/baw/ - General Discussion

>>409955
Not everyone, but you pretty much fit that bill yeah.

>>409953

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.

>>409962
You Right wingers have had multiple shitpost OPs, sorry that this one is inconvenient for you.

>>409964
So... right-wingers are the devil around here.

Got it.

>>409964
For the last fucking time I'm even not right wing.

>>409965
You're pretty much the devil everywhere actually.

>>409966
Sure you aren't.

>>409967
>Sure you aren't.
That is, word for word, what you said last time.

>>409970
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.

>>409972
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.

>>409973
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.

-----

>>409976
>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.

>>409979
>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?

>>409979
Your life sounds so difficult.

>>409980
But why is your default impression of anons that they are right, especially as you are one yourself?

>>409981
If you've got a better topic, please post it.

>>409984
>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.

>>409986
>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.

>>409979

>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.)

>>409990
>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.

>>409991

>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.

>>409992
Fair enough.

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

>>409997
Let's see if it gets proved.

>>409998
the implication is that it won't be because they're lying

>>409999
Only time will tell
//youtube.com/watch?v=dyOTV8rqM9Q

(this is an unrelated song)

>>410005
>>410006
So what's the point of killing Assange right now? Hasn't he already given away all the secrets he has? Is it now just about revenge? (honest question; I don't know much about Assange)

>>410007
>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.
>>410006
>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

>>410007
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.

>>410013
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.

>>410014
The bros at WikiLeaks better deliver. Many things depend on it.

>>410017
>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.

>>410017
>But it's most likely an assassin.

Someone doesn't understand how Occam's Razor works.

>>410017

>But it's most likely an assassin.

[citation needed]

>>410028
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.

>>410029
These people are literally incapable of not leaping to conclusions.

>>410031
>guy who jumps to conclusions and calls everyone who disagrees with him a nazi
>complaining about people jumping to conclusions

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/04/496452797/fact-check-vice-presidential-debate-with-tim-kaine-and-mike-pence

>>410033
It's fucking blank. Did NPR just publish a blank article with a video they're illegally embedding?

>>410035
>it's fucking blank

...no it isn't?

>>410040
Interesting how all the people in your spreadsheet are Republicans, then.

>>410041
>>410040
Also a wordpress blog has as much credibility as a random youtuber.

If you had a shred of actual evidence ya'll would go to the actual press and the courts. You don't, so you haven't and won't.

>>410033
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.

>>410044
Yes Kaine would be an objectively superior president than Pence, thanks for your input.

>>410046

>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).

>>410046
>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.

>>410052

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?

>>410053
It's less "some campaign", more "future policy the Tory government hope to implement soon".

Yeah.

Unless you meant the 2008 recession and just wrote '85 accidentally...

>>410058
>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.

>>410053
>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

>>410060
>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.

>>410064
>GAO says it's costing Americans 25% more than the previous system
[citation needed]

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.

>>410068
>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:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/trump-continues-hammer-central-park-article-1.2821286

>>410071
Two posters (3 at least counting Stone), and if you're going to take that tactic then you don't get to argue statistics.

>>410056
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...
>>410058
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.

>>410072
It's a good thing he's probably going to lose.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

>>410073
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.

>>410077
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:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html

>>410077
>then modify that data to suit you
>Implying facts need modifying

>>410081
Oh shit I'm ready for Hillary.

>>410081
>CNN's GOP cource "it's over"
Translation:
>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.

>>410083
>>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.

>>410081
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.

>jeb bush
>mitt romney
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.

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:
//youtube.com/watch?v=sqFRJnbNMr0
(skip to 1:22)

Nothing mind-blowing, but really serious stuff.

>>410089
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.

>>410091
>>410092
Don't doublepost just because you're mad that king Trump is destroying your dreams of a right wing tyranny.

>>410093
(this is what an average poster of /bizarro pol/ actually believes)

>>410094
It's also what the facts indicate
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

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.

>>410096
Like Jill Stein would probably stay in her own lane but voting for her is an even bigger joke than writing in Sanders.
Uggggggghhh

>>410096
God you're such a fucking idiot.

>>410087
>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.

>>410099

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.

>>410102

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

Daaaw, /pol/-kun is all upset

>>410109
You're so cute when you face the existential horror of your attempt to destroy the republic collapsing on top of you.

>>410109
KEK

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.

>>410113
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.

https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/784873807777529856?s=09

>>410116
>Which is exactly what EU propaganda is.
Factual?

>>410118
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.

>>410119
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.

>>410120
>far more grotesque than anything he's ever done.
Well

no


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

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.

>>410122
>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.

>>410113
>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.

>>410124
>Iceland
>Canada
>Australia
>Japan
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.
//youtube.com/watch?v=yaxrgjJ_FEo

Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about, please cease this embarrassing tirade.

>>410126
>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).

>>410127
>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."

>>410106

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?

>>410131
>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.

>>410126
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.
>>410134
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?

>>410129
>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.

>>410131
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.

>>410137
>Actually decolonization kicked in during the 1918 with the conclusion of the first world war.
bzzzzzzzzt
>>410137
>And UK was a world power until 1973
bzzzzzzzzt
>By 1980s the UK was a non-entity to the point where they struggled to fight a country the size of Argentina
bzzzzzzzzzzt
>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.
>bzzzzzzzt

Another debate, another flaming disaster for the Orange Lord

>>410140 here
NPR's transcript, for those that skipped it
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/09/497056227/fact-check-clinton-and-trump-debate-for-the-second-time

>>410140
>because I say it, it becomes true
Typical ________ behavior!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-09/new-email-leak-reveals-unprecedented-coordination-between-hillary-campaign-and-press

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.

>>410163

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”.

>>410138
>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.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt

>>410164
Wasn't it explained to you that wasn't the case? Why are you still bringing it up?

>>410164
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.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/elections-2016-donald-trump-1995-tax-returns-new-york-times-reporters-discovery-verification/

>>410167

>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.

>>410168
"I just discovered I was actually black."
- Cyrus, 2020

>>410169

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.

>>410170
>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.

>>410173

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?

>>410176
you know those days when you accidentally your entire inbox

>>410182
This nigga gets it.

You two jerking each other off to try and comfort yourselves over your impending loss is pretty hilarious.

>>410182

>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.

>>410188
Us four actually, by my count. Related:
>>410183
>>410182
>>410177
>>410176

>>410190
>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.

>>410193

And…how does that change Trump’s circumstances, again?

>>410192
You are the same two idiots as ever.

>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.

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2016/10/11/trump-the-gop-and-the-fall/

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

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/hillary-clinton-email-leak-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-give-isis-clandestine-financial-and-logistic-support-35121625.html

>>410205
>>410204
Why is a high pound good?

How does currency inflate?

>>410211
really

really

THAT'S the tactic you guys are going with?

>>410215
its not a tactic, it's a honest question.

>>410217
no it isnt you utterly transparent idiot

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.

>>410211
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.

>>410223
bzzzzzzzt

>#RepealThe19th
ahahahaha

haaaaaaaaaaa Trump voters

>>410178
>It’s not the non-existent voter fraud I’m worried about
What about the existent voter fraud?
//youtube.com/watch?v=jUDTcxIqqM0

>>410226
>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.

>>410226

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.

>>410238
Cool numbers brah

JILL STEIN JUST ENDORSED TRUMP!

>>410244
//youtube.com/watch?v=u8lD-RQ2AhQ

>>410240
So in your clownshit insane little mind, do you actually believe you're going to make this happen?

>>410244

I'm sure the hundred or so people that actually care what Jill Stein has to say can’t be happy about that.

>>410247
Make what happen?

>>410251
Something about people disagreeing on political opinions.

JUST A GUESS.

CNN instructing "impartial voters" what to say.
//youtube.com/watch?v=GqCIub3SmCI

>>410263
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
http://www.salon.com/2016/10/13/fox-business-host-lou-dobbs-tweets-phone-number-and-address-of-donald-trump-sexual-assault-accuser/

//youtube.com/watch?v=yo2ew5ltadM

Right wing attack on Somali refugees thwarted
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/militia-members-arrested-mosque-attack-plot/

>>410267
>attack
>thwarted
>alleged to be planning

>>410265
>sexual assault accuser
Accusations already been proven false bub.

>>410269
>proven
There's that word again...

MEDIA SILENT AS TENS OF THOUSANDS OF AFRICAN AMERICANS PROTEST HILLARY CLINTON
http://vidmax.com/video/147240-MEDIA-SILENT-As-tens-of-thousands-of-black-people-march-against-Hillary-Clinton-around-the-country#comments

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.

>>410269
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.

>>410272
>I wonder if the Alt-Right will have enough ability to self evaluate
Nope.

>>410273
Um no one is silencing Leeds.... People may be laughing at her dumb copypasta story, but no one is silencing her.

>>410276
>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.
lol, okay.

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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-defended-leeds_us_58014fe2e4b06e047594fa91

>>410280

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.

>>410281
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.

>>410285

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.

>>410278
>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:
>>410243
>>410241
>>410240

>Lou Dobbs doxxed one of them on his show
What the fuck are you talking about, she gave live interview.

>>410289

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."
>>410272
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.

>>410291

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”.

>>410290
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.

>>410291
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?

>>410293

>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.

Also: >>410293

>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”.)

>>410293
>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?’”
The Guardian
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.’”
NYT
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.”
Yahoo!
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.”
NYT
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.”
NYT
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.”
People
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.
WaPo
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.
The Guardian
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.
The Guardian

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?