Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
TheDisreputableDog
Oct 13, 2005
Look, this thread is for taking about cheesesteaks, making fun of how derpy Walker looks, and making incensed critiques of Republican candidates that are equally applicable to Hillary.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

a helpful bear
Aug 18, 2004

Slippery Tilde
This thread keeps on giving!

PS - I really want Bill to be First Lad especially if we're not going to have ol' Uncle Biden in the office any longer.

PPS - I thought I would never miss Ted Cruz's smug smile, but I think I'd rather see it than Trump's melting sewer face by this point.

a helpful bear fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Aug 17, 2015

Mr Hootington
Jul 24, 2008

I'M HAVING A HOOT EATING CORNETTE THE LONG WAY
Listening to the Sunday shows this week. Lol meet the press' chuck Todd trying to get at trump.

Fox News Sunday had Wallace spinning so hard there is a whirring noise. Ps Carson is coming off as super awful like usual. He will surge in the polls.

Brannock
Feb 9, 2006

by exmarx
Fallen Rib
We just had this discussion yesterday, if you're going to fall back onto easily mocked categorical terms like calling Trump "fascist" instead of actually explaining to people what's wrong with Trump's ideas and policies, regardless if it's true or not, then you deserve every last day of the Trump presidency.

The average person is not deeply versed in political theory or history and they're going to hear "Trump is a faSCist", then look at Trump, roll their eyes, and go "Those handwringing crackpots are at it again" and strengthen their support for Trump because they were challenged but not proven wrong.

a helpful bear posted:

PPS - I thought I would never miss Ted Cruz's smug smile, but I think I'd rather see it than Trump's melting sewer face by this point.

I think you have those two people switched around.

TheDisreputableDog
Oct 13, 2005

Brannock posted:

The average person is not deeply versed in political theory or history and they're going to hear "Trump is a faSCist", then look at Trump, roll their eyes, and go "Those handwringing crackpots are at it again" and strengthen their support for Trump because they were challenged but not proven wrong.

Come on though, you can't deny that "Emperor Shrubya" was the sickest possible burn in its day.

Nonsense
Jan 26, 2007

Jeb Bush looks like an actual retarded monkey, hope this helps.

Fabricated
Apr 9, 2007

Living the Dream

Pinterest Mom posted:

Into the helicopter went William, 9; Sean, 6; Brendan, 5; and Henry, who just turned 3. Their mother went with them. Henry got scared just before takeoff and left the aircraft to be with his father. The other boys remained. William brought a GoPro camera to capture the experience; a clip later wound up on Facebook.

"Mr. Trump," he said, aiming the camera at his benefactor.

"Yes," Trump said, pulling on the lapels of his jacket.

"Are you Batman?" the boy asked.

"I am Batman," Trump said.
The headlines on CNN today are pretty good

"Baseball Player: I'M GAY"

fool of sound
Oct 10, 2012

Hodgepodge posted:

Realtalk: I woke up today, pointed out that a US politician's proposed policies are literal genocide, and was probated because mods are buthurt over Fishmech was going on about it for a few pages.

So.... :toxx:

I don't give a poo poo about being probated. Normally when that happens, it's because I've been an rear end about something that means gently caress all. And I didn't really have any time to post in that six hours, so it barely mattered.

But, well, this is a thread about the election and has had multiple derails about loving BBQ recipes. No matter how much of a buzzkill, I was making a comment about the nature of actual proposed policies that really are seriously mosterous.

If fellating Donald loving Trump of all people and pages of foodchat are so important to you that you can't handle people having a problem with some people have the idea that mass deportations aren't actually just as lovely as all the other crap in history that the left likes to wring it's hands about and pretend to care about, cool. You're lovely, hollow people, but hey, feel free to keep being you.

But if that's the case, I'm not interested in being associated with your sorry asses further, and feel free to permaban me.

That's a matter of principle. It's been fun, and I've met some good people here and all. But at the end of the day, it's still just a message board.

Up to you, mods

lmao

Tricky D
Apr 1, 2005

I love um!

comes along bort posted:

You gotta admit it's pretty funny Carson used the Clay Davis money defense to justify him using tissue from murdered precious little souls.

"I'll take anybody's fuckin' fetal tissue if they just givin' it away. Sheeeeit"

Nonsense
Jan 26, 2007

Hodgepodge posted:

Realtalk: I woke up today, pointed out that a US politician's proposed policies are literal genocide, and was probated because mods are buthurt over Fishmech was going on about it for a few pages.

So.... :toxx:

I don't give a poo poo about being probated. Normally when that happens, it's because I've been an rear end about something that means gently caress all. And I didn't really have any time to post in that six hours, so it barely mattered.

But, well, this is a thread about the election and has had multiple derails about loving BBQ recipes. No matter how much of a buzzkill, I was making a comment about the nature of actual proposed policies that really are seriously mosterous.

If fellating Donald loving Trump of all people and pages of foodchat are so important to you that you can't handle people having a problem with some people have the idea that mass deportations aren't actually just as lovely as all the other crap in history that the left likes to wring it's hands about and pretend to care about, cool. You're lovely, hollow people, but hey, feel free to keep being you.

But if that's the case, I'm not interested in being associated with your sorry asses further, and feel free to permaban me.

That's a matter of principle. It's been fun, and I've met some good people here and all. But at the end of the day, it's still just a message board.

Up to you, mods

This to me is the ultimate SJW flame out, where suicide is preferable to the infinite comedy of Donald Trump being president. Get your head checked.

Veskit
Mar 2, 2005

I love capitalism!! DM me for the best investing advice!
gently caress yeah we're not even a year away yet and there's already permaban meltdowns.

Nonsense
Jan 26, 2007

Like seriously Donald Trump isn't actually going to round up Latinos, because for one, we find him hilarious, and whites need us all. Especially foreigners and illegal immigrants, or Trump wouldn't have a dime.

Rocks
Dec 30, 2011

mlmp08 posted:

Have you considered posting third party?

lmao

Veskit
Mar 2, 2005

I love capitalism!! DM me for the best investing advice!
I'm sure when Trump is president we will all regret allowing the Trail of Tacos.

Rocks
Dec 30, 2011

Mr Hootington posted:

Listening to the Sunday shows this week. Lol meet the press' chuck Todd trying to get at trump.

Fox News Sunday had Wallace spinning so hard there is a whirring noise. Ps Carson is coming off as super awful like usual. He will surge in the polls.

yeah it's really funny Chuck was basically like "are you loving kidding me lol" when Trump was suggesting Mexico was the new China. Basically Trump seems to have no clue what he's talking about when there's a 30 minute interview, but he just absolutely kills in the era of the 10 second snippet.

Seems like the two of them get along pretty well, Trump even has a good smirk near the end of the interview when Chuck brings up an old Playboy interview he did.

Strongly recommend watching the whole 36 min interview when you can.

TheDisreputableDog
Oct 13, 2005

Nonsense posted:

This to me is the ultimate SJW flame out, where suicide is preferable to the infinite comedy of Donald Trump being president.

I thought it at first bizarre that a liberal would be complaining about unfair moderation here of all places.

Then I realized this is the natural endpoint of a subculture where being offended is not only a right, but a contest.

Sooner or later everyone ends up on their own rhetorical petard as the sacrificial lambs become scarce.

Bread Set Jettison
Jan 8, 2009

Veskit posted:

gently caress yeah we're not even a year away yet and there's already permaban meltdowns.

Truly the greatest election in our lifetime

Nuclearmonkee
Jun 10, 2009


Rocks posted:

Can anyone stop Trump? How can he be stopped? Serious question

If people stop paying attention to him, he dies as a candidate. He has to maintain this level of frenzy all the way to the primaries without self immolating, which would be incredibly hard to pull off. However, I never thought he'd be the Republican front runner and yet here we are.

A large percentage of the electorate is perpetually disengaged and doesn't vote, particularly in primaries. If he gets a decent percentage of these people to come vote he wins and you are hearing lots of stories of "idiot doesn't know what a primary or a caucus is, but he wants to vote for Trump."

Still highly unlikely but every day he maintains the frenzy is a day closer to it happening.

Hodgepodge posted:

Realtalk: I woke up today, pointed out that a US politician's proposed policies are literal genocide, and was probated because mods are buthurt over Fishmech was going on about it for a few pages.

So.... :toxx:

I don't give a poo poo about being probated. Normally when that happens, it's because I've been an rear end about something that means gently caress all. And I didn't really have any time to post in that six hours, so it barely mattered.

But, well, this is a thread about the election and has had multiple derails about loving BBQ recipes. No matter how much of a buzzkill, I was making a comment about the nature of actual proposed policies that really are seriously mosterous.

If fellating Donald loving Trump of all people and pages of foodchat are so important to you that you can't handle people having a problem with some people have the idea that mass deportations aren't actually just as lovely as all the other crap in history that the left likes to wring it's hands about and pretend to care about, cool. You're lovely, hollow people, but hey, feel free to keep being you.

But if that's the case, I'm not interested in being associated with your sorry asses further, and feel free to permaban me.

That's a matter of principle. It's been fun, and I've met some good people here and all. But at the end of the day, it's still just a message board.

Up to you, mods

lol. Just lol. Owned by Trump by proxy.

Nonsense
Jan 26, 2007

Trump is literally owning in all ways every sadbrain who thinks they know what minorities think.

Mr Ice Cream Glove
Apr 22, 2007


http://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/guest-commentary/carly-fiorina-s-decades-long-mystical-magical-carpet-ride-to-nowhere.html


quote:

Where did Carly come up with this nonsense—from talking to Aladdin on a magical carpet ride? Her claims top even the mystical fantasies of The Arabian Nights.


To reiterate the facts, the 57 Islamic countries are the world’s poorest, most illiterate, and contribute the least to scientific and technological advancement, let alone have computers or use the Internet.

Nuclearmonkee
Jun 10, 2009


Candidate once implied Muslims were not subhuman savages, directly after 9/11 no less!

Mr Hootington
Jul 24, 2008

I'M HAVING A HOOT EATING CORNETTE THE LONG WAY

Nuclearmonkee posted:

Candidate once implied Muslims were not subhuman savages, directly after 9/11 no less!

Sometimes you lose track of which colored folk you need to hate that day.

Boosted_C5
Feb 16, 2008
Probation
Can't post for 5 years!
Grimey Drawer
June Polls - Clinton vs. Trump --- Clinton +20
July Polls - Clinton vs. Trump --- Clinton +15
August (so far) Clinton vs. Trump --- Clinton +5

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

.....

November 2016: http://www.270towin.com/maps/5BBlb

Karl Sharks
Feb 20, 2008

The Immortal Science of Sharksism-Fininism

Boosted_C5 posted:

June Polls - Clinton vs. Trump --- Clinton +20
July Polls - Clinton vs. Trump --- Clinton +15
August (so far) Clinton vs. Trump --- Clinton +5

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

.....

November 2016: http://www.270towin.com/maps/5BBlb

Are you using Fox News' poll there? Because :laffo:

WhiskeyJuvenile
Feb 15, 2002

by Nyc_Tattoo
:getin:

quote:

The birther movement has come home to roost as the Republican presidential primary heats up.

In a column published last week on the conspiracy theory website WND, author Jack Cashill noted that questions had been raised about whether four of the 17 candidates in the GOP field were really "natural born citizens" and therefore eligible to run for President.

Ted Cruz has already dealt with those questions publicly -- the Canadian-born senator from Texas renounced his citizenship with that country last summer in anticipation of a 2016 bid -- but Cashill also listed Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) among those who were suspect.

He even mentioned that Jindal's preferring to go by the name Bobby -- inspired by "The Brady Bunch" -- instead of his given name, Piyush, would make for interesting evidence in a court case focused on his eligibility to run for commander-in-chief.

But who, exactly, was suspicious of these candidates? On what grounds could these four politicians' eligibility to be President be challenged? And why was Santorum, whose background as an Italian-American doesn't get mentioned nearly as frequently as Rubio's Cuban heritage or Jindal's Indian heritage, suspect?

TPM called up Cashill to find out. Cashill notably co-wrote the 2012 book "Officer's Oath" with former Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, who was dismissed from the U.S. Army in 2010 and sentenced to six months in prison for refusing to deploy to Afghanistan amid his questions about President Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as commander-in-chief.

Below is a transcript of the conversation that has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

TPM: You kick the column off writing that the question has been raised as to whether Rubio, Cruz, Jindal and even Santorum are “natural born citizens” and thus eligible to be president. So we all know by now that Ted Cruz was born in Canada. But I’m curious as to who’s been raising that question about these other guys, Rubio, Jindal, Santorum.

Cashill: This subject’s been raised for years. Especially in very strict constitutional tea party circles it’s a very lively topic. And as I expected from my article yesterday, there were many people who attacked me for being unduly lenient in my description of who’s eligible and who’s not. It is an undercurrent. It’s not enough to turn an election, but it’s enough to cost like 1 percent of a potential electorate. That’s not to say they’d vote for the Democrat, these people typically are very conservative, but that they would just sit home and pout basically.

What do you think that says that there’s this undercurrent, that 1 percent that’s actually going after conservative candidates?

Well they’re not going after conservative candidates. They went after Obama, too. They’re basically, in an admirable way, they’re people who believe the Constitution is sacred and inviolate. They will take that road even though it means the potential loss of one of their better candidates.

You write that the term “natural born citizen” is “often misunderstood or deliberately twisted.” How so? Can you give me a specific example of that?

When the challenge was made against Barack Obama, people said “how dare you question he’s a natural born citizen because he was born in Hawaii." Even if he was born in Hawaii, that does not make him a natural born citizen. It’s a very strict term. I won’t say very strict -- there’s a real meaning to the term, it’s not that it’s perfectly defined but the understanding is well understood. The understanding is that you be born of American parents with unquestioned loyalty to the United States. So for instance, had Obama been born [somewhere] other than Hawaii he would not have been eligible to run for President. Even though his mother was an American, just like Ted Cruz’s mother was American, the difference is that according to the law you’d have to be an American citizen for five years after the age of 14. She simply wasn’t old enough to confer that status on Obama. If his mother had been a non-American citizen and his father had been a Kenyan, and neither had any allegiance to the United States, which in fact neither of them really did, he would not have been eligible no matter where he was born.

So the question comes up about Bobby Jindal’s parents. Both of them were in the United States on student visas. To me the real question is does the candidate have any divided allegiance. So if Jindal’s parents remained steadfastly identifying as Indians and he steadfastly identified as an Indian, even though he was born in the United States and was a citizen, he would not be eligible. Legitimately, he would not be eligible to be President. But given the fact that he changed his name after a character in “The Brady Bunch" -- as American as it gets -- I don’t think there’s any question in any of those candidates that there’s any dual allegiance. That’s what the law was designed to prevent, was people with dual allegiance. Especially in the early Republic when you had people who were from England or from France and who really reported back to the motherland first. Even if they were born here they might be children of a diplomat or something like that. The fact that you are a citizen doesn’t make you a natural born citizen.

I was going to ask you about that, because Jindal’s parents have been living and working here since the 1970s. His mother worked for the state of Louisiana. From what I’ve read, the family even stopped making trips to India to see relatives in the early 1990s. If somebody from that fringe 1 percent was to question Jindal’s eligibility, do you think they could make that argument?

They could, and they do, and they will. They have, because they are very, very strict readers, as I found out. I had a lot of comments. Most of the comments were fine, none of them were profane. A few of them were kind of angry, like, ‘You haven’t read deeply enough. Didn’t you read Vattel’s 1758 Law Of Nations.’ The intent of the law is to prevent people with split allegiances from becoming President of the United States, no matter where they were born.

As I judge the crop of candidates who are suspect, that is Jindal, Cruz, Rubio and Santorum, they all pass that test. Others who have more finely tuned constitutional noses than I do may smell a rat. I just don’t smell it.

Same thing with Obama. If Obama were born in the United States, I don’t think you could legitimately challenge his status as a natural born citizen.

So what’s the deal with Santorum? Why would his eligibility potentially be in question?

That is the weakest of the cases. Because his father was born in Italy and there’s some question as to whether his father was a citizen at the time Santorum was born. That’s a strange case. Only the purest of the constitutionalists would take up that challenge.

And in Rubio’s case and in Cruz’s case I see the argument that well, they both came from Communist countries, but they’ve also left Communist countries for a reason. Even though both of them were economic refugees, actually. Both families were thoroughly anti-Castro. There was never any doubt as to where the allegiances of those families lie. Or that of their sons. So I don’t see it as an issue. Cruz doesn’t see it as an issue. I suspect that he’s invested some time and energy in this to make sure that he is a natural born citizen before taking up this effort. Although he was born in Canada, and he’s never made any bones about that, he’s nonetheless probably the one with the strongest claim because he had an American parent where the other two, Rubio and Jindal, did not, not at the time of their birth anyway.

Is there any presence of this community questioning the eligibility of these candidates, a sort of online hub of people discussing this?

Yeah I don’t think you’d have any trouble finding that. Like birtherreport.com, which was basically designed to challenge Obama’s legitimacy. There’s a lot of smart people who are looking at this who aren’t crazy. They just believe in the Constitution. They believe in the law as it’s written. You can interpret it -- now personally I think all of these cases should be adjudicated before they get too far. I would say every tea party movement in the country, every constitutionalist group in the country will have people who are adamantly opposed to the election of any of these people. This is a really pure stand because they are ideologically aligned with these people and yet constitutionally opposed to them. It’s hard to fault them for anything other than their zealousness. I’m not sure that’s a fault.

You had said earlier that if there was a court case, because Obama was born in Hawaii, it wouldn’t hold up in Court, the argument that he wasn’t a natural born citizen?

I think if Obama -- if Obama were in fact born in Hawaii, and I still think that’s questionable, I think he would prevail in court as a natural born citizen. I think if he were born, say, in Canada, he would not prevail. He would lose because neither his mother nor his father was constitutionally, by law, able to confer citizenship upon him. His mother because she was too young and his father because he’s foreign.

So when you say that you still think it’s questionable, is that what you’re referring to? That neither his father nor his mother was able to confer citizenship upon him?

If he were not born in the United States -- this isn’t even questionable, this is the law -- neither his mother nor his father would’ve been able to confer citizenship. The law is very clear on that. His mother would have missed the eligibility by months, but she still would not have been eligible just by her age. And his father by dint of the fact that he was a citizen of a foreign country with no intent of ever becoming American.

In the question of divided allegiances, he’s the first President in the history of the United States whose parents spent virtually their entire adult lives outside of the United States. They were, certainly his father and to a lesser degree his mother, hostile to the United States. If the case came down to allegiance, there would be some question. But in the case of Jindal, Rubio and Cruz I don’t think there’s any question that any of their parents have allegiance other than to the United States.

You conclude by writing that “To insist at this stage that none of them is eligible is pure supposition, but one that has the full blessing of the Democratic National Committee.” Is that statement tongue-in-cheek, or are you accusing the DNC of endorsing specious claims about certain GOP candidates’ eligibility to run for President?

They’re not doing that yet. But that will happen if a Cruz, a Rubio or a Jindal emerges as a candidate. They did it to John McCain! John McCain had to go jump through hoops to prove his citizenship because he was born in Panama. So the original birthers were in the Democratic Party. In fact the guy who first challenged Obama was a Hillary operative called -- his last name was Berg. Took him to court. He was the original birther. That moment started in the primary season under the blessing of the Clintons. So it’s going to be a political issue. The odd thing is if it went to the Supreme Court, that’s where it might get interesting, because the conservatives on the Supreme Court would probably vote strictly constitutionally, whereas the Democrats, the liberals on the Supreme Court would probably vote within the interests of their party. So they might end up agreeing that none of these people are eligible to be President.

So if you had to say which candidate is the most rock solid, no questions when it comes to eligibility?

I mean other than the four that are in question, the other 13 all have -- there is no case against them at all.

So there are no holes there? These super-strict constitutionalists wouldn’t be able to challenge those 13 on that point?

No, their names never come up.

This puts it in some perspective: the challenges to Obama, the people who did it were often called racist. But no one would have challenged Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton on those grounds. The fact is it wasn’t Obama’s color that made him suspect, it was the where and to whom he was born. It had nothing to do with his color. So that’s like -- I mean Ben Carson is unquestionably legitimate. It’s not a question of race, it’s not a question of even ethnicity. It’s a question of where a person was born and to whom the person was born.

WhiskeyJuvenile fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Aug 17, 2015

Pinterest Mom
Jun 9, 2009

Hodgepodge posted:

Realtalk: I woke up today, pointed out that a US politician's proposed policies are literal genocide, and was probated because mods are buthurt over Fishmech was going on about it for a few pages.

So.... :toxx:

I don't give a poo poo about being probated. Normally when that happens, it's because I've been an rear end about something that means gently caress all. And I didn't really have any time to post in that six hours, so it barely mattered.

But, well, this is a thread about the election and has had multiple derails about loving BBQ recipes. No matter how much of a buzzkill, I was making a comment about the nature of actual proposed policies that really are seriously mosterous.

If fellating Donald loving Trump of all people and pages of foodchat are so important to you that you can't handle people having a problem with some people have the idea that mass deportations aren't actually just as lovely as all the other crap in history that the left likes to wring it's hands about and pretend to care about, cool. You're lovely, hollow people, but hey, feel free to keep being you.

But if that's the case, I'm not interested in being associated with your sorry asses further, and feel free to permaban me.

That's a matter of principle. It's been fun, and I've met some good people here and all. But at the end of the day, it's still just a message board.

Up to you, mods

I think your problem is that you're a bad negotiator. Your ask is "permaban me", but there's no "or else". You haven't told me what your leverage is.

Luckily, there are resources that exist to help you become a better negotiator.

Ignite Memories
Feb 27, 2005

Yessir, Muslims have never not once contributed to the fields of science or literature in any meaningful way. Yep, definitely not going to research this argument more thoroughly.

Hodgepodge
Jan 29, 2006
Probation
Can't post for 214 days!

Nonsense posted:

This to me is the ultimate SJW flame out, where suicide is preferable to the infinite comedy of Donald Trump being president. Get your head checked.

Haha, wait, do you think that calling me an SJW unironically is going to make me think I made the wrong call with that post? :allears:

baw
Nov 5, 2008

RESIDENT: LAISSEZ FAIR-SNEZHNEVSKY INSTITUTE FOR FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY

Karl Sharks posted:

Are you using Fox News' poll there? Because :laffo:

Which candidate do you prefer from the following choices:

Hillary Clinton, who is currently under investigation for criminal negligence and possibly worse in relation to Benghazi and her secret email servers, or the straight-talking and yoogely successful Donald Trump?

Boosted_C5
Feb 16, 2008
Probation
Can't post for 5 years!
Grimey Drawer

Karl Sharks posted:

Are you using Fox News' poll there? Because :laffo:

Yeah, the same one that had Clinton +17 last time.

Yooge momentum baby. It's happening.

Nonsense
Jan 26, 2007

Hodgepodge posted:

Haha, wait, do you think that calling me an SJW unironically is going to make me think I made the wrong call with that post? :allears:

I don't want you to agree, I want you to get help for your crippling depression that leads you to believe death is better than life under President Trump.

Zelder
Jan 4, 2012

Nonsense posted:

I don't want you to agree, I want you to get help for your crippling depression that leads you to believe death is better than life under President Trump.

What are you talking about?

You're just posting


nonsense

Hodgepodge
Jan 29, 2006
Probation
Can't post for 214 days!

Pinterest Mom posted:

I think your problem is that you're a bad negotiator. Your ask is "permaban me", but there's no "or else". You haven't told me what your leverage is.

Luckily, there are resources that exist to help you become a better negotiator.

Are you saying.... I'm fired?

(Realtalk, I'm not going to give the mods poo poo if I'm not willing to eat a permaban for it up front. I'm also not about to do it over something that doesn't make me question whether the forums are worth pissing on, so think of it as a win-win for everyone :colbert:)

Woof Blitzer
Dec 29, 2012

[-]

Hodgepodge posted:

Haha, wait, do you think that calling me an SJW unironically is going to make me think I made the wrong call with that post? :allears:

Dude you are a loving retarded loser lmfao

Nonsense
Jan 26, 2007

Hodgepodge posted:

I'm willing to eat a permaban

Why do we have to wait, please clarify.

greatn
Nov 15, 2006

by Lowtax

baw posted:

Which candidate do you prefer from the following choices:

Hillary Clinton, who is currently under investigation for criminal negligence and possibly worse in relation to Benghazi and her secret email servers, or the straight-talking and yoogely successful Donald Trump?


Their poll is methodologically sound, you can see the exact questions they asked.

Pinterest Mom
Jun 9, 2009

Hodgepodge posted:

Are you saying.... I'm fired?

(Realtalk, I'm not going to give the mods poo poo if I'm not willing to eat a permaban for it up front. I'm also not about to do it over something that doesn't make me question whether the forums are worth pissing on, so think of it as a win-win for everyone :colbert:)

You ate a 6 hour probation because you participated in a derail. Nobody's permabanning you. You can talk about ethnic cleansing in the BLM thread, or start your own Presidential Candidates and Ethnic Cleansing thread.

Nonsense
Jan 26, 2007

Also Hillary Clinton is under investigation so that poll is sound.

greatn
Nov 15, 2006

by Lowtax
I've just learned I am being made a mod on Friday, and as a future mod, I feel I have the authority to issue a formal apology for your probation. I hope this doesn't effect my position.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

nachos
Jun 27, 2004

Wario Chalmers! WAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Boosted_C5 posted:

June Polls - Clinton vs. Trump --- Clinton +20
July Polls - Clinton vs. Trump --- Clinton +15
August (so far) Clinton vs. Trump --- Clinton +5

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

.....

November 2016: http://www.270towin.com/maps/5BBlb

Hillary is also -2 head to head vs Bush and Rubio, why aren't we talking about Jeb!mentum?

  • Locked thread