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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLYHu0AG8GI

  On 10/11/2016 at 2:08 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

I feel like I said all this would happen earlier in this thread. I've also been reassuring my friend that this would happen. I also stated years ago that I do not believe another Republican will make it into the presidency until the party makes massive changes.

I consider Trump as massive change...

Doh!

  On 10/11/2016 at 5:55 AM, ignatius said:

He finally decided to share his cocaine

lol, yeah Paul Ryan is a spineless worm, but will he be the 2020 candidate?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UkAjnx7x1g

  On 10/11/2016 at 8:08 AM, Rubin Farr said:

 

  On 10/11/2016 at 5:55 AM, ignatius said:

 

He finally decided to share his cocaine

 

did you say cocaine?

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/300287-carrie-fisher-trumps-sniffles-absolutely-from-cocaine

So, did they actually discuss any policies during the debate, or was it just 60 minutes of mudslinging?

  On 10/11/2016 at 8:45 AM, chenGOD said:

So, did they actually discuss any policies during the debate, or was it just 60 minutes of mudslinging?

attempts were made and some answers given but ya know.. there was also mud

  On 10/11/2016 at 8:45 AM, chenGOD said:

So, did they actually discuss any policies during the debate, or was it just 60 minutes of mudslinging?

  On 10/11/2016 at 8:29 AM, ignatius said:

 

  On 10/11/2016 at 8:08 AM, Rubin Farr said:

 

  On 10/11/2016 at 5:55 AM, ignatius said:

 

He finally decided to share his cocaine

 

 

did you say cocaine?

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/300287-carrie-fisher-trumps-sniffles-absolutely-from-cocaine

 

Carrie Fisher: Trump’s sniffles ‘absolutely’ from cocaine

 

Gotta love Carrie Fisher.

yea

http://europe.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635?rm=eu

I had been wondering where Trump was getting all the Sidney Blumenthal stuff in recent weeks, I had assumed it was just a chance for some anti-semitic dog whistling, and it still probably is. What's amazing is that despite how transparently fraudulent his entire campaign has been, on close to 100% of every issue, it still seems to fool a worryingly large number of people. Are people getting dumber, or are certain people just getting more brazen in their attempts to fool them? Maybe they could have been doing this shit all along if they had wanted, rather than the low level of spin and distortion that's always been around.

  On 10/11/2016 at 1:00 PM, caze said:

http://europe.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635?rm=eu

 

I had been wondering where Trump was getting all the Sidney Blumenthal stuff in recent weeks, I had assumed it was just a chance for some anti-semitic dog whistling, and it still probably is. What's amazing is that despite how transparently fraudulent his entire campaign has been, on close to 100% of every issue, it still seems to fool a worryingly large number of people. Are people getting dumber, or are certain people just getting more brazen in their attempts to fool them? Maybe they could have been doing this shit all along if they had wanted, rather than the low level of spin and distortion that's always been around.

you're posting Kurt eichenwald Manchurian Candidate conspiracies now? And you're back with your anti-Semitic dog whistle conspiracy theories? lol.

"This false story was only reported by the Russian controlled agency (a reference appeared in a Turkish publication, but it was nothing but a link to the Sputnik article). So how did Donald Trump end up advancing the same falsehood put out by Putin’s mouthpiece?"

Um, I have a pretty radical answer to this question: his campaign saw it on Twitter.

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

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

nice, finally the polls are catching up:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

pretty sharp nosedive for the goblin man. He looks like a total sack of shit when he's losing and the next week will have a lot of that lol

  On 10/11/2016 at 7:32 AM, goDel said:

 

  On 10/11/2016 at 2:08 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

I feel like I said all this would happen earlier in this thread. I've also been reassuring my friend that this would happen. I also stated years ago that I do not believe another Republican will make it into the presidency until the party makes massive changes.

I consider Trump as massive change...

 

Doh!

 

He's ushering in the party's implosion, hopefully. But I have to agree with this guy, Dems can't keep relying on status quo or else we'll see another Trump in 2020.

  On 10/11/2016 at 8:29 AM, ignatius said:

 

  On 10/11/2016 at 8:08 AM, Rubin Farr said:

 

  On 10/11/2016 at 5:55 AM, ignatius said:

 

He finally decided to share his cocaine

 

 

did you say cocaine?

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/300287-carrie-fisher-trumps-sniffles-absolutely-from-cocaine

 

Carrie Fisher: Trump’s sniffles ‘absolutely’ from cocaine

 

ellen's CGI team is on point

  On 10/11/2016 at 7:15 AM, Zephyr_Nova said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLYHu0AG8GI

^damn that went way more in depth than i expected

  On 10/11/2016 at 7:32 AM, goDel said:

 

  On 10/11/2016 at 2:08 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

I feel like I said all this would happen earlier in this thread. I've also been reassuring my friend that this would happen. I also stated years ago that I do not believe another Republican will make it into the presidency until the party makes massive changes.

I consider Trump as massive change...

 

Doh!

 

the illusion of change. basically more of the same.

  On 10/11/2016 at 1:00 PM, caze said:

http://europe.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635?rm=eu

 

I had been wondering where Trump was getting all the Sidney Blumenthal stuff in recent weeks, I had assumed it was just a chance for some anti-semitic dog whistling, and it still probably is. What's amazing is that despite how transparently fraudulent his entire campaign has been, on close to 100% of every issue, it still seems to fool a worryingly large number of people. Are people getting dumber, or are certain people just getting more brazen in their attempts to fool them? Maybe they could have been doing this shit all along if they had wanted, rather than the low level of spin and distortion that's always been around.

it's hard to know what's true when you're being lied to all of the time. Most people don't have time to sit on the internet fact checking. That was supposed to be the point of the news, but it has been perverted.

  On 10/11/2016 at 2:22 PM, caze said:

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

 

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

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

  On 10/11/2016 at 5:27 PM, Alcofribas said:

 

  On 10/11/2016 at 2:22 PM, caze said:

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

 

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

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

 

I didn't see much wrong with the article to be honest.

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

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

Snowden is a hero

Assange is a duplicitous worm

This makes me realize that to Americans, the fact that he pays shit in taxes isn't NEARLY as important as an off-handed comment he made about 'pussy grabbing' and infedelity.

They should be equally important, if not the taxes thing more-so since that's directly affecting all Americans, along with all of the others taking advantage of tax loopholes.

The second thing just displays his character and only affects him and the supposed women he was grabbing. And those poor tic tacs. I wonder if they were orange tic tacs.

American vote for who they'd most wanna grab a pint with

And that would actually be a decent moral heuristic in a healthy society, the problem is that Americans are mostly uneducated hicks with anger issues and so they wanna have a beer with the ALPHA uneducated hick with anger issues

  On 10/11/2016 at 7:27 PM, caze said:

 

  On 10/11/2016 at 5:27 PM, Alcofribas said:

 

  On 10/11/2016 at 2:22 PM, caze said:

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

 

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

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

I didn't see much wrong with the article to be honest.

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

  On 10/11/2016 at 8:30 PM, LimpyLoo said:

American vote for who they'd most wanna grab a pint with

 

And that would actually be a decent moral heuristic in a healthy society, the problem is that Americans are mostly uneducated hicks with anger issues and so they wanna have a beer with the ALPHA uneducated hick with anger issues

Well most Americans dislike Trump at least. All of my family are republicans, and half of them preferred other Republicans over Trump. But when he became the nominee they decided that they should vote for him. There is an underlying belief in my family and I imagine many other republicans that 'all we need to do is get a republican in the white house'

It's interesting how that differs from the Bernie/Clinton dynamic. Fewer democrats think that Hillary is worth voting for just because Bernie has lost. It shows a bit more self-reflection on their part. Though that can also be a bad thing when an election is about coming together as a unit and voting for the lesser of two dung piles.

  On 10/11/2016 at 8:30 PM, Alcofribas said:

 

  On 10/11/2016 at 7:27 PM, caze said:

 

  On 10/11/2016 at 5:27 PM, Alcofribas said:

 

  On 10/11/2016 at 2:22 PM, caze said:

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

 

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

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

I didn't see much wrong with the article to be honest.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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