:)

Hillary vs Trump

Hillary
8
50%
Trump
8
50%
 
Total votes: 16

User avatar
Erowid
Site Admin
Posts: 684
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:02 am
Location: Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: :)

Post by Erowid »

LunaticChick wrote:I am brain washed? You are brain dead and a Re-pubis ( as in down there hair ) :lolz: So Sad :ttup:

Time for a Brazilian wax? You probably will like it :fshit:

Trump was made fun of plenty of times while being in the public eye for decades, he was never called misogynistic, racist, or a bigot before he ran against the democrats.
Imagine for a second that Trump was under FBI investigation, do you think he'd stand a chance lol. You have the whole thing backwards. The media has you in their pockets.
__________________________________
____________________________________________________
Image
Image
Image
Image


Image
perrinoia
Site Admin
Posts: 3732
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: :)

Post by perrinoia »

Erowid wrote:
LunaticChick wrote:I am brain washed? You are brain dead and a Re-pubis ( as in down there hair ) :lolz: So Sad :ttup:

Time for a Brazilian wax? You probably will like it :fshit:

Trump was made fun of plenty of times while being in the public eye for decades, he was never called misogynistic, racist, or a bigot before he ran against the democrats.
Imagine for a second that Trump was under FBI investigation, do you think he'd stand a chance lol. You have the whole thing backwards. The media has you in their pockets.
Image
TRUMP LAWSUITS BY THE NUMBERS
USA TODAY NETWORK journalists identified about 3,500 state and federal court cases involving Donald Trump and the more than 500 companies on his federal financial disclosure report and previous holdings. They break down like this. The figures are rounded because the USA TODAY search and review of cases is ongoing.
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Trump's real-estate companies have had many lawsuits regarding racial discrimination. Many of his condo buildings appear to have a whites only policy. His show, The Apprentice, was under fire for racial and gender discrimination during the first season, hence why Omarosa survived for so long, despite being the obvious choice to be fired in every single episode. Then again, he would claim it was for ratings, rather than to appease the public outcry.

He has a long history of settling legal disputes outside of court, because he knows he would lose.

All of this existed before he announced his candidacy, and continues to compound, but it's not news worthy in comparison to a bunch of women jumping on the band wagon after Trump was caught on tape bragging about groping random women.

Lets compare all of that to the conspiracy theories regarding the Clintons.

Trump loves to talk about how much Haiti hates the Clintons. It is a fact, that the Clinton's raised a shit ton of money for charity, and gave it to Haitians to help after that horrible earth quake demolished the place. Unfortunately, the Haitians who accepted the money turned out to be greedy war lords... Oops.

It is also a fact, that Clinton chose to consolidate all of her emails into a single provider, and rather than using a public provider, such as her government issued one, or a free one like gmail, she chose to use her husband's antique servers that were collecting dust in the basement. Why? Because when that system was built, it was secure... And she wasn't tech savvy enough to know that dusty technology is obsolete and easy to compromise.

Then, when she got a subpoena for all of her emails, she ordered them to be destroyed, because she knew they contained classified information that the investigators don't have clearance to see. Was that wrong? Yes... Even she admits it was. But could the publication of those emails devastate America, if not the world? Probably. As secretary of state, she was privy to a heck of a lot of classified info, and it was classified for a reason.

The new emails discovered by the FBI did not come from Clinton's private servers, they came from Anthony Weiner's private computer. Anthony Weiner's computer is in the hands of the FBI due to his sex scandal, and the emails are on his computer, because one of the women he was porking checked her email on his computer, and she worked with Clinton during her campaign. Hillary wants the FBI to publish those emails because she knows there is nothing incriminating nor classified in them, and the announcement without the publication is clearly a political grasp at straws, on behalf of republicans.

The FBI announced that the email investigation is still open, and Republicans pounced on that information like mosquitoes around a fire. Of course the investigation is still open. They didn't have, and still don't have enough evidence to make a decision either way, and they never will, unless everyone Clinton ever corresponded with releases theirs, and none of them forges their copies to influence the election.

Now lets talk about Killary's Kill List... There is no evidence linking any of those deaths to the Clintons, and most of those names were friends of the Clintons, who never uttered the popular meme phrase, "I have information that could lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton." Hillary is old, and old people have lots of dead friends.

Bernie Sanders knew Martin Luther King, but no one accuses him of having any part in his assassination.
Donald Trump was friends with the Clintons before he started calling her Crooked Hillary, but he's not dead, yet.

Hell, I know almost as many dead people as the Clintons, and I'm only 32.

Regardless of who wins this election, I doubt they'll be in office for the whole 4 years, due the number of scandals and active investigations revolving around both of them, and the number of people who would willingly martyr themselves for the chance to assassinate either of them.

So we need to be more focused on the Vice Presidential candidates, despite how fucking boring they both are. Also, we need to be concerned about the Justices that these ridiculous candidates will appoint. What are THEIR track records, and THEIR beliefs? I wish we could have more debates with them, and actually take them seriously, without falling asleep during the introductions.
Image
User avatar
KILROY
Posts: 1315
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: :)

Post by KILROY »

How bout we don't vote for either, vote for an independent instead, problem solved, but with newer issues now.
perrinoia
Site Admin
Posts: 3732
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: :)

Post by perrinoia »

Sure. Let's all vote for the stoner who can't remember the name of a single foreign leader.

Literally, the only thing I know about him.

I can't even remember HIS name, because he has that little of a chance.
Image
User avatar
KILROY
Posts: 1315
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: :)

Post by KILROY »

It's not the chance I was relaying, it was stopping this volley of a debate on this forum that's getting as carried away as all the news reports that have not mentioned the independents that are running due to having their mindsets already on Trump or Hillary. Which is why you don't know their names.
perrinoia
Site Admin
Posts: 3732
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: :)

Post by perrinoia »

Couldn't agree with you more, but the fact remains, they have no chance. Especially because the media hardly ever mentions them, except jokingly.

I had a better idea than the ridiculous debates that we currently have...

Step 1) It should be a recurring television series.
Step 2) Moderated by someone who asks the candidates questions about topics they actually disagree on.
Step 3) It should be a moderated debate between 2 different candidates, each episode.
Step 4) Tournament style, until the master debater is announced.
Step 5) There should definitely be a fact checker who can correct the candidates.
Step 6) Only one Mic should be hot at a time. It's a civil debate, not "The View".
Image
User avatar
KILROY
Posts: 1315
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: :)

Post by KILROY »

Interesting concept, but it might not last very long, especially when people start to threaten the series via shootings or bombings. Then you could start another episode series that works on the safety issues.
perrinoia
Site Admin
Posts: 3732
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: :)

Post by perrinoia »

Huh? That makes no sense...

Why would we publicize the security efforts on national television. That's like making a video tutorial for terrorists.

No, we'd just have security screening for the audience, candidates, cast, and crew, and transport them to a secret filming location. Problem solved.

I actually came up with this idea 16 years ago, and back then, I never would have thought of including the candidates in the list of people to get security screening... But these days... It seems like it would have nipped all of our current problems in the butt!
Image
User avatar
KILROY
Posts: 1315
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: :)

Post by KILROY »

Why would we publicize the security efforts on national television. That's like making a video tutorial for terrorists.
We've already been doing this for years on the airwaves with programs and the news.

As for screenings, EVERYTHING is being watched that is online, believe me, I see it all day long with the company I work for. Even masking your IP with a VPN isn't stopping you from being screened. One tool being used is Air Gapping, that has been ongoing for decades, even our own Gov't uses it, but there are many, many more being used.

EDIT: Also, what I was relaying wasn't for terrorists, it was our own people seeing a show like what you are describing with Gov't officials relaying their opinions on things they may or may not agree upon, and what they want to do to change this or that within our own country. This is also relaying security issues within our own country and these views is what will start to get a rise out of our own countries people, and the type of threats I was just relaying. Don't believe me.....look what it's doing right now without a show program like you are describing with just things being aired.
Last edited by KILROY on Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
perrinoia
Site Admin
Posts: 3732
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: :)

Post by perrinoia »

I feel like we've got different definitions for the word screenings. I was talking about background checks. What are you talking about?
Image
Post Reply