Reposting from previous thread:
Trump's week in review (a significant part of the list is compiled by a ThinkProgress editor and I'm sure /pol/-kun has a nice fresh infographic that will make it all go away):
1. Decisively lost the Presidential debate, being crushed by 30-40 points on all proper polls on the matter.
2. This caused him to collapse completely in all major election polls (save for LA Times, so I'm sure /pol/-kun will say all the others were rigged).
3. Spent a significant part of the week saying scientific polling was unreliable.
4. Had a really bizarre obsession with Alicia Machado
5. Was revealed to have been in Playboy softcore at one point AND to have forced a spouse to pose for playboy for a fee he negotiated.
6. Claimed during the debate he was too classy to bring up Bill Clinton's affairs, which he has spent the week since doing.
7. Claimed in a call to the NYT on Bill Clinton's affairs that he himself had never had an affair (This is not the case).
8. Went around screaming that various persons attached to Hillary investigations etc had pleaded the 5th and should be ashamed for doing so. Aside from this being an enshrined constitutional right, it's one he made use of 97 times to avoid admitting to the aforementioned affairs that he falsely insists he hasn't had.
9. During the debate, he bragged that he was able to avoid any taxes, implying that people who paid taxes weren't smart. Once again, many millions of people watched said debate. Since this, the NYT has been sent his taxes by a leak within Trump Tower and hooooo boyyyy
10. Had the deranged rant about denying that he supported Iraq by referring to a fictional conversation with Sean Hannity.
11. USA Today and the WSJ, which traditionally refuse to weigh in on elections, came out and declared him a threat to the nation.
12. The Arizona Republic, for the first time in its 100someodd years of existence, supported Hillary as their first Democrat ever.
13. Claimed Google was in a conspiracy to suppress negative news about Clinton.
14. Said that Holt did a great job moderating the debate, and has since spent the week saying Holt rigged the debate for Hillary (a debate he continues to insist that he actually won anyway).
15. Threatened to boycott the 2nd and 3rd debates.
16. Newsweek revealed he'd violated the embargo on Cuba, which his campaign manager then inadvertently confirmed on national tv.
17. Attempted to appeal to young women with an ad telling them their most important job was being mothers.
18. Demanded Obama not pardon Hillary, who has not been convicted, or indeed charged, with any crime for which she would need a pardon.
19. Had the Washington Post reveal that the Trump Foundation was not actually legally allowed to be soliciting funds.
20. Claimed Merkel was the foreign leader he most admired after a campaign of repeatedly attacking her.
21. Told a New Hampshire tv outlet that he was very proud of promoting birther shit.
22. Was endorsed by David Fucking Duke.
23. Had trump golfing employees reveal that he wanted to fire women who weren't pretty enough.
24. Forbes reported an 800$ million dollar loss for him last year.
Remember, everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler, oppresses women, and will cause WW3!
Not everyone, but you pretty much fit that bill yeah.
I'd be amused at all the shit that's befallen him this week if he was further away from the presidency. As it is, I'm saddened that people think he’s a worthwhile candidate despite all that shit (and more), and I'm scared that he might actually pull this off.
Oh, and OP, you forgot #25: He once again called for his supporters to be vigilante poll watchers in "certain areas" (read: non-white neighborhoods/communities) because he keeps reading about in-person voter fraud that doesn't actually happen.
>OP is a repost
>subject is a shitpost by itself
You Right wingers have had multiple shitpost OPs, sorry that this one is inconvenient for you.
So... right-wingers are the devil around here.
For the last fucking time I'm even not right wing.
>Sure you aren't.
That is, word for word, what you said last time.
Yeah my reaction to the claim is identical.
If you are so concerned about people wrongfully accusing you of being one of the Alt-Right shitbirds that infest the board, post with a name.
It's more that your claim is repeatedly baseless and incorrect. Makes it difficult to appreciate your posts.
>post with a name
And become a faggot like Sage and Slow? Hell no.
1. Refusing a simple solution to the issue
2. Applying a negative connotation to names on plus4
3. Dropping a hot slur while doing so
Yeah you're totally not some Alt-Right troll attempting to smokescreen himself!
So Trump is claiming Hillary cheated in the debate. How can you cheat in a debate.
I guess it just rubs in the claim that Trump is immature.
>Refusing a simple solution to the issue
Because it will create problems I do not wish to have. Plus, I'm certain it won't stop you from calling me alt-right anyway.
>Applying a negative connotation to names on plus4
In these threads, they deserve a negative connotation. ESPECIALLY when staff use them.
This isn't the old plus4chan community of artists. Names on /bawpol/ just cause unwarranted arguments and drama.
>Dropping a hot slur while doing so
You literally said "shitbirds" two post up. Don't play that card.
>Because it will create problems I do not wish to have. Plus, I'm certain it won't stop you from calling me alt-right anyway.
Because you are. You are attempting to smokescreen yourself while simultaneously defending them. It's literally what slowpoke does except you're trying to do it while being anonymous and then get offended when people lump you in with them when you have no distinguishing characteristic. You said "for the last time, I'm not right wing!" right after posting a defense of right winger, but if you're anonymous, then it's just another post in defense of right wingers ergo...
>This isn't the old plus4chan community of artists. Names on /bawpol/ just cause unwarranted arguments and drama.
You NOT having one is the cause of this. Either get one or don't get mad when you get lumped in.
>You literally said "shitbirds" two post up. Don't play that card.
That isn't, you realize, a slur right?
Your life sounds so difficult.
>Your life sounds so difficult.
Serious philosophical question.
Regardless who wins in the US election, and regardless of what happens to the country, how many years do you think will pass before historical revisionists will get it wrong? (whatever "is" will be)
>But why is your default impression of anons that they are right, especially as you are one yourself?
It is fair to assume that if you are defending someone, you are sympathetic to them (in the scenario of online discussion, before one of your buddies starts on the HILLARY LOVES RAPISTS garbage). Because you jump in to defend Right wingers, you are labelled right wing.
>Regardless who wins in the US election, and regardless of what happens to the country, how many years do you think will pass before historical revisionists will get it wrong?
I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. If you are asking how long it is before historians begin to misinterpret historical events (such as who became President), I think that digital storage of wikis and news is enough to ensure correct historical recount.
>Names on /bawpol/ just cause unwarranted arguments and drama.
People who think every poster should be anonymous (i.e., free from the responsibility of owning one’s words) cause unwarranted arguments and drama. I don’t give a shit if anyone here links me and my name to what I’ve said; they’re my opinions and thoughts and ideas, and I’m willing to own them, for better or worse. You can attack the message without attacking the messenger. (That goes for everyone—including me. I’m actively trying to hold back the snark and potshots as of late.)
>You can attack the message without attacking the messenger.
We sure can, but the problem is the people who don't.
I'm just pissed off and venting right now, but it sucks to see all the conversations that devolve just because someone thinks your opinion is incongruent with that opinion you expressed back on 2014, and they can't accept that there's more to politics than the political compass, and that people can change their mind.
>We sure can, but the problem is the people who don't.
We can’t control them. We can only control ourselves and our reactions/responses. The best we can do is stop falling into the juvenile name-calling bullshit (as much) and stick to arguing on the subject at hand, whatever it may be.
Back in the UK, Theresa May said that Brexit will happen next March, without a vote by Parliament (which means it won't fulfill the "in accordance with that country's constitution" part of Article 50) and the £ dropped again.
I was part of another protest against the whole stupid idea, and it got the same reactions from the public (mostly positive, aside from two stupid cunts yelling "Go home losers!" at about 100 people who'd come from all across the UK to exercise their democratic right) but on the plus side we actually got some press coverage from the BBC this time. Granted, it was because we were protesting next to the Tory conference... but hey, at least it's something.
Lol wikileaks is trying to claim that Clinton suggested droning metropolitan london
the implication is that it won't be because they're lying
Only time will tell
(this is an unrelated song)
>For the last fucking time I'm even not right wing.
Do you think a retard like OP cares?
If you don't like Hillary you're a Nazi, period.
>Lol wikileaks is trying to claim that Clinton suggested droning metropolitan london
Assange specifically, who was in the Ecuadoran embassy at the time. It wouldn't have been "bombing metropolitan london" because the embassy is considered sovereign Ecuadoran land.
There's audio of Hillary Clinton strategist Bob Beckel asking to drone Assange, so it's not some pie in the sky claim that Hillary made the same statement.
Considering America has a penchant for bombing embassies, and considering SOMEONE sent an assassin to scale the side of the Ecuadoran embassy and murder Assange at 2AM, I'm not going to discount the report until more information is put forth.
Also the London police took two hours to respond to the Embassy breach in August, which suggests UK government may condone a strike on Assange. At least unofficially.
>So what's the point of killing Assange right now?
There isn't one, and nobody is planning to do so. The above picture is just something they spit out with no actual sourcing. And as our right wing friends have been insisting, if you can't source something then it doesn't exist.
>considering SOMEONE sent an assassin to scale the side of the Ecuadoran embassy and murder Assange at 2AM
CORRECTION: someone was climbing the Ecuadorian embassy at 2am and y'all did everything you could to claim this was someone trying to kill Assange despite no evidence
>someone was climbing the Ecuadorian embassy at 2am and y'all did everything you could to claim this was someone trying to kill Assange despite no evidence
I'm sure it was some guy trying to deliver in 30 minutes or less.
To my count he still has two insurance files.
The motive for the assassination might be wikileaks claiming to have even more files on Clinton, to release if she gets elected.
It could be quite literally anything. That he tried to climb the building is literally all you've got. He could have been trying to steal shit. He could have been trying break something. He could have just been fucking around. He could be insane. It could be LITERALLY ANYTHING. You have no evidence or indication of anything, only a self-important rapists' delusions of grandeur and your own agenda to get a self-important rapist elected.
>It could be LITERALLY ANYTHING.
It could even be a boat!
But it's most likely an assassin.
The bros at WikiLeaks better deliver. Many things depend on it.
>But it's most likely an assassin.
There's absolutely nothing that indicates that versus some dude trying to steal shit. You just want it to be that because it'd be useful for you/Assange believes that because he's an egomaniac.
>But it's most likely an assassin.
Someone doesn't understand how Occam's Razor works.
>But it's most likely an assassin.
>common garden variety thief
>climbing a 100ft sheer wall
>a foreign embassy
>at two in the morning
>to steal a bike
Must be a really good bike.
Who said bike? Or common variety?
It's funny how /pol/-kun is digging his heels in trying to sell the murder fantasy but has curiously tried to push Assange's ludicrous claim about drone strikes under the rug. Meanwhile, that very same fake journalist pulled the plug on his supposed announcement today, almost like he didn't have anything at all and was just desperately trying to stoke the fire of his relevance.
These people are literally incapable of not leaping to conclusions.
>guy who jumps to conclusions and calls everyone who disagrees with him a nazi
>complaining about people jumping to conclusions
It's fucking blank. Did NPR just publish a blank article with a video they're illegally embedding?
>It looks like big banks and corporations agreed to donate to the Democrats a certain percentage of the allocated TARP funds.
Interesting how all the people in your spreadsheet are Republicans, then.
The Iran ideal has consistently puzzled me as a talking point. Team Trump attacks it, Team Clinton defends it, and neither recognize that Clinton had nothing to do with it.
>watching the vice debates
>tell us what makes you qualified for this position
>I'm not a racist I'm not a racist I'm not a racist climate change I'm not a racist
Yes Kaine would be an objectively superior president than Pence, thanks for your input.
1. Collect tax money from people for "the good of all".
2. Give tax money to banks.
3. Banks put tax money into your personal accounts.
lol the proles are a bunch of fucking idiots.
Make up your mind, either the gov are fleecing people or the data is wrong, you can't have it both ways.
Clinton is tied to defending things like healthcare, or Syria, or the Iran deal because Obama is implicitly threatening to remove his support for her if she doesn't. So she's stuck either defending a shit position that alienates a third of the general voters, or risk losing another third of the voters (numbers from pew vary according to the issue) that don't agree with those positions in the first place. This is part of why her entire campaign is coming off as Obama-lite.
>Clinton is tied to defending things like healthcare
Wait…this is somehow a bad thing? I mean, yeah, the ACA isn’t perfect, but it’s not as if the Republicans have an actual plan to replace the ACA (or fix the problems with the American healthcare system that existed before the ACA was passed).
>Make up your mind, either the gov are fleecing people or the data is wrong, you can't have it both ways.
Different posters champ.
Britain again, and... hoo boy. Basically, Theresa May has set a date for Brexit, and the £ has dropped back down to about the same level as that recession we had in '85... again.
My government has responded by blaming everything on immigrants and "the liberal elite". They've said they'll deport any doctors who aren't 100% Anglo-Saxon, and anyone who complains is a freedom-hating bumface. Some UKIP MEP has said that it's amazing how many policies they've stolen from UKIP's last manifesto.
tl;dr, it turns out politicians who want Brexit are kinda sorta like Nazis.
Isn’t there some campaign going on now to name-and-shame businesses that have foreign workers so they’ll be forced to hire more people from the UK?
It's less "some campaign", more "future policy the Tory government hope to implement soon".
>Wait…this is somehow a bad thing? I mean, yeah, the ACA isn’t perfect,
Why ask questions you answer immediately afterward? ACA has PLENTY of room for criticism.
Actually it's still quite a bit above the 85 recession, currently at 1.3 to the dollar. Can't see it on the graph, but it was dropping steadily to that point since 2013, because everyone was doing their level best to devalue the pound in the first place.
Unless you meant the 2008 recession and just wrote '85 accidentally...
>ACA has PLENTY of room for criticism.
Yep, needs a vast expansion from where it currently is. UNBELIEVABLE step up from where we were though, holy shit.
>Isn’t there some campaign going on now to name-and-shame businesses that have foreign workers so they’ll be forced to hire more people from the UK?
oh wow, probably
>UNBELIEVABLE step up from where we were though
In what way? Most people can't even sign up for it, and GAO says it's costing Americans 25% more than the previous system, and price of drugs rose by 98% after ACA was implemented.
>GAO says it's costing Americans 25% more than the previous system
And with that citation, a mention of what the previous rate of increase in the same timeframe was in the old system--because the cost increased every year under the old system, and everything I've read says that the rate of increase has, on average, sharply decreased, even though that increase still occurs.
Same question regarding drug prices. Hopefully accounting for outliers by dropping both the highest 5% and the lowest 5% of prices.
>please get ahold of confidential healthcare data illegally
>and also do a few months of hardcore data analysis
>in order to convince this one anonymous poster on an imageboard
Sure how much are you going to pay me to do this work for you?
In further “Donald Trump is a walking tumor disguised as a human being” news:
Two posters (3 at least counting Stone), and if you're going to take that tactic then you don't get to argue statistics.
It seems the politician who first brought it is now pulling the "J-just a suggestion guys! I'm totally not racist!" card. But you're right, it really doesn't bode well...
Except that it's still a 31-year low for the £, and this happened the day after May pulled that deadline for triggering Article 50. Except this has now given even more power to the EU, who won't give us a good deal (if they did, that'd give other countries an incentive to leave) and it's not like any of the good negotiators we have in Britain want to get involved in this shit anyway.
Of course, if May does trigger this bullshit without Parliament's consent, or without getting the okay from Scotland and Ireland, it's entirely possible that the EU will turn around and go "You didn't do this according to the guidelines of your constitution, so go fuck yourself." But she's too busy getting metaphorically sucked off by all the right-wing papers to pay attention to facts.
It's a good thing he's probably going to lose.
You want me to give you access to data provided by insurers to GAO, and then modify that data to suit you. If you're going to take that tack then you probably already made your mind up.
It's not about modifying the data, it's about getting data that gives an accurate representation of reality rather than one where you get to be dishonest without actually lying.
The Donald is no longer in the Friday evening news cycle thanks to his comments about the Central Park Five (which are fucking horrible, FYI). No, he’s in the news cycle now thanks to something far more hideous and nauseating:
>then modify that data to suit you
>Implying facts need modifying
Game over. Please try again (in four years).
>CNN's GOP cource "it's over"
>Clinton News Network's imaginary friend says it's over.
>Clinton wants you to think it's over because leakers are in the process of trashing her campaign.
>A close adviser to Trump told CNN the story is "flat out appalling" and at this point, they can't even begin to guess whether Trump can come back from this.
>"This should have never happened. I wish it had never happened. I think I know that men talk this way sometimes, but it's nothing I would ever want to hear or condone or approve of," the adviser said. "My reaction is -- it's appalling. It's just flat out appalling."
>The adviser also said Trump's apology does not go far enough.
>"Doing anything other than to say it was a grievous error and he apologizes would be a mistake," the adviser said. "I would take it a step further and own to the words as being offensive -- not 'if.'"
>The adviser, clearly exasperated, added: "Another day in Trump world ... I hate it."
Fun fact. Before all this blew up, the GOP were getting ready to dumb Trump's ass if he turned in another pitiful perform for Sunday's debate.
It's every man for himself now.
>Clinton wants you to think it's over because leakers are in the process of trashing her campaign.
Yeah, that WikiLeaks 10th Anniversary video certainly ended her campaign like those buttmad alt-right posters said it would.
>>Clinton wants you to think it's over because leakers are in the process of trashing her campaign.
The "leakers" only released already-available public records that had nothing interesting in them.
>When you have the last laugh
The audio? Trump being a womanizer is not a surprise, and honestly only makes his base relate to him more. I don't think a single person voting for the guy gives a shit or will quit voting for him based on it.
lol you are fucking disconnected from reality.
Also ask your CTR boss Mr. Brock how he feels about the new fines and possible closure he's going to receive because his staffers broke PAC rules by communicating directly with the Hillary campaign.
>In the immediate term, though, the tape is threatening to crack Trump's support within the GOP, whose leaders must weigh whether its worth it to defend Trump and risk poisoning the party brand or distance themselves and risk demoralizing their base.
>Based on the early reaction, they're choosing the latter approach.
It's pretty hilarious to see republicans using the denigration of women as all things as a jumping off point when that's pretty much party policy, but I guess when you're desperate enough to disassociate you take whatever opening you can get.
That orange idiot's gonna get turned inside out on Sunday.
Well, Hillary's health mystery has been solved:
(skip to 1:22)
Nothing mind-blowing, but really serious stuff.
What a fucking white knight.
>women should be revered
Got it. Women are goddesses. And need to be complimented constantly, or else they start to feel inadequate.
(this is what an average poster of /bizarro pol/ actually believes)
It's also what the facts indicate
Of all the major polls, you are now consistently in the position of having one tie in the 4 way and one win in the two way.
Impossible? Obviously not. improbable? Mathematically so.
At this point every candidate is either such a complete joke, or such complete scum, that i just wish i truly believed one of the Big Two wouldn't take us to war so i could vote for them and wash my hands of it.
This election sucks.
Like Jill Stein would probably stay in her own lane but voting for her is an even bigger joke than writing in Sanders.
>The audio? Trump being a womanizer is not a surprise, and honestly only makes his base relate to him more. I don't think a single person voting for the guy gives a shit or will quit voting for him based on it.
The one true thing you've ever said. You almost approached self-awareness even.
In fairness, he’s right. If Barack Obama was the one to have said those things, his approval ratings would reach Dubya levels. Why? Because it's not what we expect from Barack Obama. It's not consistent with our vision of Obama, regardless of how we feel about his politics. But Trump? We know Trump is a philandering womanizer—or likes to think he is—and a sexist, self-absorbed, egomaniacal dickhead, so “grab them by the pussy” isn’t an inconsistency, but another “Trump being Trump” moment. Anyone who already hated Trump will keep hating him more, and anyone who already liked Trump will keep liking him regardless.
The real issue here is whether people on the fence about Trump see this as the moment where he lost their vote. Especially women. Without women voting for him, Trump has no chance to win the election—and casual, flippant remarks about what sounds like sexual assault in addition to all the horrible things he’s said about women won’t help him win over female voters. Neither will his attacks on Bill Clinton: Slick Willie’s not running, and if we’re supposed to hold Hillary “responsible” for Bill’s actions somehow, that line of logic says Trump’s wife should be held responsible for The Donald’s actions, and I don’t think he wants to go there.
>There was also a lot of talk about Donald Trump dropping out, and what the Republicans might do in that event. Trump is not going to drop out, and even if he did, it’s too late to do anything about it. The ballots are printed. Thousands of early votes are already in, and even if the GOP was somehow able to elevate Mike Pence to the top of the ticket, polls show he not only losing right now in a head to head race versus Clinton, but he will forever have the stink of Donald Trump on him. Trump supporters would stay home. Pence would lose in a landslide.
No matter how badly the GOP wants Pence to be their guy, it's not happening until 2020. Only logical course of action is to abandon the Trump ship and do everything they can to save the Senate.
And that “save the Senate” mission will not be easy, given how much of Trump’s stank has dribbled down to the rest of the GOP. No matter what Republican senators do in regards to their support of Trump, they’re going to lose votes; they just have to figure out which demographic—the GOP base or women in general—they want to alienate.
The RNC has apparently halted funding to a number of its campaign initiatives
Recall that most of the campaign's organization and whatnot was outsourced to the RNC directly
>It's pretty hilarious to see republicans using the denigration of women
Can you stop pretending you give a fuck about an adult using an adult word?
Not a single voter believes this "viewing with concern" bullshit is genuine.
Oh and Bill raped and sexually assaulted women and Hillary helped him hide it by threatening the victims.
How the fuck does saying "fuck her right in the pussy" compare to that?
Both sides of politics are morally compromised, irresponsible fuckwits. Whoop-de-fuckin'-do.
I got a photo of Trump groping a pussy right here, why don't you sell it to CNN as proof of Trumps manhood.
You're so cute when you face the existential horror of your attempt to destroy the republic collapsing on top of you.
>Pence removed from all Trump schedule
Looks like the GOP is doing everything it can to save Pence, while they watch Trump burn.
Britain here again: I've been having an argument on facebook with some old guy who thinks we'll do great outside the Single Market (aka the one thing that makes us an economic superpower) because then we'll have more freedom. When I tried to point out how that's bullshit, he called me "robot-like" and started going on about how facebook clearly wasn't the place for intelligent discussion if all I was going to do was point out facts.
I'm exaggerating, but not by much.
>clearly wasn't the place for intelligent discussion if all I was going to do was point out facts.
Even we don't say shit like that.
Your argument: if you are not in a single economic union with all the countries around you, you cannot survive.
Which is exactly what EU propaganda is. Be with us. You will not survive without us. You need us.
>Which is exactly what EU propaganda is.
The idea that you cannot survive without being in a tight economic AND political union with all the countries around you.
MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN Fuck the GOP, You are every bit the scum bags to Women Trump is, your false waffling lies and self-aggrandizing, holier than though midnight withdrawals are far more grotesque than anything he's ever done.
Seems like the message is more along the lines of "You will prosper more if you are in a tight economic and political union with the countries around you" than "You can not survive without it." There are lots of countries around the EU that aren't part of it but survive.
Like I said, I am exaggerating a teensy bit. Here's the image I posted that prompted the "robot-like" comment; he also go snippy with me about how I posted stuff like this, "thinking it means something" and kept insisting that he was above all the campaigns from both side, and totally came to the conclusion that the EU was run by baby-eating communists from his own conclusions, because the government had fucked over his community over the years.
Still hasn't gotten back to me on why he didn't do something about the government, but I'm sure he'll think of something retarded.
Because isolationism has always worked out great!
Even then, those countries have done alright because they have something unique that lets them survive; Norway has a shitload of oil, Switzerland has spend centuries politicking its way into being completely neutral and getting away with it (and being a tax haven without fucking over their economy), etc.
>far more grotesque than anything he's ever done.
Like I don't disagree that the republican's are by and large cowardly shits that believe a lot of the same garbage as Trump does and just are more coherent about it BUT
if they're willing to break ranks and bring the party down for an election to keep the country from Trump? Good, that is an important act of national solidarity (much like the french socialists withdrawing and telling their members to vote liberal to block the right wing)... or cowardice and pragmatism combing to try and salvage themselves individually and the party as a whole from this. Either way, the country is protected by this action so let's let them have it this time.
>Because isolationism has always worked out great!
>if you're not with us, then you must be against us!
Ask yourself: is Iceland isolationist? Is Canada isolationist? Is Japan isolationist? Is Australia isolationist?
You are stupid.
>some old guy who thinks we'll do great outside the Single Market (aka the one thing that makes us an economic superpower)
Possibly because he's old enough to remember UK being an economic superpower OUTSIDE the "common market", and much better off in every conceivable way.
I'm not saying you're dumb, in fact you might be more intelligent than the old fart, but what you lack is perspective.
A genius walking at street level has less of a chance to see a major disaster coming compared to an idiot washing windows on the 100th floor of a skyscraper.
Really? I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on this, but... these are your examples?
All of those countries are more isolationist than the UK, and they're all rather well off in comparison.
In fact Japan is probably in the top two or three most xenophobic countries in the world, their immigration is ridiculously strict and they have trucks with megaphones going through the streets shouting nationalist slogans.
Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about, please cease this embarrassing tirade.
>Possibly because he's old enough to remember UK being an economic superpower OUTSIDE the "common market"
Yeah, it was, when it was raping a third of the planet (which it no longer owns) through military force (that it no longer has).
>In fact Japan is probably in the top two or three most xenophobic countries in the world, their immigration is ridiculously strict and they have trucks with megaphones going through the streets shouting nationalist slogans.
They are one of the most major exporters of goods and culture in the world, and they make a lot of their money from tourism. Japan has a xenophobic culture, but they aren't stupid enough to harm their economic prospects over the fact that they hate every other country in Asia and look down on every other country in the world.
Unlike the UK, which has proven itself to be the very personification of cutting off your nose to spite your face. "Hey everyone, let's massively insult most of our biggest trade partners and make it more work for the trade partners we don't insult to make trade deals with us and still expect to have as much money coming in."
Y’know, if you’re gonna go around saying “Hillary enabled Bill”, does that mean you believe all of Trump’s wives enabled his grotesque behavior involving women?
>be the very personification of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Don't know about you, but I don't trust anyone who claims to metaphorically be part of my face.
And when was that, 1953? Britain depends on being part of the Single Market, because it's a really good thing to be part of. Britain didn't join the EEC and the Single Market until it was "the sick man of Europe", and it's heavily dependent on foreign companies operating within its borders. If a hard Brexit happens, they'll just piss off.
I... what the fuck has that got to do with anything? Are you so intent on ignoring reality that you'll ignore facts because a metaphor sounds weird to you?
>Yeah, it was, when it was raping a third of the planet
Actually decolonization kicked in during the 1918 with the conclusion of the first world war.
And UK was a world power until 1973, when it joined EU and promptly started being crushed economically, politically and militarily.
By 1980s the UK was a non-entity to the point where they struggled to fight a country the size of Argentina, by 1990 other NATO members complained that UK wasn't pulling its weight, and in the 2000s it can't even control its borders.
So yeah... EU wasn't a good thing for UK.
Also "raping a third of the planet" is a gross misunderstanding of colonialism.
All of the countries you picked are more isolationist than pre-Brexit UK, you just picked bad examples man, stop digging so deep and simply try picking other ones.
>Actually decolonization kicked in during the 1918 with the conclusion of the first world war.
>And UK was a world power until 1973
>By 1980s the UK was a non-entity to the point where they struggled to fight a country the size of Argentina
>by 1990 other NATO members complained that UK wasn't pulling its weight
because it wasn't/doesn't
>by the 2000s it can't even control its borders.
the UK has control of its borders in as much as it is possible to have control over borders, letting people in is still an exercise of control over borders
>Also "raping a third of the planet" is a gross misunderstanding of colonialism.
Another debate, another flaming disaster for the Orange Lord
NPR's transcript, for those that skipped it
>because I say it, it becomes true
Typical ________ behavior!
you forgot to put in the hyphen
"Stopped the bleeding," my ass.
Clinton leading double-digits in latest poll.
Yeah Ryan has entirely abandoned the presidency, he and probably most of the GOP core are now focusing entirely on the downballot, this election is hilarious.
This election is amazing. If it weren't for the neutering of the Voting Rights Act, Trump might ACTUALLY have ended up getting crushed worse than Goldwater. As it stands he'll probably only lose by like, 15% or so.
Don’t forget Trump’s subtle-for-him calls for his supporters to go intimidate voters in minority districts/neighborhoods/etc. so “the election doesn’t get rigged”.
>letting people in is still an exercise of control over borders
"Letting" people in is. Being unable to prevent people from getting in, despite deploying thousands of more cops to the border is not.
Wasn't it explained to you that wasn't the case? Why are you still bringing it up?
>implying this crap isn't political
Don't forget that Obama sicced IRS on Trump, and when Trump reported his financials to the IRS, Obama copypasted the information and dumped it in a journalists mailbox.
>Wasn't it explained to you that wasn't the case?
Excpet that is the case. His calls for regular individual citizens to visit polling stations and “watch” for in-person voter fraud (a form of election fraud so statistically rare that winning the Powerball is more likely to happen) is dangerously close to calling for voter intimidation. The way he asks his supporters to visit “certain places” where he thinks voter fraud will happen so the election won’t be “rigged” reeks of him telling his supporters to “visit” polling stations in districits/cities/neighborhoods where non-whites make up a majority of the population. And I’ll remind you of two things: in-person voter fraud is a horrible way to “rig” an election, and each individual state already employs official poll watchers (which makes Trump’s whole request pointless). But please, tell me how Trump’s calls for his majority-white support base to visit “certain places” and “watch” for “voter fraud” isn’t a thinly-disguised call for voter intimidation. G’head.
"I just discovered I was actually black."
- Cyrus, 2020
And if you could prove Obama or anyone in his administration did that, we’d all be having a different conversation right now, but you can’t, so we’re not.
>a form of election fraud so statistically rare that winning the Powerball is more likely to happen
Well if it's so rare then you have nothing to worry about.
>modern 'fact checking'
by the way the truth is that some private security firm charged the dnc close to $1 million to look up the internet protocol addresses involved in the attack. conclusion is that some (emphasis) came back as routed through a vpn server based in russia. fbi has not bothered to contact this server company for help in the investigation, not to mention that only a fucking baby boomer would think this means the attack came from russia. if it was russia they would use a vpn server from florida, or china, or possibly not even use a vpn at all but some packet bouncing software over a zombie network.
honesly media in charge of fact checking is like a pedo in charge of child safety.
They're good for a laugh.
It’s not the non-existent voter fraud I’m worried about; rather, I worry about the Trump supporters emboldened to harass people at polling stations, all thanks to Trump’s “vigilante poll watchers” idea. In-person voter fraud is rare enough that it has absolutely no chance of swaying an election. But voter intimidation, especially by Trump supporters who might do more than just “observe” if they actually try to be vigilante poll watchers, can do the trick if enough people are intimidated into either voting for a specific candidate or not voting at all.
I would openly repudiate Hillary Clinton if she called for vigilante poll watchers to watch “certain areas”. Why won’t you do the same for Trump?
Well if they allege he is a sex offender, I guess they aren't lying.
I'll allege the author of being a child molesting cop murderer who single-handedly funds islamic state, and he can't say shit.
you know those days when you accidentally your entire inbox
You two jerking each other off to try and comfort yourselves over your impending loss is pretty hilarious.
>I'll allege the author of being a child molesting cop murderer who single-handedly funds islamic state, and he can't say shit.
Except he can: “Where is your proof?” Thanks to both Trump talking about sexual assault on the Access Hollywood tape and the accusations of rape/sexual assault that have been tossed Trump over the years (hey doesn’t he have a case before a court where he’s accused of at least groping a 13-year-old girl?), calling Trump an “alleged sex offender” has at least some plausibility behind it.
>calling Trump an “alleged sex offender” has at least some plausibility behind it.
Calling Bill a rapist and Hillary a rape victim abuser doesn't have plausibility.
It has CERTAINTY.
And…how does that change Trump’s circumstances, again?
>But they don’t control Trump, which they are currently learning to their great misery. And the reason the GOP doesn’t control Trump is that they no longer control their base. The GOP trained their base election cycle after election cycle to be disdainful of government and to mistrust authority, which ultimately is an odd thing for a political party whose very rationale for existence is rooted in the concept of governmental authority to do. The GOP created a monster, but the monster isn’t Trump. The monster is the GOP’s base. Trump is the guy who stole their monster from them, for his own purposes.
Britain again: the £ is the lowest it's been in 168 years.
Really wish I was kidding.
Who could have imagined that a right wing fever dream made real would destroy Britain
THAT'S the tactic you guys are going with?
its not a tactic, it's a honest question.
Low value on your currency is good when your economy is in shambles because it encourages foreign investment in your currency. However it reduces domestic buying power--so for example a weak dollar means Americans can't buy as much, but rich French people can buy American goods on the cheap.
Low valued currency is a good safety net for a poor economy, reducing the length of recession periods (for example, if Greece had never started using the Euro, they would be doing much better now because of the reduced value on the Drachma), but when the currency is healthy it causes the economy to trend toward a recession rather than away from it.
Prestige and dick waving, it's never good to have a high currency. Low currency in relation to neighbors means lower cost of living, lower labor costs, cheaper exports and so on. Which is why China is a world power at the moment.
>It’s not the non-existent voter fraud I’m worried about
What about the existent voter fraud?
>check out this very real thing on a sick youtube video guuuuuuuuuuys
10 thousand cycles of 10 thousand years, and still you don't understand that nobody is interested
/pol/ is actually fun now. Usually it's NIGGERSJEWSHITLERNIGGERSJEWSHITLER, but in times of ACTUAL CRISES, good points are suddenly getting posted everywhere.
Instead of endlessly arguing over here, try it over there for just 30 minutes. I promise you won't become a sexistmysogynisthomophobetransphobeislamaphobeliterallyhitler.
He's free to hold an opinion about the rates of in-person voter fraud. Doesn’t mean it’s supported by facts, though. If you actually have evidence of in-person voter fraud being a more than a near-literal one-in-a-hundred-million occurence in any given election, now would be the time to point that out.
Otherwise, there are two things you need to know: In-person voter fraud is incredibly rare, and voter ID laws are often designed only to address that specific type of electoral fraud.
>hurrr durr trump is over people hate him because of his disgusting tapes
oh ye of too much faith.
Cool unoriginal rape fanfiction.
UN spent millions on researching pepe. Fucking lol.
She said Trump lifted the armrest to get to her and grope her. In first class. First class doesn't have armrests. She's probably never been in first class.
Hillary can't even pay people to come up with decent fucking accusations.
So in your clownshit insane little mind, do you actually believe you're going to make this happen?
I'm sure the hundred or so people that actually care what Jill Stein has to say can’t be happy about that.
Something about people disagreeing on political opinions.
JUST A GUESS.
CNN instructing "impartial voters" what to say.
Keep trying, with enough YouTube videos I'm sure he'll win.
Fox Business host Lou Dobbs tweets phone number and address of Donald Trump sexual assault accuser
Right wing attack on Somali refugees thwarted
MEDIA SILENT AS TENS OF THOUSANDS OF AFRICAN AMERICANS PROTEST HILLARY CLINTON
It's like watching a corpse twitch.
I wonder if the Alt-Right will have enough ability to self evaluate and understand that it was basically them who cost the right this election.
Funny how when Hillary "works to silence accusers," it's a travesty, but when Trump and his followers do it, it's just making sure the truth wins.
>I wonder if the Alt-Right will have enough ability to self evaluate
Um no one is silencing Leeds.... People may be laughing at her dumb copypasta story, but no one is silencing her.
>Mocking and harassing sexual assault victims (like how Lou Dobbs doxxed one of them on his show, for example) isn't a power play to attempt to silence them.
Donald Trump before the most recent debate: “Believe these women talking about sexual assault.”
Donald Trump over most of this week: “LOL don’t believe these ugly bitches.”
So Donald Trump's "proof" that he didn't assault that woman on the plane was to bring forward a "witness" who was a conservative activist that also just so happened to be brought forward in several similar situations for this sort of thing--a professional sexual misconduct witness, I guess.
Which is goddamned hilarious because you have to take into account the age of this supposed “witness” at the time of the incident—18 years old—and hinge every little detail around that fact. (Especially since there isn’t a shred of evidence to support his testimony.) Gilberthorpe also has a history of being a serial liar: he made up an engagement to a woman (and the woman!), he sued British newspapers for reporting on a story he himself planted in the papers about him having AIDS, and he made outlandish (and unsubstantiated) claims about being a young pimp who delivered underage children to ministers of the Thatcher cabinet.
Even if—if!—you could believe the guy without evidence, the fact that he’s a self-admitted child pimp does just as much damage to his credibility as the “serial liar” thing. If Trump thought this could save his campaign, he obviously didn’t employ his “extreme vetting” philosophy to his character witnesses.
Not just a liar--a perjurer. He pulled a stunt like this before in England and they had to appeal the initial ruling when it became clear that there was no way in hell the story he gave was true.
Yeah, that was the AIDS thing I mentioned. He planted a story in the papers about him having AIDS, sued the papers—successfully!—for libel, and saw the ruling overturned when evidence showed he’d planted the story in the first place. Even in the UK, where defamation laws were (and kinda still are) so completely awful, the courts still couldn't allow someone to “defame” themselves and sue newspapers for it.
You know, if Mitch McConnell fucked off to hell already where he belongs, it would do a lot to assuage my disgust with Republicans so long as they dropped this fucking obstructionist shit that he conjured.
Fuck M&Ms forever though, his pettiness made him willing to sell out Americans to Zika.
Good job to Paul Ryan for galvanizing Bernie voters on the downballot.
>Mocking and harassing sexual assault victims
Um wut? She's not a sexual assault victim, her story doesn't even hold water. There aren't any flippable armrests in first class, trump doesn't even fly first class (he has his own jet), and the story is a direct quote from a different sex assault case. Learn to read:
>Lou Dobbs doxxed one of them on his show
What the fuck are you talking about, she gave live interview.
More than one woman has come forward to accuse Donald Trump of sexual assault/harassment—and Trump has brushed off their allegations with the demeaning and dehumanizing reason of “they were too ugly for me to fuck”.
I like the moon logic of "if we go over this one case with a fine tooth comb it'll make all the others go away."
The entire basis of the AR movement is the rejection of reality and progress, the ability to adapt or self-evaluate is utterly incompatible with the movement. Rather than thinking about what went wrong with this campaign and trying to adjust, they're going to double down like they're hero and insist that they weren't defeated legitimately. That this destabilizes the republic is a bonus to them, not an issue.
It’s both humorous and frightening that, for all their whining about rigged systems and the need for a “revolution”, their ultimate solution to “fixing” the government boils down to “tear down everything and fuck anyone who gets in the way”.
He's the actual accused though, he's allowed to brush off accusations and insult accusers, neither of which is SILENCING them. Hillary actually attacked and threatened Bills victims into SILENCE, this is a bit different from calling them fat.
Also to date these are the accusers:
1. Mindy McGillivray: Trump has an alibi, she has a criminal record, addict etc.
2. Jessica Leeds: The one we're discussion, massive holes in her story
3. Rachel Crooks: In 2006 she was part of a group of representatives of a company doing business with Trump. After she was introduced to him, she claims Trump immediately raped her in front of both business delegations. Reserving judgement until we have the other two dozen witnesses of this incident come forth.
4. Tasha Dixon, Cassandra Searles: Pageant contestants who claim he saw them in their undies and invited them to his hotel room. I'd say this one is probably true, but since it's not rape or even sexual assault, I can't be assed to give a fuck.
And if any others turn up, I'll reserve judgement either way until evidence shows up, the way I did for Bill Clinton for twelve fucking years.
You're factually wrong on accusing Lou fucking Dobbs of doxxing someone, why should anyone listen to you?
What about the video where he's literally perving over a ten year old?
>You're factually wrong on accusing Lou fucking Dobbs of doxxing someone
He didn’t directly dox someone, but he did it by proxy when he retweeted someone else dropping dox.
>this is a bit different from calling them fat
Except it's not. By openly declaring his accusers to be “unfuckable” (by his standards) in that they’re “fat” or “ugly”, Trump has attempted to discredit his accusers based not on a lack of evidence or how they're attacking a spotless reputation, but on their looks. It’s an implicit message that women who aren’t “conventionally pretty” or “rail thin” wouldn’t be sexually assaulted by any man—and that their accusations have no merit as a result. For someone who claims to have “great respect” for women and who asked the country to believe Bill Clinton’s accusers when they said “this man assaulted me”, his turnaround into “don’t believe these fat ugly bitches” reeks of hypocrisy. (It also doesn't address things like him looking at a ten-year-old as a future sex object or walking in on naked and half-naked young women competing at his beauty pageants. I mean, if Trump wants to put his reputation on the line against those of his accusers, his was annihilated the moment he said “grab them by the pussy”.)
>Also to date these are the accusers:
>1. Mindy McGillivray: Trump has an alibi, she has a criminal record, addict etc.
>2. Jessica Leeds: The one we're discussion, massive holes in her story
>3. Rachel Crooks: In 2006 she was part of a group of representatives of a company doing business with Trump. After she was introduced to him, she claims Trump immediately raped her in front of both business delegations. Reserving judgement until we have the other two dozen witnesses of this incident come forth.
>4. Tasha Dixon, Cassandra Searles: Pageant contestants who claim he saw them in their undies and invited them to his hotel room. I'd say this one is probably true, but since it's not rape or even sexual assault, I can't be assed to give a fuck.
You missed a few. Here, I'll copy this list from a Reddit post I saw today listing all of them.
1. Jill Harth (1997 lawsuit)
“He pushed me up against the wall, and had his hands all over me and tried to get up my dress again,” Harth said, “and I had to physically say: ‘What are you doing? Stop it.’ It was a shocking thing to have him do this because he knew I was with George, he knew they were in the next room. And how could he be doing this when I’m there for business?’”
2. Temple Taggart (May 14)
“He kissed me directly on the lips. I thought, ‘Oh my God, gross.’ He was married to Marla Maples at the time. I think there were a few other girls that he kissed on the mouth. I was like ‘Wow, that’s inappropriate.’”
3. Cassandra Searles (June 17)
“He probably doesn’t want me telling the story about that time he continually grabbed my ass and invited me to his hotel room.”
4. Jessica Leeds (Oct. 12)
About 45 minutes after takeoff, she recalled, Mr. Trump lifted the armrest and began to touch her. According to Ms. Leeds, Mr. Trump grabbed her breasts and tried to put his hand up her skirt. “He was like an octopus,” she said. “His hands were everywhere.”
5. Rachel Crooks (Oct. 12)
Aware that her company did business with Mr. Trump, she turned and introduced herself. They shook hands, but Mr. Trump would not let go, she said. Instead, he began kissing her cheeks. Then, she said, he “kissed me directly on the mouth.”
6. Mindy McGillivray (Oct. 12)
”All of a sudden I felt a grab, a little nudge. I think it’s Ken’s camera bag, that was my first instinct. I turn around and there’s Donald. He sort of looked away quickly. I quickly turned back, facing Ray Charles, and I’m stunned.”
Palm Beach Post
7. Natasha Stoynoff (Oct. 12)
“We walked into that room alone, and Trump shut the door behind us. I turned around, and within seconds he was pushing me against the wall and forcing his tongue down my throat.”
8. Jennifer Murphy (Oct. 12)
Jennifer, 37, a contestant in season 4 of The Apprentice, claims that US presidential candidate Trump – then newly married to current wife Melania – kissed her on the lips after a job interview. “I was very taken aback by that at the time,” she admits.
Grazia (note that Murphy still supports Trump's candidacy)
9. Kristin Anderson (Oct. 14)
Kristin Anderson was deep in conversation with acquaintances at a crowded Manhattan nightspot and did not notice the figure to her right on a red velvet couch — until, she recalls, his fingers slid under her miniskirt, moved up her inner thigh and touched her vagina through her underwear.
10. Summer Zervos (Oct. 14)
Trump greeted her with an open-mouthed, aggressive kiss while grabbing her shoulder, and put his hand on her breast. Several times, she claimed, she pushed him away and indicated he should stop. When Zervos resisted Trump’s advances, she said, he tried to lead her toward the bedroom of the bungalow. “Let’s lay down and watch some telly-telly,” she claimed he said. When she said, “C’mon man, get real,” she claimed, he replied, “Get real,” and thrust his genitals at her.
11. Cathy Heller (Oct. 15)
Some 20 years ago, she claims, when she met Donald Trump for the first and only time, he grabbed her, went for a kiss, and grew angry with her as she twisted away. “Oh, come on,” she alleges that he barked, before holding her firmly in place and planting his lips on hers.
Hm, I don't see a breitbart article OR youtube video as the source for any of those anon, how can I, the discerning gentleman, possibly be sure that isn't leftist propaganda?
No, he didn't, because she had a live interview where she was identified.
Attempting to discredit your accusers is the #1 thing an accused person does, especially if they're innocent, you fucking idiot. Trump is not preventing them from talking, or blackmailing them into silence, or threatening them.
>muh fat positive
OK, in order, and removing the repeats:
>Jill Harth (1997 lawsuit)
Case dropped before it even saw a prosecutor, ergo there's zero vetting.
Pretty sure she's not pursuing this. Happened in front of her father though, I'd like to see his take on why he didn't defend his daughter from rape.
>Natasha Stoynoff (Oct. 12)
The witness to the crime, the butler Who Natasha Stoynoff claims 'burst in' on Trump assaulting, says her story is bullshit.
Taken aback =/= nonconsensual.
Claims she recognized Trump by his EYEBROWS. Can't remember the friends she was there with, can't even remember the clubs name until the journalist literally gave her the answer.
She kissed him twice, consensually, then had dinner with him and came to his private bungalow. When they were alone in an empty bungalows bedroom she still had absolutely nothing to say. She allowed him to touch and kiss her on the loveseat. Then, finally, when she finally clued up that this was an intimate situation and said no, he backed the fuck off.
No judge in the history of the universe would call this rape, sexual assault, or even sexual harassment. If this even happened, her own statement makes it seem like a misunderstanding or a bad date.
IF anything this proves how bullshit the other accusations are. If he's assaulting women in public with dozens of people standing right there, why wouldn't he assault a girl in private in an empty bungalow guarded by his bodyguard?
This apparently happened during a mothers day luncheon in front of her mother-in-law, her three children, husband, and about a hundred other guests. I'd like to see some of their testimonies please. A lot of their testimonies, considering she's a Hillary donor and activist who is suing a Trump resort because she failed to pay membership fees (probably because she donated the money to Hilldog).
Here's a pic of Trump brutally tongue raping Alicia Machado in public, the Miss Universe winner that he psychologically abused for centuries. Note the non-consensual tears dripping down her ravaged face, and the body language of Trump who is utterly disgusted by the fatty. Or maybe media narratives aren't fact.
you're literally that dog in the burning room, and that's hilarious because you have nobody but yourselves to blame for putting that orange moron in place
>Attempting to discredit your accusers is the #1 thing an accused person does, especially if they're innocent, you fucking idiot. Trump is not preventing them from talking, or blackmailing them into silence, or threatening them.
Generally, you try to discredit accusers by pointing out flaws in their evidence (or their lack of evidence), not by saying they’re too “ugly” or “fat” to be believed.
Better people than you have tried to make this happen, and they’ve all failed, so what does that say about you?
>Trump got laid about 100 more times than an average 4chan poster
>you try to discredit accusers by pointing out flaws in their evidence
Well I have the benefit of being one-remove from the actual situation, it doesn't affect me, I can vet the stories like any cop or journalist would.
Trumps reaction is going to be clouded by very strong emotion, even more so if this is coming at him cold. Criminals at least have the benefit of knowing they omitted a crime, whereas innocent are always surprised at an accusation of such.
His resorting to insults suggest to me he's actually innocent, or at least he believes he is. If he was actually a serial rapist who succeeded in hiding his rapes for decades, he'd have a previously fleshed out game plan ready for this exact situation already set in stone.
The suicide thing isn't meant as an actual suggestion to commit suicide, it's just a turn of phrase. Like fuck yourself doesn't mean actually curving your dick downwards and fucking yourself in the anus.
>His resorting to insults suggest to me he's actually innocent, or at least he believes he is.
I'm sure a lot of guys who say the kind of shit Trump has said about women believe they’re “innocent” of everything beyond “locker room talk”. Doesn’t mean they actually are. And given all the things Trump has said about women—not to mention little girls, as well as his own daughter—and all the lies he’s told over the course of his campaign, I’m more inclined to believe his accusers than him. If their statements can be disproven by evidence other than Trump’s opinion of their fuckability and the statement of a serial perjurist, so be it. (“Trust, but verify.”) But until and unless that happens, I believe them over him.
As for that “turn of phrase” thing: No. Asking someone to delete their Tumblr/Twitter/Facebook/whatever? Yeah sure fine. Asking someone to deliberately end their life? Fuck you and your assertion that such a thing is an innocent “turn of phrase”. As someone who has dealt with and continues to deal with suicidal thoughts, that is not something you can brush off as a joke. Maybe you think it’s funny being that much of a thoughtless asshole. Me? I’m not laughing.
>Well I have the benefit of being one-remove from the actual situation, it doesn't affect me, I can vet the stories like any cop or journalist would.
More specifically, like any corrupt cop or right wing journalist would.
Well unless they actually raped people, and the jury isn't even convened on that, there's nothing wrong with locker room talk. Even in the audio he didn't say or even imply that sexually assaulting people is ok.
>And given all the things Trump has said about women—not to mention little girls, as well as his own daughter
Say the words, don't imply it was something horrendous. He agreed that his daughter was hot, he said a ten year old girl was so beautiful she'd be popular in another ten years, and he gives compliments or insults women based on how he feels about them. None of these things are a crime or even immoral, at best it could be argued they are inappropriate.
>all the lies he’s told over the course of his campaign
Again use your words, talk about the lies that you feel are the worst or something. Hiding behind insinuation and innuendo is the mark of a coward with bad intentions who is afraid of being discovered as such.
>But until and unless that happens
Pretty much all of the cases so far are obvious attempts at 15 minutes of fame, although I don't know if a few more haven't joined the throng so far.
Go fuck yourself! As someone who deals with masturbatory thoughts, I'm sure you won't be brushing that off as a joke either. You will never receive a trigger warning from me because A) running away from your mental problems is how you make them worse, and B) your "lived experiences" don't give you the right to silence anyone or act like a moral superior. I'm sure you're not laughing at anything you fucking emo.
Yeah it's corrupt for cops to solve cases or for journalists to investigate a story.
Both of you fuckers need to hire someone to take care of you and change your diapers, you're not fit for sane society.
>he said a ten year old girl was so beautiful she'd be popular in another ten years
No no no... that's not quite what he said. What he - a candidate for the Presidency of the USA - actually said was "I'm going to be dating her in 10 years".
I realise it's difficult to admit you're backing the wrong horse, but you're literally making excuses for a man who perved on a 10 year old.
>for journalists to investigate a story
According to Trump this is in fact super illegal.
>Even in the audio he didn't say or even imply that sexually assaulting people is ok.
At the absolute minimum, he implies that it's okay for him to sexually assault women because he's famous and that gives him a pass. And let’s not forget that he openly admitted to trying to kiss women without waiting for their permission, so there’s that, too.
>He agreed that his daughter was hot
Trump has said, on multiple occasions, that he might be dating Ivanka if she weren’t his daughter. He allowed Howard Stern to call her “a piece of ass”. And lest you think that’s the only daughter he’s said creepy-as-fuck shit about: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-comments-1-year-old-daughter-breasts-article-1.2591961
>he said a ten year old girl was so beautiful she'd be popular in another ten years
No, he said—and I quote—“I am going to be dating her in 10 years. Can you believe it?” Who the fuck says that about a ten-year-old girl? Someone who only sees women as sex objects, even when they’re ten years old.
>None of these things are a crime or even immoral, at best it could be argued they are inappropriate.
And sleazy. And disrespectful. And creepy as fucking fuck.
>talk about the lies that you feel are the worst or something
Which one of the hundreds of lies do you want me to start with?
>Hiding behind insinuation and innuendo is the mark of a coward with bad intentions who is afraid of being discovered as such.
Kinda like the coward who proclaims to have respect for women but brushes off accusations of sexual assault by calling his accusers unfuckable and putting forth the statement of a serial perjurist? Or like the coward who proclaims an election is being rigged against him, tells his supporters to “watch the polls” for him, and tells his political opponent to her face that he’ll put her in jail if he’s elected? Or like the coward who has encouraged his supporters to distrust the very government he wants to lead? Like that kind of coward? Hmm? That what’cha shootin’ for there, chief?
>Pretty much all of the cases so far are obvious attempts at 15 minutes of fame
Yes, because when someone wants to get rich and famous, the absolute best path is to go public with a story about sexual assault/rape, face down more intense public scrutiny than the average politician, have their life torn asunder while the media digs deep into every facet of their life, and ultimately have the validity of their story hinge on whether they’re “fuckable” rather than any possible evidence or a (growing) pattern of abuse from the accused assaulter. I mean, it’s not as if someone could have their life, career, and family destroyed by putting forth such an accusation. Nooooooo. Not at all.
>your "lived experiences" don't give you the right to silence anyone or act like a moral superior
Nah, fam, we good.
>Even in the audio he didn't say or even imply that sexually assaulting people is ok.
He bragged about grabbing women by the genitals to coerce them into sex. That is by definition sexual assault.
Donald Trump now thinks SNL is rigging the election against him.
And here I thought he enjoyed all the free media attention he was getting.
(This chart is from an NYT article published in March; I can only imagine that the “free media” number for Trump still dwarfs the one for Clinton.)
Finally, a candidate you could all get behind:
Just for the benefit of the guy who's saying Lou Dobbs didn't retweet the victim doxxing, here's him apologizing for doxxing her: http://boingboing.net/2016/10/13/lou-dobbs-apologizes-for-doxxi.html
>He bragged about grabbing women by the genitals to coerce them into sex.
>to coerce them into sex.
You added the coercion part, this is 100% from your fucked up head. The audio clearly states it was consensual, and that the (hypothetical/imaginary) women in question enjoyed and wanted it.
>Lou Dobbs apologizes for (maybe) doxxing Jessica Leeds, one of Donald Trump's alleged sexual assault victims
>On Thursday, Lou Dobbs appears to have doxxed a woman who said Donald Trump sexually assaulted her.
>Dobbs linked to a post from a conservative news site that purported to link Leeds to the Clinton Foundation.
>The site published Leeds' address and phone number — taken from public records
tl;dr Dobbs didn't dox Leeds, he just linked to an article that talked about her address. And that article didn't even dox Leeds, because it was public info she posted online herself. So not only did a doxxing not take place, but Dobbs was twice removed from the nonexistent doxxing as well! If Dobbs doxxed her by linking to a news article, then the person who posted the story on +4 doxxed her as well by linking to Dobbs, and that poster needs to apologize. In fact you doxxed her as well, by posting the boingboing link!
Such a bullshit non story I can't even comprehend why you're spending your time on it.
I know you have a persecution complex, but it's not the media's fault that Trump says and does more stupid shit than the rest of the political class combined.
>You added the coercion part, this is 100% from your fucked up head. The audio clearly states it was consensual, and that the (hypothetical/imaginary) women in question enjoyed and wanted it.
You can keep trying to sell this, but nobody is buying it.
>The audio clearly states it was consensual, and that the (hypothetical/imaginary) women in question enjoyed and wanted it.
I want you to hold onto that thought because in a second I’m gonna explain everything wrong with that sentence. But first, I’m going to quote Trump himself on that now-infamous Access Hollywood tape.
>You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—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... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.
Okay, let’s break this down. When he said he “just start[s] kissing” beautiful women and he doesn’t wait (presumably for anything), unless he has prior permission to do so from a woman, that kissing counts as a nonconsensual act and thus sexual assault. When he says “when you’re a star, they let you do it, you can do anything”, he’s referring to the immense amount of privilege given to someone with his kind of status (rich, famous, powerful) and how he believes that privilege allows him to do anything he wants without consequence. (In this context, “anything” can include sexual assault.) When he says “grab them by the pussy”, he literally means “forcefully groping a woman’s genitals”; given the context of what he said about nonconsensual kissing and the privilege of his wealth and fame, it’s not hard to conclude he means groping a woman’s vagina without her consent.
So while you are technically correct about the “added the coercion” part, you are incorrect about everything else. And you may not even be correct about the coercion bit—Trump referenced his being a “star” by saying “they let you do anything”, which can be taken as an implicit admission of his fame and wealth being a reason women let him do “anything” to them.
Incidentally, this is something >>410329 might want to read:
>"i'm deeply concerned about trump voters being violent"
>mr. rock, 2016
No it's just that Time Warner and other giant media conglomerates all donate to Clinton and are heavily biased in her favor.
Your wicked witch of the west is supported by:
4. Democrat party.
5. Republican party.
6. Obama administration.
And she's still struggling.
Couldn't you find a democrat woman that people might be proud to have as a first woman president?
>they let you do it
>literally points out that they consent
>And she's still struggling.
She actually isn't.
And that she is backed by all those parties is more an indication of just how universally disgusting your boy is. Hence why he's panicking and being crushed out.
Hell, I wouldn't be shocked if it was actually one of y'all that burned that office is a desperate attempt for attention. Which it did... but for the actual party, not Trump.
1.) There is no evidence that yet supports any accusation toward any explanation for the firebombing (e.g., “an angry Democrat did it”, “Republicans did it as an inside job”), and regardless of who did it and why, I do not endorse their actions. Politics in this country have become awful enough without injecting violence into the mix.
2.) Most (if not all) of the latest polls and forecasts show Clinton as the projected winner.
3.) Consent can be coerced, and such coersion can include the implicit knowledge that saying “no” can result in unpleasant consequences—especially when the person to whom “no” is said has the privileges of fame and wealth to fall back on.
>I wouldn't be shocked if it was actually one of y'all that burned that office is a desperate attempt for attention.
I wouldn't be shocked if you painted yourself orange and raped some women just to blame Trump for it.
Oh NOW we're scrupulous about evidence!
Well nice to know you're a hypocrite on top of everything else.
>3.) Consent can be coerced, and such coersion can include the implicit knowledge that saying “no” can result in unpleasant consequences—especially when the person to whom “no” is said has the privileges of fame and wealth to fall back on.
And what brings you to think that's the case here? Seriously you're just inventing shit and inserting it into the situation with no reason whatsoever.
>And what brings you to think that's the case here?
Well, there’s the fact that Trump openly talked about kissing women without “waiting” (presumably for consent). And the fact that Trump is wealthy and famous enough to get away with it because God knows people love to think the rich and famous aren’t complete assholes. And the fact that Trump has explicitly denied the allegations against him by essentially calling his accusers “unfuckable” and insisting they’re well beneath his standards of beauty/“fuckability”. And the fact that he looked at a ten-year-old girl and said he’d be dating her in ten years. I mean, there’s a lot of evidence that Trump is a horrible pervert with no sense of right and wrong when it comes to sexual assault/the treatment of women.
>presumably for consent
You're the one doing the presuming, no one else.
>the fact that Trump has explicitly denied the allegations against him
SO IF SOMEONE DENIES BEING A RAPIST, THAT MEANS THEY ARE A RAPIST!?!?
>You're the one doing the presuming, no one else.
No, you are. You’re presuming that Trump’s “I don’t even wait to kiss them” comment means he has at least the implicit consent to kiss any woman he meets. If I even need to explain why he doesn’t—or why his presumption of consent is not the same as actual consent, or a woman allowing a famous individual with hoards of wealth to sexually assault her without complain is not the same as actual consent—you are too far gone for me to help.
Also, cool cherry-picking my quote. Anyone can look at my post and see it was Trump’s method of denial, rahter than the denial itself, that I took issue with.
>She actually isn't.
Firstly you need to understand your polls are sample sizes around 200, they cut out all the no-replies, and all the undecided. This gives a significant advantage to Clinton because she's the establishment candidate.
Also current polls with significant sample sizes (>400) have them very close to each other (Public Policy have them at 48-42%, Mason-Dixon at 46-42%, Quinnipiac is the most recent at 49%-45%) undecided usually hovering around 10%.
I'd call that split in the vote at this late date to be struggling, even if this was a level playing field. And it's not.
>In viewing recordings by The Hill of each major network's evening newscasts, which are watched by an average total of 22 million to 24 million people nightly, the newest batch of WikiLeaks revelations was covered for a combined 57 seconds out of 66 minutes of total air time on ABC, NBC and CBS.
>Those leaked emails include derogatory comments about Catholics by senior Clinton campaign officials and more disturbing examples of collusion between the media and her campaign It's newsworthy stuff)
>On the other hand, allegations from four women of unwanted sexual advances by Trump were covered a combined 23 minutes.
>Add it all up, and one presidential candidate's negative news of the day was somehow covered more than 23 times more than another candidate's negative news of the day.
Twenty three times more.
With the full force of establishment aligned behind her Trump shouldn't be breaking 25% of the vote.
The fact that Donald Trump is even in the running is a massive failure for Hillary Clinton.
>The fact that Donald Trump is even in the running is a massive failure for Hillary Clinton.
It's more a massive failure of the Republican establishment and a sign of mass insanity amongst the republican voting bloc.
By all rights, you shouldn't be allowed to vote, mentally incapable as you are, but alas, unlike you the left is too principled to actually subvert democracy in such a fashion.
>This gives a significant advantage to Clinton because she's the establishment candidate.
Just like what happened to Obama in 2012, right?
Only a truly fucked in the head individual would think that he wasn't the wooing about coercing them into sex. That is literally what they were talking about. How fucking incapable of understanding basic human interaction are you?
Lmao, keep whistling past that graveyard you worthless toad. Hey, maybe the Wikileaks didn't get much coverage because - shock, gasp - the leaked emails are pretty boring and there's not a lot of there there, despite Julian "Russian Stooge" Assange and Roger "Nixon's BFF" Stone hyping them up. Just because most nothingburger Clinton 'scandals' get hours of breathless coverage doesn't mean that they actually should.
Whoever has an R at the end of their name is virtually guaranteed 40% of the vote, even if they fucked a goat on live TV during the Super Bowl. That's political tribalism, and it's everywhere. But Clinton looks prepped to not just win the election, but potentially crush it by a margin not seen in decades.
But hey, when it's all over and we're inaugurating President Clinton, at least you'll be able to comfort yourself with your certainty that she's definitely a terrible candidate, even though she demolished your boy.
Hey, you! Your favorite alt-news websites suck! Here to explain why is noted Internet rabblerouser Maddox:
>the left is too principled to actually subvert democracy
Not exactly, since both were establishment candidates. Although I'll remind you the polls said Mitt Romney would win right up until he lost. Pollsters has no clue whatsoever until like a week before the election, because the simple fact is that regardless of what they say to polling authorities, most Americans have no idea how they're going to vote until they enter the booth.
Only a truly fucked in the head individual would read rape into a situation where there was none. One question, do you do that for other crimes as well, or just rape?
>One question, do you do that for other crimes as well, or just rape?
>my keys are missing
>someone must have stolen them
>Only a truly fucked in the head individual would read rape into a situation where there was none.
Rape? No, Trump didn’t admit to rape. But sexual assault? Absolutely.
>Although I'll remind you the polls said Mitt Romney would win right up until he lost.
Untrue. Obama took the lead early in the polls and never really lost it. There were a handful of polls that did what you described, most notably Rasmussen, who always tilts heavily towards the R candidate until the week before the election, when they take their thumb off the scale and reflect reality. But the polling aggregate was pretty much correct.
You think it's bad right now?
Just think how insufferable it would be after the votes get counted. This thread would become downright toxic.
Eh, I don’t think we’ll be that lucky. If anything, we’ll be stronger for the experience. Some of you drive me crazy, sure, but the circus that is 2016 won’t last forever, and sometimes, these threads really do get me thinking in ways I didn’t before (even if that idea seems outrageous to some of you). So yeah, I’m here 'till the world ends.
Depending on how brutal the win is, that'll be the best part. We've got the presidency, and thus the supreme court, locked down, but if congress gets flipped at the same time? oh the delicious tears of the hillbilly, the WASP, and the alt-righter that shall be drank.
Winning the Presidency is no assurance that Hillary would be able to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. If the Senate stays Republican, there’s a chance—maybe not a big chance, but definitely a chance—the GOP will block both Obama’s nomination and any of Hillary’s presumed nominations. (John McCain said as much himself.)
The only one speaking of infringing on the constitution is you, who dreams of revolting against the sovereign government of the united states and banning an entire religion, get fucked you redneck piece of trash
>Yeah he said until after the votes get counted.
If Clinton loses, don’t let me be the last to know.
Do you even know what sovereign means you starbucks barista with six doctorates in womens studies and sociology?
Also no one ever said we'd ban Muslims, full stop. We said we'd ban Muslims from immigrating. We banned Africans and Iranians from immigrating, why the fuck are you complaining about this shit now?
>cowards throwing molotov cocktails at people
>bitching when people fight back
I just bought a full fireproof outfit and an Assault Rifle Fifteen.
Come at me bro.
>I just bought a full fireproof outfit and an Assault Rifle Fifteen.
Mentioning this in this thread, given the context, comes off more as a threat that you're about to commit crimes than anything else.
>protecting self = threat
>constitutional rights = crimes
Keep proving my point, commie.
Mentioning the fact that you bought a gun and spouting off the stuff about people throwing firebombs kinda implies that you bought the gun because you want to shoot someone and justify it as self-defense, not that you bought for any actual self-defense.
Wow leaks were hurting Hillary so bad she had to hire an assassin, which failed, and then as plan B lean on Obama to lean on fucking Ecuador to shut off Assanges internet. Stupid boomer doesn't even realize he has employees outside the embassy who can handle the data dumps.
>Wow leaks were hurting Hillary so bad she had to hire an assassin
>plan B lean on Obama to lean on fucking Ecuador to shut off Assanges internet
and actually for that matter
>leaks were hurting Hillary
You know every time you say "wrong" about your saying something, a video goes viral of you saying it, right? It's happened a billion times.
He doesn’t care. Neither do his supporters.
Someone does, if those numbers are any indication.
Man, this one is somehow MORE hilarious than the other 2.
“Such a nasty woman.” Surprised he didn’t actually call her a bitch.
Clinton: "I love America."
Trump: "I hate Hillary Clinton."
Man, what a barnburner. Shooting for a solid 30% of the electorate Donny?
>You know every time you say "wrong" about your saying something, a video goes viral of you saying it, right? It's happened a billion times.
And he's always right lol.
>inb4 "fact" check by CNN
and here's the last npr transcript
Hi-fucking-larious stuff from "The Donald," looking forward to seeing our resident redneck when he's arrested for trying to kill President-Elect Hillary in November.
>he's always right
Nobody is always right. Nobody is infallible.
Let this sink it.
Better yet, let Trump’s blatant refusal to concede the election sink it.
Related to that bullshit: https://twitter.com/bogiperson/status/788939572705042432
>Thirty minutes before the debate, Trump’s Facebook page went live with a video. It ran with the message: “If you’re tired of biased, mainstream media reporting (otherwise known as Crooked Hillary’s super PAC), tune into my Facebook Live broadcast. Starts at 8:30 EST/5:30 PST -- you won't want to miss it. Enjoy!” The ensuing show had its own anchors and guests.
>For any other candidate, this may come off as unremarkable. But Trump’s wording, the original anchors and guests, and ongoing rumors suggest this is a tease of “Trump TV” — a business venture Trump might launch after his failed presidential bid.
Trump’s people, for their part, haven’t done much to dispel the rumors. Here’s what Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon said recently, according to CNN anchor Brian Stelter’s newsletter:
>Bannon did not deny talk about a potential "Trump TV" network or streaming service. When asked if there is anything to the rumors, Bannon responded with a smile and said, "Trump is an entrepreneur." He repeated the answer again later. "Trump is an entrepreneur." He also pointed out Trump's social media prowess on Facebook and Twitter. "Look at the engagement. It's incredible..."
Interesting look at what this election has REALLY always been about for Trump. Taking that loyal army of trumpets he's formed and turning them into news consumers. He's created (or at least consolidated and exploited) an audience of people who he's taught to disbelieve actual news and trust him, and now he's going to do what he was always planning to do to them--prey upon their paranoia to take their money. He's even brought on board Roger Ailes and Steve Bannon to be part of the founding.
Shit, if anything, he's done the nigh-impossible: He's convinced Fox News viewers to disbelieve Fox News.
> Shooting for a solid 30% of the electorate Donny?
and thus, we finally, truly abandon all legitimate journalistic pretenses and go full Infowars
The next eighteen days are going to be a bitch.
The day after Election Day might be a goddamned nightmare if Trump refuses to concede a loss. (And considering how the polls and all of the current predictions say Trump has only a slim chance of winning the election…yeah…)
>The day after Election Day might be a goddamned nightmare if Trump refuses to concede a loss.
"Nightmare" is an understatement. At this point armed insurrection is on the table for the Trumpets, and that's fucking terrifying. It is becoming more and more likely that this man and his followers are literally going to start a civil war.
I'm not worried about a civil war. There aren’t enough people, in enough concentrated places, with enough firepower and organization and formal military training and combat experience, to pull off an armed insurrection of the United States federal government or an individual state government. But there are other things that could happen because of a potential Trump-refuses-to-concede debacle; check the Twitter thread I linked to in >>410395 to see what I mean.
There are plenty of people to become armed insurgents and domestic terrorists though. Whether or not there's a formal military to declare war on, we could be in for a lot of violence, bloodshed, and destruction of property is my point.
What a pathetic way to go.
How much has Trump’s campaign imploded? He got booed at the Al Smith Dinner for attacking Hillary and showing not even an ounce of self-deprication.
She's slowly throwing Trump under the bus.
She may as well. It’s not like she has much of a career waiting for her after this.
>Booed by globalist billionaires and other elites
>A bad thing
He did fine and did a damn sight better than the last two clowns that held their tongues and just let Obama assault them.
His facial expression showed he didn't give a damn about the people in that room and didn't want to.
And his base is fine with that.
>His facial expression showed he didn't give a damn about the people in that room and didn't want to.
Which is funny, since those people get to vote, and you’d think he’d want as many people as possible—even those he absolutely hates—voting for him.
>And his base is fine with that.
his base is yes
shame for him that it's too small to win by itself
It was beautiful.
the funniest part is that you actually believe this
I don’t get it. You think Trump is going to execute all the people in that room?
I think the joke is pretty obvious if you're not an idiot.
Well, if I don't get it and Stone didn't get it, I think the issue is your communication of ideas.
I believe he's suggesting they won't be laughing long because Trump's going to execute them all, so typical Alt-Right, fascist drivel.
Here's a scary thought for you: what if the both of you are just as stupid as Stone?
I know it sounds pretty radical, and I'm sure nobody wants to be a pathetic loser like Stone, but I think you guys should consider just how moronic you may be. If something like this is going over your heads, then I don't think there's much hope you half-wits. I wish you cretins luck in this harsh world.
Here's a scary thought for you: maybe you're not actually funny.
If you can only defend telling a bad joke by saying “YOU’RE STUPID”, you haven’t offered a defense—you’ve shown us a playground tantrum.
Lol the double post king accusing others of double posts. Enjoy your lost election you right wing fuck.
>Everyone is laughing
I haven't actually seen anyone say it's funny but you.
>Everyone is laughing
I don't see a whole lot of laughing at a joke implying Donald Trump might execute one or more of his political rivals if he gets into office.
As for the implication that I’m sockpuppetting: I reported three different posts criticising that “joke”, one of which was mine, and screencapped the reports screen. I’ve also left all three reports intact in case another janitor/mod/admin wants to back this up.
I don’t use Tor. I don’t use proxies. I don’t need to sockpuppet.
If you can only defend failing to understand an extremely simple joke by making an obvious and pathetic grab for the intellectual high ground, you are a fucking retard—kill yourself.
You are not the first person to tell me to kill myself.
You will not be the last.
>Shit, Stone nailed my neonazi ass cold, better move goalposts!
The job of a comedian is to make his audience laugh. When he fails, the poor comedians blame the audience, and the good comedians work on becoming better.
So have fun being Michael Richards, asshole.
oh shit, those things are stars and clovers? I just get □ boxes because my computer sucks.
A peek back through the veil of time
He's always been like this
Is it just me, or does the noise made by a disconnected satellite feed seem kind of exactly the same as a censorship beep?
If they were censoring that guy, then they must be in the pockets of the Republicans, who have clearly paid them to keep their elected officials from making idiots of themselves on national television.
Or, maybe, you know, CNN don't want to draw attention to the Wikileaks leaks.
You mean that thing they've covered on several occasions?
The "leaks" that were all from publicly available records anyway and didn't show anything that mentally competent people were actually concerned about?
Back in Britain, the right-wing tabloids got mad because some teenage immigrants who arrived here looked a bit older than they said they were, and demanded that they have their teeth checked, a suggestion that actual dentists said was really fucking retarded. Oh, and it turns out some of the photos used by the indignant tabloids were of different immigrants. A footballer-turned-pundit pointed out on Twitter that this reaction was pretty fucked up, so the tabloids then demanded that he be fired from his job.
The £ is comparatively less fucked than it was a week ago, but some UK businesses have said they're moving to France, because fuck this shit. Speaking of getting as far away from this trainwreck as possible, Scotland have said they'll have another go at a referendum on independence, which has led the right-wing tabloids to go into overdrive on making Scotland's First Minister their new Emmanuel Goldstein.
The legal challenge to Brexit has wrapped up; the Government's defence rested mostly on them going "Y-yeah, well... we totally should trigger Article 50 without Parliament's consent, b-because we say so!" whereas the other side mostly kept it to points of law. The judges said they'd make their decision soon, which was nice of them. Of course, most Tory MPs are weak-willed sacks of shit, so they'll go along with Brexit because of course a 1.9% majority vote amongst 73% of the electorate is a clear mandate... /jerkoff_motion
Oh, and Prime Minister Theresa May gave a speech at an EU dinner about how Britain would totally be a key member of the EU for the next 5 months... was made to wait until 1 in the morning. The speech lasted five minutes.
>accuses me of being doublepost king
>posts THREE times in succession
Ah I see, this is supposed to prove you have two proxies, and it takes you 3 minutes 27 seconds to find the same ones and write out a post.
>"Oh No! That Sucks... welll let's move on."
He isn't even trying anymore.
>because some teenage immigrants who arrived here looked a bit older than they said they were
Well when the left-wing keeps telling everyone they're horrible people for not taking in refugee elderly, infirm, women and children.... and the refugee women and children turn out to be welfare migrant able bodied adult men.... yeah some people will get pissed off.
Especially if those adult migrant men come from the largest rape culture in the world, and regularly abuse friends and family members.
That sort of abuse tends to piss of people who, you know, AREN'T from a rape culture.
You've been saying Trump is over for almost a year now.
Remember a few weeks ago when you thought the false rape accusations would end his bid?
Ever get tired of being wrong :^)
oh that's interesting, polls matter now?
>Oh, and Prime Minister Theresa May gave a speech at an EU dinner about how Britain would totally be a key member of the EU for the next 5 months... was made to wait until 1 in the morning. The speech lasted five minutes.
Why the fuck do you want to be in the EU? They're clearly a bunch of cunts.
You'd be better off forming your own union/common market with Canada, Australia and the US.
Nah it just means your rigged polls can't keep up with reality. Enjoy getting rekt.
If you have any actual proof that I'm sockpuppetting in some way, now would be the time to present it.
>TRUMP IS WINNING POLLS!
>by a couple of points at best but you don't have to know that
>Especially if those adult migrant men come from the largest rape culture in the world
The US Republican Party?
>You'd be better off forming your own union/common market with Canada, Australia and the US.
Well sure, we'll trade with the UK. I mean obviously they're a pretty tiny market now that they're not part of the EU, so obviously they're coming from a worse bargaining position and we're going to use that to fuck them over as much as we can get away with--which will be a lot, since we know they need us--they're going to have to make up for the huge increase in prices of European imports, and we get more out of trading with the EU than with the UK since we can get a bunch of trading partners all at once, some of them as major an economic power or more so than the UK, like Germany and France, and they obviously take the priority.
Honestly, Brexit works out very well for the US since it means the UK is going to have to accept much worse trade conditions from us while our trade deals with the rest of the EU remain the same.
>Islam is rape culture!
>Well what about the women accusing Trump?
>THEY'RE FRAUDS LOOKING FOR 15 MINUTES OF FAME!
There were young children amongst the immigrants, but they weren't allowed to be photographed. Yes, really. Also:
>HURR DURR ISLAM IS RAPE CULTURE
Really? As far as Britain's concerned, the rape market is still dominated by 70's TV presenters.
I want Britain to stay in the EU, because we get so much more out of it if we stay in; funding for just about everything, being part of the Single Market, free movement, the rest of Europe won't think we're complete assholes... And frankly, Theresa May deserves to be treated like shit for tanking the economy.
>a politician i dont like
>is equivalent to CODIFIED (as in written down into law/religion/language) culture of rape
And this is why no one can take you seriously.
All inter-state business is conducted through the WTO which has rules, I don't know where you're getting that the UK is a small market either. It's like 60 million people and in the top five countries in terms of technological development.
If "screwing" singular countries is that easy, why didn't Canada get screwed? They aren't in the top ten technologically developed countries, they're only 30 million people, and their businesses are ripping over America in almost every way through NAFTA.
For that matter, why didn't UK get screwed BEFORE it entered the EU, and before WTO even existed?
Your hypothetical fear mongering is full of holes bub.
Honestly if there's a kid or elderly/infirm person among the refugees, they can get in no questions asked. That's just basic human decency. But military aged able bodied refugees get their every fucking orifice scanned.
We did the same thing during every other refugee crisis (Vietnam, Korea, Laos etc) and we never had a problem.
>HURR DURR ISLAM IS RAPE CULTURE
You don't need to become a hafiz but you should at least read the only authoritative religious text of the religion you're defending. Or just ask ex-Muslims why they have left Islam.
There is no verse in the Koran that discourages forced sex, and quite a few that encourage it. The word "rape" does not appear in it at all. The only protections a woman gets is the protection of a favored object like a car from being scratched by hooligans.
Steps Islamic culture takes to ensure women are protected from assault and rape*:
1. They must cover every portion of their bodies in presence of strangers (7:26, 33:59).
2. They must avert their eyes from men, because eye contact is an invitation (24:31).
3. Women must be accompanied by male** mawla/wali (guardians) in public (Bukhari 1763***).
4. A husband shouldn't beat his wife if she obeys him (4:34), otherwise she should be beaten (4:34, 38:44).
Steps Islamic culture takes to ensure women are assaulted and raped:
1. A wife cannot refuse* a husbands advances (2:223).
2. Women are possessions of a man (4:24, 33:50).
3. Testimony of a woman is worth half** that of a man (4:11, 2:282).
4. Underage girls, incapable of consent, are fair game (Chapter 22).
I could spend all day listing them here, such as the fact that a raped woman is technically an adulteress and can be executed by stoning, or that a husband can leave a wife without divorcing her meaning she would be fully at the mercy of the men around her. Judge for yourself if this is a culture of rape compared to the West, or any other culture.
* Islam defines rape as a woman taken against her husbands (or fathers) will. Her will does not matter. There is no concept of rape between a man and wife.
** Men must accompany a woman not to protect her, but to bear witness, because a womans witness account is worth half that of a man in Islamic jurisprudence.
*** The Bukhari is not Quran, but it is a quote from Mohammed himself, which carry the weight of law.
much like all christians believe 100% in the Bible, all muslims believe 100% in the Quran
Yup, you just keep trying weirdo, it's not going to win you any election.
Anyone who won't listen to a Muslim religious scholar on the topic of Islam is useless to the discussion at hand.
Listening to him is fine, but he is not the definitive spokesperson for Islam or all the world's Muslims, and you’d do well to remember that.
Trump will either settle out of court for an undisclosed sum or not even bother filing a lawsuit; no way he’ll ever do another deposition where he is legally mandated to tell the truth.
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein IBD/TIPP Tracking Clinton 42, Trump 41, Johnson 8, Stein 3 Clinton +1
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton IBD/TIPP Tracking Clinton 43, Trump 42 Clinton +1
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein NBC News/SM Clinton 46, Trump 41, Johnson 7, Stein 3 Clinton +5
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton NBC News/SM Clinton 50, Trump 44 Clinton +6
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Rasmussen Reports Clinton 43, Trump 42, Johnson 5, Stein 2 Clinton +1
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein ABC News Tracking Clinton 50, Trump 38, Johnson 5, Stein 2 Clinton +12
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton ABC News Tracking Clinton 53, Trump 41 Clinton +12
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton LA Times/USC Tracking Clinton 45, Trump 44 Clinton +1
Sorry that your entire Right Wing narrative is collapsing all around you.
Pretty fucked up world we live in. Look up Brian Ogle for a look at the other side of this race war shit. He got less coverage, of course.
You ask for the impossible.
Trump TV has a bright future ahead clearly
Pretty sure the first 24 hours of programming for that network will be a continuous loop of Hannity literally sucking Trump’s dick.
Thankfully, they won't have to hire a lookalike to do it.
Vied today. Early voting is important when you're worried the trump camp is going to turn violent on election day when they realize they lost.
That's what the demos crats do, akshully :^)
lol fucking Cruz outright saying if they keep the senate they'll block appointment indefinitely
I hope that if the Dems take it Obama withdraws Garland, he was a compromise option and the GOP rejected compromise, so Hillary should rub their noses in it with the most bleeding heart lefty she can find
In the republican establishment, Cruz and Co
in the republican base, this
The right has to be held down and politically suffocated, they've offered civilized society no other choice.
>worried the trump camp is going to turn violent
Trump supporters only turn violent if you get sent there to provoke them or firebomb them on Clintons orders.
>equivalent to real world attacks
Thinking that a YouTube video could ever count as a "citation" is hilarious. If it's not even worth writing down and publishing, it's certainly not worth wasting minutes of my life watching a terribly edited video.
What a shocker.
please also post your hottest infowars scoops
Yup, keep trying to pretend your crimes aren't crimes, the world totally believe you.
You posted hate speech in a previous comment. In my country that is grounds for prosecution.
I think it's absurd to call such material equivalent to real world crime.
Hate speech is indeed a crime, much as you Alt-Right freaks would like otherwise. Harassment and death threats are similarly illegal!
>Hate speech is indeed a crime
Not in the US, it’s not. Just ask the Illinois Nazis.
Not in the USA. Check it out. Death threats and harassment are separate.
This video was made by a racist sexist homophobic transphobic islamophobic white male capitalist:
Do NOT watch it.
Interesting, I thought the investigation was rigged? If the FBI decides it's nothing again, does that mean they're in Clinton's pocket or are you willing to admit that it might, in fact, be nothing?
Britain again, with the sorta-weekly update on how badly we're fucking up.
Nissan's got a sweet deal from the government to be exempt from certain post-Brexit shit, so that they wouldn't leave an create massive unemployment... and now everyone else wants a similar deal, in a move that surprised nobody. Either way, a lot of people will lose their jobs in various industries... banking alone might lose about 70,000 jobs, and not all of them will be heartless financiers.
A legal challenge to Brexit from Ireland was dismissed today; the argument was that leaving the EU would invalidate the Good Friday Agreement, so Britain couldn't go through with it. I understand they might try again in the Supreme Court, because Ireland are probably get screwed over hardest by Brexit, and that's saying something. No word yet on how the other court case is getting on.
Turns out Theresa May had some concerns about businesses leaving Britain post-Brexit, as a recorded conversation she had was leaked. But she's got other problems, as her constituency got pissed at her doing a u-turn over an expansion at Heathrow - there's a movement to have a pro-Remain candidate stand.
Tony Blair has come out and said that the referendum result should have one of three results: a vote in Parliament, a second referendum, or a general election. This has led to many pro-Remain campaigners wishing they weren't in complete agreement with Tony Blair.
Oh, and it turns out that Microsoft and Apple will be raising prices in the UK by about 20%, thanks to the £ falling.
I really wish there was anything good that might happen because of Brexit, but there isn't.
>implying Britain isn't throwing away everything that makes it economically viable (part of Single Market, epicentre of international trade) over an advisory referendum that only won a small majority thanks to empty promises
>implying Britain didn't join the EU because it was tired of being the Sick Man of Europe
>implying /pol/-kun knows a damn thing about how global economics actually work
…okay, and? They’re not re-examining their previous findings. Comey is just saying the FBI will look over the new emails for classified info with the same scrutiny as the ones they already went over when they decided not to file criminal charges against Clinton.
The real question is why Comey decided to drop this shitty bombshell less than two weeks before the election.
>The real question is why Comey decided to drop this shitty bombshell less than two weeks before the election.
I mean "bombshell" is something of an overstatement. The only people who could possibly care are people who already aren't going to vote for her anyway.
Clinton asked that the new mails be publicly released and the case particulars aired
Pardon the the large post, but I just found... this.
>‘Choi-gate’ scandal snowballing
>Investigations into 'Choi Soon-sil gate' widening
>Faulting Term Limit, South Korean Leader Proposes Revising Constitution
>South Korea's leader acknowledges ties to woman in scandal
>Key suspects still at large in Choi Sun-sil probe
>Pres. Park's “apology” doesn’t jive with previous explanations of Choi Sun-sil scandal
>‘It’s actually a system where Choi Sun-sil tells the President what to do’
>Was Choi Sun-sil behind the closing of the Kaesong Industrial Complex?
>Pseudo-Christian shamanistic cult alleged to have influence over President Park