on about?
>> No. 77640 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 5:07 pm
77640 spacer
>>77639

http://correctrecord.org/about-us/
>> No. 77641 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 5:54 pm
77641 spacer
>>77640

Fuck, I thought this was just some conspiracy because it sounded so bizarre I didn't even Google it, of people thinking they actually paid people to talk nicely about her on the internet.

This election just keeps giving.
>> No. 77645 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 7:17 pm
77645 spacer
>>77641

The best description I've seen of this election is that its America's magnum opus and I find myself in full agreement with it.
>> No. 77647 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 7:40 pm
77647 spacer
>>77634
>Militant anti-Corbynites
I actually have a fair amount of admiration for Corbyn. He's what the voters obviously want, and he's a different sort of opposition to the middle ground offered by other candidtes. If both major parties meet in the middle on policy there's no choice for the voters.
>> No. 77648 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 7:41 pm
77648 spacer
>>77647
>He's what the voters obviously want
I should clarify this and say Labour voters.
>> No. 77649 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 8:18 pm
77649 spacer
>>77648
Doesn't make you any less wrong.
>> No. 77650 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 8:23 pm
77650 spacer
I remember having an argument with someone here when Corbyn came about because his ideas could be unpopular in the current climate. I couldn't understand why anyone would want a system where all the parties stand for nothing but re-election. Doesn't make sense to me.
>> No. 77651 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 8:57 pm
77651 spacer
>>77650
>I couldn't understand why anyone would want a system where all the parties stand for nothing but re-election. Doesn't make sense to me.
Thank goodness we don't have one then, eh?

Cue some incoherent bollocks about "managerial consensus".
>> No. 77653 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 9:21 pm
77653 spacer
Can we not make the Trump thread into yet another about Corbyn, ta.
>> No. 77654 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 10:25 pm
77654 spacer
>>77651
>Cue some incoherent bollocks about "managerial consensus".
Nope, that's me. (i.e. not the person you're replying to.)

Wanker, get your guys right.
>> No. 77656 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 11:00 pm
77656 spacer
>>77654
>Nope, that's me. (i.e. not the person you're replying to.)
And, as predicted, you appeared right on cue.
>> No. 77658 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 11:13 pm
77658 spacer
>>77656
Only to call you a wanker.
>> No. 77660 Anonymous
14th September 2016
Wednesday 11:24 pm
77660 spacer

peopleangryaboutmelanincount.jpg
776607766077660
>>77653

I agree, the upcoming race war is far more interesting.
>> No. 77662 Anonymous
15th September 2016
Thursday 12:18 am
77662 spacer

pepe magic.jpg
776627766277662
Trump has an Egyptian chaos deity on his side, how do you top that?


http://www.pepethefrog.faith/
>> No. 77665 Anonymous
15th September 2016
Thursday 11:11 am
77665 spacer
>>77662

Having "Master of the Universe" Goldman Sachs as a donor.
>> No. 77667 Anonymous
15th September 2016
Thursday 11:58 am
77667 spacer
>>77665

Goldman tend to give to every serious presidential candidate, it's less about tryng to influnce the outcome and more about incentivising no one to go after them.
>> No. 77668 Anonymous
15th September 2016
Thursday 12:04 pm
77668 spacer
>>77662
The great thing about that diety is what pleases him is repeating numbers. Whereas moloch, the god the Bohemian Grove lot worship wants child sacrifice.
Moloch isn't pleased with his current worshipers. The offer children for sacrifice, but it's other people's children. Moloch wanted theirs.
This post is parody, please do not assassinate me Hillary.
>> No. 77683 Anonymous
16th September 2016
Friday 12:40 am
77683 spacer
>>77668
That and inducted into EWS orgies I'd imagine.

https://vimeo.com/182783834
>> No. 77685 Anonymous
16th September 2016
Friday 11:21 pm
77685 spacer

1474054201001.png
776857768577685
The American media have really handed Trump the Presidency. Fair play to the lad for tricking them into covering his endorsements.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/media-outraged-after-trump-tricks-them-to-cover-endorsements-from-military-heroes/

I wonder if the same will happen with Corbyn. You can just imagine the Daily Mail going with how he is going to attack the bankers and the general public suddenly coming to his side.
>> No. 77686 Anonymous
17th September 2016
Saturday 12:21 am
77686 spacer
>>77685
I don't understand what is happening in that image. Context?
>> No. 77687 Anonymous
17th September 2016
Saturday 1:03 am
77687 spacer
>>77686

Click the link and find out.
>> No. 77688 Anonymous
17th September 2016
Saturday 1:30 am
77688 spacer
>>77685
I don't read that interpretation at all - it's another gaffe by him just as Hillary was looking vulnerable. It's a pisstake promotion of his hotel.
>> No. 77689 Anonymous
17th September 2016
Saturday 1:34 am
77689 spacer
>>77685
I find this intensely amusing.

Maybe it's just because I hate the press, though.
>> No. 77690 Anonymous
17th September 2016
Saturday 1:39 am
77690 spacer
>>77685
They can't really win. If anyone else baited them with misleading releases and trails they'd start ignoring it, but Trump would just work it into his campaign messaging if they tried that with him.
>> No. 77691 Anonymous
17th September 2016
Saturday 3:09 am
77691 spacer
>>77688
Where's the gaffe?

Fuck I hate that word.
>> No. 77692 Anonymous
17th September 2016
Saturday 5:45 am
77692 spacer

ctr_on_britfags.png
776927769277692
>>77688
>I don't read that interpretation at all
Yes, but that's because you're paid to be willfully stupid.
>> No. 77694 Anonymous
17th September 2016
Saturday 12:10 pm
77694 spacer

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.png
776947769477694
I guess all elections in USA/UK will become like this since IRL and Online become one. Might as well create online passports for people now.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/trump-employs-symbols-of-us-racist-fringe-767279683702?cid=sm_fb_maddow
>> No. 77695 Anonymous
17th September 2016
Saturday 12:15 pm
77695 spacer
>>77694
>Might as well create online passports for people now.
https://e-estonia.com/e-residents/about/
>> No. 77696 Anonymous
17th September 2016
Saturday 3:31 pm
77696 spacer
>>77692

Can a mod check this lads IP he has all the hallmarks of a shill, or a tinfoil lunatic. I don't understand why anyone would pay someone to browse an obscure British community website in regards to American politics, seems like a real far reach. But I'd be interested to know the country of origin for these posts as it seems way too invested in the bullshit game to be your average Britfa.gs user.
>> No. 77697 Anonymous
17th September 2016
Saturday 3:40 pm
77697 spacer
>>77694

The pepe thing is fucking bizarre. I feel like history is being rewritten that the tail is wagging the dog, and soon pepe will just be a rightwing symbol up there with the swastika.
>> No. 77698 Anonymous ## Mod ##
17th September 2016
Saturday 3:43 pm
77698 spacer
>>77696
According to the IP geolocation he is posting from inside Hillary Clinton.
>> No. 77699 Anonymous
17th September 2016
Saturday 3:53 pm
77699 spacer
>>77697
When did he go from being the "feels good, man" frog to pepe? I must have missed something because it suddenly ended up everywhere.
>> No. 77700 Anonymous
17th September 2016
Saturday 3:54 pm
77700 spacer
>>77698
Thank you for Correcting The Record™
>> No. 77701 Anonymous
17th September 2016
Saturday 4:31 pm
77701 spacer
>>77699
I thought "feels good frog" was called Pepe by its original creator in those weird comics. As for the right-wing nonsense, people outside internet cultures are just weird. Pepe and most memes don't really stand for anything, they are made to fit whatever bollocks you want to put forward. Lonely, misogynist manosphere users dress up Pepe as a suicidal, depressed "tfw no gf" memes, and the racists make him a Hitler. Pepe isn't a symbol. No meme is a symbol.

This is so absurd, but I would be lying if I said I don't enjoy this madness.
>> No. 77703 Anonymous
17th September 2016
Saturday 5:20 pm
77703 spacer
>>77696
>Can a mod check this lads IP he has all the hallmarks of a shill, or a tinfoil lunatic.
We've already established that Hillary pays people to go around the internet telling everyone how great she is.

And why would I not be invested in American politics? Whether the USA goes to war or not means whether the UK goes to war or now. Hillary Clinton is in the pockets of all the people wanting wars in the middle east, for whatever reason. Voting for her means a continuance of that. Trump is a wild card, I'll take that. Maybe when he says he's going to go after ISIS what he means is he's going to cut their CIA funding.
>> No. 77710 Anonymous
17th September 2016
Saturday 7:20 pm
77710 spacer

tumblr_nzzn6fhB801v33hszo1_1280.png
777107771077710
>>77699>>77701
Pepe used to be something of a sad sack but he's turned his life around.
>> No. 77712 Anonymous
17th September 2016
Saturday 7:26 pm
77712 spacer
>>77703
Thanks for Making America Great Again™
>> No. 77718 Anonymous
18th September 2016
Sunday 5:15 am
77718 spacer
I'm starting to think some lad/s from the other place and/or Reddit have stumbled into this thread somehow.
>> No. 77779 Anonymous
19th September 2016
Monday 5:47 pm
77779 spacer
This election is beyond parody now.

Hilary's e-mail deleter-in-chief asked reddit for help on how to delete them and a load of Trump fanboys found his account.
>> No. 77780 Anonymous
19th September 2016
Monday 5:52 pm
77780 spacer
>>77779

Here's an archive link to him being stupid enough to ask Reddit for help before he deleted all his account content btw.


https://archive.is/eVHi9
>> No. 77781 Anonymous
19th September 2016
Monday 6:03 pm
77781 spacer
>>77780
So do you have a link that supports the story, rather than one that looks to be asking to do something completely different?
>> No. 77782 Anonymous
19th September 2016
Monday 6:19 pm
77782 spacer

7jfvBr.jpg
777827778277782
>>77781

Errrr, I'm not sure if you don't understand the tech side, haven't read the link or are just one of these people that bleat's 'SOURCE! SOURCE! WHERE'S THE SOURCE!' and haven't understood but what better than to link the original post?

Somebody made a helpful, but slightly shit infographic nonetheless.
>> No. 77783 Anonymous
19th September 2016
Monday 6:22 pm
77783 spacer
>>77782
>Bleat's

Fuck, please don't ban me.
>> No. 77784 Anonymous
19th September 2016
Monday 6:27 pm
77784 spacer
>>77694

When and if they come up with the idea of online passports, and forcing you to identify yourself online, I will relish the fact that my cyberpunk fugitive lifestyle dreams have come true. I'll burn off my retinas like in Minority Report and live in the back of my VR-parlour (like a webcafe but for the neon lit permanently night time future) selling under the counter micro SD cards with drugs on them for people's Google Brain.
>> No. 77785 Anonymous
19th September 2016
Monday 6:29 pm
77785 spacer
>>77782
You said
>asked reddit for help on how to delete them
I see a question with four comments about how to redact an email address, none of which mention deleting the messages. Given the shit that has been flung in all directions you'll forgive me if I don't take my legal analysis from MSPaint.
>> No. 77786 Anonymous
19th September 2016
Monday 6:36 pm
77786 spacer
>>77785]

You don't have to, for the record the one posted above is only one of several archived posts, he deleted his comments today from his account.

Of course, you don't have to take any legal analysis from paint, I don't see how it doesn't make this any less salient.

There's being a natural sceptic, and then there's this britfa.gs thing where I'm sure a few people enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing.
>> No. 77787 Anonymous
19th September 2016
Monday 6:41 pm
77787 spacer
>>77786
Then there's that general Internet thing where people post controversial stuff with a source that doesn't back them up and complains when people don't take them at their word.
>> No. 77788 Anonymous
19th September 2016
Monday 6:45 pm
77788 spacer
>>77787

What more do you actually want lad? The man who refused to give evidence and has an internet handle of 'Stonetear' has been found to have asked reddit how to remove/change the address of sender from archived emails (note, there would be no point deleting them as at this point the FBI would know they'd been deleted because the FBI were aware of the number of them, and were looking through them) so he wanted to remove Clinton's direct link and personal responsibility by changing the to and from address in an archive.

He got found out on Reddit and went on a mad rush to delete his account content.

I'm honestly not sure what more of a source you want, other than screenshots of connections between his online handles and an archive of the thread itself. That's not just a news website, that's a primary source for you lad.

I'm wondering if you don't understand the technical side of it (I'm not being a prick, I'm genuinely curious)?
>> No. 77789 Anonymous
19th September 2016
Monday 6:53 pm
77789 spacer
>>77788
>What more do you actually want lad?
The thing you promised in the first place, namely
>asked reddit for help on how to delete them
>> No. 77790 Anonymous
19th September 2016
Monday 7:03 pm
77790 spacer
>>77789
Ahh, march of the pedant. I've explained that already in the first paragraph of >>77788.
>> No. 77791 Anonymous
19th September 2016
Monday 7:18 pm
77791 spacer
>>77790
Yeah, how pedantic of me to assume you actually meant what you said, when clearly you had some explanation lined up demonstrating how you were actually talking about something completely different. The explanation doesn't make any sense, but let's not let silly details like that get in the way of manufacturing outrage, shall we?
>> No. 77792 Anonymous
19th September 2016
Monday 7:24 pm
77792 spacer
>>77791

Honestly, I think you're weirdly manufacturing outrage at my post, then accusing me of manufacturing outrage at Hilary's IT guy asking how to retroactively conceal and delete information from archived emails, i.e. the to and from address.

I have nothing more to add, it's quite clear for all to see that he was trying to delete information from emails and he was silly enough to ask Reddit for help.

You don't have to believe it, but I have nothing more to add other than the fact it's massively damning from an outside perspective. No doubt you'll follow it up with another pointless 'Hilary herself hasn't said it, it's not true, because you technically said this.' post but that's all I have to add.
>> No. 77793 Anonymous
19th September 2016
Monday 7:52 pm
77793 spacer
>>77792
>I have nothing more to add, it's quite clear for all to see that he was trying to delete information from emails and he was silly enough to ask Reddit for help.
Which isn't what you said at all. You came here telling us that we should be annoyed that some person was asking Reddit for help deleting Hillary's emails (you know, that story that people have been talking about for ages? "Hillary's deleted emails"?). It turns out the best you have is him apparently quite reasonably asking how to redact an email address from a batch of messages. As you say, the FBI were already looking at them, which means they had them in their custody (they're not that stupid). But then if that's the case, then clearly deleting them from his server isn't going to delete them from the copy the FBI had in their custody (he is not that stupid). So clearly the story isn't that he "asked reddit for help on how to delete them", but then it's not entirely clear whether or not there's a story to begin with.

>You don't have to believe it, but I have nothing more to add other than the fact it's massively damning from an outside perspective.
If you say so, m7. It's so "massively damning" that it nobody serious is reporting it and you had to posting clickbait.
>> No. 77821 Anonymous
20th September 2016
Tuesday 7:04 am
77821 spacer
>>77793

Imagine being this much of a sanctimonious cunt but not understanding how it works and thinking that the FBI had a copy and he was just deleting names from his server.

Not only are you a bellend, but probably quite thick. P.s. just google 'hilary server redit' and click news.
>> No. 77825 Anonymous
20th September 2016
Tuesday 9:03 am
77825 spacer
>>77821
Sorry lad, you're right. The FBI clearly just left the evidence with him so he could tamper with it, and just turned up at the office to have a look when they wanted to. Because that's totally how the FBI work.
>> No. 77826 Anonymous
20th September 2016
Tuesday 12:05 pm
77826 spacer
>>77825

The more you post the clearer it becomes that you don't understand. Oif the FBI had the emails he was referring to why would he retroactively try and change information and delete it from them? You can't be this fucking stupid.
>> No. 77827 Anonymous
20th September 2016
Tuesday 12:10 pm
77827 spacer
>>77826
>Oif the FBI had the emails he was referring to why would he retroactively try and change information and delete it from them?
You tell me. You're the one who said they already had them.

You're getting awfully upset over being called out for clickbaiting us.
>> No. 77828 Anonymous
20th September 2016
Tuesday 2:00 pm
77828 spacer

tmp_6258-_91310041_dd42910b-b182-47a0-a41a-08a6099.jpg
778287782877828
Meanwhile, in actual news, Little The Donald seems to have caused the Internet to go into a frenzy with a tweet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37416457
>> No. 77829 Anonymous
20th September 2016
Tuesday 2:43 pm
77829 spacer
>>77828
Shouldn't it say "three of them are poisonous"?
>> No. 77832 Anonymous
20th September 2016
Tuesday 4:44 pm
77832 spacer
>>77829
I wouldn't know. I've never tried eating Syrian refugees.
>> No. 77833 Anonymous
20th September 2016
Tuesday 4:46 pm
77833 spacer

euRh0Kb.png
778337783377833
>>77828
The point is it's using an analogy feminists used. Which increases the arsepain factor significantly for these cunts and their beta followers.

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 77834 Anonymous
20th September 2016
Tuesday 4:50 pm
77834 spacer
>>77833
It was still a shitty analogy then.
>> No. 77836 Anonymous
20th September 2016
Tuesday 5:11 pm
77836 spacer
>>77833
No, it isn't. The one he posted implies that any three will kill you, when their (also flawed) analogy implies that three of them are poisonous and the rest fine. His tweet is nonsensical, theirs is just stupid.
>> No. 77837 Anonymous
20th September 2016
Tuesday 5:17 pm
77837 spacer
>>77836
Do you have this much difficulty understanding things in real life? Do you stop still on the pavement when you see a STOP sign?
>> No. 77846 Anonymous
20th September 2016
Tuesday 7:39 pm
77846 spacer
>>77837
o you ever come up with original lines or doD you just repeat the same old shit someone originally said to you, over and over, hoping to hurt someone else's feelings as much as it did yours? Obviously I understand what the original analogy meant, that should be clear from what I said. I'm just pointing out that what he actually said is nonsensical and seems to miss the point it was originally intended to make. The original analogy made sense but it's not what he said, and what he said isn't farfetched for a Trump to say. Which one did he really mean?
>> No. 77847 Anonymous
20th September 2016
Tuesday 7:43 pm
77847 spacer
>>77833
I always think introducing more realism would make the Skittle/M&M analogy more fun.

Here are 100 of them. X will kill you, but Y will do something desirable like contain a golden lottery ticket that'll give you lots of money, but everything you take out of the bowl has to be consumed or Jeremy Corbyn's death squad will shoot you.

How many are you willing to risk when we introduce the realism of the reward factor? That is a far more interesting question than "Eat posion lol"
>> No. 77849 Anonymous
20th September 2016
Tuesday 8:29 pm
77849 spacer

bongo.jpg
778497784977849
Obama's going to be taking time out of his busy golfing schedule to shill for Hillary. Pretty unseemly, W and Bill had enough class to keep out of things back then.
>> No. 77850 Anonymous
20th September 2016
Tuesday 9:07 pm
77850 spacer
>>77849
Maybe the stakes are higher this time.
>> No. 77854 Anonymous
20th September 2016
Tuesday 9:33 pm
77854 spacer
>>77850
He's just shameless, look at the gall with which he came over here to threaten us over Brexit.
>> No. 77855 Anonymous
20th September 2016
Tuesday 9:35 pm
77855 spacer
>>77854
Whoa there, lad. Careful where you swing those edges.
>> No. 77856 Anonymous
20th September 2016
Tuesday 9:40 pm
77856 spacer
>>77855

That is a lot of gall, and proof that the US not only supports the EU (always funny when morons say but now we can challenge the US!!!!) but essentially created it. Enjoy being Americas pet globalist project

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/27/the-european-union-always-was-a-cia-project-as-brexiteers-discov/
>> No. 77860 Anonymous
20th September 2016
Tuesday 10:24 pm
77860 spacer
>>77856
The EU really should've set itself up as a peaceable challenger to American hegemony instead of an ally to it.

Britain and France should've been at the helm and used it as a form of vengeance for Suez. Peaceably displacing the USA as the pre-eminent power bloc in the world.
>> No. 77871 Anonymous
21st September 2016
Wednesday 3:03 am
77871 spacer
>>77860
It did. That's why De Gaulle wanted the Brits as far away from the project as possible.
>> No. 77874 Anonymous
21st September 2016
Wednesday 1:18 pm
77874 spacer
Obama is either a bloody idiot or a fucking enemy plant. Everybody hates him and his involvement will only make things worse. I am almost convinced that we'd still be in the EU if he hadn't have stuck his beak in.
>> No. 77876 Anonymous
21st September 2016
Wednesday 2:41 pm
77876 spacer
>>77874
He isn't disliked. He is well liked. Unless you are an alt right racist.
>> No. 77878 Anonymous
21st September 2016
Wednesday 3:01 pm
77878 spacer
>>77876
This. Given the state of that particular nation, the very fact that he has net positive approval is quite an achievement.
>> No. 77882 Anonymous
21st September 2016
Wednesday 3:41 pm
77882 spacer
>>77876

You mean except by anyone who supported him before he got in office.

Nevermind that his record is worse than Bush and hestill hasn't closed Gitmo. But then he's black, so of course he must be a the second coming of Christ.
>> No. 77886 Anonymous
21st September 2016
Wednesday 4:00 pm
77886 spacer
>>77876

>if you don't like Obama you're racist

Fucking hell, standards are really slipping here.
>> No. 77887 Anonymous
21st September 2016
Wednesday 4:10 pm
77887 spacer
>>77882
If it were only white people voting last election Romney would've won in an absolute landslide, almost every single state would be red (only 4 would be blue).

The only reason he won is because blacks monolithically voted for one of their own, yet somehow that's ok, and not "racist".
>> No. 77888 Anonymous
21st September 2016
Wednesday 4:21 pm
77888 spacer
>>7788
Black Americans monolithically voted for the democrat. That's what happens every election.
>> No. 77890 Anonymous
21st September 2016
Wednesday 4:38 pm
77890 spacer
>>77888
Because they pander to blacks. It's pure selfishness.
>> No. 77892 Anonymous
21st September 2016
Wednesday 4:54 pm
77892 spacer
>>77890
Or, you know, because the other party has purposefully exploited racial tension for generations for electoral benefit.
>> No. 77894 Anonymous
21st September 2016
Wednesday 4:59 pm
77894 spacer

quote-i-ll-have-those-niggers-vodemocratic-for-the.jpg
778947789477894
>>77892
Most politicians are pragmatic and not true believers like yourself.
>> No. 77900 Anonymous
21st September 2016
Wednesday 5:42 pm
77900 spacer

tmp_22130-abraham-lincoln-quoteedu1f547290431.jpg
779007790077900
>>77894
http://www.snopes.com/lbj-voting-democratic/
>> No. 77901 Anonymous
21st September 2016
Wednesday 5:52 pm
77901 spacer

meow.png
779017790177901
>>77900
>> No. 77908 Anonymous
21st September 2016
Wednesday 6:22 pm
77908 spacer
>>77900
Of course, to a true believer facts and reality itself is of no consequence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1rIDmDWSms
>> No. 77929 Anonymous
21st September 2016
Wednesday 7:28 pm
77929 spacer
>>77908
Well that sure told me. He used the N-word so he must have said this thing only one person claims to have heard.
>> No. 77930 Anonymous
21st September 2016
Wednesday 7:36 pm
77930 spacer
>>77908
Everyone used to say it. A lot of people still say it. I'm sure you still say it... A lot.
>> No. 77968 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 11:21 am
77968 spacer
The "alt-right", don't like the term honestly, must be so incomprehensible to the staid old farts of old political media.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37431509
>> No. 77969 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 2:04 pm
77969 spacer
>>77968
I don't know why people don't just call a spade a spade. They're just far right nutjobs with Paint.
>> No. 77970 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 5:15 pm
77970 spacer

Screenshot_2016-09-22-17-14-23.png
779707797077970
>>77968
When did everything start going to topsy turvy and weird?
>> No. 77972 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 5:25 pm
77972 spacer
>>77969
>I don't know why people don't just call a spade a spade.
Lovely choice of phrase there.
>They're just far right nutjobs with Paint.
Actually I edit my Trump/UKIP propaganda videos using Kdenlive on Linux Mint.
>> No. 77975 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 6:38 pm
77975 spacer
>>77972
I guess that makes you just a far right nutjob.
>> No. 77978 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 7:48 pm
77978 spacer
She's losing her marbles.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMFLN2hwzos
>> No. 77979 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 7:54 pm
77979 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrkPe-9rM1Q

How do you do, fellow kids?
>> No. 77980 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 7:56 pm
77980 spacer
>>77978
Go on.
>> No. 77981 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 7:59 pm
77981 spacer
>>77978
How so? What is this video? Part of a speech (apparently to people in Las Vegas) where she denounces a policy I've never heard of called 'right to work' and says if only more people knew Trump supported it she would be more popular. Where's the crazy?
>> No. 77982 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 8:04 pm
77982 spacer
>>77981
You seriously can't tell? The wild eyed crazy look, the bizarre imitation of both Trump and Bernie's style of talking and body language, respectively. The fucking up over basic phrases...

If this happens in a debate it's over, fucking landslide for Trump.
>> No. 77983 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 8:09 pm
77983 spacer
>>77982

Trump will win, I'm willing to bet a large amount of money on it.

At a time when anti-establishment fever has seldom been higher, the Democratic hierarchy threw out the most Establishment candidate conceivable. They'll never live down undermining Sanders the way they did, and neither will we.
>> No. 77984 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 8:20 pm
77984 spacer
>>77981
For the uninitiated, "right-to-work" in this context literally means not requiring workers to join a union, but in practice tends to go much further in terms of preventing collective bargaining, making union recognition optional, etc.
>> No. 77985 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 8:23 pm
77985 spacer

22_ukba_R_W.jpg
779857798577985
I suspect we've got some illegals outside the /zoo/ again.
>> No. 77986 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 8:26 pm
77986 spacer
>>77982
Wow, she's putting on a tough tone to speak to trade unions, how crazy and unprecedented.
>> No. 77987 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 8:27 pm
77987 spacer
>>77985
I live in Cornwall, do you want to see a pasty as proof?
>> No. 77988 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 8:27 pm
77988 spacer
>>77982
So you're saying she comes across as crazy when she imitates Donald Trump? This is what you're saying?
>> No. 77989 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 8:30 pm
77989 spacer
>>77982
But Trump's not crazy at all. He's just building a wall. He's building a wall. He's building a wall.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlK102Ee8WU
>> No. 77990 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 8:32 pm
77990 spacer
>>77988
Cruz looked weird with his JFK impression. But it's just Hillary really, look at how her "accent" has mysteriously changed over the years.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBte-_JZ_vA

Easier to get caught out with this stupid kind of pandering with the internet though.
>> No. 77991 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 8:32 pm
77991 spacer
>>77989
He's also big for China.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDrfE9I8_hs
>> No. 77992 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 8:37 pm
77992 spacer
>>77990
Woman who lived in Arkansas for ages before moving to New York acquires Arkansas and then New York accents shocker.
>> No. 77993 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 8:42 pm
77993 spacer
>>77992
I know it's hard to read numbers but try again. it changes back and forth.
>> No. 77994 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 8:49 pm
77994 spacer
Just remember lads - when Hillary has a fit on stage or shits her pants at the debates it's only her having one coffee to many or having uncomfortable knickers.
>> No. 77995 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 8:54 pm
77995 spacer
>>77994
Or the more likely explanation, it's a CONSPIRACY
>> No. 77996 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 8:56 pm
77996 spacer
>>77993
Where the fuck are you from that you've never heard people's accents shift depending on the company?
>> No. 77997 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 8:57 pm
77997 spacer
Is this seriously what it's come to? A "She's crazy" "No, he's crazy" back and forth? This election would be a lot funnier if it wasn't so tragic. Both candidates are terrible.
>> No. 77998 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 8:57 pm
77998 spacer
>>77995
It is really so hard to believe? Everyone knows we're already on the third Vladimir Putin model.
>> No. 77999 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 9:00 pm
77999 spacer
>>77995
My Record is Corrected, I must try the cold chai latte.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJjHTeo6mVw
>> No. 78000 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 9:00 pm
78000 spacer
>>77997
Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to both sides.
>> No. 78001 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 9:03 pm
78001 spacer
>>77998
Also Saddam lives on in Abu Dhabi. The one the Americans found and executed was a double.
>> No. 78002 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 9:04 pm
78002 spacer
>>77999
How many times are you going to post this video?
>> No. 78003 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 9:07 pm
78003 spacer
>>77990
Fuck me.

She destroyed Libya. She gave approval for the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Honduras. She did oh so many horrendous things. But yeah, let's focus on what really matters: the fact that she alters her accent to suit her audience like, er, pretty much everyone with a non-standard vernacular does when speaking to a wider audience.
>> No. 78004 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 9:13 pm
78004 spacer
>>78003
Do you honestly think the majority of Americans really care about that over the superficial stuff?
>> No. 78005 Anonymous
22nd September 2016
Thursday 11:10 pm
78005 spacer
>>78004
We're not Americans, so let's not stoop to that level of debate, hmm?
>> No. 78187 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 2:05 am
78187 spacer

BINGO.jpg
781877818778187
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y60wDzZt8yg

anyone else watching?
>> No. 78189 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 2:38 am
78189 spacer
>>78187

I gave it about five minutes, before deciding that I don't want that shit in my brain.
>> No. 78190 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 2:50 am
78190 spacer
Did Trump just suggest that they need to take the guns away from gangs?
>> No. 78191 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 4:13 am
78191 spacer
Prediction: Those that switched off early will say Trump did better. Those that stayed to the end will lean towards Clinton but not as much. Neither of you two will really care.
>> No. 78192 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 4:17 am
78192 spacer
>>78191
I disagree, I thought by the end she'd basically thrashed him, simply by being calm, prepared, and coherent.
>> No. 78194 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 5:11 am
78194 spacer
>>78192
I agree in part. She managed to retain her composure, but I don't think she really connected properly. She talked about her father, and "Miss Housekeeper", but despite having travelled the country collecting what you might call "real stories" she didn't relate any despite having plenty of opportunities to do so. At the same time, Trump made a connection early on, but started to lose it after around half an hour, where I assume that whatever he'd been dosed with before the debate was starting to wear off and he reverted to type.

She stayed the course, which he clearly didn't, but I don't think she really landed any solid punches until right at the end when he she attacked him for his attitude to women. That said, given the pairing this cycle has thrown up, you could hardly blame Clinton for making a cautious start. I think we'll see her start the second debate with the sort of confidence she finished this one with.
>> No. 78196 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 5:35 am
78196 spacer
>>78194
Yes, fair points - I thought she'd thrashed him based on their comparative performances, but in terms of what she needed to do to convince swing voters and widen the worryingly narrow gap between them she was fine but a long way from spectacular. As you say, hopefully the next two will show her scoring more points.
>> No. 78199 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 8:35 am
78199 spacer
>>78196

He won. I'm as lefty as they come but I cannot deny it.

Nationalism is the great sickness issue of our times and he tapped into it tremendously well (to borrow from his vernacular): NAFTA, rust belt, callbacks to Reagan, quasi-isolationism etc.

Disgraceful to be sure, but very occasionally I found myself saying "good point" during his semi-coherent attacks on neo-liberal establishment thinking.

I'm reminded of an account from an unemployed man in 1930 (from Tony Benn's collection The Writings On The Wall). Accounts like these help me makes sense of the shambles:

"The whole system's wrong, and I don't think you'll ever change the hearts of these industrialists unless something drastic is done. All they want is to get everything out of you, to the last possible ounce. One employer said to me, "from a business point of view you're less valuable to me than a drum of oil, we can do without you." This is the type of man responsible for the system - people working 10 and 12 hours a day, sweated half to death.

"All the time the development of machinery is simplifying skill and doing away with older fellows. It affects men over 20 - yes it's come down to 20 now. Many employers today favour women and juveniles, who when they become entitled to higher wages find themselves on the scrapheap with the others.

...

"There's plenty of gold, material and God knows there's plenty of labour, so what's wrong? I'm not a revolutionary in the sense of violence, but we do need revolutionary change in our conditions, and unless that change comes quick, thousands like myself are condemned to live in despair and slow starvation, watching our wives and children rot away in front of us.

"Neither Fascism or Communism nor any other 'ism holds any terror for us. Nothing can be worse than what we have at present."
>> No. 78200 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 11:10 am
78200 spacer
>>78199

That was eighty odd years ago? Could have been written yesterday, apart from the rotting away bit. Or twenty years from now, that included.
>> No. 78201 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 11:48 am
78201 spacer
>>77987
I wouldn't mind it. Get ya' pasty out for the lads!

>>78191
Prediction: Who wins a political debate tends to be decided on your own political leaning. 'Undecided' voters in the true sense don't exist its just about affirming your belief enough for those leaning to you get vocal about it and then herd mentality takes over.

Back in 2010 I was labour and I thought Brown did well in the debates.

>>78200
A sure sign then that it is a load of bollocks if the story about the drum of oil didn't already tip you off.
>> No. 78202 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 12:20 pm
78202 spacer

capitalism.png
782027820278202
>>78201

>A sure sign then that it is a load of bollocks if the story about the drum of oil didn't already tip you off

What an odd thing to say. Check the BBC archives if you still don't believe it, it's under a series called So I'll Remember.

You're not one of those oddballs who refuse to believe capitalism has ever produced anything other than pure unadulterated bliss, are you? The working class went through hell on Earth whether you choose to accept it or not.

(Isn't there a relatively well known poem about all this which goes:
>And did the Countenance Divine
>Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
>And was Jerusalem builded here
>Among these dark Satanic mills?)
>> No. 78213 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 5:50 pm
78213 spacer
>>78199
I've managed to end up in America to witness this debate and so far I've been seeing more people saying Hillary came out on top. In terms of actual true facts, I believe she had this one. I had to watch the whole thing unfortunately, but I played the drinking game with it so that made it kind of ok, but either way the whole thing was a shit show though. Also, signs I've seen people holding up in the news about the election so far:
"KRUSTY KRAB UNFAIR"
"MAKE AMERICA SCHWIFTY AGAIN"
>> No. 78217 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 6:19 pm
78217 spacer
>>78213

Hillary spoke at length but she didn't actually tackle any of the accusations leveled her way, re: NAFTA, Iraq, "super predators", corporate welfare. She's a good actor though, putting Reagan (but not JFK) to shame.

If you were discerning enough and willing to endure his spluttering, you could find some decent points relating to all of the above in Trump's contributions. He went full-on fascist in his praise for police though.

Anyway, hope our former colonial possessions are treating you well over there. Be sure to let us know when the second civil war starts bubbling up.
>> No. 78219 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 6:25 pm
78219 spacer
>>78217
Looking forward to the next two debates now, Trump has apparently promised to "hit Hillary harder". I bet election night is going to be mental here.
>> No. 78220 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 6:33 pm
78220 spacer
>>78217

From the snippets I heard on Radio 4 driving home, that was about the shape of it.

Hilary was very, VERY good at politicianing her way out of some nasty corners, she pulled some very slick deflections and subject switches- Not once did she actually engage with it. Donald meanwhile stammered and sputtered when those same kind of questions were thrown at him. Meanwhile, he made some decent points about Hilary's past record, the things America would be in for far more of when she's the president. He just didn't capitalise on it, and people are always going to be won over by the slicker player in this sort of game.

I feel awful about the fact I'm leaning further and further towards Trump. So many people vehemently hate him for good reasons, but in the face of Clintonbot 3000, the very personification of a globalist neo-liberal newspeak politico, he genuinely is starting to feel like the lesser evil.
>> No. 78221 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 6:39 pm
78221 spacer

serveimage.jpg
782217822178221
>>78220
I don't really have a horse in this race for obvious reasons, but isn't Trump's total incompetence a greater danger than merely having an outright criminal for a president? It wouldn't be the first time.
>> No. 78223 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 6:52 pm
78223 spacer
>>78220

>I feel awful about the fact I'm leaning further and further towards Trump. So many people vehemently hate him for good reasons, but in the face of Clintonbot 3000, the very personification of a globalist neo-liberal newspeak politico, he genuinely is starting to feel like the lesser evil

My sentiments exactly. It's such a mindfuck.

>>78221

Nixon was incredibly competent. He stole the election from right under LBJ's nose, ensured that dreadful war in Indochina expanded and lengthened, overthrew unwanted governments successfully using the CIA, managed to perfect domestic covert activity against political opponents with the FBI (this includes COINTELPRO which waged a war on Black and Native America), and, though it pains me to admit, brought in some much needed nature/environmental protections.

Personally, I rather have an incompetent emperor heading Pax Americana. A well-run empire is a terrible thing.
>> No. 78224 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 6:57 pm
78224 spacer
>>78221

Oh, and I forgot to mention: Nixon managed to get Kissinger to bow down beside him at his bedside and murmur platitudes to the Christian god.

It takes competence of an acute level to manage something like that.
>> No. 78225 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 7:00 pm
78225 spacer
>>78223
Okay, but from an American point of view, surely it would be better for them to have a competent criminal running things than whatever Trump is?
>> No. 78227 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 7:08 pm
78227 spacer
God what a fucking shite choice.

I'm not even being melodramatic, they're really fucking shite. How depressing.

I can't get behind any of them.
>> No. 78229 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 7:11 pm
78229 spacer
NPR had a fact checker going on during the debate, which was rather interesting: http://www.npr.org/2016/09/26/495115346/fact-check-first-presidential-debate

On the whole, a lot of what Trump said just wasn't true and Hillary definitely kept herself cool. Leaning into the mic and saying "wrong" every so often while she was talking and trying to deny things that he's said before, that are out there for anyone to see, definitely hurt him. I think Hillary only got something like 4 facts wrongin comparison and didn't seem to sidetrack from the talking points, at least not as much as Trump did seeing as how the moderator had to keep trying to get him back on track to answer the question he was given, or to clarify what he was saying.
>> No. 78230 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 7:11 pm
78230 spacer
>>78225

Depends on what type of American we're talking about. If you're a neo-conservative then, sure, Hillary's your girl.

And, even though I really can't stand her nor her husband (in fact it's a hatred that sometimes surprises me), it is possible that Donald Trump is a real menace. The German Left, which kept dismissing Hitler as an unelectable kook right until his rise, were the first to feel his wrath (the Auschwitz camp was set up initially for political prisoners of this sort).

So it is possible that any support for Trump - however inadvertent - is wholly wrong-headed. Sorry, that was a detour, but it's a possible historical parallel that does concern me.
>> No. 78233 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 7:20 pm
78233 spacer
>>78230
Well, exactly. She's a fucking awful human being, that's a given, but she won't start a nuclear war over some perceived slight by another country, while I'd be far from surprised if Trump did.
>> No. 78236 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 7:23 pm
78236 spacer
>>78202
I'm saying I refuse to accept the story an obvious malcontent gave about his boss actually saying that.

>>78227
I thought maybe there would be a third party candidate I could agree with but of the two or three candidates they all seem equally if not more batshit.

Definitely a time for ballot spoiling.

>>78230
I don't think comparing Trump to Hitler is a fair comparison and I think it only hurts the Hillary camp that its often put in such hysterics. How many people have been compared to Hitler now?

I mean he's hardly calling for the re-militarization of the Rhineland.
>> No. 78237 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 7:23 pm
78237 spacer
>>78233
I have to agree. Also, what he thinks the US should have done in Iraq could perhaps be an indicator of his secret plan to tackle ISIS, which is worrying.
>> No. 78238 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 7:33 pm
78238 spacer
>>78236
>I don't think comparing Trump to Hitler is a fair comparison
I agree. Hitler must be turning in his grave.
>> No. 78239 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 7:35 pm
78239 spacer
>>78233

I suspect he's somewhat out of vogue around here, but Trotsky was one of the few leftists that appreciated Nazism for what it was long before it attained power. Could a similar analysis be applied to Trumpism? I don't know.

>Hitler has been widely regarded as a demagogue, a hysterical person, and a comedian. Such opinions are the reflections of a diplomacy incapable of vision or understanding save in the most ordinary routine matters. To attempt to appraise the present German political revolution with the rule-of-thumb methods of diplomacy is not only ludicrous; it is fraught with peril. It takes more than hysteria to seize power, and method there must be in the Nazi madness. Woe to those who do not awaken to this fact in time! The leaders of German labor refused to take Hitler seriously, they dismissed his program as an impossible blend of reaction and utopia. Today, as a result of their ghastly mistake, their organizations have been shattered to bits. What will happen if this mistake is repeated in the field of world politics?

>https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/xx/hitler.htm
>> No. 78240 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 7:36 pm
78240 spacer
>>78236

>I'm saying I refuse to accept the story an obvious malcontent gave about his boss actually saying that

You're bloody irritating and I'm sure I've told you that before.
>> No. 78242 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 7:58 pm
78242 spacer

nt.png
782427824278242
>>78237
Funnily enough Clinton's top advisor, Neera Tanden, who's expected to be chief of staff in a Clinton administration, proposed pretty much Trump's exact strategy back in Libya.
>> No. 78248 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 8:28 pm
78248 spacer
Trump would've cleaned the floor if he bothered preparing.
>> No. 78249 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 8:32 pm
78249 spacer
>>78248
That's a pointless thing to say. If he was prone to, or even capable of, preparing he'd be a wholly different candidate.
>> No. 78274 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 10:14 pm
78274 spacer
>>78249

people like trump because he is not an establishment terrorist... he is not bought and paid for.
>> No. 78280 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 10:31 pm
78280 spacer
>>78274
The stupidity is strong with this one.
>> No. 78318 Anonymous
29th September 2016
Thursday 7:54 pm
78318 spacer
>>78280

He's not entirely wrong. It would perhaps just be more accurate to say that he isn't bought and paid for by the same omnipresent global oil and commerce megacorps that put Clintonbot in the running. People are desperate enough that that alone is attractive.
>> No. 78319 Anonymous
29th September 2016
Thursday 7:58 pm
78319 spacer
>>78318
You're right. What people are looking for is a president bought and paid for by a different set of omnipresent global oil and commerce megacorps.
>> No. 78320 Anonymous
29th September 2016
Thursday 8:51 pm
78320 spacer
>>78318
You sound like one of those naifs who whinges about fantasies like corporatism and crony capitalism.
>> No. 78321 Anonymous
29th September 2016
Thursday 8:55 pm
78321 spacer
>>78319

I was subtly implying that, well done for catching it.

>>78320

Do you realise how popular shit like the Alex Jones show is in the States? These people don't need to look far for a bogeyman.
>> No. 78327 Anonymous
1st October 2016
Saturday 1:35 pm
78327 spacer

ARE.png
783277832778327
Hillary is going to be toast next debate. I just wonder if ARE NIGE is going to improvise that cackle for the mock debates.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/01/Jimmy-Saville-donald-trump-ukip-presidential-debate-us
>> No. 78328 Anonymous
1st October 2016
Saturday 2:35 pm
78328 spacer
>>78327
The second debate is in the style of a town hall meeting, which is usually staged in the round. The candidates will have to address the audience directly, as they will be asking some of the questions. If the news networks do the same split-screen thing they did in the first debate then yet again he won't have a break the whole time. It's also likely that the typical zingers that he liked to throw at a rally or in the primary debates will go down even less well than they would have done at the first debate. This one is in St Louis, so given the events in Ferguson it'll be interesting to see how he tackles the race issue. (In all likelihood, badly.)

Of course, there's the small matter of Tuesday's VP debate to get through first. Tim Kaine is effectively on home ground, and expect him to attack Mike Pence by association with Trump, and to mention that his senior partner will probably ignore him the entire term.
>> No. 78329 Anonymous
1st October 2016
Saturday 2:41 pm
78329 spacer
>>78328
The audience is always stacked against Trump, in the primaries it was all donors in the audience, and they cheered fucking Jeb more than anyone. He just calls out their deceptive bullshit for what it is, and most people, or at least those who understands that the lugenpresse are just that (again, most people, media trust is the lowest it's ever been) see it for the charade it is.
>> No. 78330 Anonymous
1st October 2016
Saturday 2:54 pm
78330 spacer
>>78327
No she isn't. The Miss Universe stuff has shown just how incredibly easy Trump is to bait. He has absolutely no restraint.
>> No. 78331 Anonymous
1st October 2016
Saturday 2:57 pm
78331 spacer
>>78329
Oh, Donald.
>> No. 78332 Anonymous
1st October 2016
Saturday 3:03 pm
78332 spacer
>>78330
You're right, it's impossible for someone "easy to bait" to win a debate. Not like he beat over a dozen candidates, many of whom were far more skilled at this than Hillary, like Cruz, who's actually one of the best debaters in the entire country.
>> No. 78333 Anonymous
1st October 2016
Saturday 3:09 pm
78333 spacer
>>78331
It's true though, only those with an IQ comfortably below the mean still believe in the media. Same kinds of people who still believed in Father Christmas at age 11.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx
>> No. 78334 Anonymous
1st October 2016
Saturday 3:18 pm
78334 spacer
>>78332
Hahaha, you should read what judges and fellow debaters from Cruz's college days have to say about his performances, assuming that's what you're basing that on. Or, you know, watch the debates he took part in. That should disabuse you of that notion pretty swiftly.

And Trump didn't win the primary by winning any debates, mate, his performances ranged from dire to passable. His best came when the spotlight was off him and on other candidates (like Rubio-Christie).
>> No. 78335 Anonymous
1st October 2016
Saturday 3:32 pm
78335 spacer
>>78334
Yeah, Cruz is only a renowned champion debater, I'm sure we should take the word of those who disagreed and lost against him.

>Leonardo was actually a shit artist m8, do you know what Giacomotto Cantdrawwellotti said about him?

He won almost all of them, that was the consensus, even the media admitted that. I'd be interested who else you think won them though. It certainly wasn't the Jeb!/Rubio/Kasich cadre though.
>> No. 78336 Anonymous
1st October 2016
Saturday 4:37 pm
78336 spacer
>>78333
>It's true though
You and I both know it isn't, m9.
>> No. 78347 Anonymous
1st October 2016
Saturday 11:35 pm
78347 spacer
Well this should definitely bolster her support amongst the already disgruntled Bernie people.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-supporters-audio-leak-228997
>> No. 78353 Anonymous
2nd October 2016
Sunday 4:59 pm
78353 spacer
>>78347
She also wants these basement dwellers to commit voter fraud for her. Search "MakeMineCount" on youtube to see the ridiculous "vote swapping" scheme the Hillary campaign is pushing.
>> No. 78355 Anonymous
2nd October 2016
Sunday 5:19 pm
78355 spacer
>>78347
What is wrong with what she said? It is true for the most part. The people who wanted Sanders are well educated and poor urbanites. The economy and politics has let them down. In a country as large and as populous as the USA, it is close to impossible to implement stuff like Scandinavian socialism. She didn't say anything disparaging.
>> No. 78356 Anonymous
2nd October 2016
Sunday 5:22 pm
78356 spacer

mmc.png
783567835678356
>>78353
Didn't watch your video, and instead spent 30 seconds researching that myself and, well what do you know, you're talking shit.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2007/08/internet-vote-swapping-legal-court-finds/
>> No. 78357 Anonymous
2nd October 2016
Sunday 5:23 pm
78357 spacer
>>78353
Pairing is entirely legal, and therefore isn't fraud. Anyway, don't you have some tax dodges to defend?
>> No. 78358 Anonymous
2nd October 2016
Sunday 5:39 pm
78358 spacer
>>78356
Oh this thing. They tried to do it here too. I thought it was a transparent attempt to marginalise the Greens. My home seat was considered a marginal and they advocated voting Labour. Now it's a safe seat. Good democracy everyone!!

http://voteswap.org/
>> No. 78359 Anonymous
2nd October 2016
Sunday 5:44 pm
78359 spacer
>>78358
Mate, we went through this. It turned out that we don't need a better voting system, we need rifles for are boys instead. Or something.
>> No. 78360 Anonymous
2nd October 2016
Sunday 6:06 pm
78360 spacer
>>78359
It was new babies. If we change the voting system, literally billions of new babies will die for want of a new maternity unit.
>> No. 78361 Anonymous
2nd October 2016
Sunday 6:31 pm
78361 spacer
>>78360

If the British public are faced with a task as complex as ranking the candidates by preference, their brains will leak out of their ears. Honest, hardworking people can't be trusted with anything more complicated than putting a cross in a box. They'd probably go mad and accidentally vote for the reanimated corpse of Idi Amin.
>> No. 78362 Anonymous
2nd October 2016
Sunday 7:05 pm
78362 spacer
Funny how the FPTP moaners will moan endlessly about how FPTP supporters 'think the public are stupid' when it was the public who overwhelmingly supported the retention of FPTP in a referendum just a few years ago.

Stupid public!
>> No. 78363 Anonymous
2nd October 2016
Sunday 7:14 pm
78363 spacer
>>78362
Would that be the one where one side basically lied and cheated their way through the whole campaign?

Seems to be a bit of a pattern with nationwide referendums lately.
>> No. 78364 Anonymous
2nd October 2016
Sunday 7:39 pm
78364 spacer
>>78362

I didn't realise how many people around me were stupid until I heard their arguments for why they would or wouldn't be supporting STV. Everything from weird scare mongering about it letting in the BNP to someone refusing to comprehend it is impossible to get more than 1 number above 50 in a percentile, and berating me for it.
>> No. 78365 Anonymous
2nd October 2016
Sunday 7:49 pm
78365 spacer
>>78362
I don't get it.
>> No. 78366 Anonymous
2nd October 2016
Sunday 7:53 pm
78366 spacer
>>78362
Turnout was shit, the public were lied to, They only supported FPTP over AV, their opinion on proper PR (as seen in Scotland's parliament) has yet to be ascertained.

Though I'm still of the view we (A) shouldn't have had a referendum at all. Got Lib-Lab-SNP-Plaid to back it in 2010, then called a second election. (Result hopefully duplicates the first, Lib-Lab coalition or some kind of minority governance. Yay.) or (B) as above with the Lib-Lab-SNP-Plaid shoogly coalition, just to get the PR referendum, then see what happens. If "Yes" to PR (with a large government backed pro-PR campaign) then go ahead as usual, if "No" then everything's fucked anyway so let it fall.

>>78364
To be fair, STV is a bit shit unless you're a Lib-Dem. AMS/MMP is better, being more similar to our current system (you don't need those scary numbers on your ballot papers!) and not pushing shitty compromise candidates. (Sure, you've got dullard party-list members, but they're just analogous to FPTP's safe seats.)
>> No. 78368 Anonymous
2nd October 2016
Sunday 8:49 pm
78368 spacer
>>78356
Thank you for Correcting The Record.
>> No. 78369 Anonymous
2nd October 2016
Sunday 9:27 pm
78369 spacer
>>78368
Is this a new meme?
>> No. 78370 Anonymous
2nd October 2016
Sunday 9:38 pm
78370 spacer
>>78369

Only if your post is paid for by the campaign to elect trump for President.
>> No. 78372 Anonymous
2nd October 2016
Sunday 10:28 pm
78372 spacer
I'm starting to get a bit worried.

Also about the length of this thread. Should we lock it and start a new one to herald the coronation of President Trump?
>> No. 78377 Anonymous
3rd October 2016
Monday 12:04 am
78377 spacer
>>78361
If we ever do switch to a preferential voting system, I imagine the Electoral Commission will interpret a single cross in a box, rather than as a spoilt ballot, as a first preference vote.

But honestly, if someone is so clueless as to be blissfully unaware our voting system is changing and to not properly read and understand the simple instructions on their ballot paper, then they deserve to have their ballot counted as spoilt. They aren't qualified to be voting anyway.
>> No. 78380 Anonymous
3rd October 2016
Monday 1:36 am
78380 spacer
>>78377
>I imagine the Electoral Commission will interpret a single cross in a box, rather than as a spoilt ballot, as a first preference vote.
The existing guidance for Northern Ireland, where the Assembly is elected by STV, already says this.
>> No. 78381 Anonymous
3rd October 2016
Monday 6:35 pm
78381 spacer
>>78372
We only have 5 weeks to go, hardly worth it. And the older posts will be fun to bring up and gloat over.
>> No. 78389 Anonymous
3rd October 2016
Monday 9:11 pm
78389 spacer
The fact they're now trying to pass off avoiding paying taxes for 18 years as a great thing is bizarre.
>> No. 78390 Anonymous
3rd October 2016
Monday 10:02 pm
78390 spacer
>>78389

Don't attempt to understand the Septic mindset, that way ruination lies.
>> No. 78391 Anonymous
3rd October 2016
Monday 10:34 pm
78391 spacer

randy.jpg
783917839178391
>>78389

Well, taxation is theft, after all.
>> No. 78396 Anonymous
5th October 2016
Wednesday 8:48 am
78396 spacer

FB_IMG_1475653221808.jpg
783967839678396

>> No. 78488 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 10:00 am
78488 spacer
That's it, he's fucked, game over.
>> No. 78490 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 10:09 am
78490 spacer
>>78488

Would you like to explain your statement to the rest of us who don't exist inside your head and therefore don't automatically know what you are refering to.
>> No. 78491 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 10:35 am
78491 spacer
>>78490
Watch some fucking news.

>>78488
/r/The_Donald is very scary right now. "Literally 99% of men have said stuff like this".
>> No. 78493 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 11:15 am
78493 spacer

trump opulence.jpg
784937849378493
>>78488>>78491
Where have I heard this before? Maybe only several dozen times. Oh, and even that most stalwart Never Trumper Bill Kristol doesn't agree with you about it changing anything significantly.

It's hard for people so politically correct (you) to believe but most people don't care about Trump's sexism or "misogyny", we all know who he is, to most guys this just shows he's not some hapless mug, like Jeb for instance, who married the first girl who showed interest, to most women, well, they get moist to this kind of talk. And I'm being deadly serious.

Only people that give a toss about feminism will care (read: not many, believe it or not), and on the other side maybe some tradcons too (the Glenn Beck types), but those people were never going to vote Trump.

Interestingly, the BBC et al seem to be making more of it than American media, makes you think.
>> No. 78494 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 11:22 am
78494 spacer
>>78493
>And I'm being deadly serious.

We can tell you're a virgin, fuck off.
>> No. 78495 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 11:24 am
78495 spacer
>>78491
He won't survive this despite the legions of "edge lords" who are now saying that kind of talk is normal. Yes, men on their own do speak very profanely about women, but none in my experience talk about grabbing them by the pussy or forcing kisses on them. Clinton will quite rightly make a big deal of this, Trump will attempt to double down on casting aspersions about Bill's historical behaviour and it's all coming to a head quite nicely.

I think the final irony is that it was a Bush who was responsible for the bringing down of him. That coda to the story is hilarious.
>> No. 78496 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 11:31 am
78496 spacer
“I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.”

This line is the killer.
>> No. 78497 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 12:06 pm
78497 spacer
"Grab them by the pussy."

That sounds like something my mate who obviously had never had sex, despite really wanting everyone to think he had, would say when he was 14
>> No. 78499 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 12:17 pm
78499 spacer
>>78494
Quite the contrary, it's men with your supplicating mindset that stay virgins, or end up like Jeb, married to some ungrateful hog much below them who they stick with out of sheer desperation.

>>78495
Alright lad, we're all edgelords, or deplorables, or some other word meant to trigger a shame reflex. Broken. Record. And I really don't think Hillary is in a place to throw stones.
>> No. 78501 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 12:41 pm
78501 spacer
>>78497
Exactly that - plus the hordes of deplorables who are now insisting that thats what women like. They haven't been near a pussy in their life.
>> No. 78504 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 12:57 pm
78504 spacer

connery.jpg
785047850478504
>>78501
This is some heady projection mate, I've likely been with more women than most of .gs (21 and counting, I honestly doubt many of the past few posters have even had enough to count on more than one hand), it's EXACTLY your mewling, whiteknighting beta act that repels women to their core and turns their fannies drier than the sahara.

Misogynists get laid, quite a lot actually.
>> No. 78505 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 1:01 pm
78505 spacer
>>78504

Not committing sexual assault isn't "white knighting", you tragic, tragic, bellend.
>> No. 78506 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 1:02 pm
78506 spacer
>>78504
Reaction images, beta, trying to impress us with a number. Yeah, we believe you.
>> No. 78507 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 2:05 pm
78507 spacer
>>78504
They may get laid, they don't become President.
>> No. 78508 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 2:23 pm
78508 spacer
>>78507
Reminds me of a funny story, I used to know a guy would go around nightclubs asking girls how much they hate their Dad. The ones that say they don't or don't respond he'd forget about, but if any say they do he would spend the rest of the night being a total and utter cunt to them. A surprisingly high percentage of the time they would end up hate-fucking him at the end of the night.

On-topic, this won't affect Trump because it only feeds into his persona. It's hard for most Brits to understand because we're used to a more reserved and serious type of politics, but over there it's already practically just another episode of pop-idol (You only need to have watched any part of the democrat convention to see what I mean). In a straight popularity contest, Trump was never winning the support of fisherfolk but there are a large number of yanks who wholeheartedly and unironically who buy into the whole alpha/beta/omega shit, either explicitly or implicitly, who will continue supporting him.
>> No. 78509 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 2:49 pm
78509 spacer
>>78508
I don't think its that surprising there are patterns of attraction for women, based on their relationship with their father. I am quite sure that many women could claim a similar pattern about men and their mothers.

I understand American culture well, I've visited over fifty times. You're entirely right that its difficult for Brits to understand the redneck point of view - but the overriding concern here is that more women vote in the US than men. In exactly a months time, very few of them are going to think "I don't like Hillary, lets take a punt on Donald".
>> No. 78510 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 3:10 pm
78510 spacer
>>78496
Wow. That sounds like he was channelling Jimmy Savile. The worst part is that he's now trying to deny that those words reflect who he is rather than owning it. The question will be whether or not the I'd Vote For Anyone With An (R) After Their Name crowd will still want to vote for him.
>> No. 78511 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 3:14 pm
78511 spacer
>>78509
>many women could claim a similar pattern about men and their mothers.
Ah, so that's why I avoid them like the plague...
>> No. 78513 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 3:20 pm
78513 spacer
>>78510
Exactly that - its very Savile. He is saying that he uses his fame to assault women. That's the bit which is terrible here, not that he is expressing sexual preferences per se.
>> No. 78519 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 3:59 pm
78519 spacer
I interpret this to be about the differance between what people will public say and the reality.

Women bought 50 shades of grey in their hundreds of thousands, if you take the feminist view of the world and sexuality they shouldn't, ever. Because Christopher Grey doesn't give a shit about consent and just takes what ever he wants, he is basically a rapist. But the reality is this is a fantasy written by women for women and bought by women. Enough women like this kind of treatment and are actually turned on by it for Trump's behaviour to be less shocking then everyone is pretending it is.

This is just the excuse people were looking for to justify their hatred of Trump. I don't like the man, I think the idea of him being the leader of the free world is an absurd joke, he'll proke wars and fuck up international relations with everyone. I don't think this statement changes anything, the people who weren't going to vote for him will proclaim this as justification for not liking him anyway, and the people who were going to vote for him won't care.

>>78507

Public yes you are right everyone will decry him for this, but in the secrecy of the voting booth I don't think it would.

The biggest question is how this affects the Christian republican base, but they are so loyal to the party I don't think they would defect.
>> No. 78522 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 4:11 pm
78522 spacer
>>78519
>Women bought 50 shades of grey in their hundreds of thousands, if you take the feminist view of the world and sexuality they shouldn't, ever.
Oh dear, lad.
>> No. 78525 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 4:36 pm
78525 spacer
>>78522
Not who you are replying to but I'd be interested in hearing the mental gymnastics undertaken by the hardcore "No Means No" crowd to persuade themselves that it's OK to get off to 50 Shades.
>> No. 78526 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 4:38 pm
78526 spacer
>>78525
There's this thing called the difference between fantasy and reality.
>> No. 78528 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 4:41 pm
78528 spacer
>>78526


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIBT4-Sd-KY
>> No. 78530 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 4:49 pm
78530 spacer
>>78525>>78519
Quite. Fifty Shades is a novel about domination and S&M - people who like those kinds of practices will no doubt tell you that consent is an important part of it. What Trump is talking about is groping women and getting away with it because he is famous. You simply can't conflate the two.
>> No. 78535 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 5:42 pm
78535 spacer
>>78530

>You simply can't conflate the two

I wouldn't count on that.
>> No. 78539 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 6:14 pm
78539 spacer
>>78526

No mate, it's internalized misogyny, those womyn don't know what they are doing, they've learned to fetishize themselves and rape culture, they need feminism to teach them to think correctly


>>78530

>Fifty Shades is a novel about domination and S&M - people who like those kinds of practices will no doubt tell you that consent is an important part of it.

Only 50 shades was main stream popular, and the S&M crowd hated it for being too mainstream because it ruined their little counter culture secret club, they actively complained about it.

>Trump is talking about is groping women and getting away with it because he is famous. You simply can't conflate the two.

That is verging on the behavior of 50 shades, are you telling me that a significant number of women would share that fantasy, but if it happened to them they would refuse it? that seems absurd to me.
>> No. 78542 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 6:32 pm
78542 spacer
>>78539
>That is verging on the behavior of 50 shades, are you telling me that a significant number of women would share that fantasy, but if it happened to them they would refuse it? that seems absurd to me.

In 50 shades, the main protagonist gives her consent - a difficult concept for most of Trumps supports to grasp. In the comments he made in the video, he was talking about groping women genitals or kissing them, without consent. Most people can see the difference between those two ideas. In one, the people are willing participants, in the other, they are not.
>> No. 78543 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 6:47 pm
78543 spacer
In other news, claimed excerpts of Hillary's speeches (you remember, the ones she said she'd release in due course?) have leaked. The Russians are putting on their finest OJ Simpson impression and denying involvement, much as they have with the TUE leaks. She probably has an answer to it, and like the emails it'll probably involve taking some degree of ownership of it. Contrast this with Donald's approach of saying they were uncharacteristic mistakes, he'd never do such a thing, and it's no worse than what Bill did, and have you seen what Hillary's up to?

I get the feeling that the American equivalent of the "right-coloured rosette" crowd probably won't be swayed, but among the more wavering supporters it'll be Clinton's that are more likely to hold their nose and stick with their candidate.

When looking at the polling numbers for the next couple of weeks, bear in mind that postal ballots will have been eligible for return in all 50 states, and in-person early voting will have opened in 16.
>> No. 78551 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 7:49 pm
78551 spacer
>>78543

She never said she'd release them "in due course", she said she'd release them when everyone else released theirs. Which is more of a cop out, but not what you said.
>> No. 78553 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 7:56 pm
78553 spacer
>>78551
Yes, you're correct, I did of course mean the ones she hadn't released, as opposed to the ones she hadn't released.
>> No. 78568 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 9:05 pm
78568 spacer
Sounds like some people only just realized Donald Trump is running for office; Trump said he wished he could've had the chance to fuck Princess Di on Howard Stern back in the day, had "If Hillary Clinton can't satisfy her husband, what makes her think she can satisfy America?" on his twitter.
>> No. 78570 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 9:16 pm
78570 spacer
>>78553

Reaching the finish line isn't everything, understanding how you got there is just as important.
>> No. 78581 Anonymous
8th October 2016
Saturday 11:55 pm
78581 spacer
The debate tomorrow night is going to be fascinating. Could be the last day of the election, effectively.
>> No. 78583 Anonymous
9th October 2016
Sunday 12:10 am
78583 spacer

dave.jpg
785837858378583
>Reaching the finish line isn't everything, understanding how you got there is just as important.
>> No. 78584 Anonymous
9th October 2016
Sunday 12:17 am
78584 spacer
>>78543
I was hoping someone would bring it up eventually. I haven't heard of anything ground-breaking being revealed, we all know she is in the pocket of bankers and wants free trade and movement.

Apparently its just the start but it seems a poor one even discounting for the pussygate scandal.

>Contrast this with Donald's approach of saying they were uncharacteristic mistakes, he'd never do such a thing, and it's no worse than what Bill did, and have you seen what Hillary's up to?

His apology sounds fair enough to me, obviously he spends allot of time selling himself but then he is running for POTUS:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/784609194234306560

It sounds like I'm siding with Trump but I'm just thinking about things I might have said in 2005 -I liked Korn for instance.

>>78581
>The debate tomorrow night is going to be fascinating.

Lets not get ahead of ourselves.
>> No. 78585 Anonymous
9th October 2016
Sunday 12:19 am
78585 spacer

CuNf97FWcAAsFi2.jpg-large.jpg
785857858578585
Mobilizing. (sp)
>> No. 78586 Anonymous
9th October 2016
Sunday 12:37 am
78586 spacer

quran.jpg
785867858678586
>>78585

They've got a point.
>> No. 78587 Anonymous
9th October 2016
Sunday 12:55 am
78587 spacer
Same shit you'd hear at any rugby club.
>> No. 78589 Anonymous
9th October 2016
Sunday 1:05 am
78589 spacer
>>78587

I find it difficult to judge whether or not you're defending him.
>> No. 78590 Anonymous
9th October 2016
Sunday 1:21 am
78590 spacer
>>78584
>His apology sounds fair enough to me
Mate, it's a textbook non-apology apology.
>> No. 78591 Anonymous
9th October 2016
Sunday 1:23 am
78591 spacer
>Same shit you'd hear at any rugby club.

>I find it difficult to judge whether or not you're defending him.

Fuckin gays in here tonite

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8wPu8-wemM
>> No. 78602 Anonymous
9th October 2016
Sunday 11:01 am
78602 spacer
>>78586
Funny how those women all calling for freedom for their gender all felt obliged to shave their armpits.
>> No. 78603 Anonymous
9th October 2016
Sunday 11:05 am
78603 spacer
>>78602

And I shave my big, hairy arse for hygiene's sake. Did I accidentally forgo my basic civil liberties in the process?
>> No. 78606 Anonymous
9th October 2016
Sunday 12:46 pm
78606 spacer
>>78587
Most of the people you hear at a rugby club also are not qualified to be president of the United States.
>> No. 78607 Anonymous
9th October 2016
Sunday 1:26 pm
78607 spacer

initiation-3-e1414673976176-300x174[1].png
786077860778607
>>78587
I've been out of uni for a few years, thanks for reminding me what a bunch of insufferable cunts rugby players are.
>> No. 78608 Anonymous
9th October 2016
Sunday 1:44 pm
78608 spacer
>>78603
Whooooooosh
>> No. 78622 Anonymous
9th October 2016
Sunday 10:02 pm
78622 spacer
>>78586

Interestingly, I've nobbed two of those girls.
>> No. 78623 Anonymous
9th October 2016
Sunday 10:21 pm
78623 spacer
>>78622
You'll have to explain how, as they're clearly not British.
>> No. 78624 Anonymous
9th October 2016
Sunday 10:54 pm
78624 spacer
>>78623

Anna? No she's Ukrainian. Can't remmeber the red heads name now. Ahh...Femen...always ready to help putting the man into woman.

They fucked like minks.
>> No. 78625 Anonymous
9th October 2016
Sunday 10:55 pm
78625 spacer
>>78624

*redhead's

Sorry lads, long day...
>> No. 78626 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 1:48 am
78626 spacer
Round two imminent. Apparently the buildup has involved Trump's people criticising the Republican establishment, calling the RNC leadership weak. The crazy train is about to hit St Louis.
>> No. 78627 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 2:16 am
78627 spacer
This is already amazing. And God I love Anderson Cooper, just look at him, mm.
>> No. 78628 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 2:25 am
78628 spacer
This is literally just them trading insults and trying to settle scores with each other isn't it. How is this going to help people decide?
>> No. 78629 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 2:26 am
78629 spacer
HILLARY EVISCERATED, THIS IS FUCKING BRUTAL
>> No. 78630 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 2:28 am
78630 spacer
No handshake to open up with. Trump remains composed for all of about five minutes, standing still, speaking straight into the camera, occasionally oacknowledging the audience and the moderator. After that, it's back to his usual lines, including the emails. Clinton is approaching the audience and addressing her questioners directly, and so far isn't rising to it. She managed around ten hours on Benghazi, and she's only got another hour of this to go, and he's going on about the emails again. The "no audience reaction" rule seems to have gone out the window. Clinton is trying to maintain some measure of substance, but doesn't seem to be succeeding. More emails.

Also, he's sniffing the mic again. Expect him to complain about the sound again. By the way, did I mention the emails?
>> No. 78631 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 2:29 am
78631 spacer
>>78630
He's treating it like some kind of rap battle, the way he's walking around and interrupting every time she talks. Oh now he's playing the "it's not fair" card.
>> No. 78632 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 2:40 am
78632 spacer
In the first debate, Trump advocated for gun control. In the second debate, he just advocated for making block grants to expand Medicaid. Somewhere out there a senior Republican is having an aneurysm.
>> No. 78633 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 3:42 am
78633 spacer
What a shit show that was. The funniest comments have been from the reporters despairing at the state of American politics.
>> No. 78634 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 3:51 am
78634 spacer
>>78633
>The funniest comments
I'm not sure you've understood this whole debate thing.
>> No. 78635 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 4:08 am
78635 spacer

nbc news.png
786357863578635
Priceless
>> No. 78636 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 7:26 am
78636 spacer
>>78635

Wow, I just checked and this is actually real - and is still up.

This is the exact same as Brexit, this moron is going to win because people think he is anti-establishment because major media outlets treat them with contempt.
>> No. 78637 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 7:54 am
78637 spacer

serveimage.jpg
786377863778637
She's going to win because a criminal is better than an incompetent moron. It wouldn't be a first.
>> No. 78638 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 8:03 am
78638 spacer
>>78637
To be honest I've just got through watching it.

The other posters were right. What an absolute fucking travesty. It can't really get much lower than this, can it?

I did get a laugh out of him saying that she doesn't want him to be in charge because she'd be in jail. I imagine that will be a pretty defining clip.

It's almost laughable how fucking bad both of them are.
>> No. 78639 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 10:33 am
78639 spacer
>>78637
I liked to imagine Trump is Nixon. Mostly because of The Nixon-Kissinger conversation about how WE GOTTA NUKE 'EM HENRY. BLOW THE DAMS.
>> No. 78640 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 12:17 pm
78640 spacer

shestheonewithanawfulfashionsense.jpg
786407864078640
>>78638

He actually made good points if you had your Buffoon-to-English dictionary to hand. I found the moment when Clinton bashed Trump's tax affairs particularly enjoyable.

Trump responded by saying that her billionaire friends make use of exactly the same loop holes and added that, if it bothered her so much, why hadn't she tried to change the tax laws? Her garbled response was that 1) he was lying and 2) that she was working under a Republican president (only to add later that she's been in the Senate for decades).

It's only because she is somewhat eloquent that people take her seriously. If you actually listen and think, she comes across worse than him for the most part.

>>78637

You're correct to compare Clinton to Nixon. Their similarities are far, far greater than the Trump-Nixon one the other lad made.

>Both Clinton and Nixon participated in character assassination, the first being central to the intimidation and slander campaign of Bill’s many victims. Both Clinton and Nixon exploited mass human disaster for their own megalomaniacal reasons – the former in Kosovo, the other in Indochina. Both Clinton and Nixon have lent their ear to that serpent Kissinger (he’ll outlive us all at this rate, but then, do demons ever expire?). Clixon is war-mongering, conniving and, perhaps most irritating of all, incompetent
>http://www.poleandpaddy.com/dynasty-and-farce-in-d-c-from-the-brit-no-one-asked/

And in fact she began her political career in Nixon's Republican Party, working for that blow-hard, racialist businessman Barry Goldwater, who relied on Daddy for everything he had. (Remind you of anyone? It's an irony I appreciate anyway.)

I think it such a good comparison that I've tried to popularise the nickname Clixon, though it hasn't caught on.
>> No. 78644 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 1:07 pm
78644 spacer
Do you think they used to be lovers?
>> No. 78645 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 1:41 pm
78645 spacer
>>78640
>(only to add later that she's been in the Senate for decades).
No, she said she'd been in political life for decades. She was a senior from 2001 to 2009.

>It's only because she is somewhat eloquent that people take her seriously. If you actually listen and think, she comes across worse than him for the most part.
Nah
>> No. 78646 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 1:43 pm
78646 spacer
>>78645
*Senator
>> No. 78647 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 2:01 pm
78647 spacer
>>78645

Nah?

Well, let's see. What charges was she unable to provide explanations to (or even acknowledge)?

1) Putting State Department and confidential emails on a private server, then deleting hundreds of thousands prior to a FBI investigation
2) Her collusion in the DNC's undermining of Bernie Sanders
3) That fact some of her biggest donors also make use of the very same tax loop holes Trump does
3b) That she has done zilch to attempt to close such loop holes, and in fact has supported more legislation beneficial to the 1%
4) That she used the race card when running against Barack Obama, employing that lackey Sidney Blumenthal to dig up dirt from Obama's past in Chicago
5) That she and her husband used the same scoundrel to slander some of Bill's victims in the media (this episode is what led to Christopher Hitchens' famous falling out with Blumenthal)
6) Her on-going support of disastrous trade policies, NAFTA notably - that has done more than any single other factor - except the Drug War - to force Mexicans north of the border (into lands which were once theirs')
7) Her horrendous foreign policy record - Libya and Iraq are obvious. But also let's not forget her support of a coup in Honduras which saw the ousting of a progressive president and the installation of a Catholic fundamentalist regime

(I've most likely forget something, this was just what I could recall right now.)

All these points Trump has brought up one time or another. His awful "speech" style and his flip-flopping pale in comparison to her indefensible actions.

But if you can't see that, and are taken in by spin, a well-tutored voice and spurious fact-checking, there's not a lot I can do I suppose.
>> No. 78648 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 2:06 pm
78648 spacer
>>78647

Well put, although they both are shite candidates and she's still probably better.

She dodged the Bill raping people amazingly. She literally said 'when they go low, I go high.' yet nobody seemed to notice.
>> No. 78649 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 2:06 pm
78649 spacer
>>78645

Oh, yes, and she's almost certainly racist (or at least finds dolphin rape politically expedient).

Read this from Alexander Cockburn and compare it to Trump:

>[Clinton’s driver with her and two friends in the back] passed a beggar, and as they did so the First Lady expressed her disgust for the mendicant, adding, “He wouldn’t be a bum if he had a piece of ass.” The driver was able to shed no light on how or why she had arrived at this conclusion, stunned as he was by the coarse nature of her observations. Then they passed two young black women with babies. “There go 
two welfare cases. They make me sick. They’re too lazy to work,” said Senator Clinton, champion of mothers and 
children everywhere.
>> No. 78650 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 3:10 pm
78650 spacer
>>78640
>Trump responded by saying that her billionaire friends make use of exactly the same loop holes and added that
That's called "and you are lynching negroes" and it's not a real response.
>> No. 78651 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 3:26 pm
78651 spacer
>>78650

Huh?

>That's called "and you are lynching negroes"

I... what? But anyway...

Well it was in fact a real response. It was given and it left her flummoxed. Because she understands something that you, incredibly, don't seem to: people don't like hypocrisy.

So when one of your central talking points is "my opponent doesn't pay taxes" is countered with "I make use of the same loop holes your donors do", your attack manages to ring even hollower than it did to begin with (and also opens you up to scrutiny). It was a disastrous moment for her.
>> No. 78652 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 3:26 pm
78652 spacer
>>78647
I would dispute the veracity of a few of those, but I'm not particularly invested in doing so. The overall gist of her character flaws and disastrous policy I agree with. The fact that she's still the better candidate is quite something.
>> No. 78653 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 3:33 pm
78653 spacer
>>78652

>I would dispute the veracity of a few of those, but I'm not particularly invested in doing so

I have a store of statements which I consider "typically liberal". That comment, with its boring, content-shy middle-of-the-road way, has joined them.
>> No. 78654 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 3:57 pm
78654 spacer
>>78653
Deciding not to argue about things you don't care about is a symptom of sanity, my friend, not liberalism.
>> No. 78655 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 4:10 pm
78655 spacer
>>78651
>I... what?
It's a reference to how some hypothetical spokesperson for the USSR would respond when criticised on human rights issues by the United States. It's shorthand for a fallacious defence to an accusation by pointing at your accuser for doing the same thing - it doesn't absolve you of your blame in the first instance.
>> No. 78656 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 4:12 pm
78656 spacer
>>78654

Your comment did remind me of a technique of Trump's that I recently realised is fucking brilliant.

"I could bring up x but I won't, I'm better than that."

It has the double effect of reminding everyone of x - usually a sordid detail of Bill's sexual life - while allowing Trump to maintain the moral highground. (It does, of course, rely on a very transient attention span on the part of the listener.)

And, yeah, you're just feeding the stereotype. I don't know, perhaps you have to have spent a lot of time in particular lefty circles to appreciate it.
>> No. 78657 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 4:16 pm
78657 spacer
>>78651
I imagine her defence is that even if she does use the same loopholes, she has paid tax consistently, whereas Trump most likely hasn't.
>> No. 78658 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 4:20 pm
78658 spacer
>>78657
Trump didn't even claim she had used any loophole, he said her donors have.
>> No. 78659 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 4:21 pm
78659 spacer
>>78656
Actually that's not brilliant, and if it's genuinely a challenge for you to see through it, you're a fucking dullard.
>> No. 78660 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 4:27 pm
78660 spacer
>>78659

I didn't say it was comrade. (Why so quick to attack? Suggests just a little too much despair.)

And it is brilliant because it works on millions of people who still consider Trump an upstanding guy, someone who hasn't "gone far enough" in his attacks.
>> No. 78661 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 4:28 pm
78661 spacer
>>78659

(I didn't say it was a challenge to see through it, just to clarify.)
>> No. 78662 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 4:37 pm
78662 spacer
>>78660
>And it is brilliant because it works on millions of people who still consider Trump an upstanding guy, someone who hasn't "gone far enough" in his attacks
The people who think he's an "upstanding guy" and want to see him go further in his attacks are already voting for him, you div.
>> No. 78663 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 4:39 pm
78663 spacer
>>78661
You said you "recently realised" it was "fucking brilliant". That suggests it took you a while to work out what was going on, and that you think there's something complex to it.
>> No. 78665 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 5:11 pm
78665 spacer
>>78663

Because he hadn't debated Clinton until relatively recently (just over a week I think).

I couldn't have noticed it before I had seen him do it, deary.
>> No. 78666 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 5:17 pm
78666 spacer
>>78662

There's a voting block commonly referred to as Independents in the US. There's rather a lot of them and a growing number are apparently backing Trump. (I hope that new batch of information didn't overload your brain there lad. I tried to keep it simple.)
>> No. 78668 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 5:40 pm
78668 spacer
>>78665
Then you should have just said it's a technique which you think is "fucking brilliant" rather than one you "recently realised is fucking brilliant. The latter implies some time and reflection between you first encountering it and coming to your current belief, the former does not. I hope this has been instructive for you.

>>78666
Oh for sure, there is definitely a significant group of Americans out there who think Trump is an upstanding guy who should attack Clinton harder, but are as of yet undecided on whether they will vote for Trump or Clinton. Top analysis m8
>> No. 78669 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 5:42 pm
78669 spacer
>>78666
Have you got a source on that? FWIW, none of the major pollsters have yet published anything detailed covering post-Pussygate.
>> No. 78671 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 6:19 pm
78671 spacer
>>78669

There is no data to support his claim. Of the last ten published polls (covering the 3rd to 9th of October), nine show a Clinton lead. Adjusting for sample size and historical accuracy, all polls published since July suggest a tie or a Clinton lead.

Trump's poll ratings have fallen significantly over the past fortnight, falling from an average of 41% to 38.5%; the FiveThirtyEight model estimates that his chance of winning has fallen from 45% to 18%. That prediction is matched by the betting exchanges, which currently put Trump's chance of winning at 17%.

Hillary's polling lead is well outside the normal margin of error. Unless there's a large and unaccounted-for "shy Trumper" effect, Trump needs a miracle at this stage.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=2016-forecast
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.107373419
>> No. 78675 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 7:06 pm
78675 spacer
>>78640
>Both Clinton and Nixon exploited mass human disaster for their own megalomaniacal reasons – the former in Kosovo, the other in Indochina.

Did a Serb write this?

It does lead into a polarising distinction between the two though in the one question that actually mattered, Syria. Hillary is talking about a no fly zone which could lead to dogfighting Russian jets over hostile territory when already Syrian air defences were considered too great to guarantee interventions success. Trump is just washing his hands of the conflict and wants to work with the new Axis of evil against ISIS.

That is a pretty massive distinction right there especially when Hillary is talking about arming the Kurds (ignoring that its not 2011) pushing Turkey into the 'them' camp. Its clashing R2P idealism with a solution in realpolitik that leaves the rebels out to dry and likely to be massacred. Its a shame no question came up of how to handle the Chinese expansion of its zone of control because taking either road would be insane.

Also the last question made Clinton come across as a snide cunt. I don't even think it was her turn to answer first yet she just couldn't resist spitting acid.
>> No. 78676 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 7:08 pm
78676 spacer
>>78675
>Hillary is talking about arming the Kurds (ignoring that its not 2011) pushing Turkey into the 'them' camp
Wait, Hillary wants to piss off the Turks?
Maybe a Clinton victory wouldn't be so bad after all. Fuck the Turks, get out of NATO and come back when you're civilized.
>> No. 78680 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 7:19 pm
78680 spacer
>>78675
>I don't even think it was her turn to answer first yet she just couldn't resist spitting acid.
You're right, it wasn't her turn to answer first, but despite the moderators addressing him directly he didn't say anything.
>> No. 78682 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 7:27 pm
78682 spacer
>>78676
I can't foresee any kind of intervention in Syria working out if the Turks are alienated. Its not like the Kurds can really be expected to engage in heavy lifting outside of their ethnic enclaves and I don't see American jets engaging the Turkish military.

At that point you only need to piss off Iraq for American influence to collapse. Add to that it looks like America will soon be getting even more involved in Yemen (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37606758) which puts the US in an awkward position of blasting Assad for targeting civilians while the Saudis do just that.
>> No. 78683 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 7:37 pm
78683 spacer
>>78680
I didn't get that impression but I was dying for a piss at the time so who knows. At any rate jumping in with that was a stupid idea and shows (I can't believe I'm using this) poor judgement.

She was a consistent hawk throughout the Obama administration so I wonder if her reflex is to always attack without thinking. If China and Japan get into an escalating naval skirmish will her response be to dispatch the 7th fleet under orders to raise hell and inevitably get fucked up by Chinese missiles?
>> No. 78684 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 7:55 pm
78684 spacer
>>78683
>At any rate jumping in with that was a stupid idea and shows (I can't believe I'm using this) poor judgement.
Jumping in to answer when your opponent is deadly silent when he's asked a question is a stupid idea? Is that like how in cricket wildly swinging on a free hit is a stupid idea because you might get caught?

>She was a consistent hawk
Oh, you're not being serious, I get it now.
>> No. 78685 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 7:57 pm
78685 spacer
>>78683
Nobody cares what "impression" you got, that is what happened in reality.
>> No. 78686 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 11:13 pm
78686 spacer
>>78675

>the Chinese expansion of its zone of control

Actual defense analyst here. How is that armchair, lad?
>> No. 78688 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 11:40 pm
78688 spacer
>>78684
>Jumping in to answer when your opponent is deadly silent when he's asked a question is a stupid idea?

Yes. Let the awkward silence settle like Trump just sharted himself.

>>78686
I'm channelling some Stephen M. Walt because I read his point before the debate. Its in an article on the questions that should be asked:

>Q: China’s economic and military power has been rising rapidly and it has been increasingly aggressive in advancing territorial claims in the South China Sea and elsewhere, in part by reclaiming reefs and shoals and expanding its military presence. Do you believe it is a vital U.S. interest to prevent China from establishing de facto control of these key maritime passageways and, if so, would you authorize the use of military force to halt China’s efforts? If you are unwilling to use force, how will you keep China from eventually dominating the region?

>This question gets at the heart of the main strategic challenge the next president (and his or her successors) will face — namely, how to deal with a powerful and increasingly assertive China. This issue is far more important than the Islamic State, Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine, the Israel-Palestine conflict, immigration, or any of the lesser issues that have distracted U.S. policymakers in recent years. If the United States responds too harshly, it could provoke a spiral of hostility with Beijing and alarm its own allies in the region. The United States and China might even stumble into war. But if Washington is unwilling to stand up to piecemeal Chinese encroachments, America’s position in Asia will weaken and some current U.S. allies may decide to accommodate Beijing. Addressing this problem effectively will require resolve, an accurate understanding of the current balance of forces, and a cool head.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/07/clinton-and-trump-foreign-policy-presidential-debate-18-questions/

>Actual defense analyst here. How is that armchair, lad?

Uncomfortable because its an office chair and I have finish off my thesis on human security. Not boasting on an anonymous imageboard of course, that would make me a bit of a twat wouldn't it.
>> No. 78704 Anonymous
11th October 2016
Tuesday 2:13 pm
78704 spacer
I've been failing to find a good shorthand for Trump supporters. Trumpeteers, Trumpists, Traumpians... nothing quite worked.

Today I came across Trumpanzees, I think that'll do.
>> No. 78705 Anonymous
11th October 2016
Tuesday 2:18 pm
78705 spacer
>>78704
>Trumpanzees
Great catchphrase, you've convinced me. I am now #MentallyHill.
>> No. 78708 Anonymous
11th October 2016
Tuesday 8:19 pm
78708 spacer
>>78671

Post-debate, post-pussygate polls showing no real change.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/
>> No. 78709 Anonymous
11th October 2016
Tuesday 8:22 pm
78709 spacer
>>78708
Uhh

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/poll-after-trump-tape-revelation-clinton-s-lead-double-digits-n663691
>> No. 78711 Anonymous
11th October 2016
Tuesday 8:42 pm
78711 spacer
>>78709

They're spinning a story out of nothing, because they're comparing the results with their own poll from mid-September. The aggregate polling data has shown an increase for Clinton of three percentage points over that period. The CNN/WSJ poll simply matches that broader trend and doesn't indicate a post-debate or post-pussygate change of opinion.

Individual polls can also be highly misleading in isolation, because the margin of error is relatively large and most polls show some degree of systematic error; we really need to look at aggregated polling data with corrections for systematic error.
>> No. 78712 Anonymous
11th October 2016
Tuesday 8:43 pm
78712 spacer
>>78709
Put some fucking effort in.
>> No. 78713 Anonymous
11th October 2016
Tuesday 8:51 pm
78713 spacer
>>78711
It's the first poll I've seen that was conducted entirely after the video was released.
>> No. 78715 Anonymous
11th October 2016
Tuesday 9:44 pm
78715 spacer
>>78713

There are two others covering Oct 8-10, which returned 42/37/10 and 44/37/7. The NBC/WSJ poll returned 46/35/9. All of them are well within the range of current polling. Typical error margins are plus or minus three percentage points, so it's unwise to read too much into small changes.

There is no clear indication that either the debates or the video release have significantly affected public opinion. The strongest indication comes from the betting markets, where the implied probability of a Trump victory has fallen from 17% to 15.5%.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.107373419
>> No. 78716 Anonymous
11th October 2016
Tuesday 10:09 pm
78716 spacer
>>78708
There aren't any. It takes a couple of days to turn a poll around. I would be wary of any published poll claiming fieldwork less than 48 hours before publication. Given the time needed to conduct and publish a good quality poll, and the time needed for everything to sink in for people, I wouldn't be looking for anything serious post-debate until Thursday.
>> No. 78717 Anonymous
11th October 2016
Tuesday 10:12 pm
78717 spacer
>>78715
There are 11 polls listed on 538 with data from after the 7th, which average out at a +6.2% advantage to Clinton. The 11 polls prior give her an advantage of +4.2%. She is very clearly gaining from this, that's what betting markets are reacting to.
>> No. 78718 Anonymous
11th October 2016
Tuesday 10:24 pm
78718 spacer
>>78717
The debate was on the 9th in the evening. Fieldwork yesterday and today, release tomorrow evening for Thursday's papers. That's when you'll start to see the fallout for real.
>> No. 78719 Anonymous
11th October 2016
Tuesday 10:33 pm
78719 spacer
>>78718
Yeah, I'm talking about releases with post-pussy video polling.
>> No. 78720 Anonymous
11th October 2016
Tuesday 11:12 pm
78720 spacer
>>78719
The debate and the video are too close to each other to be able to do that.

Apparently there's more recent video of Trump being disparaging towards blacks (including use of the n-word), but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that everyone that's likely to be swayed already has been, and all he's got left are the "deplorables" and the sort of folk who would vote for a mule if it was Republican.
>> No. 78739 Anonymous
12th October 2016
Wednesday 6:13 pm
78739 spacer
Speaking of polls, here's a pretty great story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/upshot/how-one-19-year-old-illinois-man-is-distorting-national-polling-averages.html?_r=0
>> No. 78740 Anonymous
12th October 2016
Wednesday 8:48 pm
78740 spacer
I don't know why, but it always saddens me to see someone getting sacked.
>> No. 78745 Anonymous
12th October 2016
Wednesday 9:16 pm
78745 spacer
>>78740
Of course it does, even when the situation requires it because of incompetence. I don't cry over the frauds, but its generally a bad business all round.

This is why I know The Donald (and by extension Sir Alan) are cunts. Nobody ever says "You're fired". It's a painful days, weeks, months leading up to and thinking about it, and even more painful few weeks, days, hours when you know you have to do it to someone, and while necessary from time to time, the absolute worst part of my job. They go on telly and revel in it. Fuck them.
>> No. 78748 Anonymous
12th October 2016
Wednesday 9:31 pm
78748 spacer
>>78745
Jesus Christ.
>> No. 78751 Anonymous
12th October 2016
Wednesday 9:35 pm
78751 spacer
>>78748

How does he factor into this? Does he have his own version The Apprentice? "The Deciple", I presume.
>> No. 78754 Anonymous
12th October 2016
Wednesday 9:45 pm
78754 spacer
>>78751
JUDAS!
>> No. 78760 Anonymous
12th October 2016
Wednesday 10:22 pm
78760 spacer

Screenshot.png
787607876078760
>>78745
>The Donald (and by extension Sir Alan) are cunts.
Funnily enough, they both agree with you.
>> No. 78777 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 7:36 am
78777 spacer
They brought out the big guns against Trump.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/12/donald-trump-was-like-an-octopus-says-woman-who-comes-forward-to/

> However, on Wednesday two women came forward to state that the Republican presidential nominee had groped and kissed them without their consent.

How convenient.
>> No. 78780 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 9:13 am
78780 spacer
>>78777
Yeah, a little too convenient. Just like how when that stuff about Savile came out all of a sudden there were hundreds of people claiming to be victims.
>> No. 78783 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 10:21 am
78783 spacer
>>78780
Do you think Assange was guilty as well? Just curious.
>> No. 78784 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 11:03 am
78784 spacer
>>78783
I don't see what he has to do with anything. His case was more like ARE CHED than anything Savile was accused of.
>> No. 78787 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 12:41 pm
78787 spacer
>>64250

I love how the british brainwashing corporation bang on about trump... he hurt some precious feelings whilst Hillary is a criminal terrorist
>> No. 78794 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 2:46 pm
78794 spacer
>>78784
>I don't see what he has to do with anything.
Just gauging your different thoughts on people's guilt depending on who they are.
>> No. 78795 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 3:08 pm
78795 spacer
>>78787
Forget about the offensive stuff he said (you're right, it's mostly irrelevant to anything that matters), he'd be totally incompetent and incapable of tactical thinking; prone to making snap decisions that could affect all of us without thinking them through. She at least has people helping her make decisions who have experience in power.
His not paying tax might be a legal loophole but it's not really any better than breaking the law, morally.
Besides, it's not as though there has never been a criminal as president of the U.S. before.
>> No. 78817 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 6:29 pm
78817 spacer
>>78795
The email scandal shows "competence" then? Benghazi and ISIS shows "competence?

The anti-Trump lot literally cannot win any argument on logical grounds, it's all social shaming and logical fallacies. Which is why you've been looking like irrational drones who can't think for themselves since the very first post ITT.
>> No. 78818 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 6:31 pm
78818 spacer
>>78817
Why are you so invested in this?
>> No. 78821 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 6:57 pm
78821 spacer
>>78818
It's basically the last chance to prevent western civilisation from becoming as shit and irrelevant as South America. I also don't fancy getting drafted, Siberia would give me chilblains.
>> No. 78822 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 6:58 pm
78822 spacer
>>78795
> She at least has people helping her make decisions
Yes. George Soros, Saudi donors, and anyone with a spare fiver. This is part of the problem.
>> No. 78823 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 7:02 pm
78823 spacer
>>78817
That's your argument? A couple of incidents over a career spanning over thirty years? Where's your evidence that Trump would do better? He has an empire worth less than if he'd just taken the millions his father gave him and stuck them in the bank.
>> No. 78825 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 7:09 pm
78825 spacer
>>78823
Oh there's far more than that, the last debate gave a nice recap for those of you who've been ignorant up 'til now. I don't really feel like spoonfeeding some retarded child facts that most people already know.

Trump became a billionaire through business venture, The Clintons accrued 250 million form being "flat broke" 15 years ago by pay to play politics.
>> No. 78828 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 7:15 pm
78828 spacer
>>78821
How did you come to that conclusion? And how would Trump stop the rest of the western world from becoming irrelevant?

I would argue that Hillary would make America more relevant and powerful because she is a warhawk who would protect American interests abroad at whatever cost, compared with Trump who wants isolationism.
>> No. 78829 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 7:16 pm
78829 spacer
>>78825
Trump became a billionaire through inheritance.
>> No. 78830 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 7:18 pm
78830 spacer
>>78825
You do know that most of the things Trump said weren't actually true, right?
>> No. 78832 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 7:21 pm
78832 spacer
>>78830
WROOONG!
>> No. 78833 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 7:23 pm
78833 spacer
>>78828
Do you think Iraq and Afghanistan made America stronger? Do you think wasting trillions on some sandnigger countries was money well spent when they could've used it on infrastructure instead? I can only assume so.

See what I mean? Absolutely zero logic.

>>78829
No, no he didn't lad, ha came from a rich family but that million was not going to turn into a billion on it's own. It must be unfortunate to be letter blind and have "m" and "b" look identical.

But we've been through this in the thread already, maybe you should scroll up, it's just beyond where you said he'd never get any delegates.
>> No. 78834 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 7:25 pm
78834 spacer
>>78833
Fuck off.

Oh and:

>that million was not going to turn into a billion on it's own
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-probably-better-investing-donald-233020366.html
Whoops!
>> No. 78835 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 7:26 pm
78835 spacer
>>78828

>Hillary would make America more relevant and powerful

This is exactly why I want Trump to win. I want America to go home, sit down, and have a good long word with themselves.
>> No. 78836 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 7:32 pm
78836 spacer
>>78833
I believe taking out a terrorist regime that had the power to bring down skyscrapers in one of the biggest and important city of the world a good thing, yes.

I'm more interested in your thought pattern, and why you reach some conclusions. For instance, are you a racist? Would you say that most Trump supporters are racist? How is isolationism better for America and the western world? Wouldn't that empower Russia, China, and other mini powers around the world to run amok? Why is your tone so combative?
>> No. 78837 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 7:34 pm
78837 spacer
>>78835
Unfortunately, Americans simply aren't capable of that. Instead of going away to think again, Trump would just launch the nukes in the name of the almighty MAGA.
>> No. 78839 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 7:40 pm
78839 spacer
>>78833
Do you think Trump would have done differently? I mean, we all know he was in favour of Iraq and Afghanistan until it became clear it was turning into a clusterfuck, at which point his 20/20 hindsight kicked in.
>> No. 78840 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 7:41 pm
78840 spacer
>>78835
That would invite China to dominate all of South East Asia, and a war would break out between Saudis & Israel Vs Iran. Russia would creep up on Eastern Europe, and Germany wouldn't really give a fuck, and without Britain in the EU, nothing much will be done about it.

Syria will be divided between a Sunni part that will be annexed by Turkey, and they will gas the Kurds, and the Shia parts will be propped up by the Russians.

Australia will become China's bitch. Ethiopia will annex parts of Somalia to gain access to the sea, and the rest of Somalia will become a Caliphate.

France will try to become a world police but will get curb stomped in Africa. With the cartels gone after the wall was built by Trump, Mexico will become a strong and prosperous republic.

Vancouver will become its own city state and Mandarin will become its official language.

Britain will be like the 1970s, only with more flooding and cod-wars with the Nordics.
>> No. 78841 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 7:41 pm
78841 spacer
>>78836
>I believe taking out a terrorist regime that had the power to bring down skyscrapers in one of the biggest and important city of the world a good thing, yes.
Buddy, do I have some bad news for you.
>> No. 78842 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 7:43 pm
78842 spacer
>>78836
Oh, so Saddam Hussein did 9/11 now? Deja Vu.

No, I don't think I'll appease your obsessive need to bring race into every single thread. Saying "Sandnigger" is not an excuse to bring your up your masochistic fetish.

Trump doesn't want isolationism, we still trade, have relations, they just don't get ripped off anymore, or play policeman for free. We got along fine with China for decades, why are you even bringing that up? Starting cold war 2.0 isn't going to make us any safer, and Russia is not the USSR anymore.
>> No. 78845 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 7:46 pm
78845 spacer
>>78842
Is sandnigger not racist? Also, please answer my questions.

Thanks.
>> No. 78846 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 7:46 pm
78846 spacer
>>78840
When has China, in their literal 1000's of years of history tried to dominate SEA? Chinatowns don't count.

>France will try to become a world police but will get curb stomped in Africa

Oh, oh Jesus, I think you need to stop getting your geopolitics from Blacked.com.
>> No. 78847 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 7:48 pm
78847 spacer
>>78846
What is Blacked? Also, China 1000 years ago is not China now, dulllad.
>> No. 78849 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 8:32 pm
78849 spacer
>>78847
Don't play coy laddie.
>> No. 78854 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 9:02 pm
78854 spacer
>>78845

Ragheads round here m8. Chocky toes. Sky high explodin jihadi etc etc.

Don't call me kaffir.
>> No. 78860 Anonymous
13th October 2016
Thursday 9:38 pm
78860 spacer
The two of them love each other really.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8Wde1fFvPg
>> No. 78871 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 12:50 am
78871 spacer
>>78860
This is pretty good.
>> No. 78890 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 7:20 pm
78890 spacer

CuuhoERWcAApei-.jpg-large.jpg
788907889078890
I love the Germans.
>> No. 78891 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 7:23 pm
78891 spacer
>>78890
To be perfectly honest both Trump and Bill's alleged rapes seem hard to believe, those guys must have had prime pussy on tap.
>> No. 78892 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 7:38 pm
78892 spacer
>>78891

>those guys must have had prime pussy on tap

That's not the point... how can anyone not understand that?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHh73fkDUIs

And if the testimony of "trailer trash" - Hillary's words - won't convince you, there are accusations going back to his days at Oxford. And don't tell me a friend and frequent visitor to Jeffery Epstein wasn't up to no-good.
>> No. 78894 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 8:02 pm
78894 spacer
>>78892
So, erm, what's the problem here exactly? They're choosing between Mrs John Leslie and Jimmy Savile. Of course, at some point someone's going to suggest it might be a wee bit sexist to tar a woman with her husband's sins, assuming it hasn't already been suggested.
>> No. 78895 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 8:03 pm
78895 spacer
>>78892
Bill isn't up for President though.
>> No. 78896 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 8:08 pm
78896 spacer
>>78894

You can't quite call yourself a feminist when you're married to a serial rapist though, can you?

>>78895

>Bill isn't up for President though

I was responding to a lad who wrote he didn't quite believe the allegations against Bill. The fact that you resort to that talking point/hollow defense immediately and without reason suggests you're well in the Clinton Trap already.
>> No. 78898 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 8:15 pm
78898 spacer
>>78896
>You can't quite call yourself a feminist when you're married to a serial rapist though, can you?
Are you sure? I don't have a recent copy of the Rules and Statutes of Feminism to hand.
>> No. 78900 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 8:25 pm
78900 spacer

wellokthen.jpg
789007890078900
>>78898

Um, "hah" I guess?

This does concern me though. Because the Democratic refused to evolve - throwing forth the most establishment and compromised candidate imaginable - they have given the radical right an opening. It's Old Labour all over again.
>> No. 78901 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 8:31 pm
78901 spacer
>>78900
Don't you have a debate to prepare for, Donald?
>> No. 78902 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 8:37 pm
78902 spacer
>>78901

I had no idea Cleverbot posted here.
>> No. 78904 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 9:01 pm
78904 spacer
>>78896
>I was responding to a lad who wrote he didn't quite believe the allegations against Bill. The fact that you resort to that talking point/hollow defense immediately and without reason suggests you're well in the Clinton Trap already.

You're still conveniently ignoring the point. Bill isn't up for President.
>> No. 78905 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 9:04 pm
78905 spacer

CuutEZWXYAAulZZ.jpg-large.jpg
789057890578905
Oh my. New York Daily News, his home paper.
>> No. 78906 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 9:12 pm
78906 spacer
>>78904

Did anyone else get this memo? Apparently we can only ever talk about allegations pertaining to two people on the planet. No more of that Ched nonsense, lads.

>>78905

If this is true, his bid is over.
>> No. 78907 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 9:23 pm
78907 spacer
>>78905
A guy from the washington post has been giving Trump's personal charitable donations a thorough examination for months, and he's not been able to verify anything except for a $10k donation to the NYPD athletic league in 2009, which may be a book keeping error.

His foundation (which spends other people's money) did apparently purchase a portrait of him for $20k though.
>> No. 78908 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 9:56 pm
78908 spacer
>>78907
According to Donald Trump's established positions, it sounds like Donald Trump should be in prison.
>> No. 78909 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 9:57 pm
78909 spacer
>>78906
>Apparently we can only ever talk about allegations pertaining to two people on the planet.

When talking about the future President, indeed.
>> No. 78910 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 10:16 pm
78910 spacer
>>78905
Apparently he also received $150,000 in 9/11 "small business" relief aid for his property a few blocks away that wasn't damaged.
>> No. 78911 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 10:20 pm
78911 spacer

Donald-Trump-Ken-Bone.jpg
789117891178911
]America’s debate sweetheart may be a bit bad to the Bone.

Ken Bone ogled Jennifer Lawrence’s “butt hole,” believes Trayvon Martin’s death was justified, admitted to “insurance fraud” and is a fan of kinky “PreggoPorn,” cringeworthy online musings discovered Thursday reveal.

The crass-leanings of the red-sweatered internet darling emerged after he was boneheaded enough to use an old alias during an “Ask Me Anything” session on Reddit — and users were quickly able to mine the coal plant worker’s past postings.

Commenting on hacked photos of a naked Jennifer Lawrence, Bone, 34, channeled his inner Donald Trump.

“Maybe she should have been more careful with her pics, but the bad guys are still the ones who sought them out and looked at them. By which I mean guys like me. I saw her butt hole. I liked it,” he wrote under the handle StanGibson18.

He also dabbled in some NSFW fringe forums, including “PreggoPorn” — pregnant women in swimsuits — whom he referred to as “beautiful human submarines.”

Bone — who endeared himself with his squeaky-clean image and aw-shucks personality – said he considers the perfect woman to possess “Japanese features, Brazilian curves.”


http://nypost.com/2016/10/14/ken-bone-is-actually-kind-of-an-awful-guy/

Beautiful human submarines. The internet crossing into real life is so surreal.
>> No. 78912 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 10:22 pm
78912 spacer
>>78911
>Beautiful human submarines

Fuck that part got me, I'm dying.
>> No. 78913 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 10:31 pm
78913 spacer
>>78909

Mate, you're being silly. Read what you actually quoted.

Also, was that "indeed" really necessary?

>>78911

Who did all this sleuthing - and aren't there more important things to be investigating in the US right now?
>> No. 78914 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 10:34 pm
78914 spacer
Apparently some branch of Anonymous has a video of Bill Clinton raping a 13 year old. Seems like a tricky thing to release, if it's not total bullshit.
>> No. 78915 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 10:37 pm
78915 spacer
>>78914
Source?
>> No. 78916 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 10:38 pm
78916 spacer
>>78913
>The crass-leanings of the red-sweatered internet darling emerged after he was boneheaded enough to use an old alias during an “Ask Me Anything” session on Reddit
>> No. 78917 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 10:38 pm
78917 spacer
>>78911
>>78913
Apparently the first article written about this was by some 18 year old at Gizmodo or some crap. On Trayvon Martin, he called Zimmerman a "big ole shit bird" and said the situation sucks for everyone. The insurance thing, looks like he used fake insurance to cover himself for 2 months while he was uninsured. As for "beautiful human submarines", we all have our kinks. Looking at the guys AMA on Reddit, he just seems like a normal guy.

Oh and he posted this in response to a woman who was raped and had her partner call her disgusting for it:

"Nothing that happens to you can make you disgusting. You are no less valuable for having suffered at the hands of a monster. Actions make a person disgusting. Your attacker is disgusting, as in the thought of such an awful person disgusts me.

Our words can make us disgusting. Your ex is disgusting. Blaming a victim or assigning a woman value based on how “used” she is will never be anything but disgusting.

Your value has not changed due his words, or any assault you have endured. You are still valuable."
>> No. 78918 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 10:45 pm
78918 spacer
>>78913
He posted an IAmA under his real Reddit account with an extensive post history, so hundreds of people will have had a nosy. Only the genuinely vile would have had the gall to construct a hatchet piece for their online newspaper though.
>> No. 78919 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 10:50 pm
78919 spacer
>>78916
>>78917

I know it's ridiculous to get annoyed, but people's moral standards really have to catch up with technology. He's not "crass" he's, as the other lad said, completely normal.

If you inspected anyone's internet use you'll find quirks. And all considered, it's pretty tame.
>> No. 78920 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 10:54 pm
78920 spacer
>>78914
Gonna go out on a limb and say it is, in fact, total bullshit.
>> No. 78922 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 11:04 pm
78922 spacer
>>78919
I can't say I'd post anything traceable about someone's delectable arsehole.
>> No. 78923 Anonymous
14th October 2016
Friday 11:16 pm
78923 spacer
>>78915
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEM7L42x2xc

>>78920
I assume so but I'm still curious.
>> No. 78924 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 12:06 am
78924 spacer
FOUR DAYS LATER HE FOUND ME AND PULPED ME WITH A GRIDDLE.
>> No. 78925 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 12:10 am
78925 spacer
Gallup had only 32% of Americans trusting the media a short while back, I wonder how much lower that statistic will be after this election is over.
>> No. 78926 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 3:47 am
78926 spacer

161014-conservative-activist-trump-feature.jpg
789267892678926
http://nypost.com/2016/10/14/trump-camp-puts-forward-witness-to-refute-sex-assault-claim/
Gilberthorpe made headlines in 2014, when he went public with a claim that as a 17-year-old he procured boys (some who “could have been” underage”) for sex parties with high-ranking British politicians.

Gilberthorpe has no evidence to back up his claim — just his self-described excellent memory.


Well here's a coincidence. Apparently the man who provided all the information to the police in the UK about a paedophile ring in UK politics also happened to be on a plane at the same time as The Donald and one of his accusers. WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT. Apparently nothing bad happened.

Seems like a cool guy.
>> No. 78927 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 3:56 am
78927 spacer
>>78926
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/gilberthorpe-claims

Oh my. He definitely is really reliable.
>> No. 78928 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 1:14 pm
78928 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OGPuqLe3mg

Even Jill Stein sees Trump as the lesser evil.
>> No. 78929 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 1:25 pm
78929 spacer
>>78928

Good grief. This is exactly what I've been saying all along and my lefty liberal friends have started to think I'm Josef fucking Goebbels. And she's from the Green party too- My reputation may be saved.
>> No. 78930 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 1:57 pm
78930 spacer
>>78929

Only she didn't call him the lesser evil. She was making an argument against the "lesser evilism" of Democrats and liberals.

I'm plagiarizing myself, I hope that's okay:

In the early 20th century, the greatest polemics against capitalism and imperialism came, as you might expect, from the Left – Rosa Luxemburg, James Connolly, George Orwell – but occasionally one would find traces of these arguments in the fumings of fascists. Yes, the likes of Mussolini, Hitler and Metaxas weren’t shy of co-opting socialist and syndicalist rhetoric for their own means.

No self-respecting socialist would now suggest that because of an agreeable phrase here and there about ending financial exploitation, the Brownshirts must’ve been on to something. We know it was either posturing or deflection, and even if they meant it, the cost. Some Marxists at the time did see this far-Right thievery as a sure sign that History was on their side – that even the barbarians could not deny “their way”. Even when they were losing they convinced themselves they were well on the way to winning.

They were the first into the camps, the first to be culled.

Trotsky kept a clear head, and I’ve been using his to help keep mine. Trump may seek to change the status quo as much as we but, again, at what cost?

>Hitler has been widely regarded as a demagogue, a hysterical person, and a comedian. Such opinions are the reflections of a diplomacy incapable of vision or understanding save in the most ordinary routine matters. To attempt to appraise the present German political revolution with the rule-of-thumb methods of diplomacy is not only ludicrous; it is fraught with peril. It takes more than hysteria to seize power, and method there must be in the Nazi madness. Woe to those who do not awaken to this fact in time! The leaders of German labor refused to take Hitler seriously, they dismissed his program as an impossible blend of reaction and utopia. Today, as a result of their ghastly mistake, their organizations have been shattered to bits.

I know where you're coming from - I reacted strongly against Clinton's supporters too - but there's something qualitatively far worse about Trump: a man who has actually said he would consider using nuclear weapons not only in the Middle East, but in Europe.
>> No. 78932 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 3:51 pm
78932 spacer
>>78930
>I know where you're coming from - I reacted strongly against Clinton's supporters too - but there's something qualitatively far worse about Trump: a man who has actually said he would consider using nuclear weapons not only in the Middle East, but in Europe.

What's the point of having it if you aren't going to use it? I would love to see it happen.
>> No. 78933 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 4:39 pm
78933 spacer

lolDeadWogs.jpg
789337893378933
>>78932
>> No. 78934 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 5:23 pm
78934 spacer

image.jpg
789347893478934
>>78932

And there we have it. The ultimate teenlad post that will ever be posted in .gs history. You've surpassed revenge lad, pie master and the queer bigots combined.

You are a master troll and we didn't know what hit us.
>> No. 78935 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 5:27 pm
78935 spacer
>>78932
You're not even trying now.
>> No. 78938 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 6:45 pm
78938 spacer
>>78933
>>78934
>>78935
No, really, I am serious. Would be nice to fight in a big war where your actions really matter. And maybe to even die protecting something kind of meaningful.
>> No. 78940 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 6:50 pm
78940 spacer

MAD.png
789407894078940
>>78938

Then you're seriously an idiot.

See that red dot just above Europe? That's where Britain used to be if a nuclear war were to happen.
>> No. 78941 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 7:07 pm
78941 spacer
>>78938

Why not get over to Rojava and join the YPG? There's a way of doing it but for obvious reasons I can't go into detail. You'll have a bit of bother coming back to the UK but under a nom de guerre you never know.....
>> No. 78943 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 7:13 pm
78943 spacer
>>78940
>Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland are all relatively okay.
haha, Kingdom of the Isles soon!
>> No. 78944 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 7:16 pm
78944 spacer
>>78940

Bring it on, the South gets vapourised and turned into radioactive jam. Hopefully 500 megatons will land on London.
>> No. 78945 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 7:20 pm
78945 spacer
>>78943

I'll be in Islay climbing the mountains and drinking the whisky.
>> No. 78946 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 7:21 pm
78946 spacer
>>78944

Only to allow barbarians like you to take over the Wasteland? Fuck that, I'm going to build a fallout shelter, stock up on all the sun-dried tomatoes and couscous I can get my mitts on, and bring some class and order to a post MAD-Blighty.
>> No. 78947 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 7:22 pm
78947 spacer
>>78941

If you are to take that seriously, this page has a very interesting response with plenty of detail: https://www.quora.com/Im-considering-joining-the-Kurds-in-Iraq-and-Syria-in-their-fight-against-ISIS-How-do-I-do-this-as-a-white-European
>> No. 78948 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 7:45 pm
78948 spacer
>>78946

We have Viking blood in our veins up North. Everyone feared the Norsemen / Northmen. Savages yes, but at about 3 pound a pint we can afford to go berzerking on your wenches and churchfolk.
>> No. 78950 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 7:59 pm
78950 spacer
>>78941
>>78947
Although admirable, I don't really care for their war. I want something home.
>> No. 78951 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 8:12 pm
78951 spacer
>>78950

That's not the spirit. What if Byron, Auden, Spender and the rest took that attitude?

Britain wouldn't be known the world over as the world's #1 exporter of fighty queens.
>> No. 78957 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 9:00 pm
78957 spacer

al-buraq-muhammad.jpg
789577895778957
The 2015 Global Terrorism Index highlights that terrorism continues to rise.The total number of deaths from terrorism in 2014 reached 32,685,constituting an 80 per cent increase from 18,111 the previous year. This is the highest level ever recorded. The significant majority of these deaths,over 78 per cent, occurred in just five countries; Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan,laplanderstan and Syria.

>just five countries; Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan,laplanderstan and Syria.

How many of those countries have people shouting god is great all the time. Maybe magic flying donkey man will help them.

http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2015-Global-Terrorism-Index-Report.pdf
>> No. 78959 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 9:05 pm
78959 spacer
>>78957
Damn Richard, brutal takedown.
>> No. 78960 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 9:06 pm
78960 spacer
>>78957

Terrorism, as a term, has lost all meaning, if it had any to begin with.

And you have lost all sense of proportion, wit and acuity, if you had any to begin with.
>> No. 78962 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 9:10 pm
78962 spacer

aaaaaaaaa.jpg
789627896278962
>>78950

Civil war? Are you an anarchist? Great! Let's write poetry!

Corbyn
Will let them in
But yet
Barbers will join us and sing
Fuck you, Gillette.
>> No. 78963 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 9:17 pm
78963 spacer

ass.jpg
789637896378963
>>78960

10/10 for sophistry, you've excelled yourself there.
>> No. 78964 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 9:27 pm
78964 spacer
>>78963

>10/10 for sophistry, you've excelled yourself there

In your own world you believe you understand the words you are using. In the actual one...
>> No. 78966 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 9:35 pm
78966 spacer
>>78964

>In your own world you believe you understand the words you are using. In the actual one...

There's your own cognitive dissonance.
>> No. 78967 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 10:00 pm
78967 spacer
>>78946
I'd so love an actual shelter.
>> No. 78970 Anonymous
15th October 2016
Saturday 10:03 pm
78970 spacer

inner1.gif
789707897078970
>>78967

http://www.atomica.co.uk/main.htm
>> No. 78976 Anonymous
16th October 2016
Sunday 12:17 am
78976 spacer

abox.jpg
789767897678976
>>78967

>I'd so love an actual shelter.

FUCKING HELL WE'RE DOOMED
>> No. 78979 Anonymous
16th October 2016
Sunday 12:49 am
78979 spacer
>>78970
Well the government's made a document
To help prevent embarrassment
And in the event of an accident
Catching us with our trousers down
It's no use to you when you're dead
Nor even when alive
And the name of this piece of paper is
Protect and survive

So when the nukes come raining down
It's great to be alive, well
World War Three can be such fun
If you protect and survive
Protect and survive

>> No. 78980 Anonymous
16th October 2016
Sunday 12:51 am
78980 spacer

hitler.jpg
789807898078980
VOTE TRUMP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNrsCGAvvHs
>> No. 78983 Anonymous
16th October 2016
Sunday 1:08 pm
78983 spacer
Well this thread has certainly deteriorated.
>> No. 78984 Anonymous
16th October 2016
Sunday 1:14 pm
78984 I've already got my coat.
>>78983

I guess you could say that it's detearyated.
>> No. 78985 Anonymous
16th October 2016
Sunday 2:26 pm
78985 spacer
>>78983
Wait until three weeks time.
>> No. 78986 Anonymous
16th October 2016
Sunday 2:56 pm
78986 spacer
Trump is complaining, without even a hint of irony, that the sexual abuse allegations are a pack of lies and an unfair smear campaign.
>> No. 78992 Anonymous
16th October 2016
Sunday 5:46 pm
78992 spacer
>>78986
I love how he is now bleating about the "rigged" election. We're going to be hearing a lot more about that over the next couple of weeks.

Starting to look like a landslide now, I think for the first time in this election it seems like he is going to lose very big. Looking forward to a lot of "salty" tears.
>> No. 78994 Anonymous
16th October 2016
Sunday 5:58 pm
78994 spacer

over.png
789947899478994
>>78992
Respected analyst Charlie Cook has called the election for Clinton.
>> No. 78995 Anonymous
16th October 2016
Sunday 6:07 pm
78995 spacer
>>78992
It probably is rigged.
>> No. 78996 Anonymous
16th October 2016
Sunday 6:28 pm
78996 spacer
>>78995
ITZ COMING
>> No. 78997 Anonymous
16th October 2016
Sunday 6:33 pm
78997 spacer
So in the battle between the Establishment and the Anti-Establishment, the former wins?


Good.
>> No. 78999 Anonymous
16th October 2016
Sunday 6:42 pm
78999 spacer
>>78997

A vulgar oversimplification.

How do you imagine British elections? "Do I vote for the one with the red tie or blue tie?"
>> No. 79000 Anonymous
16th October 2016
Sunday 7:30 pm
79000 spacer

ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM.jpg
790007900079000
>>78997

Or antidisestablishmentarianism.
>> No. 79001 Anonymous
16th October 2016
Sunday 8:00 pm
79001 spacer
>>78992
By the sounds of things he's been listening to his Brexit bumchum, who said much the same in the run up to the referendum and again when the polls closed.
>> No. 79002 Anonymous
16th October 2016
Sunday 8:07 pm
79002 spacer
>>79001
I think its a sign he's given up and is starting to think of the narrative post-election.
>> No. 79003 Anonymous
16th October 2016
Sunday 8:45 pm
79003 spacer
>>78999
I usually vote for whoever can eat a sandwich properly.
>> No. 79004 Anonymous
16th October 2016
Sunday 8:55 pm
79004 spacer
>>79003
Let's be honest as it's a long time ago though - Ed was a car crash.
>> No. 79006 Anonymous
16th October 2016
Sunday 10:34 pm
79006 spacer
>>79004
Yes. He didn't look the part. Forget his policies and all. He just didn't eat that sandwich the right way.
>> No. 79007 Anonymous
16th October 2016
Sunday 10:52 pm
79007 spacer

labour-ed-miliband-stone-v2.jpg
790077900779007
>>79006
>Forget his policies and all.

To be fair, Ed completely forgot that he'd actually have to come up with some policies until around February 2015.
>> No. 79013 Anonymous
18th October 2016
Tuesday 5:21 pm
79013 spacer

trump reform.jpg
790137901379013
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trumps-five-point-plan-for-ethics-reform

I wonder how the media's going to spin this.
>> No. 79014 Anonymous
18th October 2016
Tuesday 6:37 pm
79014 spacer
>>79013
Does Trump read Private Eye?
>> No. 79015 Anonymous
18th October 2016
Tuesday 6:51 pm
79015 spacer
>>79013

Perhaps that he's desperately trying to placate the Bernie or bust crowd due to his recent free fall in the polls?
>> No. 79017 Anonymous
20th October 2016
Thursday 2:23 am
79017 spacer
Debate number three. Twenty minutes before his first interruption and it's the moderator rather than his opponent. Looks like he's been spiked again.
>> No. 79018 Anonymous
20th October 2016
Thursday 2:33 am
79018 spacer
... and now whatever they've given him has worn off again.
>> No. 79019 Anonymous
20th October 2016
Thursday 2:52 am
79019 spacer
He hasn't learned anything from the previous debates.
>> No. 79020 Anonymous
20th October 2016
Thursday 2:59 am
79020 spacer
Why doesn't Hillary just use his tactics back at him? Just keep interrupting with "WRONG" and "I never said that" all the time.
>> No. 79021 Anonymous
20th October 2016
Thursday 3:03 am
79021 spacer
>>79018
Don doesn't even drink, there's videos of Hillary popping pills though.
>> No. 79022 Anonymous
20th October 2016
Thursday 3:06 am
79022 spacer
>>79019
I think he has learned, but simply doesn't have the temperament or the stamina for a long debate. If you watch the split-screen, you can see that he is trying to stay composed while he isn't speaking. Like the first one, if you stop the tape after 30 minutes he looks pretty good. In the 30 minutes that followed, he's unravelled and fallen back to his old ways.
>> No. 79023 Anonymous
20th October 2016
Thursday 3:10 am
79023 spacer
So is anyone going to find it fishy that he wants to lower taxes for the rich and also admitted he pays little to no tax as it is?
>> No. 79024 Anonymous
20th October 2016
Thursday 3:24 am
79024 spacer
>>79022
He is way too easily baited. I don't think the theories of him being a compulsive liar are that far-fetched.
>> No. 79025 Anonymous
20th October 2016
Thursday 3:53 am
79025 spacer
I guess it's time to ask Hillary how she wants to be referred to during the inauguration ceremony. Donald opened well, and to give him his dues he managed to resist the baiting for a good half an hour. But when someone asks you "will you accept the result of the election?" there's only one answer to that question and it's not "I'll keep you in suspense". Yet again he's stitched up his running mate, who did the rounds not even an hour before the debate saying Trump would accept the result. His surrogates are now trying to "clarify" that of course he's going to accept the result, but naturally they say that's because he's going to win.
>> No. 79026 Anonymous
20th October 2016
Thursday 12:49 pm
79026 Not a single fact was checked in making this post
Invoking Aangirfan lets-piss-off-hebrewlad level 5 /Boo!

>25 September 2016 - Donald Trump met Netanyahu at Trump Tower in New York.

>Netanyahu is strongly opposed to Clinton's support of the Iran-Deal.

>Breitbart News CEO Larry Solov announced that Breitbart was "founded by Jews, is largely staffed by Jews, and has an entire section dedicated to reporting on and defending the Jewish state of Israel".

>Donald Trump hired Breitbart News's executive chairman Steve Bannon as his new campaign manager.

>Donald Trump has tweeted: "We reject the false notion that Israel is an occupier"

>Question: Will former CIA Director James Woolsey serve as a senior national security adviser to Donald Trump?

>12 September 2016 - Bennet Omalu, a well known forensic pathologist, suggested that Hillary Clinton should be checked for possible poisons after her collapse in New York.

>A 2016 list of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements includes the names of: John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, James Woolsey, and Michael T. Flynn (Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency), Rudy Giuliani, Rupert Murdoch, Conrad Black, Pamela Geller, Sheldon Adelson, Melanie Phillips, Jerry Falwell and David Duke.

>PETER-HITCHENS fears both Clinton and Trump.

>28 October 2004 - The Chicago Tribune reported that George Soros was the primary financier of the Chicago Trump Tower.

>Trump spent Christmas Eve with George Soros in 2009, according to the New York Post.

>In 2009, Nouriel Roubini hosted a party which was attended by George Soros, Donald Trump, and Oliver Stone.

>In 2009, Trump changed his party status from Democrat to Republican.

>Soros invested $160 million in Trump's Chicago tower which was completed in 2009.
>> No. 79027 Anonymous
20th October 2016
Thursday 8:38 pm
79027 spacer
>>79026
B-but Trump said it was Hillary that was crooked, not him. If he said it, then it must be true, because he would never lie, right?

Right, lads?




Lads?
>> No. 79036 Anonymous
21st October 2016
Friday 6:02 pm
79036 spacer

14610966_652387411602565_354581499474517772_n[1].jpg
790367903679036
If only they'd talk more about the issues
>> No. 79037 Anonymous
21st October 2016
Friday 6:19 pm
79037 spacer
>>79036

It's almost like people with different life experiences reach different conclusions based on said experiences. Almost...
>> No. 79038 Anonymous
21st October 2016
Friday 7:23 pm
79038 spacer

Women votes UK.jpg
790387903879038
>>79036
Quite interesting how white women duck right-of-centre.

Are they nearly 50/50 or something? (to let women as a whole be overwhelmingly blue, but white women tip mostly red.)
>> No. 79041 Anonymous
21st October 2016
Friday 7:44 pm
79041 spacer
>>79036
Minorities don't vote for a racist part. SHOCKER!
>> No. 79042 Anonymous
21st October 2016
Friday 8:21 pm
79042 spacer
>>79038
One thing you have to realise is the colours are the wrong way round from us in the US.

Blue in the UK means Red in the US.

The Republicans are Red (which are the equivalent of the Conservatives in the UK), whilst the Democrats are Blue (which are the spiritual equivalent of the Labour party in the UK - thankfully not literally as incompetent as they are here now).
>> No. 79043 Anonymous
21st October 2016
Friday 8:24 pm
79043 spacer
>>79042
This rubbish always confuses me.
>> No. 79046 Anonymous
21st October 2016
Friday 8:40 pm
79046 spacer
>>79042
>which are the spiritual equivalent of the Labour party in the UK

I thought the Democrats were further to the right than the Tories?
>> No. 79047 Anonymous
21st October 2016
Friday 8:40 pm
79047 spacer
>>79042
>Democrats are Blue (which are the spiritual equivalent of the Labour party in the UK - thankfully not literally as incompetent as they are here now).
Yes, thankfully the Democrats can be trusted to do nothing to shut down Guantanamo Bay (to say nothing of their black site prisons), to not try their citizens before executing them, to not halt the war machine's devastation of periphery countries, to continue the mass surveillance of Americans, and to do nothing at all that contradicts the interests of American capital. How lucky the yanks are to have them.
>> No. 79048 Anonymous
21st October 2016
Friday 9:10 pm
79048 spacer
>>79042
>One thing you have to realise is the colours are the wrong way round from us in the US.
Well yeah, but the trend of white women leaning right-ish (at least historically, and treating the Lib-Dems as pure centre in spite of their mid-2000s "right on" image that would in some ways make them seem left of New Labour) seems to be slightly more global nonetheless.

Britain being in the high-80%s for whiteness while the USA hovers around the 60s, I thought it was kind of interesting that there does seem to be a slightly right-voting trend, particularly given the MRA-type images about how women always vote for socialism and immigration and so on.
>> No. 79049 Anonymous
21st October 2016
Friday 9:19 pm
79049 spacer
>>79046
Perhaps they are, its very difficult to judge. But the Democrats (Blue) are the filthy lefties of US politics.
>> No. 79050 Anonymous
21st October 2016
Friday 9:19 pm
79050 spacer
>>79036
Is there a source for that data, or did you just pull it from out your arse? It seems to fall suspiciously in the category of 'white males don't vote the way we want therefore they are evil' propaganda, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.
>> No. 79051 Anonymous
21st October 2016
Friday 9:34 pm
79051 spacer
>>79050
>It seems to fall suspiciously in the category of 'white males don't vote the way we want therefore they are evil' propaganda
No, it doesn't.

You can corroborate the data here http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/
>> No. 79052 Anonymous
21st October 2016
Friday 9:42 pm
79052 spacer

weeeeeeeee.jpg
790527905279052
>>79036 >>79037 >>79038 >>79041 >>79042 >>79043 >>79046 >>79047 >>79048 >>79049 >>79050 >>79051

You do understand the user base of this site is 3? Shittiest slide ever ffs
>> No. 79053 Anonymous
21st October 2016
Friday 10:03 pm
79053 spacer
>>79052
>Slide
Back to your cell, mate.
>> No. 79054 Anonymous
21st October 2016
Friday 10:28 pm
79054 spacer
>>79050
Christ, you sound like a Trump supporter yourself. What kind of life are you leading that you are so paranoid and feel so persecuted?
>> No. 79056 Anonymous
21st October 2016
Friday 10:48 pm
79056 spacer

want off this ride.jpg
790567905679056
>>79054
Not him, but If you'd been paying attention to the recent email leaks you'd realise that people have been fully justified in their paranoia.
>> No. 79057 Anonymous
21st October 2016
Friday 11:46 pm
79057 spacer
I'm actually really starting to enjoy this election. I never thought I would say it.
>> No. 79058 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 7:12 am
79058 spacer
>>79057
There was something on the BBC about popular hashtags for the candidates and one of them for Trump was #pepe. I'm finding the creeping of internet shitposting into real life so surreal.
>> No. 79059 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 7:51 am
79059 spacer
>>79058
And vice-versa.
>> No. 79060 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 8:45 am
79060 spacer

old lady yells at frogs.png
790607906079060
>>79047
>Yes, thankfully the Democrats can be trusted to do nothing to shut down Guantanamo Bay

In fairness Obama did try and many were sent back but the prisoners still there exist in a catch 22 where if they are sent back to their home countries they will be tortured and killed (or go back to terrorism) yet the American states refuse to accept them.

>>79058
>I'm finding the creeping of internet shitposting into real life so surreal.

You're only just seeing that now?
>> No. 79061 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 1:28 pm
79061 spacer
>Donald Trump gained on Hillary Clinton among American voters this week, cutting her lead nearly in half despite a string of women accusing him of unwanted sexual advances and the furore over his disputed claims that the election process is rigged, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Friday.

>Reuters contacted a few of the poll respondents who said they felt that Trump had "committed sexual assault" but were still supporting his candidacy. Their answers were generally the same: Whatever Trump did with women in the past is less important to them than what he may do as president.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-poll-idUKKCN12L2T2

I knew I should have put a bet on last week.
>> No. 79062 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 1:38 pm
79062 spacer
>>79061

It's Brexit all over again.

I'm sick to fucking death of this election.
>> No. 79063 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 1:57 pm
79063 spacer
>>79061
>I knew I should have put a bet on last week.
It isn't too late. What are the odds?
>> No. 79064 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 2:23 pm
79064 spacer
>>79063
9/2 everywhere. Surprisingly bad considering the average gambler in the UK will think Hillary is a sure-thing.
>> No. 79065 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 2:33 pm
79065 spacer
Clinton's lead being reduced in one poll isn't indicative of anything in itself. She's still well ahead in the aggregated national polls and most battleground state polls, which are what actually matter.
>> No. 79066 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 3:33 pm
79066 spacer
>>79064

5/1 on the Betfair exchange.

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.107373419

Paddypower are doing 4/1 on Clinton for new customers, maximum bet £10.

http://content.paddypower.com/ppc-pages/sportsbook/enhancedresponsive/master/11.html?AFF_ID=11061717&dclid=CPSM_p3Q7s8CFXOF7Qod2HEMTA

I've got a few quid on Evan McMullin - I think he's ludicrously underpriced at 500/1.
>> No. 79067 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 3:55 pm
79067 spacer
>>79066
On Evan McMullin to do what? Win Utah?
>> No. 79068 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 4:18 pm
79068 spacer
>>79066
I'm sorely tempted to put some money on McMullin to win Utah. There's literally no chance of Trump winning enough elsewhere to make McMullin a factor in the presidency, but given polls are suggesting a fairly even three-way fight in Utah he stands a decent chance of being the first third-party candidate to score in the electoral college in decades.
>> No. 79069 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 5:30 pm
79069 spacer
Well his speech has been terrifying so far and people are just cheering for this shit.
>> No. 79070 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 5:42 pm
79070 spacer
>>79069
>terrifying

I love it when liberals use this word.
>> No. 79071 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 5:43 pm
79071 spacer
>>79070
Swing and a miss, m8.
>> No. 79072 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 6:00 pm
79072 spacer
>>79071
I love it when any emasculated male uses the word to be honest, it's just sweeter from liberals.
>> No. 79073 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 6:04 pm
79073 spacer
>>79070>>79072

Were you a better calibre of person this kind of talk would be tragic.
>> No. 79074 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 6:09 pm
79074 spacer
>>79064
>>79066
How does betting work? Like for 9/2, does that mean you pay £9, and if you win you get back your £9 plus £2?
>> No. 79075 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 6:18 pm
79075 spacer

aaaa.jpg
790757907579075
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpLAzAZXi2A
>> No. 79076 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 6:36 pm
79076 spacer
>>79075
Ah yes, I wonder why on Earth a lot of the media would dislike Trump..
>> No. 79077 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 6:52 pm
79077 spacer
>>79074
Yes. If you win you get back your stake plus the odds.
>> No. 79079 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 7:09 pm
79079 spacer
>>79075
I really hate that annoying cunt in the video.
>> No. 79080 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 7:41 pm
79080 spacer
>>79079
I'm assuming that was part of the brief from the Kremlin, and he won't get paid if he's not annoying enough.
>> No. 79081 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 7:43 pm
79081 spacer
If your thoughts last Wednesday included "I'd rather die than sit through another debate between these two" then be careful what you wish for.

http://time.com/4538908/presidential-debate-man-dies-to-avoid-watching/
>> No. 79083 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 8:05 pm
79083 spacer
>>79080
Is that serious? How can I get paid by the Russians to be annoying too?
>> No. 79084 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 8:10 pm
79084 spacer
>>79080
>>79083

Corbyn must be getting paid millions of Roubles then.
>> No. 79085 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 8:12 pm
79085 spacer
>>79081

How the actual fuck is this even getting down to "within margin of error"? Ah well, time to sell up and move soon...

Oh Bernie, we miss you. And by "We miss" I mean the rest of the world.
>> No. 79086 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 9:11 pm
79086 spacer

aCnqd5sRWAAMFwv3.jpg
790867908679086
>>79075

Wikileaks has exposed Hillary as a shill but it's probably too late now.
>> No. 79088 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 9:17 pm
79088 spacer
>>79086
Wikileaks hasn't exposed anything that a reasonably intelligent adult hadn't already figured, friend.
>> No. 79089 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 9:34 pm
79089 spacer
>>79079
Ever notice how he sounds exactly like John Oliver and is similarly a failed British media-type with nothing intelligent to say?

>>79086
>Wikileaks has exposed Hillary as a shill

A shill for what, she seems to be selling her own brand.
>> No. 79090 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 10:25 pm
79090 spacer
>>79088

Indeed m8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
>> No. 79091 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 10:27 pm
79091 spacer
>>79089

>A shill for what, she seems to be selling her own brand.
>she seems to be selling her own brand.
>selling her own brand.
>> No. 79092 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 10:38 pm
79092 spacer
>>79091
By definition, you can't shill for yourself.
>> No. 79093 Anonymous
22nd October 2016
Saturday 10:47 pm
79093 spacer
>>79091
A shill is someone who sells a product without telling anyone they are being paid to. For example if Hillary Clinton comes up to you one day and tells you that she is an expert at washing the dishes and will gladly do them for a small fee you are aware that her advice might be biased.

If however I were to tell you that Hillary Clinton is great at washing dishes (she is very experienced at scrubbing all the evidence) without disclosing that she is paying me/threatening to kill me then I would be shilling.
>> No. 79095 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 1:08 am
79095 spacer
>>79093


Fucking hell are you a student. Get to the point lad.

A shill is a con artist with no credibility.
>> No. 79096 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 1:14 am
79096 spacer
>>79095
What's her con?
>> No. 79097 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 1:17 am
79097 spacer
>>79095

Err...what?
>> No. 79098 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 1:18 am
79098 spacer
>>79095
>A shill is a con artist with no credibility.
No, a shill is someone who is in on the con and tries to convince the mark. Where the fuck did you learn English?
>> No. 79099 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 1:21 am
79099 spacer
>>79096
>What's her con?

Neocon
>> No. 79101 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 1:30 am
79101 spacer
>>79098

That's my statement, not a fucking noun OxfordDictionarynazi.
>> No. 79102 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 1:38 am
79102 spacer
>>79101
>That's my statement
... and it's wrong. They might tolerate that at whatever shitty chan or sub you came from, but we sure as shit don't tolerate it here. We have standards, you know.
>> No. 79104 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 1:58 am
79104 spacer
>>79102

Please explain 'we' and provide empirical data.

Also give me a valid argument why my statement, also known as freedom of speech and right to an opinion, is wrong. Include in your argument to why freedom of speech is wrong.

They might tolerate that - please explain They

>We have standards, you know.

This is .gs, it's up to Purps, not you.

By the way, here's a definition of a shill

North American
informal
1An accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler who poses as a genuine customer to entice or encourage others.

Thank me later.
>> No. 79105 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 2:12 am
79105 spacer
>>79104

This is .gs scepticcuntschilllad. No freedom of speech here, I think you will find.
>> No. 79106 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 2:20 am
79106 spacer
>>79104
The operative part being
>accomplice

You're welcome.
>> No. 79119 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 3:59 am
79119 spacer
>>79105

Yes. Can't even say P.A.K.I R.A.PE G.A.N.G or nowt on here.
>> No. 79125 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 10:54 am
79125 spacer
>>79119
Not long ago, some lad dodged the wordfilter concerning Corbyn fanboys, and got a month long all boards ban. 

I don't think this lad should get anything like that but I'm still ticked off that the mod in question was clearly using it as an excuse to schtum critics of his beloved prophet, with 'wordfilter avoidance' as a cheap excuse.
>> No. 79130 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 11:42 am
79130 spacer
>>79125
Just like how the CPS used Stuart Hall, DLT and Chris Denning to make a point about the BBC, because clearly their sentences were nothing to do with having sexually assaulted people.
>> No. 79146 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 5:39 pm
79146 spacer
>>79130
Uh, yeah, just like that...
>> No. 79151 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 5:49 pm
79151 spacer
>>79146
Yes, it's just like that. The lad that got banned for the Corbyn thing was obviously banned because a mod sucks Corbyn's dicks, and it clearly had nothing to do with how fucking tedious his posts were. Nothing whatsoever. It must be true because you said so.
>> No. 79159 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 7:06 pm
79159 spacer

race1023.png
791597915979159
Shitty polling analysis update:

PVI/UNS model: Clinton 332 Trump 206. RCP's margin is 5.9 points. A couple of days ago it was 6.1, which would flip North Carolina for 347-191.

Using state polling, awarding all except exact ties: Clinton 333 Trump 205. Arizona (margin: 0.2%) and North Carolina go blue, while Iowa, Ohio (margin: 0.4%), and Maine District 2 go red (but see below).

Excluding anything within 5 points: Clinton 272 Trump 114. A couple of recent polls have put the margin in Texas (yes, that Texas) at 4.6 points. It's reasonable to assume that some of the marginal states will swing back towards their usual direction, but even then Hillary looks to be convincingly ahead in enough places as to clinch it.

The first two debates seem to have resulted in definite movements towards Clinton, and within the next couple of days we should see for certain whether the third has resulted in a move. It's worth remembering that around 3-4% of the votes have already been cast, and some analysis of those numbers would suggest that if those voters voted in line with their registered affiliation, then Hillary has the advantage in a number of key states.

Of course, they say a week is a long time in politics and we've got two whole ones to get through before polling day arrives. October isn't over yet, so there's still time for more surprises.
>> No. 79161 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 7:31 pm
79161 spacer
>>79151
Funny that 'tediousness' wasn't cited then. It was politically motivated mod power abuse, it was obvious to anyone with eyes to see. Or are you going to tell me that every 'tedious' person gets a month long all-boards ban?
>> No. 79162 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 7:34 pm
79162 spacer
>>79159

Cheers lad, enjoyed this, was well written and laconic, but in a good way.

He's absolutely fucked. I can't wait for us to get these four years out of the way then Hillary get beat by a normal candidate then in eight years normal elections with better candidates can resume.
>> No. 79163 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 7:35 pm
79163 spacer
>>79161
>Funny that 'tediousness' wasn't cited then.
Yeah, isn't it funny how when the news covers murder trials they never mention that murder is illegal?
>> No. 79164 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 8:19 pm
79164 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLGFyxAP0QE

Does anyone know a way to get on an ultre-fast track to American citizenship? I need to vote for Donald Trump.
>> No. 79165 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 8:24 pm
79165 spacer
>>79162
>normal elections with normal candidates
The emergence of Donald Trump, Front National, Brexit etc. suggests that's exactly what people want to avoid.
>> No. 79166 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 8:34 pm
79166 spacer
>>79164
Just make sure you go out and cast your vote on November 28 like Trump told you.
>> No. 79167 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 8:36 pm
79167 spacer
>>79165
Not really. It suggests there's an awful lot of stupid people about.
>> No. 79169 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 9:02 pm
79169 spacer
>>79162
To be fair, he's brought this on himself. Clinton could have sat back and let him try and bring the race to her, or she could have kept pushing to make it a landslide. When he decided to push hard on the "rigged election" narrative, he kind of made the choice for her. She is now gunning for a majority of 150+ in order to put the matter beyond dispute.

Clinton is apparently so confident at this point that she's putting resources into down-ballot races. The message has gone from "Trump would be a disaster" to "How can we get anything done if Congress keeps blocking it?" She wants a Democratic Senate in order to get a cabinet through and it's looking quite likely now that she'll get one. There's also a possibility that the House could be in play. It's unlikely the Democrats will take it, but they could make it close enough to at least make it friendly by interfering with Paul Ryan's re-election as Speaker. Either way, January could be very interesting.
>> No. 79170 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 11:37 pm
79170 spacer
I've yet to actually meet anyone outright supporting either party over here yet and I'm wondering where they all are. Everyone I've talked to about it, or has talked to me about it, just seems frustrated between the two shit choices they've been left with and don't like either. I think their only hope now is for Johnson to come in out of nowhere and win.
>> No. 79171 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 11:46 pm
79171 spacer
>>79170
No it isn't.
>> No. 79172 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 11:48 pm
79172 spacer
>>79170
How many Americans do you know?
>> No. 79173 Anonymous
24th October 2016
Monday 12:20 am
79173 spacer
>>79172
>over here
>> No. 79174 Anonymous
24th October 2016
Monday 12:23 am
79174 spacer
>>79173
Here, right?
>> No. 79175 Anonymous
24th October 2016
Monday 12:29 am
79175 spacer
>>79172
>>79173
>>79174
So far I've only met Americans in America.
>> No. 79176 Anonymous
24th October 2016
Monday 12:54 am
79176 spacer
I've never met an American before. I hope it stays that way.
>> No. 79177 Anonymous
24th October 2016
Monday 1:04 am
79177 spacer
>>79176
I've met plenty of decent Americans, though none of them in America. That might explain why the country itself is in such a shit state. It would appear that anyone that isn't a cunt simply leaves.
>> No. 79220 Anonymous
26th October 2016
Wednesday 11:49 am
79220 spacer
>>79176
That's a shame - many of them are decent people. Judging all on Americans on the basis of people like Trump is like saying we're all like Saville/Jimmy.
>> No. 79221 Anonymous
26th October 2016
Wednesday 11:58 am
79221 spacer
>>79220
I like Trump though.
>> No. 79222 Anonymous
26th October 2016
Wednesday 1:37 pm
79222 spacer
>>79221
Of course you do dear.
>> No. 79223 Anonymous
26th October 2016
Wednesday 3:01 pm
79223 spacer
>>79221
I like Boris but I wouldn't want him running the country.
>> No. 79224 Anonymous
26th October 2016
Wednesday 3:40 pm
79224 spacer
>>79223

What do you like about Johnson? I honestly don't understand what the draw is at all. So much so I had assumed "I like Boris Johnson" was just something unthinking people parroted, like "Britain is a nation of animal lovers," "ah, Diana was lovely," or "Michael McIntyre is hilarious".

But this is .gs, so you couldn't possibly be one of them.
>> No. 79227 Anonymous
26th October 2016
Wednesday 6:31 pm
79227 spacer
>>79224
He's very intelligent and somewhat personable. (Remember, unlike Dave, Boris had to earn his place at Eton.) He's just not very good when put on the spot. Most of his awkward moments have come when he's drifted off the script. It's this, combined with his tendency to so drift, which put me off him as a potential leader.
>> No. 79228 Anonymous
26th October 2016
Wednesday 6:36 pm
79228 spacer
>>79227
I see. What about his sandwich eating skills?
>> No. 79229 Anonymous
26th October 2016
Wednesday 6:40 pm
79229 spacer
>>79228
I imagine Boris has a full english every morning, doesn't strike me as a bacon buttie kind of guy.
>> No. 79230 Anonymous
26th October 2016
Wednesday 6:49 pm
79230 spacer
>>79227

So you like him because he's a stage-managed kind of personable fella who needs plenty of time to think?

I have no idea why I was so uncertain about his popularity.
>> No. 79231 Anonymous
26th October 2016
Wednesday 7:06 pm
79231 spacer

Untitled-1.png
792317923179231

>> No. 79232 Anonymous
26th October 2016
Wednesday 7:12 pm
79232 spacer
>>79231
That's quite upsetting.
>> No. 79233 Anonymous
26th October 2016
Wednesday 8:07 pm
79233 spacer
>>79232

Really? I wouldn't think twice if that got on the Tube and sat next to me. Perhaps I've just been corrupted by That London.
>> No. 79263 Anonymous
28th October 2016
Friday 1:59 am
79263 spacer
While the Trump train is slowly and surely running off the rails, the Pence plane is sliding off the runway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37795013
>> No. 79264 Anonymous
28th October 2016
Friday 2:30 am
79264 spacer
>>79263
Watch the Deplorables claim it was the government that did it.
>> No. 79270 Anonymous
28th October 2016
Friday 7:33 pm
79270 spacer
FBI are re-opening the email investigation. Of course, given the time it took them to investigate in the first place, it's not clear that they'll be able to do anything before the election.

What happens next is interesting. Clinton is elected and the FBI change their mind. Come January, President Clinton could pardon herself, since it's a federal crime and she's not being impeached over it. Then Congress would be more or less unable to do anything about it. They can't impeach President Clinton because President Clinton did nothing wrong. They can impeach Secretary Clinton, but not remove her from the office she vacated some time ago. There is a provision that following conviction the Senate can also ban an impeachee from further public office - it's not clear that this would remove her from the Presidency, but it would mean she definitely wouldn't be eligible for a second term. One small hitch, though - conviction, consideration of a ban and imposition of a ban all require a two-thirds majority, and the Republicans wouldn't have the votes to carry it.
>> No. 79271 Anonymous
28th October 2016
Friday 8:14 pm
79271 spacer
>>79270
Law enforcement sources say the newly discovered emails are not related to WikiLeaks or the Clinton Foundation. They would not describe in further detail the content of the emails. A law enforcement official said the newly discovered emails were found on an electronic device that the FBI didn't previously have in its possession. The emails are not from Clinton but from someone else, according to the official.

Whatever their content, I can't see how if they're not from her it is pertinent or relevant. Sounds like the FBI Director just cracked under questioning.

Will give the Trump lot something to focus on for the next 11 days - worse gives them something to bleat about when they lose.
>> No. 79272 Anonymous
28th October 2016
Friday 8:42 pm
79272 spacer

Screen Shot 2016-10-28 at 20.41.57.png
792727927279272
>>79271
>> No. 79273 Anonymous
28th October 2016
Friday 9:43 pm
79273 spacer
>>79271

>Whatever their content, I can't see how if they're not from her it is pertinent or relevant

If I understand that 'sentence' correctly, any State Department email is potentially relevant, she did, well, run the place. After-all, we only learned of the $12 million Moroccan bribe through leaked emails between her underlings - the first beginning with the incriminating line "this comes from HRC" (followed by them fretting about just how bad the whole thing would look, and how could they talk Clinton out of it).

You'd have to be a pretty shit prosecutor if you just wait for someone to offer a full confession.

Again, that only goes if I didn't misunderstand you. It's completely possible you're not that dense.
>> No. 79279 Anonymous
29th October 2016
Saturday 12:25 am
79279 spacer
>>79273
>the $12 million Moroccan bribe
Would this be the $12 million donation that didn't happen because she refused to play along?
>> No. 79280 Anonymous
29th October 2016
Saturday 12:53 am
79280 spacer
>>79272
Carlos Danger strikes again, it seems.
>> No. 79281 Anonymous
29th October 2016
Saturday 1:17 am
79281 spacer
Is this a storm in a teacup?

I genuinely have lost interest in this election, it's just whacky.
>> No. 79282 Anonymous
29th October 2016
Saturday 4:42 pm
79282 spacer
>>79279

Only she did. She sent William and that deformed foot they call daughter in her stead (although she personally would've gone if not talked out of it). And, more importantly, the U.S. State Dept. has now took a side in a dispute it had longed stayed out of. And in keeping with history, it's took the side of the coloniser.
>> No. 79283 Anonymous
29th October 2016
Saturday 5:06 pm
79283 spacer
>>79282
>Only she did
Why do you feel the need to tell such obvious lies?
>> No. 79284 Anonymous
29th October 2016
Saturday 9:19 pm
79284 spacer

tumblr_oee1z0yPtq1vbspu4o1_500.jpg
792847928479284

>> No. 79285 Anonymous
29th October 2016
Saturday 9:21 pm
79285 spacer
>>79283

Where's your empirical evidence.
>> No. 79286 Anonymous
29th October 2016
Saturday 9:36 pm
79286 spacer
>>79285
Where's your empirical evidence? I'm sure that if she turned up and the payment was made as described, you should have no trouble finding some trace of it.

More importantly, where's your question mark?
>> No. 79287 Anonymous
29th October 2016
Saturday 9:59 pm
79287 spacer
>>79283

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_580cd86be4b0a03911ed5e27

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/04/hillary-clinton-morocco-blood-phosphate-money-donation.html

https://theintercept.com/2015/04/22/inside-morocco-clinton-influence-campaign/

Educate yourself, it isn't difficult. Unless, of course, for some reason you're trying not to understand?
>> No. 79288 Anonymous
29th October 2016
Saturday 10:07 pm
79288 spacer
>>79287
I honestly don't know what you're trying to say. She was invited to an event. King Mo said he'd slip $12m to the Foundation if she turned up. She didn't turn up, and consequently neither did the money.
>> No. 79289 Anonymous
29th October 2016
Saturday 10:49 pm
79289 spacer

backtrace.jpg
792897928979289
> I'm sure that if she turned up and the payment was made as described, you should have no trouble finding some trace of it.

She deleted it and didn't get backtraced.
>> No. 79290 Anonymous
30th October 2016
Sunday 1:11 am
79290 spacer

GadsdenOnPole.jpg
792907929079290
LIBERTY OR DEATH
>> No. 79291 Anonymous
30th October 2016
Sunday 12:24 pm
79291 spacer
For destroying Hillary's campaign Weiner gets to join my pantheon of worthy jews, featuring such luminaries as Otto Weininger, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Isaac Asimov and Alicia Silverstone.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZx5I3Z-K-0
>> No. 79292 Anonymous
30th October 2016
Sunday 12:59 pm
79292 spacer
>>79291

He comes across as an unbearable cunt. He's real supercilious for a guy that has had to quit for trying to dick underage girls and not being able to stop texting them.

I briefly watched some tapes that were leaked from sort of documentary about his running too and even there he tries to come across as this strong, unflinching juggernaut. Except he doesn't come across like that at all, but rather a desperate man trying to power play.

Absolutely unbearable. I'm glad it's gone tits up for him.
>> No. 79293 Anonymous
30th October 2016
Sunday 1:00 pm
79293 spacer
>>79292

Also, his attempts at 'look at me I'm barely paying attention because I'm trying to show I'm disinterested' as he pretends to let on to people were also top cringe material.

Prick.
>> No. 79294 Anonymous
30th October 2016
Sunday 1:25 pm
79294 spacer
>>79291
Christ, I'd have lamped him if I were her.
>> No. 79295 Anonymous
30th October 2016
Sunday 1:52 pm
79295 spacer
>>79292
>>79293

Agreed. He comes across as an incredibly fragile person doing everything he can to appear less vulnerable. That being said, the ITV reporter's questions were quite obviously answered before being asked: a 'hunger for the power'? I'm not sure I'd be able to handle questions like that tactfully, either. An ugly exchange between two people trying to patronise one another.
>> No. 79296 Anonymous
30th October 2016
Sunday 4:12 pm
79296 spacer
>>79291
Why does he us?
>> No. 79297 Anonymous
30th October 2016
Sunday 4:38 pm
79297 spacer
>>79296
Because we didn't him.
>> No. 79298 Anonymous
30th October 2016
Sunday 4:45 pm
79298 spacer
>>79297
Verbs are important. I think they are more important than nouns.
>> No. 79299 Anonymous
30th October 2016
Sunday 4:59 pm
79299 spacer
>>79298
You not doing it right.
>> No. 79300 Anonymous
30th October 2016
Sunday 9:04 pm
79300 spacer
Soooo what's the connection between this Weiner guy and Clinton? Why does him being a sex pest ruin her campaign?
>> No. 79301 Anonymous
30th October 2016
Sunday 9:57 pm
79301 spacer

nbc.png
793017930179301
>>79300

>The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter

It worries me that people like you can vote. I know this is an American election but, Jezus, how can you be this oblivious to the actual story? Is NBC your only news source?

It's his partner's emails - a former Clinton aide - which the FBI are interested in, you dunce.
>> No. 79302 Anonymous
30th October 2016
Sunday 10:07 pm
79302 spacer
>>79301
Yeah, full story's here. Pretty interesting.

https://archive.is/4Fpnk
>> No. 79303 Anonymous
30th October 2016
Sunday 10:20 pm
79303 spacer
>>79302
This is why you don't let other people use your computer.
>> No. 79304 Anonymous
30th October 2016
Sunday 10:26 pm
79304 spacer
>>79301

I'm well aware of the fact that Clinton has been playing silly buggers with her e-mails, you obnoxious spunkstain.

I just mean what detriment, exactly, do you think it will do to Hilary's campaign that a former associate is a perv, when by all accounts Trump himself is a perv of the highest order and it's barely touched his campaign.

Is the implication that she has therefore hidden evidence? Is this a shocking twist that puts the Hilary shills beyond reasonable doubt? What gives? It's all white noise to me by this point.
>> No. 79305 Anonymous
30th October 2016
Sunday 10:31 pm
79305 spacer
>>79304
see
>>79302
Try and feed yourself.
>> No. 79306 Anonymous
30th October 2016
Sunday 10:54 pm
79306 spacer
>>79305

You're misunderstanding again. I know what is going on. I was asking how you figure it has ruined Hilary's campaign.
>> No. 79307 Anonymous
30th October 2016
Sunday 11:10 pm
79307 spacer
>>79301
I don't religiously and obsessively follow it like you. Are you an American?
>> No. 79308 Anonymous
30th October 2016
Sunday 11:29 pm
79308 spacer
>>79306
She thought she was off the hook when the FBI stopped investigation and didn't charge her with anything. It's reopened, she and her staff (Huma) lied under oath about show the FBI everything. They hid 650.000 emails .

Maybe it's boring and confusing to your uniformed pleb: >>79307

But even to them it's a reminder that Hillary is corrupt, and at the worst possible time. If Hillary were to win she would likely be indicted as well, so probably couldn't even do one term. It's damaging, polls will look very different in just a few days.
>> No. 79310 Anonymous
30th October 2016
Sunday 11:31 pm
79310 spacer
>>79308
>If Hillary were to win she would likely be indicted as well, so probably couldn't even do one term.
She can pardon herself, and Congress wouldn't be able to do anything because nobody has enough votes to get an impeachment to pass.
>> No. 79311 Anonymous
30th October 2016
Sunday 11:40 pm
79311 spacer
>>79308
Maybe I have better things to do than to bash Hillary/Trump on imageboards across the web every hour of every day.
>> No. 79312 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 6:56 am
79312 spacer

g1.jpg
793127931279312
>>79307
>>79311

Someone capable, at the very least, of reading the headlines of a major news story =/= a zealot and sleepless keyboard warrior.

That, to use a word buzzing around here quite a bit recently, isn't even sophistry. Because that's all it takes - the ability to read a headline - to understand the story isn't about dick pics.

So if you're really interested in finding out what's going on (you did introduce yourself by asking a question about what this story meant for Hillary), try reading what the other posters have to say instead of dismissing them all as weird obsessives.
>> No. 79313 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 8:24 am
79313 spacer
>>79308
I'm an uninformed pleb. I've ignored following the Clinton email thing because it sounds like something unimportant the Trump campaign is whipping up to smear her with. All I know for sure is 'she used a private email server while secretary of state'. OK so it wasn't secure, that's bad, fair enough. But how exactly does that make her corrupt?
>> No. 79314 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 8:33 am
79314 spacer
>>79313

The real issue is with why she used a private email server, and what they revealed. I've wrote this elsewhere, but seeing as you're incapable of even the most cursory Google search I'll paste it here:

>1. Her shady dealings with international crooks, brutes and murderers – Mark Rich to Nazarbayev to Mubarak – in a process subverting extremely lax caps on campaign contributions. In other words, she is using a “charitable organisation” as a front while blood money is funneled to her vanity project. (Todd S. Purdum did an excellent investigation into this.)

>2. Using her position in the State Department to remind all of Central and South America just who is boss. Not since Reagan have we seen the USA so committed to de-weeding its self-declared backyard: Hillary helped undermine the democratic government of Honduras and add legitimacy to the military thugs who stole power through a phony election. She pressured reluctant neighbouring states to toe this line and join in the “normalization of relations” process. In plainer language: accepting that might equals right.

>3. Channelling DNC funds (money for the party and not an individual) toward her campaign. Note: this is also anti-democratic, seeing as it’s leaving Bernie Sanders at a serious disadvantage… should anyone care about that sort of thing anymore.

>4. Her on-going and strident support for a Saudi elite which, from what little we can discern, played a pivotal role in 9/11. Turns out the aiding state actor wasn’t Iraq after-all! Congress, in acknowledgement of this, have recently approved a bill that will allow its victims to sue the Gulf monarchy.
>> No. 79315 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 8:41 am
79315 spacer
>>79314
Oh I see. She used a private email server in order to hide all her corruption. OK got it I'm up to speed thanks.
>> No. 79316 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 9:51 am
79316 spacer
>>79314
Those seem like some extraordinary claims. I hope you have some extraordinary sources to back them up.
>> No. 79317 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 10:52 am
79317 spacer
>>79316

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/07/clinton200807

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_56e34161e4b0b25c91820a08

http://observer.com/2016/02/how-the-dnc-helps-clinton-buy-off-superdelegates/

Public view on Saudi Arabian elite: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/230508-clintons-saddened-by-death-of-saudi-king

Private:
http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/hillary-clinton-email-leak-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-give-isis-clandestine-financial-and-logistic-support-35121625.html


I hope you actually read those links, and aren't one of those Correct The Record dupes.
>> No. 79318 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 11:10 am
79318 spacer
>>79317

There is nothing shocking about the 2 face appproach to Sauldi Arbia of hating them in private, they are a sack of shit backwards country that no one in the West would co-operate with if the saulds were not naturally put in a position of power by the good luck of being sat right on top of an oil field.
>> No. 79319 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 11:22 am
79319 spacer
>>79317
>http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/07/clinton200807
Appears to be a hit job on Bill, at least from the first twenty or so paragraphs, which didn't contain Hillary's name even once.

>http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_56e34161e4b0b25c91820a08
Your claims seem to go significantly further than anything this article suggests.

>observer.com
Run by Ivanka's husband. Not even going to bother.

>http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/230508-clintons-saddened-by-death-of-saudi-king
Former world leader expresses condolence at death of another world leader. Other breaking stories: Bear shits in woods; Pope affirms Catholicism.

>http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/hillary-clinton-email-leak-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-give-isis-clandestine-financial-and-logistic-support-35121625.html
Assuming that this particular item for the Belfast Telegraph was a wire piece, it appears to suggest the opposite of what you claim.

Look, just accept that you're never going to be his favourite, Eric.
>> No. 79320 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 12:27 pm
79320 spacer
>>79319

You can't separate Bill and Hillary, they're a brand.

As for the Observer comment, c'mon lad, you can do better than that, surely. Just keep thinking of that cheque.

Re: Saudi Arabia. You can't attack me for pointing out the obvious while simultaneously claiming my arguments are "extraordinary". Unless, of course, you're another lad in which case take it up with naivelad.

All in all, you've got nothing to offer to this discussion.
>> No. 79321 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 12:44 pm
79321 spacer

206636171_0021c26a2e_m.jpg
793217932179321
>>79320
>All in all, you've got nothing to offer to this discussion.
>> No. 79322 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 12:58 pm
79322 spacer
>>79312
I'm not the lad who asked. See what I mean? You have gone mental.
>> No. 79323 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 1:02 pm
79323 spacer
>>79314
>The real issue is with why she used a private email server
Because she and her dumbfuck team were incredibly paranoid and wanted to be able to shit talk Obama in private.
>> No. 79324 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 1:04 pm
79324 spacer
>>79323

If only life were as simple as your soap opera take on it...
>> No. 79325 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 1:11 pm
79325 spacer
>>79321

What must an inner life made up almost entirely of cliché be like?
>> No. 79326 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 1:20 pm
79326 spacer
>>79325
Says walking /pol/ stereotype.
>> No. 79327 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 1:30 pm
79327 spacer
>>79326

Hm?...

Well, I'd leave that for others to decide. If somehow, with my Observer-quoting and Sanders advocacy, I came across as a neo-fascist meme-spammer to anyone, there's probably little I can do to change their mind at this point.
>> No. 79328 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 1:36 pm
79328 spacer
>>79327
>If I just keep repeating it, I'm sure it'll come true!
You're not fooling anyone. Back to the other place you go.
>> No. 79329 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 1:37 pm
79329 spacer

Screenshot_2016-10-31-13-36-02.png
793297932979329
Saw this on the BBC. Is Clinton seriously only 3 points ahead? This is going to be Brexit all over again, isn't it?
>> No. 79330 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 1:44 pm
79330 spacer
>>79328

Ask yourself: Who's looking like the loon paranoidlad?

>>79329

Nationalism is on the rise in a big way in the West. It's entirely possible.

(I've been reading Perry Anderson and Nairn quite a bit to try and make sense of it. Is it ironic or just farcical that the French Revolution gave birth to this toxic ideology?)
>> No. 79335 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 2:09 pm
79335 spacer
>>79330
>Ask yourself: Who's looking like the loon paranoidlad?
I think it might be the one who's spewing long posts making questionable claims but can't even provide a decent source to back themselves up.
>> No. 79338 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 2:11 pm
79338 spacer
>>79329
Popular vote means nothing. He needs to be up by a solid 3 points to win it due to the distribution of the Electoral College.
>> No. 79343 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 2:16 pm
79343 spacer
>>79329

Swap colours already!
>> No. 79346 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 2:47 pm
79346 spacer
>>79328

>responds to charge he thinks in clichés with a cliché

>>79338

Isn't it more down to if your brother is the one counting the ballots or not? .
>> No. 79369 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 9:40 pm
79369 spacer
It turns out that Comey didn't actually know anything about the emails, not even whether Hillary even sent or received any of them. There are suggestions that he may have perjured himself before Congress, and that he may have violated a law that prohibits federal employees from trying to influence an election.

Polls in the aftermath aren't showing much movement either way that wasn't already happening. Before the announcement, there was already a shift to Trump, which is thought to be Republicans confirming that they'll be holding their nose and voting for The Donald. More importantly, remember that a shitload of ballots have already been cast in early voting.
>> No. 79372 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 9:55 pm
79372 spacer
>>79369

I've been saying no one knows what these emails are, either way, all weekend. Anyone claiming otherwise was full of shit. And though I don't know what or how Comey may have perjured himself, his handling of this was very peculiar. He just sort of filled his political pants and immediately left the room, and now we've noticed the stains he left on his seat.

What a demented metaphor, I'm sorry about that.
>> No. 79373 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 10:04 pm
79373 spacer

ruboto.jpg
793737937379373
>>79369
I'm sure the FBI has looked through a ton of emails, they just can't admit to it because the Justice Department has the say on that, if this wasn't big Comey wouldn't risk his career. Simple as that.

The idea is that the rank and file agents were going to leak the emails and this was a form of damage control, he was forced to do it. Either the FBI agents or Wikileaks has the goods, and certainly the latter may still spill them before the 8th, or Comey may actually release them himself (but unlikely). In which case Trump landslide incoming. Hillary really shouldn't be calling the FBI's bluff.

Comey broke protocol, he didn't perjure himself, again, his hand was forced.

As to early ballots, those are mostly the diehards on either side, not the fence sitters.

This can only get worse for Hillary, there's more Wikileaks, a long rumoured O'Keefe video apparently featuring the DNC/PACs (probably not Hillary herself, unfortunately) ranting about blacks and not doubt more. I think if there was another bombshell Trump tape, a Pussygrab 2.0, it would've already dropped to mitigate the FBI investigation.
>> No. 79374 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 10:10 pm
79374 spacer
>>79372
Comey has been considered a saint by Democrats since he just gave Hillary a stern telling off and let her walk with no charges.

This wasn't brought about right now for nothing, there's unquestionably a lot at play here we can't see.
>> No. 79375 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 10:13 pm
79375 spacer
>>79369
Oh by the way, metadata shows it implicates Hillary, read the WSJ article if you haven't. Though they've likely already pored over them.
>> No. 79377 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 10:19 pm
79377 spacer
>>79373
>>79374

There's a lad going around here who's ridiculously (and suspiciously) pro-Clinton. I'm looking forward to his twisting of your words/calling you a Nazi.
>> No. 79379 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 10:36 pm
79379 spacer
>>79377
I'm aware, I started the thread actually, it's been a fun ride.

This whole thing's moving so fast I'm not 100% on all the latest details myself, seem like the FBI have a warrant now, and Weiner's given the go-ahead. No-one seems to know exactly WHY Weiner had so many emails on his laptop, and in a folder title "Life Insurance". It all raises more questions than it answers. But we can guess.
>> No. 79380 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 10:48 pm
79380 spacer
>>79379

I'll make a tentative stab and say there seems to be some sort of insurance policy/blackmail on Weiner's part; and he's just shown his hand. I mean, there has to be some reason he managed to maintain a career in politics for as long as he did.

Could lead to nothing, could be the beginning of the end of Clinton Corp. and American oligarchy democracy as we know it - who knows?

At least the writers of House of Cards are getting plenty of material.
>> No. 79381 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 10:49 pm
79381 spacer
>>79374

>This wasn't brought about right now for nothing, there's unquestionably a lot at play here we can't see.

Or maybe nothing, because no one knows what's in these emails, not even Comey seemingly.
>> No. 79385 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 11:02 pm
79385 spacer
>>79381
Well that's the Clinton line, obviously. However it doesn't make any sense. Why would the Director of the FBI restart the investigation?

A: Comey is a covert Republican/KGB sleeper cell

B: These emails are some serious shit and Comey had to do this or his underlings would do it for him and kill his career by showing he can't can't keep the FBI together.
>> No. 79387 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 11:15 pm
79387 spacer
>>79373
>I'm sure the FBI has looked through a ton of emails, they just can't admit to it because the Justice Department has the say on that, if this wasn't big Comey wouldn't risk his career.
If you say so. Apparently they're talking about 650k, and as I understand it the process of figuring out whether or not there's classified information in there involves manual review. There has been some suggestion they've been looking at them for several weeks now, but that's still an awful lot of man-hours.

>The idea is that the rank and file agents were going to leak the emails and this was a form of damage control, he was forced to do it.
I find that difficult to believe. Any agent who did so would face prison for trying to swing an election. It may be difficult to prove that Comey intended to do so, but it would be trivial to show the same of an agent who leaked, since they'd have no plausible alternative explanation for doing it when they did.

>Either the FBI agents or Wikileaks has the goods
There have been whispers that Wikileaks has nothing, or has rather cleverly given the impression they have nothing. That said, people were saying the same thing a month ago and look where we are now.

>or Comey may actually release them himself (but unlikely).
Unlikely because he'd be guaranteed a long stay in a room without a view.

>In which case Trump landslide incoming.
The electorate is highly polarised, and there are now very large blocs of voters on either side who would vote for whoever their party nominated. Trump has been a complete disaster, stumbling from one scandal to another, and his poll numbers haven't really moved outside the forties. Clinton has a similar stack of anyone-with-a-D-after-their-name voters that it's unlikely to make much difference.

>Comey broke protocol, he didn't perjure himself, again, his hand was forced.
No, giving sworn testimony you know to be false is definitely perjury. He has previously stated, before Congreess under oath, that the decision not to press charges was unanimous and that the case was closed. It is now being reported that many of the investigating agents were not happy with the decision, and he has since claimed that the case was never closed and has been open the whole time. They can't both be true. The decision can't have been unanimous if most of his investigators disagreed with it, and the case cannot have been both open and closed.

>This can only get worse for Hillary, there's more Wikileaks, a long rumoured O'Keefe video apparently featuring the DNC/PACs (probably not Hillary herself, unfortunately) ranting about blacks and not doubt more.
If O'Keefe has a video that actually stands up to scrutiny, that would be a first. I suspect that yet again we'll see a few comments obtained after trying to coax the marks into saying them.
>> No. 79388 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 11:17 pm
79388 spacer
>>79381

I have no idea why but your posts bring to mind a particular extract from Harlot's Ghost.

>"Our real duty is to become the mind of America." I nodded. I had no idea whether I was ready to agree with him, but I nodded.

>"There's absolutely no reason why the Company can't get there.Already, we tap into everything. If good crops are an instrument of foreign policy, then we are obliged to know next year’s weather. That same demand comes at us everywhere we look; finance, media, labour relations, economic production, the thematic consequences of TV. Where is the end of all that we can be legitimately interested in?…

>"Nobody knows how many pipelines we have in good places – how many Pentagon pooh-bahs, commodores, congressmen, professors and assorted think tanks, soil erosions specialists, student leaders, diplomats, corporate lawyers, name it! They all give us input…I tell you, we have liaison into every game that’s going on in this country. Potentially, we could direct the nation."
>> No. 79389 Anonymous
31st October 2016
Monday 11:40 pm
79389 spacer
>>79379
>No-one seems to know exactly WHY Weiner had so many emails on his laptop, and in a folder title "Life Insurance".
More accurately, no-one seems to know that he had them in a folder called "Life Insurance". So far, it looks like that particular detail was conceived online.
>> No. 79398 Anonymous
1st November 2016
Tuesday 12:50 pm
79398 spacer
>>79387
650.000 emails sounds like a lot to us, it's nothing spectacular to the FBI, they have algorithms to narrow down the relevant stuff as well.

It's well known that there's a big internal divide going on in the FBI and tons of resignations from agents over Comey's handling of Clinton, we're kind of in uncharted territory. Whistleblowers could come forward (anonymously so they wouldn't get fired), anyway, there's loads of ways they could get the emails leaked that they wouldn't be in hot water personally, although some would no doubt be willing to go to prison for the sake of the Republic if it came to that.

Wikileaks is definitely doing damage, it's nothing the cynical among us didn't already suspect, but it's damning to those of a more sheeplike disposition. Stuff like Hillary getting the questions for the second debate from CNN/Dona Brazile, it's having a cumulative effect and they're probably saving the best for last.

Maybe, demographically it's harder for Republicans to get a landslide like Reagan did, but if there's something nuclear that gets leaked it could even be bad enough that registered Democrats stay home. It's certainly not impossible.

I haven't seen anyone, anywhere say that Comey committed perjury, curious as to where you got that. Just a lot of mewling about breaking protocol from the Clinton camp (which is deeply ironic) and Russia (which reeks of desperation).

O'Keefe showed that the Dems/Dem Pacs were taking foreign donations and trying to incite violence at Trump rallies. Eh, it's only corruption and brownshirt tactics I suppose.
>> No. 79399 Anonymous
1st November 2016
Tuesday 1:38 pm
79399 spacer
>>79398
>650.000 emails sounds like a lot to us, it's nothing spectacular to the FBI, they have algorithms to narrow down the relevant stuff as well.

CTRL+F
>> No. 79400 Anonymous
1st November 2016
Tuesday 3:35 pm
79400 spacer
Can you guys please stop?

Thanks.
>> No. 79401 Anonymous
1st November 2016
Tuesday 3:41 pm
79401 spacer
>>79398
>I haven't seen anyone, anywhere say that Comey committed perjury, curious as to where you got that.
I'm not sure how you could possibly argue otherwise. What do you call it when someone gives sworn testimony they know to be false? Either the later reports are wrong, or he lied to the committees. He is rather fortunate that it's considered bad form to sack the head of the FBI.

>O'Keefe showed that the Dems/Dem Pacs were taking foreign donations and trying to incite violence at Trump rallies.
Like how he showed that ACORN were helping prostitutes, or that thing at NPR? Whatever he has will fail to stand up to scrutiny, just like every other thing he's done. Whether there will be time to scrutinise it properly is another thing entirely.
>> No. 79402 Anonymous
1st November 2016
Tuesday 3:43 pm
79402 spacer
>>79400
On the 10th, and not before. Sorry if world events are inconveniencing you.
>> No. 79403 Anonymous
1st November 2016
Tuesday 3:56 pm
79403 spacer
>>79401
Whose "scrutiny" does it have to stand up to, The DNC's? They're literally on tape discussing how to disrupt Trump rallies and taking foreign donations, there literally isn't anything up for debate. It's be like me saying the Access Hollywood pussy tape doesn't "Stand up to scrutiny".

Comey said what she did was negligent, stupid and wrong, and just ended it, for whatever reason. Now we have previously unseen evidence on Weiner's laptop so we're back to square one.
>> No. 79404 Anonymous
1st November 2016
Tuesday 3:59 pm
79404 spacer
>>79403
We also have Hillary, on tape, saying she wished they'd rigged the Palestinian election. But I'm sure this fails to "Stand up to scrutiny". And, of course, the notion of a rigged election is ridiculous. Except when Putin's behind it

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/364731-clinton-elections-rig-fbi-palestine/
>> No. 79405 Anonymous
1st November 2016
Tuesday 4:16 pm
79405 spacer
>>79404

I'm sure the record will be corrected sooner rather than later...
>> No. 79406 Anonymous
1st November 2016
Tuesday 4:49 pm
79406 spacer
>>79401

> Either the later reports are wrong, or he lied to the committees.

Well that is an easy get out. And indeed, likely to have been the case.

>Like how he showed that ACORN were helping prostitutes, or that thing at NPR?

Oh, what? That shit that has been thoroughly debunked?

Can you just piss off, lad? I've just had to read through 20 odd posts of your drivel, hoping for something interesting. I failed.
>> No. 79407 Anonymous
1st November 2016
Tuesday 5:28 pm
79407 spacer
>>79402
Can you, just you, please stop? I find you insufferable.
>> No. 79409 Anonymous
1st November 2016
Tuesday 5:59 pm
79409 spacer
>>79406
>Well that is an easy get out. And indeed, likely to have been the case.
So, you're suggesting that all the talk about agents disagreeing with the outcome is just talk? That would rather remove the justification Comey might have had for making the announcement when he did, which was apparently to quell revolt in the ranks.

>Oh, what? That shit that has been thoroughly debunked?
Yes, that shit. Given that every other "scoop" he's had has been debunked (to the point of apologies being issued by those that acted on them), why do you think this one will be different?
>> No. 79421 Anonymous
1st November 2016
Tuesday 9:52 pm
79421 spacer
>>79404
The notion of a rigged election on a national scale in the US is ridiculous, not least because of the sheer amount of effort it would take. You'd need so many people involved at so many different levels to pull the sort of fraud The Donald thinks might be happening that it's simply unreal - you just couldn't keep it under wraps if you tried. So far, the only evidence of anything resembling an attempt to rig the Presidential election has come from the Republican side, but that's only by virtue of the Democrats' rigging not affecting the top of the ticket, so it's not like there's any scent of roses in the air.

Republicans in a number of states have pushed through measures which disproportionately target Democratic-voting demographics. These have included voter ID requirements with acceptable ID lists carefully crafted to favour their own supporters, overbroad purges of electoral rolls to remove voters likely to vote for the other lot, and manipulating the timing of the registration deadline and early voting window. (This included refusing to extend a registration deadline when hurricanes were making landfall.) It's not clear whether these are aimed at the Presidential election, or whether that's a convenient side-effect of attempts to keep control of Congress, but either way it's a clear attempt to slant the election.

The Democrats haven't been engaging in those tactics, but they're not entirely innocent. While Republican state legislatures have done a lot of gerrymandering following their remarkable showing in state elections in the run-up to 2012, both parties effectively colluded in California to give each other a good number of seats, leaving a few token contests to give the appearance of a competitive election. The Democrats have instituted a particularly obvious gerrymander in Maryland, but it's difficult to understand why they bothered given the place is so blue that even on fair boundaries they'd probably sweep the board anyway. Either way, it's certainly undeniable that the Republicans only have their double majority - total seats and state delegations - because of the gerrymandering. (State delegations only come into play directly if the electoral vote is tied, but they're a useful illustration.) In 2014, the Republicans lost the popular vote by around 1% but still maintained a majority of around 60. In Michigan in 2012, they were 5 points behind in House votes but still won 9 out of 14 seats. Apparently if Citizens United is still standing come 2020, both parties will be shovelling money into state legislatures so they get to draw the lines for the 2022 House election.

In short, when it comes to the rigging that Trump is thinking about, if it's even happening at all it's his own party that's doing it. The likely outcome we'll see on the morning after will be the House retained because of the "rigging" and the Presidency retained in spite of it. The Senate is still anyone's guess at this stage, since there are enough competitive races to give either party 51+ seats.
>> No. 79422 Anonymous
1st November 2016
Tuesday 9:54 pm
79422 spacer
>>79421
You only need to rig a handful of places.
>> No. 79426 Anonymous
1st November 2016
Tuesday 10:15 pm
79426 spacer
>In the latest results, 46 percent of likely voters support Trump, and 45 percent are for Clinton. With the data taken to a decimal place for illustrative purposes, a mere 0.7 of a percentage point divides them.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-trump-tied-democratic-enthusiasm-dips/story?id=43199459

It's happening, isn't it? ITZ HAPPENIN.
>> No. 79427 Anonymous
1st November 2016
Tuesday 10:20 pm
79427 spacer
>>79426
Haha. This is the new narrative because Clinton has walked it now. In six months time we will laugh at the triviality of this election.
>> No. 79428 Anonymous
1st November 2016
Tuesday 10:22 pm
79428 spacer

image.jpg
794287942879428
They blew it.
>> No. 79430 Anonymous
1st November 2016
Tuesday 10:29 pm
79430 spacer

nigger rant.jpg
794307943079430
Brace thineselves.
>> No. 79432 Anonymous
1st November 2016
Tuesday 10:43 pm
79432 spacer
>>79430
20p says it's yet another out-of-context hit job like the Shirley Sherrod tape.

10p says it's some kind of "anti-white" nonsense.
>> No. 79433 Anonymous
1st November 2016
Tuesday 10:44 pm
79433 spacer
>>79422
Plausible scenario or GTFO.

>>79426
One point in one national poll doesn't really say very much. Even if it's accurate, assuming a uniform distribution, Trump gets to 253. Add to this that state polling isn't looking good for him. With the caveat that some polls are still coming out with fieldwork before Friday, there was a movement towards him in polls with surveys before Friday, and in those taken after Friday the movement isn't significantly different.

Though it if makes anyone feel better, apparently Trump decided that his private poll numbers weren't high enough so he wasn't going to pay for them.
>> No. 79434 Anonymous
1st November 2016
Tuesday 11:38 pm
79434 spacer

puddin gonspiraze.png
794347943479434
>>79432>>79433
Starting to sound a little desperate lads. As above, so below it would seem.
>> No. 79436 Anonymous
1st November 2016
Tuesday 11:55 pm
79436 spacer
>>79434
What is the FBI in the middle of everything in this election?
>> No. 79438 Anonymous
2nd November 2016
Wednesday 12:00 am
79438 spacer
>>79436
Because Americans from each party wisely decided to nominate candidates with more baggage than a Bangkok bell boy.
>> No. 79531 Anonymous
6th November 2016
Sunday 2:38 am
79531 spacer
Apparently someone tried to shoot Trump in Reno. Presumably the shooter's intention was just to watch him die.
>> No. 79533 Anonymous
6th November 2016
Sunday 3:20 am
79533 spacer
>>79531

I wouldn't cash in on that, Johnny.
>> No. 79548 Anonymous
6th November 2016
Sunday 1:32 pm
79548 spacer
>>64250

No we are are a few days away I am sincerely hoping that OP's prediction turns true.
>> No. 79551 Anonymous
6th November 2016
Sunday 2:45 pm
79551 spacer
>In this episode of The Empire Files, Abby Martin explores John Podesta’s political rise, his vast network of corporate connections and his think tank "Center for American Progress."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fat63bqvG8
>> No. 79553 Anonymous
6th November 2016
Sunday 3:09 pm
79553 spacer
>>79531

Well played m8.
>> No. 79555 Anonymous
6th November 2016
Sunday 3:40 pm
79555 spacer

noparasan.jpg
795557955579555
>>79551

She - Abby Martin - is surprisingly intelligent for someone who usually fills that sort of role. I've been finding Pilger, Harvey, Goodman, Tariq Ali and the usual lefty commentators increasingly grating recently (don't even get me started on Moore, Assange, TYT and the other idiots). It's all so stale, and it's almost as if you can hear the creaky gears turn in their heads as they work overtime to condense all new information into tired, old talking points.

Who exactly have the new new Left got to look to anymore? Chomsky, less sharp with age, is still worth paying attention to, but I'm struggling for other names... Greenwald and The Intercept crowd are good, but they offer well-researched precise critique, not an ideological framework.

Sage for complete irrelevance.
>> No. 79557 Anonymous
6th November 2016
Sunday 3:55 pm
79557 spacer
>>79555
>Who exactly have the new new Left got to look to anymore?
Chapo Trap House
>> No. 79558 Anonymous
6th November 2016
Sunday 3:56 pm
79558 spacer
>>79555
The anarchists in Spain weren't too far removed from the uselessness of their modern counterparts.
>> No. 79559 Anonymous
6th November 2016
Sunday 3:59 pm
79559 spacer
>>79558

I'm not sure if that sentence makes any sense.
>> No. 79560 Anonymous
6th November 2016
Sunday 4:22 pm
79560 spacer
When is the election? This should be interesting.
>> No. 79561 Anonymous
6th November 2016
Sunday 4:23 pm
79561 spacer
>>79560
Tuesday.
>> No. 79583 Anonymous
7th November 2016
Monday 8:43 pm
79583 spacer
https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald

Newsweek reporter. Some interesting research...
>> No. 79585 Anonymous
7th November 2016
Monday 8:50 pm
79585 spacer
>>79583
Pretty sure that's the guy who said the FBI were talking shit because no laptop could hold 650k emails.
>> No. 79586 Anonymous
7th November 2016
Monday 8:52 pm
79586 spacer
>>79583

Oh yes, just what would we do without this sort of thing:

>47. Trump has directly insulted leaders of four allied countries, while offering effusive praise to Vladimir Putin

>44. When asked to give his favorite words from the Bible, Trump cited an Old Testament phrase that was the only one repudiated by Jesus

>42. Trump has never released a real medical report. His father had alzheimers, which is genetic and could hit at about Trump’s age

>32. I wrote about Trump 4 New York Times. First time we spoke, he lied to me in his first sentence. He told three more lies in 5 min call

Thanks so much for helping to get this fascinating research out there...
>> No. 79595 Anonymous
7th November 2016
Monday 11:56 pm
79595 spacer
Well that FBI thing was a total clusterfuck, not sure exactly what's Comey's game was but it didn't work for him. The whole thing has unquestionably damaged Hillary, possibly costing her the election, and either Obama or Lynch will probably fire him for being noncompliant with their oligarchical will. He's pissed off everyone.

Anyway, look out for the rust belt, it'll likely hold the keys to this election.
>> No. 79597 Anonymous
7th November 2016
Monday 11:58 pm
79597 spacer
>>79595
>Anyway, look out for the rust belt, it'll likely hold the keys to this election.
Yes, we've already known this for the best part of a year.
>> No. 79598 Anonymous
8th November 2016
Tuesday 12:27 am
79598 spacer
I can't wait to taste your tears when Trump wins.
>> No. 79599 Anonymous
8th November 2016
Tuesday 1:45 am
79599 spacer
>>79598

What will you give me when he doesn't?
>> No. 79600 Anonymous
8th November 2016
Tuesday 2:35 am
79600 spacer
There won't be a new President. Place bets on this now and thank me tomorrow.
>> No. 79601 Anonymous
8th November 2016
Tuesday 2:39 am
79601 spacer
I think Trump knew a long time ago he wasn't going to win. He's been signing off his rallies with You Can't Always Get What You Want.
>> No. 79602 Anonymous
8th November 2016
Tuesday 2:49 am
79602 spacer
>>79601
That's been a favourite of his since the primaries. Other highlights include the oeuvre of Andrew Lloyd Webber.
>> No. 79603 Anonymous
8th November 2016
Tuesday 3:36 am
79603 spacer
>>79598
Good to know that's all that matters to you.
>> No. 79604 Anonymous
8th November 2016
Tuesday 3:41 am
79604 spacer
>>79601
If you haven't seen South Park recently, they've been parodying this election pretty well with the implication being that Trump has always just been trying to lose by attempting to say increasingly controversial and crazier things, but everyone just keeps eating it up.
>> No. 79605 Anonymous
8th November 2016
Tuesday 5:15 am
79605 spacer
First return of the night is in. As usual, Dixville Notch, New Hampshire did its "open at midnight, close in two minutes" thing, and the numbers are in:

Clinton 4
Trump 2
Johnson 1
Write-ins 1 (Mitt Romney)

Senate votes were split 4-4.
>> No. 79618 Anonymous
8th November 2016
Tuesday 5:01 pm
79618 spacer

JPEG_20161108_170019.jpg
796187961879618
I think the Trumps have trust issues.
>> No. 79619 Anonymous
8th November 2016
Tuesday 5:22 pm
79619 spacer
>>79618

That's fucking excellent. Nice find.
>> No. 79627 Anonymous
8th November 2016
Tuesday 7:18 pm
79627 spacer

CwwmtbUXUAAnO8H.jpg
796277962779627
>>79618
Trump Jr may harbour similar misgivings about his wife's loyalties. Sad!
>> No. 79628 Anonymous
8th November 2016
Tuesday 7:18 pm
79628 spacer

jeb SURGE.jpg
796287962879628
Early exit polls point to a JEB LANDSLIDE.
>> No. 79629 Anonymous
8th November 2016
Tuesday 7:32 pm
79629 spacer
>>79628
There's a part of me that's more than a little sad we're not staring down a Jeb victory, even though he'd probably have lost to Hillary by a far larger margin than whatever Trump may do tonight.
>> No. 79631 Anonymous
8th November 2016
Tuesday 7:38 pm
79631 spacer
>>79629
>have lost to Hillary by a far larger margin than whatever Trump may do tonight.

How so? Hilary looks really fucking grimey, the only reason the republicans aren't landsliding this is that they fielded an abrasive experianceless fuckwit.
>> No. 79632 Anonymous
8th November 2016
Tuesday 7:45 pm
79632 spacer
>>79627
What on Earth is going on with those legs?
>> No. 79656 Anonymous
8th November 2016
Tuesday 9:21 pm
79656 spacer
>>79618>>79627
Speaks volumes about them both.
>> No. 79657 Anonymous
8th November 2016
Tuesday 9:23 pm
79657 spacer

_45603216_-1.jpg
796577965779657
YOU'RE FIRED
>> No. 79658 Anonymous
8th November 2016
Tuesday 9:26 pm
79658 spacer

CEOdRSsUUAMKuH_.jpg
796587965879658
>>79628
Ted, that's last year's exit poll.
>> No. 79661 Anonymous
8th November 2016
Tuesday 9:39 pm
79661 spacer

Cwq_37-VQAAFcjw.jpg-large.jpg
796617966179661
This is what Trump voters look like.
>> No. 79820 Anonymous
9th November 2016
Wednesday 6:31 am
79820 spacer
Well fair play OP, I thought you were out of your mind when you predicted this originally, was horrified as he rampaged his way to being the presidential candidate and even a few days ago was reasonably sure that he'd get defeated (albeit by a scarily close margin), but you were right and I was wrong.
>> No. 79844 Anonymous
9th November 2016
Wednesday 8:06 am
79844 spacer
I can't believe it. It's incredible. The Kremlin got their man after all.
>> No. 79845 Anonymous
9th November 2016
Wednesday 8:18 am
79845 spacer
This is YUGE! He's going to make America great again. So proud of America right now. <3
>> No. 79859 Anonymous
9th November 2016
Wednesday 10:22 am
79859 spacer
>This man is going to be the next President of the US and it's going to be fucking awesome.

This was a joke right. Everyone knew it was a joke. It was an absurd statement. What the fuck happened.
>> No. 79864 Anonymous
9th November 2016
Wednesday 10:51 am
79864 spacer
>>79859

Well the first part of the sentence was correct, maybe the second bit will also turn out to be true?

Nah, I'm not even kidding myself.
>> No. 79866 Anonymous
9th November 2016
Wednesday 11:00 am
79866 spacer
Just popping in to say; gratz OP. That was some insight.
>> No. 79874 Anonymous
9th November 2016
Wednesday 12:30 pm
79874 spacer
What have you done OP? You fucking jinxed it. You arsehole.
>> No. 79875 Anonymous
9th November 2016
Wednesday 12:34 pm
79875 spacer
>>64250

this is the year of the return fire

god bless this /pol/ tier year
>> No. 79881 Anonymous
9th November 2016
Wednesday 1:22 pm
79881 spacer
>>79875
I'm glad it's 2016 again.
>> No. 79913 Anonymous
9th November 2016
Wednesday 10:28 pm
79913 spacer
>>64250
Oh wow, he actually won. I haven't been following this, but this is impressive. I didn't even know until my room mate told me now.
>> No. 79916 Anonymous
10th November 2016
Thursday 12:09 am
79916 spacer

you_asked_for_it.jpg
799167991679916
When will these heretics learn.
>> No. 79939 Anonymous
10th November 2016
Thursday 5:06 pm
79939 spacer
>>79916

HA!
I'll be crown'd Sultan of Brunei before Donald Trump wins a second term!

fingers crossed lads
>> No. 79947 Anonymous
10th November 2016
Thursday 5:52 pm
79947 spacer
>>79939
Kanye 2020
>> No. 79948 Anonymous
10th November 2016
Thursday 6:04 pm
79948 spacer

image.jpg
799487994879948
>>79947

Nah m8!
>> No. 80178 Anonymous
21st November 2016
Monday 11:34 pm
80178 spacer

tpp rip.png
801788017880178
HE'S ACTUALLY DOING IT, THE ABSOLUTE MADMAN
>> No. 80179 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 12:03 am
80179 spacer
>>80178
Of course he's keeping his promises. He's not a politician.
>> No. 80180 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 12:07 am
80180 spacer
>>80179
Wow. What have the politicians done? They've managed to open Pandora's box by being such utter cunts.
>> No. 80181 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 12:35 am
80181 spacer
I look forward to him convincing Mexico to build a literal wall across their border, and the "ban all musli­ms from entering America" thing should make for good viewing. He's still going to make those happen, right?

I'm much more confident in his ability to kill net neutrality and exit climate change agreements. I'm waiting to hear where he stands on abortion now, that one should be fun.

Hurrah for the absolute madman.
>> No. 80182 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 12:37 am
80182 spacer
>>80181
> I'm waiting to hear where he stands on abortion now, that one should be fun.

His views are absolutely as you would expect. (i.e. abhorrent)
>> No. 80183 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 12:42 am
80183 spacer
>>80182
I'd honestly never known anyone be anti-abortion until I moved to the US. Even my year 9 RE class only took about five seconds before we all - a bunch of 14-year-olds - settled with "Yeah, that seems completely reasonable" and the discussion was done and dusted. I honestly think Americans pick a side to fight for and wear their views like badges just out of some adolescent desire to be recognised as having views and opinions at all. Fucking bumper stickers on every other car, it's embarrassing.
>> No. 80185 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 12:46 am
80185 spacer
>>80181
I knew he was keeping his promises when he appointed Bannon and Sessions, parts of the wall will be natural geography, out of convenience, but there will be a wall for a good part.

Doubt he'll ban ALL muslims, but if there are more ISIS attacks on a big scale, in America, it can't be ruled out.

As for abortion, I really don't think he cares about overturning Roe v Waid. Like Ted said, he has New York values in that respect. He thinks late term abortion is beyond the pale though (as do the majority of people).
>> No. 80186 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 12:47 am
80186 spacer
>>80183
Everything in America is all about virtue signalling, on left or right. It's why every position seems so polar and extreme from the other. I too find the anti-abortion debate just mind bending when I hear it in the US, its so foreign and alien a concept to the vast majority of Europeans. Even the Irish (and the Pope today) are starting to move toward a more reasonable position.

I find it particularly weird that men take such vocal anti/pro-abortion views. It's not really anything to do with us.
>> No. 80187 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 12:56 am
80187 spacer
>>80186
>I find it particularly weird that men take such vocal anti/pro-abortion views. It's not really anything to do with us.

That's a very emasculated thing to say. And, if we were to give actual credence to Equality™, the man should have equal say.
>> No. 80188 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 1:07 am
80188 spacer
>>80186
>more reasonable
More in line with my accepted dogma*

Abortion is pretty horrendous really.
>> No. 80189 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 1:10 am
80189 spacer
>>80188
>pretty horrendous
*not in line with my accepted dogma
>> No. 80193 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 1:24 am
80193 spacer
>>80186
The concept of fatherhood doesn't exist in your world?
>> No. 80194 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 1:28 am
80194 spacer
>>80193
I am one. Doesn't change my view in the slightest.
>> No. 80195 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 1:29 am
80195 spacer
>>80193
It does, but it's a very different concept from motherhood, for reasons that should be (somewhat literally) painfully obvious.
>> No. 80203 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 2:12 am
80203 spacer
>>80195

In America that isn't true though. Child support laws and the such like, a man has to pay the kid's way even if he had no say in it's birth, even if the mother is a cretin utterly unfit to raise the child and refuses to let him participate as a parent... You can't blame a fellow for feeling like he has some stake in the matter. The debate in the States is skewed by their entirely arse backward laws regarding parenting in the first place.

Personally I subscribe to the opinion that the world should have a whole lot more abortion because 90% of people are morons. But when it comes to parenting I also figure it took two people to make the kid and it should take two to raise it, and any decisions regarding it should be made by those two. A woman can have it be her body her choice by all means, but if it's her choice then it follows logically that it is her responsibility.

Let's be honest most kids from single parents turn out to be utter drains on society. We can't pussyfoot around that fact.
>> No. 80204 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 2:27 am
80204 spacer
>>80203
>Let's be honest most kids from single parents turn out to be utter drains on society. We can't pussyfoot around that fact.
Some say this is one of the factors in the higher crime rate of some demographics.
>> No. 80206 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 7:23 am
80206 spacer
'Her body her choice' becomes false if you're pregnant if you ask me.
>> No. 80207 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 7:29 am
80207 spacer
>>80206

Nobody is.
>> No. 80208 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 10:42 am
80208 spacer
>>80206
I agree.
>> No. 80209 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 11:02 am
80209 spacer
>>80208
Me too. Also, in the interest of equality it has to apply to the man too. If she gets pregnant, then he no longer gets to choose whether or not he has his cock chopped off.
>> No. 80210 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 11:14 am
80210 spacer
>>80209
You're a complete fucking idiot m8.
>> No. 80211 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 12:26 pm
80211 spacer
>>80210
Said without the slightest hint of irony.
>> No. 80213 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 3:29 pm
80213 spacer
>>80211

Said without a iota of self-awareness.
>> No. 80217 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 3:50 pm
80217 spacer
>>80213
Said with a packet of Maryland cookies and a Shetland sheepdog
>> No. 80218 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 4:05 pm
80218 spacer
>>80213
Well there we have it. Apparently forcing a bloke to be decocked against his will is idiotic but forcing a woman to bear a rape baby against her will is just fine. Who knew?
>> No. 80219 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 4:13 pm
80219 spacer
>>80218
Whoever mentioned rape? Only you, just now. What a feeble and disingenuous argument.
>> No. 80222 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 4:37 pm
80222 spacer
>>80219
The post you were agreeing with said that a woman's right to choose ends at pregnancy, without further qualification.
>> No. 80223 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 4:42 pm
80223 spacer
>>80222
Rape is the exception not the rule with abortion. You're a cheap and deceptive cunt. Little wonder Trump won if you are at all representative of the modern left.
>> No. 80227 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 4:50 pm
80227 spacer
>>80223

I told them we shouldn't have elected one stranger off the internet to be the standard bearer for everything from Cleggism to Bolshevism, but would they listen?

Yes, and that's why it never happened.
>> No. 80228 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 5:10 pm
80228 spacer
>>80223
>Rape is the exception not the rule with abortion
And now comes the backpedaling and the special pleading. Neither of you said it was an exception, and given that a significant proportion of the Religious Right don't believe it I don't think it was reasonable to assume it unstated. So, I guess your position is that it's fine to force a woman to bear your child as long as you didn't rape her?
>> No. 80230 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 5:45 pm
80230 spacer
>>80228

Who said anything about forcing a woman to bear a child?

What would be better is if parents could veto pregnancy. Both want it? Fine. Mum doesn't but dad does? Tough shit dad, she's going to have it sucked out. Mum wants it and dad doesn't? Tough shit mum, you're having it sucked out.

All further arguments from this point are rendered invalid because it takes two to tango, it was always possible for either parent to just keep their legs shut and dick away; and rape can happen in either direction, a woman can just as easily pierce a condom as a man can force himself on a woman.

Now you can all shut the fuck up.
>> No. 80231 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 5:54 pm
80231 spacer
>>80230
>Mum wants it and dad doesn't? Tough shit mum, you're having it sucked out.
Call me an anarchist, but this doesn't sound to me like something the state should be enforcing.

You seem fairly unhinged.
>> No. 80232 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 5:56 pm
80232 spacer
>>80230
>>80231
In the case the father doesn't want it, why not just let him abandon parenthood rights instead of forcing her to abort?

I'd call it a fiscal abortion. If it's made clear from the outset that he's not paying for it, I don't see it as unfair to let him veto his obligation to pay child support - the decision on the actual abortion remains with the woman.

Being a lefty, I'd also like the state to pay child support instead of the absentee father, but there you go.
>> No. 80233 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 6:03 pm
80233 spacer
>>80232
>>80231

Because as we have already discussed single parenthood is a blight upon society. There are Facts (no, can't be arsed finding them) out there showing how kids perform better in school and are less likely to be delinquents when they have the intended number of parents.

Personally I'd already have implemented a universal income by this point (as well as shipped off all the fat people to gulags) so the child support thing is not an issue for me (I merely pointed out how that's a HUGE sticking point where the American debate on the subject is concerned). It's the social implications that I find concerning, and I can't think of a fairer system.
>> No. 80234 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 6:06 pm
80234 spacer
>>80232

This was tested in America a few years ago and failed in several courts. I doubt the courts in the UK would even entertain the idea, never mind judge on the side of common sense. We're fucked lads, and stuck with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dubay_child_support_case
>> No. 80235 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 6:07 pm
80235 spacer
>>80233
Yeah, I think forcing women to have abortions based on the whims of their partner would be a greater blight on society, honestly.
>> No. 80236 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 6:09 pm
80236 spacer
>>80233

> Because as we have already discussed single parenthood is a blight upon society. There are Facts (no, can't be arsed finding them) out there showing how kids perform better in school and are less likely to be delinquents when they have the intended number of parents.

Sadly there no statistics telling us whether kids from single parent families perform better or worse than children from a nuclear family comprising a willing mother and an unwilling/miserable/depressed/abusive father.
>> No. 80238 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 6:16 pm
80238 spacer
>>80235

You're still being intellectually dishonest about this; either that or you're a secret sexist who doesn't believe women are sentient enough to process the risks and responsibilities of unprotected sex.

>>80236

Well that's irrelevant m8, because in my totalitarian lefty utopia there would be no such thing as an unwilling parent. The kid would have been aborted otherwise.
>> No. 80239 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 6:23 pm
80239 spacer
>>80233
Single parenthood is going to happen either way. The question is whether it should be a blight upon the father as well.

(Well, arguably the guy might be encouraged to stick around in a relationship he doesn't want just to get his dollar's worth, but fuck off.)
>> No. 80240 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 6:32 pm
80240 spacer
>>80238
>You're still being intellectually dishonest about this
Says the daftlad who thinks that the father threatening to leave and not support the child somehow still leaves the mother with any meaningful choice.
>> No. 80241 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 6:35 pm
80241 spacer
>>80238
You can rest assured that I don't believe women or men have sufficient "sentience" (that's not the right word here, by the way, sentience refers to sensory capabilities, not reasoning skills) to justify forcing them to have an abortion.
>> No. 80242 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 6:41 pm
80242 spacer
>>80240

Are you serious lad?

Or are you one of those Tarquins who has never experienced life outside of middle class safe spaces?

Let me tell you lad, those Jeremy Kyle sorts who have about 4 kids from different dads and live just fine in their council house with roughly £400 a month in benefits per child are not just propaganda made up by The Mail and Channel 4 execs. They exist. And I have nothing against them, I am a man of the people- But their lives and the fates of their children have been cruelly coerced by a system that seeks to eliminate the family unit and replace it with the teat of the welfare state, in order to facilitate the poverty cycle that drives neo-liberalism along.

What I'm saying is that no child should be brought into the world deprived of two loving parents, and that mandatory abortions are just one necessary step towards a functional socialist state.
>> No. 80243 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 6:55 pm
80243 spacer
>>80242
>cruelly coerced by a system that seeks to eliminate the family unit and replace it with the teat of the welfare state
Comedy gold, m8. When are you guesting on Mock The Week?
>> No. 80245 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 6:59 pm
80245 spacer
>>80242

I like how you feel free to tell people that they live in (entirely imagined) "safe spaces", before chatting so much shit .gs stinks like my race horse's stable.

But I'll leave some other poor sod to muck you out.
>> No. 80247 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 7:04 pm
80247 spacer
>>80245

You're probably the lad who said George Orwell was a "war tourist".

I'm fond of the equine analogy though, it implies I have a three foot long cock. Which I obviously do.

As your mum will happily attest to
>> No. 80250 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 7:12 pm
80250 spacer
>>80247

Yeah, alright, when you get called out for being a prat just assume I'm someone else to stop logic getting in the way of your nonsense.

I mean, what do you do to the women who refuse? Kidnap them and give them a forced abortion?
>> No. 80254 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 7:24 pm
80254 spacer
>>80247
>You're probably the lad who said George Orwell was a "war tourist".
He's not, that was me.

I'm very glad to see I lodged that particular stick so far up your arse that you still can't get over it though.
>> No. 80259 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 7:30 pm
80259 spacer
>>80250
Ninjas with blow darts filled with abortion medications will take out those women.
>> No. 80271 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 8:01 pm
80271 spacer

JPEG_20161122_194521.jpg
802718027180271
The man is entertaining, I'll give him that.
>> No. 80273 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 8:10 pm
80273 spacer
>>80240
That is a meaningful choice. The state can still give you money, Or you could give the child up for adoption, or you could be financially well off enough to manage without the father's help already (either personally, or via family)- you don't just have to consider situations at the bottom.

I'm not fond of "work or die" ""choices"", but you've got more than two options there. The father withdrawing financial support for the child doesn't immediately mean you've got to have an abortion.

(Also, even if it was a "poverty or abortion" choice, that's still more of a choice than the father usually has - "18 years of child support payments or jail" if she wants it and "your kid is going bye-bye" if she doesn't.)
>> No. 80292 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 10:01 pm
80292 spacer
>>80254

Not him, but I remember that. Out of interest, do you now accept how wrong you were, Politburolad?

>>80273

>Or you could give the child up for adoption

Do you have any idea how awful that is for most children in that position? There's quite a lot things worse than death, and being a ward of the state is one of them.
>> No. 80293 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 10:22 pm
80293 spacer
>>80273
>That is a meaningful choice.
It really isn't, m7.
>> No. 80294 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 10:25 pm
80294 spacer
>>80293

Why offer the illusion of meaningful choice? Hence we should just force the abortion. You know it makes sense.
>> No. 80295 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 10:30 pm
80295 spacer
>>80294
Why do people insist on pretending that both parents are equal partners in raising a child?
>> No. 80296 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 10:42 pm
80296 spacer
>>80295

Because we are leftists and therefore we're trying to achieve a situation where they ARE equal. Both parents should have parental leave from work, both parents should get the same rights, both parents should pull the same amount of weight.

And both parents should be able to abort a child they don't want.
>> No. 80297 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 10:48 pm
80297 spacer
>>80296
>And both parents should be able to abort a child they don't want.
Both parents will be able to abort a child they don't want when both parents are able to bear the fucking thing in the first place.
>> No. 80298 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 10:53 pm
80298 spacer
>>80297

But I thought men and women are equal in all ways. Fishmongery told me so.
>> No. 80299 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 10:56 pm
80299 spacer
>>80298
You know how you get taught things at school which, while a convenient approximation to the truth, turn out to be false when you go to sixth form? And sixth form teaches you things that turn out to be wrong when you go to university?

Fishmongery is one such convenient approximation to the truth.
>> No. 80300 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 11:11 pm
80300 spacer
If men aren't allowed any say in whether a woman aborts her child then women shouldn't have any say (ie: be allowed to vote) on whether a country should go to war and send its men to fight and die.

Only fair.
>> No. 80302 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 11:19 pm
80302 spacer
Personally, I don't think women should have it both ways - fair enough that men shouldn't be able to force them to have an abortion against their wishes as that would be a gross violation of personal freedoms. But with choice comes the burden of responsibility; if men have no choice in what happens to their child they should at least have the choice to opt-out of responsibility for it. Fair is fair.
>> No. 80303 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 11:22 pm
80303 spacer

_47817012_parliament_gender_466.gif
803038030380303
>>80300
>women shouldn't have any say (ie: be allowed to vote) on whether a country should go to war and send its men to fight and die.
This is already the case.
>> No. 80304 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 11:28 pm
80304 spacer
>>80292
>Do you have any idea how awful that is for most children in that position?
I don't want to sound callous, but I don't really care. If the child was our primary concern, the father would be able to withdraw funding while the state took over paying child support.

>>80293
As I said, it's a more meaningful choice than what the father gets.

It's a bullshit solution to have a father liable for payment if the mother wants to keep the child, but powerless if she wants rid of it and he doesn't. It'd be dodgy to make her keep it against her will (or go to the back-alley coathanger man.) so letting the father abrogate all obligation on paper and have the state step in is by far a preferable option.

I mean, if the father was hit by a bus you'd wind up in a single parent situation anyway, so provision to aid single mothers has more utility than just fathers not get ripped off on child support.
>> No. 80305 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 11:30 pm
80305 spacer
>>80302
I think you've completely misunderstood the problem. Childbirth is like ham and eggs. In a reversal of the usual role, men are chickens and women are pigs.
>> No. 80306 Anonymous
22nd November 2016
Tuesday 11:35 pm
80306 spacer
>>80299

So when it comes to things like the glass ceiling effect, gender wage gaps, and suchlike; problems facing women, things that are in a very real sense caused by the difference in parental rights/responsibilities between men and women... What say you to those problems? Are they justified because the whole "equal in every way" thing was only an approximation of the truth?

>>80300

Wrong again lad, women should just be sent in the army too.

And while we're at it they can start pulling them out of HR departments and lifestyle columnist jobs and forcing them to get abortions.
>> No. 80307 Anonymous
23rd November 2016
Wednesday 12:03 am
80307 spacer
>>80306
>Are they justified because the whole "equal in every way" thing was only an approximation of the truth?

And this is the fundamental misunderstanding about the social idea of equality. Clearly men and women aren't "equal in every way" else they'd be indistinguishable and we wouldn't be having this discussion. "Equality" means equal in value, rights and responsibilities, not some doublethink "same but different" contradiction.
>> No. 80308 Anonymous
23rd November 2016
Wednesday 12:22 am
80308 spacer
>>80307
Yet apparently some idiots still get the idea that a woman being entitled to an abortion somehow represents an inequality for men.
>> No. 80309 Anonymous
23rd November 2016
Wednesday 12:26 am
80309 spacer
If men were equal partners in carrying the child to term (not possible obv) and then equal partners in raising it (not just providing money by maintenance agreements) then I would agree that abortion rights should be shared equally - but neither of those things are, nor is it likely they would ever be.
>> No. 80310 Anonymous
23rd November 2016
Wednesday 12:28 am
80310 spacer
>>80308

I mean if any lads here can get knocked up they're more than welcome to abort the freak.

More likely to get love and cherished to oblivion before that happens, mind.
>> No. 80313 Anonymous
23rd November 2016
Wednesday 12:43 am
80313 spacer
I still can't see what actual harm allowing men to terminate their obligations to the child would do, provided you've got a non-shit welfare system in your country. (You could even put the two things into the same bill!)

It's ridiculous that a man can't save a child he does want but has to pay for one he doesn't based on the whims of another person. His decision making power is nullified so that their decision is simplified* I'd say there's something very patriarchal/sexist about it, amusingly. (Infantalising the mother and presuming that since the man is the man, he's got to be responsible, man up and write those cheques.)

*it wouldn't even have the advantage of simplifying the decision by removing the risk of poverty if the state had an appropriate welfare system.
>> No. 80314 Anonymous
23rd November 2016
Wednesday 12:46 am
80314 spacer
>>80313
I can see your point of view, but in a (strange) world were we adopted such an idea, how would you convince/force/coerce a woman to carry a baby to term that they didn't want, so that the man could then take over?
>> No. 80315 Anonymous
23rd November 2016
Wednesday 12:56 am
80315 spacer
>>80313]

> It's ridiculous that a man can't save a child he does want but has to pay for one he doesn't based on the whims of another person

Wait a sec, he does? From my cursory understanding of how these things work in Britain, if an unmarried woman gets pregnant and decides to keep the baby, the father has no parental or financial obligation toward the child. In an American version of that scenario, would the father be forced to pay child support?
>> No. 80316 Anonymous
23rd November 2016
Wednesday 12:57 am
80316 spacer
>>80314
If we're talking in the realm of fantasy, we'd invent womb-machines. (Bonus round: We can make pro-lifers pay for the operation of the womb-machines and use them to save unwanted foetuses without infringing upon abortion rights!)

In reality, we don't have those (yet), so the best fudge available is to at least take 50% of the shit situation away - can't save a child you do want but the woman doesn't, but don't need any involvement with one you don't want but she does.

It would be unacceptable to force a woman to carry a baby she didn't want, but similarly I would say it's unreasonable to make a man pay for a child he doesn't want as we currently do, particularly since when the situation is reversed he similarly can't force her to keep the child against her will. (Which I'll re-iterate prematurely, is immoral) The man has everything to lose under the current way of doing things. Giving a man an opt-out would at least redress part of the problem.
>> No. 80317 Anonymous
23rd November 2016
Wednesday 12:58 am
80317 spacer
>>80315
Yes.
>> No. 80318 Anonymous
23rd November 2016
Wednesday 12:59 am
80318 spacer
>>80313
>It's ridiculous that a man can't save a child he does want
No, it's actually very good that men can't use state power to force women to give birth, you psycho.

>Infantalising the mother and presuming that since the man is the man, he's got to be responsible, man up and write those cheques
Women aren't being treated differently here because they're being "infantalised", they're being treated differently because they actually get pregnant. This isn't fucking hard, Jesus Christ.
>> No. 80319 Anonymous
23rd November 2016
Wednesday 1:00 am
80319 spacer
>>80313
Why is it fair that I could walk away from an unborn child without consequence while its mother cannot? If the mother doesn't want it, then she has to either kill it before it is born or give it up for adoption, in which case she still has to carry the thing to term in the first place.
>> No. 80320 Anonymous
23rd November 2016
Wednesday 1:02 am
80320 spacer
>>80316
>similarly I would say it's unreasonable to make a man pay for a child he doesn't want as we currently do
A person was brought into the world because of that man's actions. He has a responsibility for that person.
>> No. 80321 Anonymous
23rd November 2016
Wednesday 1:03 am
80321 spacer
>>80315
Not 100% sure of the UK. Most stuff seems to make reference to children, but I'm not sure if that includes the unborn. (As a secondary thought, vis-a-vis birth certificates, can a woman write your name on it because she believes you to be the father even if that's possibly not the case, or do you have to be physically present?)

In the US, it's close to definite the man'd have to pay.
>> No. 80323 Anonymous
23rd November 2016
Wednesday 1:09 am
80323 spacer
>>80318
>No, it's actually very good that men can't use state power to force women to give birth, you psycho.
I'm not advocating that. I'm saying that since he can't (and that's a damn good thing) the woman shouldn't be able to use state power to force men to pay for unwanted children.

>they're being treated differently because they actually get pregnant
That doesn't justify forcing the man to pay.

>>80319
Because if we're counting the consequences of killing it, we might as well factor the consequences of signing away all your rights and ignoring it. Both are primarily emotional.

Purely from a time perspective:
Abortion: <9 months
Birth and adoption: ~9 months

Meanwhile you can be stuck paying Child support for 18 years.

Even if one accepts that there should be greater-than-zero consequence for the man, 18 years of child-support is completely excessive. (And it'd be worth saying, for example, that he should still pay for the abortion if it's not covered by the state/insurance/whatever, as part of his responsibility)
>> No. 80324 Anonymous
23rd November 2016
Wednesday 1:10 am
80324 spacer
>>80322
>Meanwhile you can be stuck paying Child support for 18 years.
Should have kept your cock in your pants then, shouldn't you?
>> No. 80325 Anonymous
23rd November 2016
Wednesday 1:13 am
80325 spacer
>>80324
fine, but if you don't want to be stuck with child for 9 months then you too should've been more responsible in the past.

we all make mistakes, you can't kill a baby over yours, god wouldn't much like that, etc...
>> No. 80326 Anonymous
23rd November 2016
Wednesday 1:14 am
80326 spacer
My ex-wife aborted our baby. I was not happy with it at all, and it led to our eventual divorce. I agreed with her on the basics. It was her body, she could do what she wanted with it and what have you. Some of our friends thought I was being an emotional little bitch. I thought I wouldn't be too saddened by the whole thing and everyone assured me that fathers bond with their children after they are born, but it did really depress me.

I was really down about the whole thing. I started dreaming about kids. They always looked away from me so I could never see their faces. I would push them on the swings, play catch with a blurry faced kid, etc. I told my mother the whole thing, and she just shrugged and said that it would be nice to be a nan. The whole thing was bewildering.

I honestly felt like I lost something.
>> No. 80327 Anonymous
23rd November 2016
Wednesday 1:28 am
80327 spacer
>>80323
>the woman shouldn't be able to use state power to force men to pay for unwanted children
Nope. She should, because the father has a responsibility to his child.
>> No. 80328 Anonymous
23rd November 2016
Wednesday 1:34 am
80328 spacer
>>80326
I can certainly identify with those feelings and would have felt much the same, even the divorce part, were I in that situation. The only times in my life I've felt (almost viscerally) anti-abortion is when my wife was carrying ours. I felt that bond with my children very early in the womb. I'm sure it's just an evolutionary protection mechanism kicking in or something like that, my body/brain kidding itself so that I felt involved or responsible, but it worked. I'm sorry that this might not be a comfort for you, but I can very much understand your pain.
>> No. 80329 Anonymous
23rd November 2016
Wednesday 1:35 am
80329 spacer
>>80327
Says who?
And how are they saying it in a manner that still allows the woman's bodily autonomy to trump her responsibility should she decide to have an abortion (or indeed, adopt the kid out, similarly abandoning responsibility at 9 months)?
>> No. 80330 Anonymous
23rd November 2016
Wednesday 1:36 am
80330 spacer
>>80315
>how these things work in Britain, if an unmarried woman gets pregnant and decides to keep the baby, the father has no parental or financial obligation toward the child

My understanding is quite the opposite and the root of all the issues with the CSA and the various Fathers4Justice protests. You might not have a parental obligation per se, but if someone else gets up the duff in the UK with your child, they can (and do) choose to come after you for money.
>> No. 80331 Anonymous
23rd November 2016
Wednesday 1:39 am
80331 spacer
>>80329
>Says who?
Me.

>And how are they saying it in a manner that still allows the woman's bodily autonomy to trump her responsibility should she decide to have an abortion (or indeed, adopt the kid out, similarly abandoning responsibility at 9 months)?
Very carefully.
>> No. 80332 Anonymous
23rd November 2016
Wednesday 1:48 am
80332 spacer
>>80331
>Me.
Well if that's an acceptable way of sourcing very big, external, authoritative claims:

This thread is no longer about abortion.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/21/politics/alt-right-gathering-donald-trump/
We will now be discussing the whole "Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!" thing.

Highlights will include misuse of the term "Fascism", calling George Orwell "bastard red scum" while simultaneously discussing how the "modern left" are straight out of 1984, and at least one obligatory reference to the fact David Cameron fucked the antagonist of "Animal Farm"
>> No. 80333 Anonymous
23rd November 2016
Wednesday 1:51 am
80333 spacer
>>80332
It's okay, he's disavowed them this evening and denied energising them at all - he's even going to conduct an investigation into why they are so energised by him.
>> No. 80336 Anonymous
23rd November 2016
Wednesday 1:58 am
80336 spacer

hill dose.gif
803368033680336
>>80332
Spencer is a fool for showing his power level before Trump is even in the White House. Still, I doubt it'll make much difference to anything, David Duke supporting him didn't, and he's actually somewhat known to the public.
>> No. 80341 Anonymous
23rd November 2016
Wednesday 2:09 am
80341 spacer
>>80332
>Well if that's an acceptable way of sourcing very big, external, authoritative claims:
It's a perfectly acceptable way of responding to bollocks such as >>80329.
>> No. 80346 Anonymous
23rd November 2016
Wednesday 2:18 am
80346 spacer
>>80341
Well >>80332 is a fine way of responding to bollocks such as >>80341
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38069469

Being disavowed doesn't seem to have dampened the enthusiasm of the other place for Daddy Don.
>> No. 80390 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 7:32 am
80390 spacer

nice_disavowing_m8.png
803908039080390
>>80346
FYI you communist faggot the whole "alt-right"/Richard Spencer thing is an attempt at controlling the narrative at the other place, the same way they used milo.

All of /pol/ on the other place hates both those cunts by the way. Trump disavowing Spencer is what they want to hear.

Oh but they have heard of the other place. In fact the Trump campaign manager thanked them.
>> No. 80391 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 9:24 am
80391 spacer

alt right.png
803918039180391
>>80390
The true leader of the alt right is Ben Garrison anyway.

I'd barely heard of Spencer myself, and I actually swim in these waters, read a few Radix articles before but none of the good ones are by him.
>> No. 80392 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 9:30 am
80392 spacer
>>80391

I have a hard time imagining you can read, but if you say so.
>> No. 80393 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 9:35 am
80393 spacer

schop bad books.jpg
803938039380393
>>80392
I'm actually halfway through The World as Will and Representation, but thanks for your concern, lad.
>> No. 80394 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 11:10 am
80394 spacer
>>80391

>most /pol/ thought sits somewhere around here

Hahaha!

I thought I would find a half-way decent who's-who of the "new" Right, but that's just hilarious. Good grief, to think I was starting to worry.
>> No. 80395 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 11:26 am
80395 spacer
>>80390

>Trump disavowing Spencer is what they want to hear

Um, no. I've been browsing the other place following the election and that is simply false. (Although one poster condemned Spencer for being too obvious, in that the mask was allowed to slip - revealing this new Right to be nothing more than the old, paleo-right.)

The average /pol/ poster is even more incoherent/deranged/pitiful than usual, as he discovers Trump doesn't have an ideology, and his team manipulated the "alt-right" for their own purposes. There's also been posters saying /pol/ never really supported Trump anyway, and it is in fact them using him, as a stepping stone for their movement or some such.
>> No. 80397 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 1:37 pm
80397 spacer

pepe famous.jpg
803978039780397
>>80395
>Um

Christ, you just know anything else that comes out of your mouth isn't going to be worth a pint of piss.

/pol/ is not of one mind, it has natsocs, ancaps, paleocons, libertarians, nationalists and various leftists (usually classical liberals). There is no barrier to entry and no-one gets banned except for off topic.

Neither the average /pol/ poster, nor the "alt right", can conveniently be defined or lumped together. There's levels of irony and self mockery on /pol/ which I wouldn't expect someone like yourself to get, they don't mind roasting themselves and consequently do have self awareness (unlike the left as of late), this kind of antifragility and use of humour is what truly separates the "alt-right" from the "old right", the latter of which Spencer ironically has a lot more in common with.

Trump was perhaps the only thing that enabled them to momentarily act with one will, now they've won they can go back to arguing with one another. Trump's stance has significantly opened up the breadth of subjects which can be talked about in public. Free Speech is one thing the movement agrees upon being a good thing to have.

As something which is an internet phenomenon, the question has to be asked whether a leader is even necessary, I would say - along with a plurality - that a leader is unnecessary, but that certainly won't stop people from trying to make a name for themselves.
>> No. 80398 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 2:21 pm
80398 spacer

m and ms.png
803988039880398
>>80397
I will add that many never even thought there should be any term given, that it was pointless to brand such a nebulous thing, or that they are simply the Right now.

It does seem to have been a term used mostly by the press to try and make sense of and isolate the movement, as well as by opportunists.
>> No. 80399 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 2:24 pm
80399 spacer
>>80397

All that babble counts for naught considering I was responding to someone (you?) who was talking about /pol/ as if it were a single entity.
>> No. 80400 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 4:22 pm
80400 spacer
Excuse me but I'm the professor of imageboard here, thankyouverymuch.
>> No. 80401 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 4:54 pm
80401 spacer
Could everyone who has any knowledge whatsoever about the goings-on at the other place's /pol/ please fuck away off and leave this site forever, or at the very least fuck off and return only when you've had a good long think about your life? Thanks.
>> No. 80403 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 5:18 pm
80403 spacer
>>80401

It's worth browsing one or two threads for a laugh. Also, I was beginning to get concerned about all this talk of an insurgent alt-right, but then I saw /pol/ was still /pol/, and not the training ground for some new Reich. Certainly set my mind at ease.
>> No. 80404 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 6:47 pm
80404 spacer

Donald-Trump.jpg
804048040480404
>>80403think about the consequences next time you do something for a laugh.
>> No. 80405 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 7:25 pm
80405 spacer
>>80401

I've got a better idea, how about you go and have someone change your nappy for you instead. Thanks.

Let's get real though, this whole "alt-right" nonsense is just another example of what happens when the old media and establishment has to put a name and a face to the frankly incomprehensible and chaotic mess of what is, essentially, online anarchism. It's been ten tears since the pool was closed due to fail and aids, the "hackers on steroids" are now a big enough part of the cultural psyche that they can even be blamed for the outcome of elections.

I don't think anyone with an ounce of intelligence really believes any of the fascist sort of stuff posted on /pol/. It's all convoluted maymays and ferocious trolling, which on the face of it, to someone who hasn't moved in this sorts of strange internet cultures since the early 2000s, might appear scary.

There might be a handful of newbies who buy into it, but that only goes to show how rules 1 and 2 should have been respected to begin with.
>> No. 80406 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 7:29 pm
80406 spacer
>>80405
>Let's get real though, this whole "alt-right" nonsense is just another example of what happens when the old media and establishment has to put a name

On that note, it boils my piss that they've decided to give a cutesy name to exploitative working conditions by calling it the 'gig economy'. It was bad enough with the Autumn Statement and the media obsession with JAMs.
>> No. 80407 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 7:30 pm
80407 spacer
>>80406
>gig economy

This term was really used? Fuck me, that's a step down from 'labour market flexibility' as a euphemism for insecure work.
>> No. 80408 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 7:42 pm
80408 spacer
>>80407

I hope they don't get a hold of the term "pop-up". They'll be sticking it in front of things like "pension" and "doctor's clinic" before you know it.
>> No. 80409 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 7:45 pm
80409 spacer
>>80407
Maybe it's because I read the hypocrites at the Guardian too often, but they're always harping on about the gig economy even though the term massively trivialises the issue.
>> No. 80410 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 7:59 pm
80410 spacer
>>80406
>On that note, it boils my piss that they've decided to give a cutesy name to exploitative working conditions by calling it the 'gig economy'.

I can't fucking stand this leftist obsession with decrying anything other than full time work as 'exploitation'. It's ridiculous.
>> No. 80411 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 8:03 pm
80411 spacer
>>80410
Oppressed/oppressor fetishisation.
>> No. 80412 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 8:22 pm
80412 spacer

piketty-saez-1945-to-2012-feb-2015.png
804128041280412
>>80410

>I can't fucking stand this leftist obsession with decrying anything other than full time work as 'exploitation'

Do you ever stop to think, "am I getting pissed off about the right things"?

Do you, for that matter, ever stop to think?
>> No. 80413 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 8:25 pm
80413 spacer
>>80412
It doesn't piss me off - you're a weak minority who'll never change anything. I just don't pay it any mind. You're so obnoxious and a bunch of out of touch pussy cunts that you'll never change anything. Keep snarling and posting sarcastic remarks, you'll change nothing, and people like me will keep getting the laughs at your expense.
>> No. 80414 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 8:38 pm
80414 spacer

ok.png
804148041480414
>>80413

>I can't fucking stand this leftist obsession with decrying anything other than full time work as 'exploitation'. It's ridiculous

>It doesn't piss me off - you're a weak minority who'll never change anything. I just don't pay it any mind. You're so obnoxious and a bunch of out of touch pussy cunts that you'll never change anything. Keep snarling and posting sarcastic remarks, you'll change nothing, and people like me will keep getting the laughs at your expense

I think I'll forgo my right of reply.
>> No. 80415 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 8:39 pm
80415 spacer
>>80413

I'm not clear. Will they change anything?
>> No. 80416 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 8:39 pm
80416 spacer
>>80413
You do sound pretty pissed off mate.
>> No. 80417 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 8:39 pm
80417 spacer
>>80414
Another great step on your road to achieving and changing nothing.
>> No. 80418 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 8:47 pm
80418 spacer
>>80415

It's always a kicker when the girl with pink hair and a leather jacket rejects your advances, and goes to the Celery and Champagne night at the SU with a dashing young Leninist instead.
>> No. 80419 Anonymous
25th November 2016
Friday 9:20 pm
80419 spacer
Good case of the "Overton window" shifting here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdFzf36G4lI
>> No. 80420 Anonymous
25th November 2016
Friday 9:25 pm
80420 spacer
>>80419
tell 'em, Steve-Dave.
>> No. 80779 Anonymous
6th December 2016
Tuesday 7:04 am
80779 spacer

_92830524_9ab7148a-9631-413f-b566-8203d481488e.jpg
807798077980779
>A man has been arrested after firing a rifle inside a pizza restaurant in Washington DC that was the target of a bizarre fake US election story.

>Conspiracy theorists said the pizzeria was the base of a child sex ring run by ex-US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her aide, John Podesta. Edgar Maddison Welch, the man arrested on Sunday, told police he went to the restaurant to "self-investigate" the theory, dubbed "pizzagate

>The "pizzagate" theory originated on alternative message board 4chan, based on emails hacked from the Democratic Party and leaked by Wikileaks. Users of 4chan and another message board Reddit had claimed that words in the emails, such as cheese, hot dog, and pizza, were code for young children and sex acts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38205885

>Jimmy Saville on Time's person of year shortlist

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38217040

What a time to be alive.
>> No. 80782 Anonymous
6th December 2016
Tuesday 10:01 am
80782 spacer
>>80779

In what kind of restaurant kitchen can you also fit a sex trafficking ring?
>> No. 80783 Anonymous
6th December 2016
Tuesday 10:39 am
80783 spacer
>>80779
>fake US election story.
Shouldn't it be 'false US election story'.
>> No. 80790 Anonymous
6th December 2016
Tuesday 8:11 pm
80790 spacer
>>80782
Depends how small the children are.
>> No. 81053 Anonymous
13th December 2016
Tuesday 12:14 pm
81053 spacer
Here's your new Secretary of State.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38301686

Ex-oil guy, no political experience, so certainly not Establishment. Would've prefered Petraeus, Webb or Giuliani, Rudy would've been great for the banter alone, even if he is a bit of a war hawk.

At least he'll get the Putin tin foilers going though.
>> No. 81054 Anonymous
13th December 2016
Tuesday 12:19 pm
81054 spacer
>>81053

So you can't be part of the Establishment if you have no formal political experience? ...Do you even stop to think?
>> No. 81055 Anonymous
13th December 2016
Tuesday 12:26 pm
81055 spacer
>>81054
Do you suggest Trump hires some bum off the street? I'm afraid if you want someone qualified they'll have to have been involved in business, gone to an Ivy League school etc. At least it's not some Washington hack like Kerry, Hillary or fucking Romney.
>> No. 81058 Anonymous
13th December 2016
Tuesday 1:04 pm
81058 spacer
>>81055

What? It looks like I'm going to have to spell this out...

>>81053 said Rex Tillerson (good grief, what a name) has no political experience which means he is "certainly not Establishment".

1) "Political experience" is a rather broad thing. Top judges, successful business people, media moguls, and lawyers all have a degree of political experience - moving in similar circles, knowing who to pinch and who to butter, etc.

Ever heard of the old boys' network? The US has the exact same thing - of which Exxon execs are part and Trump, whatever you fool yourself into believing, has been involved in all his adult life. Don't forget the bribes he paid in order to get those monstrous towers built, or how he happily donated to the Clintons (both of whom attended his daughter's wedding).

Spelled out, Tillerson and Trump have been a part of the capital e Establishment for quite some time.

2) As you have just pointed out, experience - or knowledge of, at the very least - of these networks are required to be an effectual politician.

I'm paraphrasing, but, when early Labour politicians were asked why they hadn't took Britain off the Gold Standard, thus avoiding a lot of economic heartache, the response went, "they didn't tell us we could do that". If you understand just how potent that remark was, you're well on your way to understanding 1)

But if you're >>81053, chances are you won't.
>> No. 81059 Anonymous
13th December 2016
Tuesday 1:05 pm
81059 spacer
>>81053
>certainly not Establishment.
He's in favour of the TPP, he's in favour of common core. From his Wikipedia page he seems pretty mainstream.
>> No. 81060 Anonymous
13th December 2016
Tuesday 1:24 pm
81060 spacer

pussygrabbers.png
810608106081060
>>81058
Trump has been saying all along that he'll put CEOs and businessmen in top positions (it seemed like with half his rallies he was lauding Carl Icahn), putting an Oilman in charge of SoS is entirely in line with his campaign promises.

And yes, the oligarchs, Wall Street etc do hold a lot of control but I don't think Trump can disassemble that, not right away anyway. I mean I'd like to see him do a house cleaning of the CIA and the Federal Reserve but that isn't going to happen overnight either.

Curious as to who your ideal pick would be. Mine would be Buchanan, but he's getting on in years.
>> No. 81061 Anonymous
13th December 2016
Tuesday 2:11 pm
81061 spacer
>>81060
The difficulty with this pick is the message it sends out. The Department of State is responsible for foreign policy and international relations. Trump has put that responsibility into the hands of the head of America's biggest oil company. What do you think that says to the world?
>> No. 81062 Anonymous
13th December 2016
Tuesday 2:39 pm
81062 spacer
>>81060
>Curious as to who your ideal pick would be. Mine would be Buchanan, but he's getting on in years.

Buchanan? Surely you don't mean Pat Hitler-din'-do-nuffin-wrong Buchanan? If you do, I'm seriously concerned about your mental health.

But anyway, mine wouldn't Kissinger that's for damn sure. (Fucking hell, that image is awful in about twenty different ways.)

Ideal is very much different to what's realistic (ugh, now that's Kissinger-esque). My ideal pick would be a diplomat with a steady history of supporting human rights (so that's pretty much every neo-con out the window), anti-nuclear, anti-totalitarian, conciliatory toward China on the whole, but harsh on their human rights record, accepts man-made global warming is taking place and wants to do something about it politically, and someone with knowledge of and respect for the developing world: Kailash Satyarthi, Tawakkul Karman, Liu Xiaobo or, best of all, Rigoberta Menchú. Do you see what I meant about realism?

If we're talking about the world as it actually is, we could do a lot worse than a Gore or keeping on Kerry as SoS.
>> No. 81076 Anonymous
13th December 2016
Tuesday 7:31 pm
81076 spacer
>>81060
>And yes, the oligarchs, Wall Street etc do hold a lot of control but I don't think Trump can disassemble that, not right away anyway

Oh for sure. Trump had no choice but to stack his cabinet full of Goldman Sachs alumni, and it will in no way hamper his efforts to upend the American finance oligarchy (which is something that he definitely wants to do).

Your kind the biggest fucking rubes in the universe.
>> No. 81077 Anonymous
13th December 2016
Tuesday 7:49 pm
81077 spacer
>>81076
Well I won't deny that a Paul as Treasury Secretary would be infinitely preferable to that Munchkin guy but you have to take the rough with the smooth I suppose. Definitely happy with half of his picks.

>>81062
Kerry is fucking terrible though, his Iran deal was a big talking point against the Democrats during the campaign for a reason, because he really shit the bed with that. Someone like Tillerson will no doubt be more savvy at the very least.
>> No. 81078 Anonymous
13th December 2016
Tuesday 8:03 pm
81078 spacer
>>81077
>his Iran deal was a big talking point against the Democrats during the campaign for a reason

Trump flung so much mud that some of it had to stick. Besides, something being a "talking point" in America is hardly a indication of its validity. This is a nation, don't forget, who spent most of '08 debating the supposed War on Christmas as its empire zipped headfirst toward economic ruin.

And anyway, the Iran deal is recognised globally as a step in the right direction, and one of the few things Obama can be praised for. Averting, as it did, the war Bush's crowd were inching toward.

I'm sorry to say this (mainly because it's inelegant, not because it's rude), but you're fucking dim.
>> No. 81080 Anonymous
13th December 2016
Tuesday 8:17 pm
81080 spacer
>>81078
I'm sorry, but throwing away 150 billion dollars to Iran yes, yes, sanctions I know, letting them dictate the terms of inspections, AND letting them keep the American hostages is fucking pathetic, I'm afraid you can't use sophistry to get around that.

>the Iran deal is recognised globally as a step in the right direction, and one of the few things Obama can be praised for

Maybe by the same people who thought Carter did a good job in Iran also.

Honestly, I don't particularly care either way, I think Iran should have nukes to keep the balance of power steady between them and Israel, but that's another story.
>> No. 81081 Anonymous
13th December 2016
Tuesday 8:52 pm
81081 spacer
>>81080
>I'm sorry, but throwing away 150 billion dollars to Iran yes, yes, sanctions I know

So you're going to use bogus information and then immediately contradict it? That's a long way off sophistry.

>letting them dictate the terms of inspections

This is horseshit. The International Atomic Energy Agency's Director General Yukiya Amano:
>I am disturbed by statements suggesting that the IAEA has given responsibility for nuclear inspections to Iran. Such statements misrepresent the way in which we will undertake this important verification work.

They'll be overseen by an independent body - the one nominated by the UN's Security Council - and not solely by the US. If you have a problem with that, you have to ask yourself, who nominated the US world leader?

>AND letting them keep the American hostages is fucking pathetic

This isn't even horseshit. When you talk about "the hostages", do you refer to the hostages - the ones released in 1981 in exchange for illegal weapons under Reagan's regime - or the four prisoners exchanged for cash in January? Are you even aware there's some very real distinctions here? Or did Trump not fill you in on all the details during one of his garbled attacks against "the deal"?
>> No. 81083 Anonymous
13th December 2016
Tuesday 10:01 pm
81083 spacer
Donald Trump slightly widened his lead over Hillary Clinton in a recount of Wisconsin’s presidential contest, leaving him more than 22,000 votes ahead in the final tally.

The Wisconsin recount that was completed Monday increased Trump’s victory margin there by 131 votes. He won 1,405,284 votes -- 22,748 more than Clinton.

"The biggest reason for these small differences between the unofficial results on election night, the counties' original canvasses and the recount results is human error,” said Michael Haas, administrator of the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

“Some voters do not follow the instructions and mark their ballots correctly for the machines can count them. In the tight deadlines to report the results, election officials make math mistakes, we forget things, we accidentally transpose numbers.”


http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-final-wisconsin-recount-tally-1481584948-htmlstory.html

Trump's victory margin has increased in the recount. Ha.
>> No. 81085 Anonymous
13th December 2016
Tuesday 11:02 pm
81085 spacer
>>81083+
There has been some crazy shit going on with the recounts, though. The whole point of the recounts was to have the paper ballots in human hands, much as we do in this country (because we're not idiots and care about the integrity of the ballot). In many places they've just fed the whole thing through exactly the same machines that were used on the night, which rather defeats the purpose of the exercise. Some officials went to considerable effort to not have to do a manual recount, though I've no idea whether they've followed the example of the ones in Ohio a few years back who went to so much effort to avoid their work that they ended up in jail.

The thing about all this is that I still have my suspicions. For months Trump said the thing was going to be rigged. Then when someone tries to hold him to his word and attempt to verify the result, he goes off and has a moan about it. Though the highlight of the whole thing for me was Jill Stein blasting the Clinton campaign for not getting on board, and when they did get on board blasted them again for jumping on the bandwagon.
>> No. 81211 Anonymous
20th December 2016
Tuesday 12:28 am
81211 spacer

mr brexit.jpg
812118121181211
He won again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38374749
>> No. 81219 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 2:37 pm
81219 spacer
So I've seen people critical of Obama, and the legacy he'll leave, one thing really stood out:

"Obama has approved more drone-strikes than any American president in history".

Think about that.

I'd reckon George Washington would have approved more.
>> No. 81220 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 2:50 pm
81220 spacer
>>81219
I think the issue with the drone strikes is rhat around 90% of the people killed aren't the intended targets.

Besides, Obama's legacy is Libya. He gets an easy ride because he's slick and media savvy, but he's just as much a cunt as the rest of them.
>> No. 81222 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 3:06 pm
81222 spacer
>>81220
No doubt, but I like to think as a person he is good. Maybe a bit Machiavellian, but you need that trait to be the ruler of the Earth. Overall, decent chap.
>> No. 81226 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 4:23 pm
81226 spacer
>>81223

The reason why people don't make a bigger deal out of it is twofold; first, tragedy and scandal are so commonplace that bad news no longer surprises us; second, we are powerless to effect change when we become outraged by something.
>> No. 81238 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 7:49 pm
81238 spacer
>>81223
>I did a module at uni once
We both bow down to your superior knowledge on the subject.
>> No. 81241 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 8:33 pm
81241 spacer
>>81238
Though not a particularly impressive achievement, it's still better than the fuck all you've brought to the table.
>> No. 81243 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 9:24 pm
81243 spacer
>>81241
Do go on, lad. Tell us all how smart you are because you once did a module in uni.
>> No. 81244 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 9:24 pm
81244 spacer
>>81222
>No doubt, but I like to think as a person he is good

Is good at what, exactly? In fact, just don't bother.

Your posts suggest you're the sort of person who doesn't deal in facts the facts being: Obama is a terrorist (look up the definition of "terrorism", and then the testimonials from those subject to seemingly random death from the Heavens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PelxKNvl-ds); a shameless class warrior; and the sort of guy who thinks torturers should be forgiven given their crimes were committed in the past but blind feeling: "I get the impression Obama's good folk, so he must be".
>> No. 81245 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 9:26 pm
81245 spacer
>>81243

Not unilad, but: stop being silly.
>> No. 81246 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 9:31 pm
81246 spacer
>>81244
You are Michael Flynn and I claim my five pounds.
>> No. 81247 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 9:36 pm
81247 spacer
>>81246
You are a bloody bore.
>> No. 81249 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 9:56 pm
81249 spacer
>>81248
>Regardless, it was merely a passing comment, saying that my thinking was inspired by said experience of the uni module
Yet for some reason you still saw fit to mention it in the first place.

Still, at least your module at uni makes you somewhat better informed than >>81244.
>> No. 81251 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 10:10 pm
81251 spacer
>>81249
All you've contributed is "nuh-uh". Are you annoyed that your gut feeling about Obama was probably certainly wrong, or are we witnessing the rumblings of a latent insecurity (re: university education, for some reason)?
>> No. 81252 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 10:52 pm
81252 spacer
>>81244
That he is a nice human, that's all.

I didn't bother with the rest of your autistic screeching.
>> No. 81253 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 11:41 pm
81253 spacer
Unilad, stop deleting all your posts. I found them interesting. I do not appreciate this at all.
>> No. 81254 Anonymous
22nd December 2016
Thursday 11:42 pm
81254 spacer
>>81251
>All you've contributed is "nuh-uh".
I'm sorry, were you expecting someone to expend energy rebutting your conspiratorial bollocks?
>> No. 81257 Anonymous
23rd December 2016
Friday 11:26 am
81257 spacer
>>81254
So Obama doesn't use drones, and didn't give the financial institutions that wrecked the economy and the CIA agents responsible for torture a free pass?

I know every now and then we're treated to grade A stupid here, but this is on another level. Lad, stating facts which not a single person has tried to hide is not "conspiratorial".
>> No. 81258 Anonymous
23rd December 2016
Friday 12:47 pm
81258 spacer
>>81257
But he won a Nobel Peace Prize and is a POC, any criticism of him is obviously tin foil hatters spreading fake news.
>> No. 81259 Anonymous
23rd December 2016
Friday 1:31 pm
81259 spacer
>>81257
>Shit, he's called me out on my conclusion. I know, I'll try and make him look stupid by saying he called me out on the facts instead! That'll make me look reeeeally clever!
>> No. 81260 Anonymous
23rd December 2016
Friday 1:55 pm
81260 spacer
>>81259

Started the Friday evening celebrations early this week, huh lad?
>> No. 81262 Anonymous
23rd December 2016
Friday 2:19 pm
81262 spacer
>>81260
No need to get upset just because someone's figured out your game, autistlad.
>> No. 81264 Anonymous
23rd December 2016
Friday 3:12 pm
81264 spacer
>>81262

Alright schizolad, call it a day.
>> No. 81483 Anonymous
19th January 2017
Thursday 12:56 am
81483 spacer
My favourite le American bear is performing at Trump's inaugration.

Sorry, it's just too appropriate:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruNrdmjcNTc

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 81822 Anonymous
23rd February 2017
Thursday 6:59 am
81822 spacer
>Swedish police have launched an investigation after a riot erupted in a predominantly immigrant suburb of the capital, Stockholm

>The unrest in the Rinkeby suburb on Monday night came after police tried to arrest a suspect on drugs charges. Rioters, some of them wearing masks, threw rocks, set vehicles on fire and looted shops from about 20:00 (19:00 GMT) on Monday in Rinkeby, which has a history of unrest.

>Sweden has seen urban unrest in some areas with large immigrant populations, where there have been job and integration issues.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39047455

Does this mean The Donald is a soothsayer?
>> No. 81825 Anonymous
23rd February 2017
Thursday 9:45 am
81825 spacer
>>81822
More fake news from the failing BBC. So sad!
>> No. 82016 Anonymous
6th April 2017
Thursday 10:28 pm
82016 spacer

scumpi.jpg
820168201682016
This is the last gasp of a group of dying white men. The gang of pissheads got together and tried to trade it off against the Chinese. Now that Bannon's off the team, what holds for America now?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39517569
>> No. 82029 Anonymous
8th April 2017
Saturday 6:43 am
82029 spacer
>>64250
Can we at least be happy, just for a moment, that Bannon's for the chop?
>> No. 82031 Anonymous
8th April 2017
Saturday 11:21 am
82031 spacer
>>82029
Bigly.
>> No. 82032 Anonymous
8th April 2017
Saturday 6:14 pm
82032 spacer

Idontwanttobeduanedibley.jpg
820328203282032
Can we please start a new thread? 3000 posts is unwieldy, out of date and Trump is too entertaining to not discuss.

Whinge for tedious meta-post.
>> No. 82039 Anonymous
8th April 2017
Saturday 10:20 pm
82039 spacer
>>82032
JFDI, m7.
>> No. 82048 Anonymous
9th April 2017
Sunday 1:46 am
82048 spacer
>>82032
It is remarkable to still be posting in a thread that began back when Trump as president seemed like an alternate universe.
>> No. 82049 Anonymous
9th April 2017
Sunday 3:09 am
82049 spacer
>>82029

Why should we be happy about that?
>> No. 82050 Anonymous
9th April 2017
Sunday 11:12 am
82050 spacer
>>82049
Because we're not frog-posting retards from the other place?
>> No. 82051 Anonymous
9th April 2017
Sunday 11:26 am
82051 spacer
>>82050

As far as I've heard Bannon's only plus point is that he's not a out and out warhawk.
>> No. 82052 Anonymous
9th April 2017
Sunday 11:33 am
82052 spacer
>>82051
Which would have been a good thing in around 1998.
>> No. 82053 Anonymous
9th April 2017
Sunday 1:59 pm
82053 spacer
>>82052

Half-Life's still GOAT and neo-conservatism is still balls, I don't see things as having changed very much at all.
>> No. 82054 Anonymous
9th April 2017
Sunday 2:06 pm
82054 spacer

tmp_22503-_86553435_syria_aleppo1924541940.jpg
820548205482054
>>82053
You're right. Nothing has really changed. Nothing at all.
>> No. 82055 Anonymous
10th April 2017
Monday 9:17 am
82055 spacer
https://toinformistoinfluence.com/2017/04/07/putins-sexual-peccadilloes/

Tangentially (or not) related.
>> No. 82056 Anonymous
10th April 2017
Monday 12:00 pm
82056 spacer
Whatever keeps the Syrian civil war going I support.
>> No. 82058 Anonymous
10th April 2017
Monday 1:33 pm
82058 spacer
>>82056

Shouldn't you be confined to /zoo/, Ares?
>> No. 82059 Anonymous
10th April 2017
Monday 6:06 pm
82059 spacer
>>82054

So are we saying we want to bring interventionism back?

You'll have to add it to the list, I'm afraid, we have to go through Lennon shades and ponchos first.
>> No. 82547 Anonymous
25th May 2017
Thursday 8:25 pm
82547 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iimj0j4NYME

It's his face afterwards that gets me.
>> No. 82548 Anonymous
25th May 2017
Thursday 8:44 pm
82548 spacer
>>82547
This whole tour choice of president has been a comic farce. I feel guilty laughing.
>> No. 82549 Anonymous
25th May 2017
Thursday 8:50 pm
82549 spacer
>>82547
Poor Montenegro joined less than a month ago and already they are being pushed around. Is NATO really worth having to kiss the mans arse?
>> No. 82550 Anonymous
27th May 2017
Saturday 12:31 am
82550 spacer
>>82547
He is such a fucking man child.
>> No. 82551 Anonymous
27th May 2017
Saturday 11:21 pm
82551 spacer
>>82550
You clearly misspelled "alpha male".
>> No. 82552 Anonymous
27th May 2017
Saturday 11:31 pm
82552 spacer
>>82551

Yeah, you can always tell who the alpha is by the insecurity beaming out of every pore.
>> No. 82557 Anonymous
30th May 2017
Tuesday 6:23 pm
82557 spacer
This video is doing the rounds at the moment but I'm sure it's fake. The cuff of his shirt suddenly getting a couple of inches longer gives it away.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVGrZb5gCbE
>> No. 82558 Anonymous
30th May 2017
Tuesday 6:29 pm
82558 spacer
>>82557
It is indeed fake.
>> No. 82559 Anonymous
31st May 2017
Wednesday 10:06 pm
82559 spacer
>>82557
Such a shame, Trump is inexplicable enough without people making stuff up.
>> No. 82560 Anonymous
31st May 2017
Wednesday 10:55 pm
82560 spacer
>>82557

It's just a joke m8. I think it's funny, nicely edited, gave me a chuckle.

But yes Trump is absurd enough that you hardly need fake covfefe to laugh at.
>> No. 82561 Anonymous
31st May 2017
Wednesday 11:02 pm
82561 spacer
>>82557
I really like the music.
>> No. 82868 Anonymous
11th June 2017
Sunday 1:21 pm
82868 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYZKrn7Bbl8

This guy. Playing Trump perfectly. I would like to see more world leaders do this kind of thing, only way to deal with him.
>> No. 82870 Anonymous
11th June 2017
Sunday 2:24 pm
82870 spacer
>>82868
>I would like to see more world leaders do this kind of thing, only way to deal with him.

As much as I'd love to see the Tony Blair version I don't know what good former politicians rehabilitating their legacy would achieve.
>> No. 82872 Anonymous
11th June 2017
Sunday 4:07 pm
82872 spacer
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/11/donald-trump-state-visit-to-britain-put-on-hold
>> No. 82876 Anonymous
11th June 2017
Sunday 7:37 pm
82876 spacer
Of course, the best part about all of this is that we can't be shot of Trump. Just look down the order of succession and see the cunts that would replace him. Remember that for any of those people on the list to reach the presidency, everyone above them has to come and go, and their jobs have to remain vacant. If Mike Pence takes the reins, only if nobody is appointed to replace him does Paul Ryan get a go.
>> No. 82879 Anonymous
11th June 2017
Sunday 7:47 pm
82879 spacer
>>82872
https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/873919798161412096

Fast times
>> No. 82883 Anonymous
12th June 2017
Monday 1:11 am
82883 spacer
>>82868
Yep, this youtube video sure will be what takes him down.
>> No. 86864 Anonymous
3rd October 2019
Thursday 4:52 pm
86864 spacer
Not sure this man is going to be President of the US for that much longer.
>> No. 86865 Anonymous
3rd October 2019
Thursday 4:56 pm
86865 spacer
>>86864
... and it's going to be fucking awesome.
>> No. 86866 Anonymous
3rd October 2019
Thursday 5:02 pm
86866 spacer
>>86864 >>86865
Even if impeachment proceedings start, they're definitely not going to succeed.
>> No. 86867 Anonymous
3rd October 2019
Thursday 5:17 pm
86867 spacer

Screenshot_2019-10-03 Trump admits he pushed Ukrai.png
868678686786867
>>86865
It might be less tedious at least.

>>86866
I don't think they need to at this rate. He's stopped pretending the phone call didn't happen, I think, and is now doubling down on the idea that Big Biden and Diddy Biden did do something dastardly, but in the most insane way possible. This is Qaddafi level babble, almost anyway.
>> No. 86869 Anonymous
3rd October 2019
Thursday 9:04 pm
86869 spacer
>>82876
Might be less of an issue now that there's an election approaching.
I'd guess that there would be at least some support for getting Trump impeached now to clear the ground for absolutely any other candidate in 2020.
>> No. 86870 Anonymous
3rd October 2019
Thursday 9:30 pm
86870 spacer
>>86867
He's attempting to normalise the behaviour and stoke his cultists into defending him by any means once impeachment proceedings start.
>> No. 86871 Anonymous
3rd October 2019
Thursday 9:33 pm
86871 spacer
>>86870

You're right, but he's exceedingly good at it.
>> No. 86872 Anonymous
3rd October 2019
Thursday 9:45 pm
86872 spacer
>>86871
Is it that hard though? His fans are unironically thick as pig shit and would buy anything he says without a moment's hesitation. “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn’t lose any voters, ok? It’s, like, incredible.” to quote the great man himself. I don't even feel this way about no-deal IIIWWeers, in case anyone reading thinks I just hate right-wingers or something, but Trump supporters are something else.

>>86870
I suppose. I just don't know how you snap people out of this kind of delusion, meaning their devotion to Trumpism. I feel as though the only way this ends is if someone quite left-wing gets in and properly improves things for a lot of people, resulting in a major shift back towards the left in the popular consiousness of America. Otherwise I don't see how you can get more right-wing, not to mention bonkers, than Trump and still have a functioning society. He's like Stalin, not remotely as bloody or in his politics of course, but in the sense that whatever he says is now The Truth and you better be onboard for that, else he'll roll right over you.
>> No. 86873 Anonymous
3rd October 2019
Thursday 9:59 pm
86873 spacer
>>86872

Trump is actually seriously good at manipulation. If this is the first masterpiece you noticed I suggest you go over some of his earlier scandals and read through his responses. The man is a master of misdirection and redirection. Not a lot of people will understand what you're talking about though so keep it to yourself unless you want to be looked at like you have 3 heads.

The way he segues in to "I am comfortable with the course of action which you are implying is bad" from his babble distraction is honestly beautiful. I enjoy watching the man work though I offer no comment on his policies or affiliations.

You ask if it's hard, yes it fucking is. It seems easy but go ahead and find a political situation you're not familiar with, try to weasel your way out of it with words and see how you compare against the real response. For best results start with Trump, he's the best at it in living memory.

As for your response to otherlad I must confess to being an old style left winger myself. Unfortunately the old style left wing is dead. It's not cool anymore. If an old style left winger stands up and says that he wants to improve the working conditions of the working classes in his country he's tagged as right wing because he offers no comment on migrants, the climate or taxes on big business which literally no politician has control over. Then the right wing hate him because they've been conditioned to see people who want to help them as hurting their bosses and thus being bad for them. We're squarely in the nutters to the left of me, nutters to the right of me phase of history, nothing to do but find someone to be stuck in the middle with and ride it out.
>> No. 86874 Anonymous
3rd October 2019
Thursday 10:03 pm
86874 spacer
>>86872
Blame the utter fucking cuntrags at SCL/CA, who fucked those people up for a handsome fee. Trump really isn't a relatable person at all. He's just a dinosaur with very good marketing.
>> No. 86876 Anonymous
3rd October 2019
Thursday 10:05 pm
86876 spacer
>>86873
>If an old style left winger stands up and says that he wants to improve the working conditions of the working classes in his country he's tagged as right wing because he offers no comment on migrants

You're such an "old style left winger" you have no idea what the present day left actually wants. I'm sure you find transwomen and rap music very frightening or something, but you're just talking shite.

>>86874
You're going to have to give me a hint there, because I'm not familiar with those acronyms and they're board enough to be search engine proof.
>> No. 86877 Anonymous
3rd October 2019
Thursday 10:13 pm
86877 spacer
>>86876

>you have no idea what the present day left actually wants

Or maybe I just don't give a fuck. Shrug fucking emoji. Enjoy your racial equality or trans bathrooms or whatever when you're all on 0 hours contracts with no pension contributions and living in 1 bed flats that eat half your wages you retarded shitbag carpet-bagger cunt.
>> No. 86879 Anonymous
3rd October 2019
Thursday 10:20 pm
86879 spacer
>>86876

Because the modern left actively, tacitly supports the status quo of neo-liberal capitalism, you dickhead.

It's perfectly fine that the CEOs earn more than a thousand times the wage of their average worker, as long as those CEOs have a better penis to vagina ratio. It'll be just fine when Disney owns your eternal soul as part of the terms and conditions of its media monopoly, just so long as it keeps putting #girlboss characters in its films.

Fucking sort your brain out mate.
>> No. 86880 Anonymous
3rd October 2019
Thursday 10:26 pm
86880 spacer
>>86879
Pie covers that sort of in this one

>> No. 86881 Anonymous
3rd October 2019
Thursday 10:28 pm
86881 spacer
>>86879

You know I completely forgot that CEOs now are on a ridiculous multiplier compared to their entry level workers. I was so focused on the lack of wage security wrought by 0 hours contracts and the psychological effects I've seen that have on people that the earlier fuckery they did completely slipped my mind.

It's insane today's society, but people accept it because it's all they ever knew. One day you and I will be dead and this will be the new normal. We have to restore the unions, it's the only way to ensure long term generational damage to the worker/owner relationship is undone. It might take a century or more but it's the only worthwhile way I can see. Everything else is just window dressing. Power to the workers is all that matters.
>> No. 86882 Anonymous
3rd October 2019
Thursday 10:29 pm
86882 spacer
>>86877
>Shrug fucking emoji.
My word, I didn't realise there were characters from Life is Strange posting here.

>>86879
You're both just talking utter nonsense. Vast tracts of left wingers oppose the things you just laid out. The idea that more equal gender representation is somehow in opposition to Disney's burgeoning media monopoly or soul-destroyingly high wealth concentration to the top is wholly absurd and I've come to expect better from you, Otherlad.
>> No. 86887 Anonymous
3rd October 2019
Thursday 10:42 pm
86887 spacer
>>86882

Or you could just accept that you have to prioritise things and that coloured trannies are lower on the list than acceptable living conditions for the working class.
>> No. 86888 Anonymous
3rd October 2019
Thursday 10:49 pm
86888 spacer
>>86882

The problem is you have it all backwards. Women and gays and racial minorities have it worse in society BECAUSE of the economic inequalities between classes and the artificial competition of labour. They're the symptoms, not root cause of the problem.

All the modern left is doing is inefectually painting over the top of a mould infestation that needs ripping out and rebuilding.
>> No. 86891 Anonymous
3rd October 2019
Thursday 11:16 pm
86891 spacer
>>86887>>86888
You can do more than one thing at a time, the idea that these issues detract from one another is blinkered and silly. I'd quite like loot crates banned, that doesn't mean I forgotten closing libraries is bad. Indeed, when the policies at hand relate to issues such as that, rather than women and ethnic minorities, I doubt you two find the suggestion I can hold two ideas, or more, in my head at once far less shocking.

You pair need to stop spending so much time on the 240 character limit website and talk to some actual people. Don't get all arsey though, people hate that, you seem like the types to get very arsey very quickly.

>coloured trannies
Gosh, you're so blood edgy I bet you're subbed to Count Dankula and everything. More importantly one of you two just posted a Johnathan Pie video, a man who's been doing the same sketch, over and over, for almost a decade, and until I figure out who it was I have to deem you both too contemptable for my attention.
>> No. 86893 Anonymous
3rd October 2019
Thursday 11:19 pm
86893 spacer
>>86891
That wasn't either of them that was me. If there are only three of us and I'm neither of the people you're replying to then clearly you posted it.

Also I contend the accusation that it's just the same sketch. He's playing the same character but the sketch is updated every time and seemingly well informed and researched to be relevant.
>> No. 86897 Anonymous
3rd October 2019
Thursday 11:37 pm
86897 spacer
>>86893
I necro-bumped this thread to talk about President Trump so I won't ramble on about this, but the only thing Pie does is be an unwitting pastische of the hair-trigger, always online, belly-feelers who think, and this could well sound very ironic given what I was saying earlier ITT, every issue they encounter deserves the same amount of frothing rage. He lacks self-awareness and is only a parody of himself.

It's basically a shit The Day Today knock-off with none of the bite too.
>> No. 86898 Anonymous
3rd October 2019
Thursday 11:38 pm
86898 spacer
>>86891

You're so dimwitted you failed to fall in to my trap. I'm going to bed soon so I'm going to unveil my master plan without you triggering it.

Coloured trannies are exceptionally likely to be working class you ultra spastic fool. Improving living, working and economic conditions for the working class includes improving those conditions for coloured trannies you massive gay spastic shite eating wanker.
>> No. 86899 Anonymous
3rd October 2019
Thursday 11:42 pm
86899 spacer
>>86898
That's not a trap, that's just stuff I'm aware of already so I didn't even address that you'd brought it up, like if you'd mentioned the sky's blue or ducks quack; it's a given. You're too daft and wound up to lay a trap.

Please use commas in any future lists, I'd hate for you to get banned.
>> No. 86900 Anonymous
3rd October 2019
Thursday 11:53 pm
86900 spacer
>>86899

It wasn't a list you massive gay spastic white eating wanker.

You are a wanker who eats massive gay spastic shites.

It's not weakness to admit when you're considering updating your world view you know. You can say "hang on a minute, you might have a point there mate" without losing face, especially on an anonymous image board like .gs. If you now recognise that coloured trannies are "us" because they produce value which is siphoned off by the ruling class then you can call yourself old left without a stain on your reputation, though your "friends" might consider it a stain on your character.

Otherwise keep calling coloured trannies "them" and let your cause fall in to oblivion like everyone else who has opposed the worker, including a king.
>> No. 86902 Anonymous
6th October 2019
Sunday 7:53 pm
86902 spacer

D72qaEeVUAA27fC.jpg
869028690286902
Elizabeth Warren is going to be the next US President.
>> No. 86903 Anonymous
6th October 2019
Sunday 8:32 pm
86903 spacer
>>86902
It's going to be fucking awesome.
>> No. 86904 Anonymous
6th October 2019
Sunday 10:46 pm
86904 spacer
>>86902
I am starting to think that too. I much prefer Kamala Harris personally, but for whatever reason the septics prefer her.
>> No. 86905 Anonymous
7th October 2019
Monday 1:49 am
86905 spacer
>>86904

I think we know the reason. They can handle a woman president or a non white president, but not both at the same time.
>> No. 86906 Anonymous
7th October 2019
Monday 1:06 pm
86906 spacer
>>86902
The Democrats or DemoRATS as I've seen some very smart and witty folk call them are going to fudge it so Biden gets the nomination and he'll lose because he's got all the charisma of a stick of chalk.
>> No. 86907 Anonymous
7th October 2019
Monday 5:52 pm
86907 spacer
>>86902
But is America ready for a native American president?
>> No. 86908 Anonymous
7th October 2019
Monday 6:01 pm
86908 spacer

Screenshot_2019-10-07 Donald J Trump on Twitter.png
869088690886908

>> No. 86909 Anonymous
7th October 2019
Monday 8:53 pm
86909 spacer
>>86908
Just when you think the limit has been reached.
>> No. 86910 Anonymous
7th October 2019
Monday 9:10 pm
86910 spacer
>>86909
There's no bottom to his barrel. I thought we all realised this already.
>> No. 86911 Anonymous
7th October 2019
Monday 10:02 pm
86911 spacer
>>86910

If a video emerged of Trump giggling like a schoolgirl while crushing kittens to death, I would not be remotely surprised.
>> No. 86912 Anonymous
8th October 2019
Tuesday 9:18 am
86912 spacer
He's betrayed a US ally just to protect his own material interests in Turkey. What a massive cunt. Who would ever trust the US again after his presidency?
>> No. 86914 Anonymous
9th October 2019
Wednesday 10:17 pm
86914 spacer
>>86912
While he is in power, not many.
>> No. 86915 Anonymous
10th October 2019
Thursday 12:51 am
86915 spacer
Instead of trying to broker an agreement, even half-heartedly, he's allowing Erdogan to reestablish a Second Ottoman Empire of whom the fiercest fighters against the most debased terror group in recent memory, the Kurds, will be the initial victims. Besides, of course, the Turks themselves who already labour under Erdogan's crooked and heartless rule. I simply don't understand how a man so wretched, debased and without sense could become the foremost leader in the world. Donald Trump's claim that he will tear down the economy of Turkey can't be believed any moreso than his denials of impropriety when talking with Volodymyr Zelensky, nor will they count for shit for the thousands of Kurds who will die, be maimed and be yet more traumatised by conflict. Kurds who, seeing they can't hope to win a conventional war within their own territory, will enact bombings and massacres against Turkish civilians, which will in turn increase the ferocity of Turkey's campaign and so on for decades. Donald Trump and the enablers within his administration were simply too lazy and self-absorbed to make even the most meagre efforts towards avoiding this, an act so sinful and without merrit I believe it to be the worst thing this sorry excuse for a man has done in office. I have spent the best part of three years ignoring his blathering, his posturing and his misdeeds, but to not even try, at any level, to prevent this, is so shocking an event that I am having trouble accepting it as reality. It is as if the Devil himself were occupying the Oval Office.

What another four years off this will wreak upon the world is beyond my imagining.

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password