|
Ice Phisherman posted:Continued from the previous thread: I had my own posts on this subject in the last thread, though I'm nowhere near as familiar with this as Prester Jane or people actually trained in this so take their word on this over mine. I just hope that, if more Malheurs happen after the election, that they go, well, more or less like the first one did, minus the damage to sacred native land and artifacts and stuff. I posted:Most of Y'all Qaeda was also too chickenshit to actually do anything when the poo poo hit the fan; the moment the FBI dropped the hammer, almost all of them surrendered and went home. The only exceptions were Finicum (who was probably panicking and/or legitimately thought he could escape/shoot his way out, and was also a special level of awful person, what with his effective child slavery and all) and the poor guy at the end who, in addition to already having mental issues and being depressed, was primarily left behind because the other assholes couldn't stand him and pushed him out of the vehicle as they left, leaving him suicidal after everything collapsed and he spent several days trapped with the other three remaining assholes (who likewise caved pretty easily for all their harsh words). And I guess the Bundy father perhaps, but he didn't get a chance to do anything because he was an idiot who took a plane and was nabbed at the airport because he had no protection or guns after disembarking. As a whole, the movement got together, felt empowered by their guns and numbers, threw their weight around as long as they met no resistance, and then crumbled the moment real consequences (beyond destroying their insides with lovely food and crapping in a hole outside) loomed. Bonus me and EHF making fun of Bundy and Finicum: quote:
Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 08:21 on Oct 1, 2016 |
#
¿
Oct 1, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 13:19 |
|
|
I might just be optimistic, but I'm feeling like Hillary's going to get two terms. I mean, the Republicans might learn their lesson here, but you'd have thought they'd do that in 2012, and instead we got Trump. Their big positions like opposition to gay marriage, drugs, trans people's existence, and abortion are only going to get more unpopular in the meantime, too, particularly with fuckups like McCrory doing their thing and screwing over their states. If they don't ditch the albatross of social conservatism they shouldn't be able to recover any time soon, and with things like Mylan and insulin providers killing people for profit economic conservatism isn't doing too hot either. They need to reform or at least realign, and with the religious right and other social conservatives making up a sizable portion of their base that might not be possible. Also, four years of Hillary, coming after her saving the country from having to exist under Donald Trump, will hopefully show people that she's not that bad, at least compared to the alternative. And, well, like you say, people will remember this election. They'll remember the racism, the sexism, the hate crimes, the insults aimed at veterans, the gently caress ups, things like Trump's deal with Cuba. And they'll remember that the Republicans endorsed it all, letting it all happen and frequently outright defending it. That should result in a lasting shift for at least some people, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:I think people will remember it, but also remember that poor whites are shrinking by about 1% a year currently. In four years the republicans may not be able to win the white house with the numbers they have. In 2024 they may not be able to win the presidency at all and will only be relevant at the state and local level until they bring in some new blood. Oh, right, that too. Demographics are loving them harder and harder. They're going to be hard to oust from state governments (though a liberal Supreme Court just outright ruling against gerrymandering might help, and is one of my dreams for a Hillary presidency), but the Oval Office might be forever beyond their reach soon if they don't do something.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Libertarianism doesn't do well when it gets exposed to any kind of mass scrutiny. It's an ideology built on a house of cards and predicated on the assumption that you're too privileged or stupid to care. Yeah, even the standard old, anti-"communism" Republican voter would be livid if you so much as touched their Medicare. Heck, my grandmother, despite being profoundly anti-Hillary and being solidly Republican in a lot of ways (kind of racist, hates gay people, etc.), is horrified by things like the medicine price-gouging and was not only already of the opinion that the government needs to stop that sort of thing, but a surprisingly easy sell on the idea that the way European nations handle healthcare and medical price control is worth consideration. It's probably in large part because she's not entirely FYGM and, requiring insulin herself and having a diabetic grandchild (not me), can sympathize quite a bit here, but still. As long as you can show them how it benefits them and don't call it socialism (or at least don't until after you've convinced them), Republicans can be pretty open to it in a lot of ways. I'm really, really curious what's going to happen to the Republican part going forward. Do they just accept that they Presidency is almost guaranteed to be out of reach and focus on solidifying their hold elsewhere? Rage and further alienate people every four years? Try to actually change/become something else even though it'll probably significantly weaken them in the short term? Nothing seems like it should appeal to them, though I imagine that most who are currently in power will be selfish and try to keep what they have as long as possible, even if it dooms the future of the party.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2016 11:32
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:Why y'all acting like the veep debate is going to put be anything. It'll be boring on the scale of the bush/Kerry debates and no one will pay attention because Donald will probably try to fight someone in a wheelchair on the night of. Well, Kaine seems like a clever guy and Pence is a moron and monster, so if he's been doing his preparation then Kaine should make a fool of his opponent. It might not be big, but it should be entertaining, at least.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Isn't he just completely oblivious? Not that it makes most of his "foibles" less awful, but he's really just a brick rather than actively choosing to be lovely, right? He complained that the term "mansplaining" was sexist in the same tweet he accused a woman of "cuntfusing" the issue. The dude is garbage.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Whoops, not literally the same tweet, but he did call mansplaining "a derogatory term about my gender" in the #cuntfusing tweet. http://www.craveonline.com/entertainment/991475-notch-creator-beautiful-game-minecraft-now-calls-upon That other thing is also amazing. The guy just sucks. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Oct 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:That was a legitimately frustrating thing to watch. Ugh. Kaine, you disappointed me so much and made me legitimately grateful that the VP debate doesn't matter. Reposting this here while I catch up on the thread, which somehow has a lot more posts than the actual debate thread from the same time period it seems. Glad to see most people, here and in other places, basically agree with me on the outcome here though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Islam is the Lite Rock FM posted:I think Sanders would be dominating at least as much as Hillary is right now. Both candidates bring different, but similarly strong, blocs to the table. Basically. Back in the primaries I figured Bernie had an even better chance against Trump than Hillary, and while she has seriously impressed me in her fight against him (I really underestimated her ability here, and more importantly really overestimated Trump) I think Bernie would still do well too. Probably would not have destroyed him as thoroughly in the debate and stuff, but would still be likely to win.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Pretty much this. Oh yeah, that's the big area she impressed me; while I knew about her amazing performance in the Benghazi hearing, I was still amazed at how effortlessly she shut down Trump. Bernie genuinely engaging Trump might have looked good, but it probably wouldn't have hurt Trump nearly as bad. We'd probably have him still "winning" the debate, but it'd be "closer" because he wouldn't have annihilated Trump the same way, even if he managed to engender more positivity towards himself. On Terra Firma posted:I don't think some people are taking into account how insanely good Hilary's campaign team is. Imagine Bernie's team in the general coming close to what Clinton's team has done. They're coordinating so well it's scary. Oh, no, I'm amazed at how well they're doing now. It's great.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:yeah as a woman who supported sanders i don't recall anything from the clinton campaign that made it sound like they expected us to fall in line for her A couple of her... Is surrogates the right term? Made some not-great comments. That "there's a special place in hell for women who don't support women" one is the one that stands out to me. Hillary herself I don't recall acting like that, though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
Pakled posted:Popular vote matters in this election because it is a de facto referendum on white nationalism, and a slim popular vote win for Clinton means "well, we'll try again next time" but a landslide for Clinton will send a much stronger message. Yeah, like, after the primaries I was bitter and was thinking of not voting (because I live in California and this state's going blue no matter what; even at the height of my bitterness I admitted that I'd vote blue if I lived anywhere else), but since then I've warmed considerably to Hillary, even if the things I dislike about her are still there, and also want to see Trump absolutely crushed in every regard so I'm going to be voting for her even if it'd be hard for my vote to matter less statistically. Like, the Democrats are running on the most progressive party platform ever, while the Republicans are trying to win on bigotry and a utterly disgusting regressive platform. Thoughts on Hillary aside, it is vitally important that the Democrats win as thoroughly as possible to send a message going forward, to both parties.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Really, I'm fine with how things turned out in the end; Bernie got official Democrat endorsement of a lot of his policies and raised awareness of his issues, even if things got ugly as the primary went on, and Hillary Clinton, who may otherwise have had trouble due to how the Republicans have been smearing her for decades and demonized her even to people in the middle and on the left, is running against Donald Trump and, barring some unforeseen disaster, is going to absolutely crush him. End result, we get a female President who is honestly probably better at policy and such than Bernie would have been, possibly a Democrat majority Senate, and the most progressive party platform ever attached to what's looking like it will be a very successful presidential run. It's hard for things to have worked out better. (Democratic control of the House would be nice but I don't think was ever in the cards no matter what happened sadly.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
Augus posted:I voted for Bernie in the primaries and I must say that other Bernie voters have really given me a rough time with that decision. Bernie or Bust is so loving stupid. I think most Bernie or Bust people were anti-establishment rather than leftist, a few (major assholes and hypocrites) aside. And, again, I think a lot probably cooled off since the primary ended. At the least, I did, and while I wasn't full Bernie or Bust I, as stated before, was considering not voting since my state's guaranteed blue anyway, before I realized that that was dumb and my vote isn't sacred or special or anything so even if Hillary is the "lesser evil" (I don't think she is anymore) I sure as hell should vote for her. Any Bernie supporters who really are leftists and aren't idiots are still voting Hillary, even if it may have taken them a little while to calm down after the primary. The ones who aren't weren't leftist to begin with, and/or are huge misogynists. Which, well. '08 saw things like HillaryIs44, and according to polls and whatnot fewer Bernie supporters have gone Trump compared to '08 Hillary supporters going McCain. It's not that bad, it's just that the assholes are loud and annoying and the ones who aren't terrible are already boosting Hillary or just staying quiet, so you notice the former more and remember them after the fact. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Oct 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:There was some really vile racism running through the die-hard Hillary camp back in '08, though I don't blame her for it. I remember a conversation with this horrible baby boomer woman who gave me the one-two punch of "you're only voting for Obama because you're black" and "it's okay for me to say stuff like that because my parents invited a black person to our house in the sixties." Yeah, that sort of thing is what I was referencing. There are lovely people supporting every campaign, and as annoying as they can be Bernie's are thus far proving to actually be less bad than historical comparisons. NikkolasKing posted:Let me ask you this. If Trump became president, do I genuinely need to worry for the safety of my gay friends? I know some of you are saying I'm a troll but if there is a real chance the alarmism about Trump is genuine, I will absolutely make sure to vote for Clinton. My word may not be much but I mean it. The official Republican platform supports gay conversion therapy, undoing gay marriage, and a lot of other things. Trump isn't as openly bigoted towards LGBT people as he is other people who aren't straight white cis men but he's still awful there, and Pence, who Trump has hinted will basically really be in charge if he wins (and might just outright become President in that case because Trump dying or being impeached are both fairly likely), is extremely anti-gay, having passed the first RFRA in his state and basically caused an HIV outbreak, among other things. Also, him winning would result in Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court through his nominations. A Trump victory would roll back LGBT rights so far and so fast and would undo basically all recent progress and then some. It'd be a disaster.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Little me disliked her because she said a bad thing about a video game. I wonder if a lot of people still have that lingering "gently caress yoooou" element for Clinton for similar reasons. Probably, but most of those people were on Trump's side already I imagine. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Oct 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:our third parties in this country are craven incompetents who couldn't take over a BBQ tent I'm curious what happens after that. Like, eventually things should rebalance to two parties, right? I'm wondering how that would go; would the Republicans try to transform themselves somehow without losing what they already have (which seems difficult given how psychotic they've made their remaining base that isn't liable to go blue sooner or later too), or would the Democrats split or something? WeAreTheRomans posted:I think it's realistic that a 3rd party will get to the debates in the next couple of cycles. Beyond that anyone who claims to know is lying. Us getting IRV is something I'm hopeful for with this election, actually. Obama, Sanders, and McCain all support it, among others, and Hillary's trying to place herself as a continuation of the first's time in office, appeal to people who liked the second, and I might be misremembering but may have been a bit positive towards the third as well? That and other things have me hoping (though I admit it's still unlikely) that she might push for electoral reform in some manner.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 09:15
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:IRV is still weak as hell in comparison to STV. Although I guess I can really only speak to STV within a parliamentary system. Oh, I like STV too. Heck, STV basically becomes IRV if you're only picking one candidate (like what a smaller state would do for a representative, or, you know, us picking a president). Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Instant-runoff voting is way too complicated. I can't imagine it being anything but a mess here. I don't see it as that complicated or hard to explain to people. "Put your top choice first, if they lose your vote goes to your second choice, etc. until someone get a majority of the vote. You can now vote third-party without basically voting against your own interests (but they probably still won't win so this mainly serves as a way to tell your preferred main party that you'd like them to start stealing ideas from the third parties you put ahead of them, at least for the presidency)." Epic High Five posted:it ain't perfect but everything else is worse Oh yeah, Britain's nonsense has me not liking a parliamentary system; things seem like an even worse mess there (though that's partially because they have FPTP too, at least for things like how a majority of their representatives have well under a majority of the vote). Currently I think the way to go would be STV so that gerrymandering is significantly weakened and our representatives are generally more, well, representative, and third parties aren't entirely useless and the main two have to react more to what voters want, but general things stay the same instead of us going for, like, a completely new system of government or something. Anyway, hm. Potential wedge issues... Well, with majority popular support for things like gay marriage, trans people using the restrooms they want, and women having access to abortions, I assume those at least wouldn't be the ones, thankfully. Not sure entirely what would be, though; like you say, it's really tough to tell. Things moving leftward overall would be really nice, though. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 09:40 on Oct 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Yeah that's way too complicated. You have to remember, hardly anyone is a politics nerd like we are. Most people barely have a first choice for any given election. The overwhelming majority of Americans are straight-ticket voters who frequently know nothing about any candidate on the ballot below VP. I don't go in for that "lol the average person is so dumb" thing. It's not about intelligence, it's about this not being their hobby the way it is ours. Remove my parenthetical there, really, that was more for us political nerds and to show that I'm not delusional about IRV magically making a third-party take the presidency or something. "Rank your choices from best to worst and your vote goes to the first, person with the least votes is eliminated and their votes redistributed to next choices until someone has more than half the votes" is simple. Heck, I've talked about this with people who aren't political nerds (my family, who are varying degrees of conservative and racist and are mostly, admittedly, not exactly well-educated or anything) and they not only understand it but think it's a good idea. Heck, I was able to sell them on STV without much trouble. I think you're underestimating people a lot. Lightning Knight posted:Abortion isn't going away any time soon. It's still much too easy to convince people of the frail logic of the pro-life movement and that being pro-life necessarily means being anti-legal abortion or birth control. The easy scare tactics of "your daughters!" and "those sluts" are too powerful. Nah, again, abortion has >50% support in the country overall and stuff. The issue is the religious right having inordinate influence among Republicans, and both that influence and that party are dying. Guns might be a bigger issue, but, again, popular support is actually behind certain control. The NRA, awful organization that they are, will fight like mad, but if the Republican party dies hopefully the NRA's power will be diminished too since their pet politicians won't hold so much power. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 09:48 on Oct 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I live in California, which has more elements of direct democracy than most parts of the country, so our ballots already require a burdensome amount of voter education. I've been in the trenches there and just getting people to wrap their heads around what voting "Yes" on Proposition No More Badthing means is a struggle. People aren't dumb but people are distracted and they are creatures of habit. Even tiny increases in complexity can cause huge drops in participation. Huh, what part of California are you in, out of curiosity? I'm in the Valley but I will also admit that my political involvement has been minor at best. I still don't think that comparing our propositions to ranked choice voting works that well, particularly since the latter you can still vote for only one candidate if you really want to so for anyone who doesn't want to nothing changes, but, well, I don't think we're really going to convince each other here. I mean, I managed to explain IRV to both great grandparents and literal children and have them all get it, so I really don't see how it'd mess things up that badly. Epic High Five posted:all politics is swamp, that's why they built DC on one Yeah, that's one good thing. The Republicans are going to be slowly suffocated and denied any hopes of the presidency, even if their hold elsewhere will take longer to remove. Still, STV or something would have helped deal with the absurd gerrymandering somewhat, which seems like it'd have helped deal with this kind of stuff sooner. In theory, at least.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 10:05
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:How have you missed me never shutting up about Los Angeles I have only been following this thread and subforum for the most part relatively recently. Anyway, good to know. Good luck in your work there. I've been thinking of getting involved in local politics myself, but the area's Republican-leaning (well, on the county level; I think locally it's Democrat-leaning maybe) so I don't know how successful I'd be. And I admit I'm an idealist in some regards, including the potential improvements IRV/STV would bring. Heck, the latter would increase Republican influence in places Democrats have gerrymandered, though I think that Republicans have generally done it more so overall it'd be a net gain probably. In theory, at least; it's sadly not likely, at least for the foreseeable future. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 10:17 on Oct 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 10:15
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:That's all the more reason to get involved, neighbor. With LA and SF becoming so untenably expensive, low income people and minorities are being pushed out to the red parts of the state where they're really at risk from republican policies. If we mobilize well now and turn those transplants into reliable Dem voters we can start seeing some blue counties in the east for once. I'm in Fresno county, specifically, might actually be moving into Fresno itself soon if I'm lucky. (Yes, lucky; my current situation sucks enough for me to consider moving into Fresno a good thing.) I think Fresno itself is Democrat-leaning, so things might not be so bad there, but I'm not sure. I'm really a novice in this regard. I think the county as a whole is red-leaning but goes blue in some presidential elections (and Fresno's in two districts for some reason, one currently red, one blue), so, not sure how much it'd help but making it more solidly blue would definitely be nice since both Fresno and the two places I mostly lived growing up are in the county (minus the very edge of one of the towns, which is in Madera county for some baffling reason). Also I have a petty grudge against Devin Nunes (I contacted his office over the SOPA/PIPA-style Internet regulation bills that were popping up a few years back, asking why a supposed conservative like him would support those things and trying to convince him to change his stance; I got a form letter response back thanking me for my support of him and those bills, then for the next few years got frequent emails from his ofice spouting stupid, hypocritical conservative nonsense until I got tired of it and marked his emails as spam), so seeing him lose his seat would fill me with delight, but I imagine ousting him wouldn't be easy. Ditocoaf posted:The nice thing about IRV in my opinion is that you can still just vote for one candidate and leave it at that. (that is, if you don't have any stupid rules against doing that.) Yeah, basically. That's how I've sold IRV to most non-political people, to generally positive response. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 13:04 on Oct 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 10:32
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I'd be happy if just John "if Trump says PTSD is for the weak then that's the truth" McCain ends up losing Arpaio losing would alone be great. Glorious, really. Though McCain losing too would make things even better.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 10:39
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:How did the United States get gay marriage on the federal level again? Supreme Court.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 10:42
|
|
|
climboutonalimb posted:This was posted on my FB feed of a guy practicing "radical empathy" with a disaffected white Trump voter in Ohio. https://extranewsfeed.com/i-listened-to-a-trump-supporter-49a41a9a99de#.29amma1j0 I'm late, but was it David Hill, the game designer? I unfollowed him a while back because he was a NeverHillary person who seemed almost thrilled at the idea of her losing, even if it meant a Trump victory, despite being a leftist, and at one point praised someone coming into a thread about how Donald Trump basically destroyed her hometown to say Hillary's bad too as a "burn". Or are there other dumbasses out there who claim to follow "radical empathy" while being some of the least-empathetic leftists imaginable?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
lozzle posted:Yes it is that idiot and if you delve into the comments (don't) you can find him unironically agreeing with somebody from the "lock her up" crowd. I didn't, don't worry. (Edit: Oh wow, he actually wrote the article, he didn't just post it? What an utter scumbag and hypocrite.) Anyway, wow. It's really amazing and frustrating how so many supposed leftists would happily see us get facism and watch the Republicans ruin everything because they'd rather not vote for the imperfect alternative.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
538 updated; Hillary's now up to a 75.4% chance to win in polls-plus, 78.7% in polls-only, and 87.1% in the now-cast. Not really a big deal probably, but even polls-plus putting her at 75%+ is nice to see. I wonder how high those will reach before the election finally happens; I doubt this is the peak.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:Holy poo poo, Pakistan made honor killing a punishable offense regardless of the opinion of the murderer's family. That's great news. I hope it's enforced well. Eugene V. Dabs posted:Assuming the debate is another implosion by Trump, I wouldn't be surprised to see both Polls-Plus and Polls only over 80% a week or two from now. That's a big assumption, though. Another implosion or just the stats? I don't think the former is a stretch, at least.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:A Trump supporter sleeps inside each one of us. We must kill him. Abort your future Trump supporter today. Support Planned Parenthood.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Ambivalent Reminder. Wait what. The hell? Is that a rumor you heard or made up or was this confirmed somewhere?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
Artix posted:Even Trump must know this is wrong. There is no way he honestly believes that Hillary has not been practicing for the last two weeks. He thinks she's like him probably, and/or is underestimating her drive by a long shot. She's definitely being doing a lot of prep though; after how long she's been working for this, there's no way she's getting complacent now. Shimrra Jamaane posted:Why is Trump talking about the Central Park 5 anyway? What on earth does he have to do with it? As people said, he was convinced they were guilty and has been calling for their deaths for decades. Literal decades. He is so pissed that they're not dead. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Oct 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:When was this? And why is he bringing it up now? He took the advertisement out May 1, 1989. He's stood by it since and has commented on the case even recently, like after the settlement and whatnot. He is adamant that they're guilty and deserve death and doesn't care what anyone, the courts included, say. He really, really wants those men dead.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/784565072769191940
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
Quinton posted:I doubt it. I expect she'll keep collecting her paycheck until he stops paying or fires her. What makes you think she's getting paid?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:How many Republicans have rescinded their endorsements? Two? That I know of. I wish my local Republican rep actually used his Twitter account. I want to see his reaction to this and/or tweet at him angrily for not unendorsing (unless he surprises me and does; for all his faults he's one of the ones who was critical of the Tea Party for a while and stuff).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
tezcat posted:If you guys wanna drink some tears check out /pol/ I'd really rather not. Post the best bits, perhaps?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
Dexo posted:We go live to Ben Barsons spokesman I don't know what's worse, one of the super-religious guys dismissing adultery, i.e. something the Ten Commandments are pretty clear on, as "something everyone does", or completely ignoring the sexual assault side of things. I mean, I'm not surprised by either, but still.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:i think itd be cool if donald trump got stuck on the rear bumper of a car, and then the car drove for a very, very, long time, until it broke down in the middle of hell, and he didnt have bus fare to go home I don't wish harm or death upon Trump, despite all this. He needs to live until the election so he can be crushed without stupid conspiracies about Hillary having him assassinated marring things and potentially hindering her victory and utter crushing of the GOP. After that, though...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 13:19 |
|
|
computer parts posted:From what I remember the Bill stuff was "he once rode on a plane owned a guy who was later convicted of using that same plane to rape minors". Trump also has strong (possibly even stronger) connections to the child rapist in question, too, so that's not a good line of attack for him.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 04:24
|
|