IGX

Yes I Have Balls wrote:

johno wrote:It's not sexual assault if you...don't object [at the time].

That didn't take long. You perverted mother fucker. You are actually DEFENDING a man accused by 10+ women of sexual assault. Man, I have new respect to the absolute depths you will sink. You victim-shaming piece of shit.




Edit to add: This makes me so curious as to what the search history of your porn is. Gotta be fucking brutal.

I hope to Hell you face a charge some day. Let us all know so we can call you guilty.

Not a rape in the pile, accused of grabbing some pussy. Hey asshole, do you actually say " May I please fuck you know?" when you get laid? No one does, most sex starts with a pussy grab.

He's rich and famous, for all your shit talking, your bitch would let him grab her pussy and cum on her face and she'd not give a fuck about your opinion, you don't have a few billion and no one knows you.

So far these cunts claims fall quick. If there was truth to this shit, Cruz would have used it. Hilary hacks and just ask Seeahill about Gloria Allred.

DARTH wrote:Oh, you dragged out the writings of one of Jim Moran's RINO...

So what was wrong with what he wrote?

What will CNN - Fox and MSNBC do with their 24-7 coverage when this shit show finally comes to an end? It's like the rest of the world went on hold or something since all this started. Someone will win - the American people will lose either way - I'll still be weak as a kitten and the world will keep right on spinning and will be a better place without whichever one loses being in our face all day long..

climber511 wrote:What will CNN - Fox and MSNBC do with their 24-7 coverage when this shit show finally comes to an end? It's like the rest of the world went on hold or something since all this started. Someone will win - the American people will lose either way - I'll still be weak as a kitten and the world will keep right on spinning and will be a better place without whichever one loses being in our face all day long..

1. They will start covering impeachment proceedings. No doubt that fight will start before the inauguration takes place.
2. The 2020 election will start almost immediately, and we'll get nostalgic for the good ol' days of 2016 quickly.

Nafod, Thud, I just skimmed your answers, I'll read more carefully and give them more thought. I have to say, Thud, I saw the names of a lot of democratic politicians in your answer, but I won't dismiss that out of hand. Also, the hacked emails do show that even Clinton and her people know that the Iran deal blows. But, again, I'll read through your post later.
FTR, I'm voting Johnson. There's no pro Trump argument that I can take seriously.

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:
Nafod, Thud, I just skimmed your answers, I'll read more carefully and give them more thought. I have to say, Thud, I saw the names of a lot of democratic politicians in your answer, but I won't dismiss that out of hand.

Well you did technically ask her supporters to answer and those answers came from her compatriots. Asking her critics, it would all be "Benghazi, emails, lock her up" etc.

Thud wrote:

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:
Nafod, Thud, I just skimmed your answers, I'll read more carefully and give them more thought. I have to say, Thud, I saw the names of a lot of democratic politicians in your answer, but I won't dismiss that out of hand.

Well you did technically ask her supporters to answer and those answers came from her compatriots. Asking her critics, it would all be "Benghazi, emails, lock her up" etc.

Yes, but:
Nafod's post comes from a very different perspective than anything Chuck Schumer says. And it's pretty damn persuasive.
OTOH, look at what Powell had to say in his hacked emails. There's a R who backed Obama, and I believe he has a fairly good relation with Clinton, but won't endorse her. So that says something, too.

Not sure I get your point on Colin Powell. He's a Republican. I think it says a whole lot more that he doesn't endorse his own party's ticket.

Anyway, that's Hillary's resume, do with it as you will. If you feel Donald has done more for the country, so be it.

All I know is I don't want him doing for America what he's done for the Republican party. I've seen how he runs a campaign. The thought of him running a country is absurd.

And, fwiw, more retired generals support Clinton than Trump.

While Romney had support of 500, Trump has 88.

And 10 retired Nuke launchers have penned a letter saying Trump is unfit to have his finger on the button. Has that ever happened before?

Seriously...

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/docume ... rump/2176/

JOINT STATEMENT BY FORMER NUCLEAR LAUNCH OFFICERS

Scores of leaders and experts from both political parties have questioned whether Donald
Trump has the experience, temperament and judgment to have his finger on the proverbial
“Red Button.” We share their concern – and we see the issue from a unique perspective.

We are former nuclear launch control officers, or “missileers.” We sat nuclear alert in
underground missile launch centers. It was our job to turn keys to fire nuclear-armed
missiles if the president so ordered us. Once we began alert duty, we took orders from the
president and no one else.

Only the president can order a nuclear launch. That order cannot be vetoed and once the
missiles have been launched, they cannot be called back. The consequences of
miscalculation, impulsive decision-making or poor judgment on the part of the president
could be catastrophic.

The pressures the system places on that one person are staggering and require enormous
composure, judgment, restraint and diplomatic skill. Donald Trump does not have these
leadership qualities. On the contrary, he has shown himself time and again to be easily baited
and quick to lash out, dismissive of expert consultation and ill-informed of even basic
military and international affairs – including, most especially, nuclear weapons.

Donald Trump should not be the nation’s commander-in-chief. He should not be entrusted
with the nuclear launch codes. He should not have his finger on the button.

Bruce G. Blair
Malmstrom AFB, 1972-74

Michael Miller
F.E. Warren AFB, 2009-13

William A. DeGroodt
Minot AFB, 1967-72

John Noonan
F.E. Warren AFB, 2006-10

Harvey R. Greenberg
Minot AFB, 1974-77

James Robertson
Malmstrom AFB, 1999-2003

Geoffrey Kanner
Malmstrom AFB, 1980-84

Edward Warren
F.E. Warren AFB, 2008-13

Louis Mark Lussky, ESQ.
Grand Forks AFB, 1971-76

Brian Weeden
Malmstrom AFB, 2000-04

No shit, war is their livelihood

Most will sign what they are paid to sign.

Most of the American public is actually to uninformed or stupid to be entrusted to vote anyway. Its a game similar to a popularity contest. Tell this group this, tell that group that.

None of these promises are going to happen anyway.

Most of the things being promised are not even within presidential powers to change or enact anyway. First 100 days - shit he'll still be trying to find the bathroom in 100 days. Not that he's ever going to find his way into the White House anyway.

No shit, war is their livelihood

So they're opposing the guy leading the party that started our last three wars, prolonged the one before that and has openly postured about attacking Iran and North Korea? The party that's fairly openly wishing we'd start another full land war in Asia against ISIS?

While Hillary is an interventionist and a hawk, it takes some special mental judo to pretend that the Republican Party is less hawkish.

I thought most of the Republican Party doesnt support him?

I've enjoyed Baldwin's portrayal of Trump on SNL (although I can't really tell if Baldwin's playing Trump or himself-- probably the latter).

Turdacious wrote:I've enjoyed Baldwin's portrayal of Trump on SNL (although I can't really tell if Baldwin's playing Trump or himself-- probably the latter).

He really crushed it. So good that the next debate Trump interjects "wrong" and people laugh. McKinnon's been a really good Hillary.

Herv100 wrote:I thought most of the Republican Party doesnt support him?

They don't. Approximately 155MM GOPers or "lean GOP" in the US and only about 55MM are gonna vote for him.

I enjoy how triggered the leftists are by Trump.

OMG he's not following the playbook!

OMG he didn't know what the nuclear triad is!!

OMG his dad wasn't a mailman!!!!

The Ginger Beard Man wrote: OTOH, look at what Powell had to say in his hacked emails. There's a R who backed Obama, and I believe he has a fairly good relation with Clinton, but won't endorse her. So that says something, too.

Powell purportedly will vote for Clinton:

“I am voting for Hillary Clinton,” he said, according to Matthew Cohen, a spokesman for the association. Mr. Powell went on to praise Mrs. Clinton for her skills as a leader and her experience.

Paule Pachter, a Long Island Association board member, said that Mr. Powell was blunt.

“He said he would support Hillary Clinton and he also elaborated on several reason why he felt that Donald Trump was not the right candidate,” he said. “He spoke about his inexperience, he spoke about the messages that he’s sending out every day to his supporters, which really paints our country in a negative light across the globe with all our allies.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/us/po ... v=top-news

and for those of you who, for reasons unknown to god, think that trump would be kinda libertarian, the libertarian vp is in the anybody but trump camp:

Weld: 'Donald Trump is not stable'

Former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld, who’s Libertarian party nominee Gary Johnson’s running mate, has released a statement saying that it’s an honor to have been involved in the race – and that however voters vote, it should not be for Trump.

Weld does not, in the statement, withdraw his own candidacy to be vice president. But he as much as admits that the Libertarians don’t have a chance this time – hoping instead for “a place in our national political dialogue – and goes on to appeal “particularly to those Republicans who feel that our President should exhibit commonly accepted standards of decency and discipline.”

“I would not have stepped out of the swirl of the campaign to make this statement if I did not fear for our country, as I do,” Weld says. “A serious candidate for the Presidency of the United States must be stable, and Donald Trump is not stable.”

"In the final days of this very close race, every citizen must be aware of the power and responsibility of each individual vote. This is not the time to cast a jocular or feel-good vote for a man whom you may have briefly found entertaining. Donald Trump should not, cannot, and must not be elected President of the United States."

Herv100 wrote:I thought most of the Republican Party doesnt support him?

Where is this coming from? Latest polls say that the majority of Republicans favor Trump's vision of the party over the Ryan/Establishment's vision.

What Trump might believe, God only knows, what Trump has represented during the campaign is the true feelings of the GOP base as it is today.

The Johnson/Weld ticket, while still my favorite ticket on the ballot, should have been a Weld/Johnson ticket. Weld is far more polished and would have attracted more endorsements from prominent Republicans.

milosz wrote:What Trump might believe, God only knows, what Trump has represented during the campaign is the true feelings of the GOP base as it is today.

What exactly has he represented? He's a populist with a protectionist trade/immigration policy, moderately isolationist foreign policy, and vision of expanded mandated social benefits (his maternity benefits proposal) with no clear idea how to pay for it-- this kind of candidate pops up in both parties. We saw that in the Dem primaries. All you're really saying is that there's very little substantive difference between the party bases.

Pinky wrote:The Johnson/Weld ticket, while still my favorite ticket on the ballot, should have been a Weld/Johnson ticket. Weld is far more polished and would have attracted more endorsements from prominent Republicans.

For sure.

I shake my head when I see the two of them together, Johnson as the nominee. As the orange one would say...so sad.

Turdacious wrote:

milosz wrote:What Trump might believe, God only knows, what Trump has represented during the campaign is the true feelings of the GOP base as it is today.

What exactly has he represented? He's a populist with a protectionist trade/immigration policy, moderately isolationist foreign policy, and vision of expanded mandated social benefits (his maternity benefits proposal) with no clear idea how to pay for it-- this kind of candidate pops up in both parties. We saw that in the Dem primaries. All you're really saying is that there's very little substantive difference between the party bases.

And TBF, it's not the "base" of the GOP that he speaks for - it's really about 15MM people, which is really about one-quarter of the voting GOP. What he does represent to those people however, is a foul, bigoted ignorance wrapped up into multiple "Obummer is a Muslim" and "BENGHAZI!!!!!!!" memes. They don't give a shit about the border, trade policies or NATO. They're mostly just sick of not being able to tell nigger jokes in public any longer.

Deplorable was correct 2 months ago and it still is today.

milosz wrote:

Herv100 wrote:I thought most of the Republican Party doesnt support him?

Where is this coming from? Latest polls say that the majority of Republicans favor Trump's vision of the party over the Ryan/Establishment's vision.

What Trump might believe, God only knows, what Trump has represented during the campaign is the true feelings of the GOP base as it is today.

IMO, what you see is "Republicans voting Republican." Now, the issue with "grab her by the pussy" and Trump lying about it and continually attacking his victims has sent a wave of GOP women to either not vote (some polls estimate 7% lower GOP turnout overall) or them voting for HRC. In reality, the only group Trump really dominates is white men and evangelicals. Can't win a GE with just those two groups.