Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

Status
Not open for further replies.

vonFiedler

Ridley is in Smash
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
(All lives matter started with him,

Like, what the fuck do you even imagine you are talking about? BLM was very visible in their opposition to Hillary. Bernie was, like with most things, totally unabashed about jumping in with something he believed in without trying to politicize it to gain votes.

All women want to be raped (and it's variant, all women desire to be raped by 3 men at the same time), all men want to rape)
Did you even read that essay because nice lack of context bro, but everything in it is absolutely on point, about how enforcing traditional gender-dynamics has troubling complications for people's sex lives. He was talking about things like that in the 70s. That's WHY he was the perfect candidate. He was always who he is now. You don't have shit on him unless you take things entirely out of context. And doing so... not gonna measure up to the stack of shit against Trump topped by audio regarding him molesting women.

Not attacking him didn't "avoid opening up attacks on Hillary", because Sanders has never done that. It would only make her look worse when he didn't retaliate.

People believed Sanders was unelectable because the media told them so. Polls showed a different story. We weren't gonna have a NeverBernie movement, meanwhile we'd still have a split GOP.
 
Last edited:

Hogg

grubbing in the ashes
is a Site Content Manageris a Social Media Contributoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris an Administratoris a Tournament Director Alumnus
UU Leader
I believe the election would still have gotten very ugly if it were Trump versus Sanders rather than Trump versus Clinton. I suspect it would have had more to do with anti-semitism and red-baiting rather than sexism and accusations of corruption in that case, but I believe if anyone has what it takes to bring out the worst in people regardless of his political opponent, it's Donald Trump.
 
I dont particularly care about most of those things, but I'm looking at it as "what would republican ads centre on". I know that the context of the 1972 article is more nuanced than that, but sound bytes are better than full context and details on situations. See: Donald Trump and his popularity. Him saying "what I said was a nuanced criticism of gender roles" wouldn't counteract targeted advertisements with just those snippets.

Apologies on the All Lives Matter portion, I made a mistake. I was remembering a video where I thought he said that, but I cant actually find the video, so it must have been either someone else or something I was remembering very badly. I'll try and find what I was thinking about.

EDIT:
Found it, wasn't Sanders, but I knew it was a Democratic runner in the primaries and had kinda forgotten that O'Malley existed.
 

thesecondbest

Just Kidding I'm First
I believe the election would still have gotten very ugly if it were Trump versus Sanders rather than Trump versus Clinton. I suspect it would have had more to do with anti-semitism and red-baiting rather than sexism and accusations of corruption in that case, but I believe if anyone has what it takes to bring out the worst in people regardless of his political opponent, it's Donald Trump.
anti semitism? you know trump's daughter is jewish right? you know he is more pro israel than bernie? my god people trump is not hitler lol. on the red scare point yes he would use that but that's nowhere near as dirty as two candidates accusing each other of covering up sexual assault lol
If sanders won he would have not been as dirty as hillary either because he had no scandals like the clinton foundation so he could just win on policy. clinton has to throw mud because she's a bit dirty. he would have easily won
 
Bernie has things that would be turned into "scandals" like the women want to be raped comment as well being a "democratic socialist" which scares a lot of the GENERAL voting public. These issues were just never made public really or in the news cycle like Hillary's Emails and so and so forth (and as others have said, for good reason because Hillary never attacked Bernie because she had no reason too). I think Bernie Probably would've won but like it probably would be about the same margins as it is now and there's no point in theorizing about it because he lost to Hillary by 3.7 million votes (and no, those weren't made up votes by the DNC Bernie just didn't appeal to minority voters which is key in the Democratic primary) so I don't really know what we're even arguing about at this point.




Bernie will continue to do a fine job in the senate anyways.
 

thesecondbest

Just Kidding I'm First
Bernie has things that would be turned into "scandals" like the women want to be raped comment as well being a "democratic socialist" which scares a lot of the GENERAL voting public. These issues were just never made public really or in the news cycle like Hillary's Emails and so and so forth (and as others have said, for good reason because Hillary never attacked Bernie because she had no reason too). I think Bernie Probably would've won but like it probably would be about the same margins as it is now and there's no point in theorizing about it because he lost to Hillary by 3.7 million votes (and no, those weren't made up votes by the DNC Bernie just didn't appeal to minority voters which is key in the Democratic primary) so I don't really know what we're even arguing about at this point.




Bernie will continue to do a fine job in the senate anyways.
I think there's a vast difference between the election being about democratic socialism vs communism and it being about pussy grabbing.
 

Hogg

grubbing in the ashes
is a Site Content Manageris a Social Media Contributoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris an Administratoris a Tournament Director Alumnus
UU Leader
anti semitism? you know trump's daughter is jewish right? you know he is more pro israel than bernie? my god people trump is not hitler lol.
I think you have a pretty naive view of Trump and his rhetoric. He's already trotted out a lot of classic anti-semitic talking points this election. What do you think his conspiracy-mongering about George Soros, Sidney Blumenthal and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is all about? And his talking points about international banks is something right out of fucking Protocols of Elder Zion. Not to mention his ties to various white supremacist groups, and shit like this:



Also, Trump is in no way pro-Israel. He's anti-Palestine, which might seem like the same thing if you squint a bit and don't think about it too much, but it's not.

Anyhow, my point is that Trump has already sounded plenty of anti-semitic dogwhistles to rile up his base in the Hillary campaign, and I suspect we'd have seen a LOT more of that if Bernie had been the Democratic Party nominee.
 

Martin

Gamer
is a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
Moderator
I've just finished reading the last page or two of this thread and I can't believe that someone seriously implied that you can trust Trump with nuclear codes...

Anyway, I've not been following this election very closely 'cause I can't vote in it either way and whenever I read too deeply into it I always come out feeling depressed and questioning the sanity of the human race (especially after seeing my own country go full retard by voting for brexit), but just as a sort of simplistic outsider's view on this whole thing all I can tell is that Trump is an incompetent, immature ass who is pretty much making up his campaign as he goes along and continues to publicly make an ass of himself. I can tell that Hillary isn't the best opposition that you could aim for but would still make a better president on the basis that she wouldn't go full retard when choosing who goes in what position of power like Trump would, and it also looks as if newspapers are cherrypicking a load of out-of-context stuff with these emails to try and make her look worse than she is. Trump supporters seem to be gulping down this tabloid bullshit as if it were cordial, and as-per-usual the idiots are the loudest in this election.

What this election (and 2015/16 as a whole) has shown me is that global politics is at a low-point. The very personality-based bias that goes on in US politics is fundamentally flawed as is, but the fact that Trump--a corrupt businessman who has very clearly just used this election as a business tactic and has shown time and time again that his is racist, mysoginistic and highly-immature biggot--was able to reach a point where he was one of the main candidates is just completely mind-blowing.
 
lmao at myzozoa

u dont like hillary's foreign policy? cant have anything to do w how she wants wwiii, must be cuz ur a sexist bigot!!1!

but srsly come on guys, hillary cant be trusted w the nuclear codes... unlike Mr. Trump, girl dont got the temperament to be commander in chief.

check this out:
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/10...tted-no-fly-zone-would-kill-a-lot-of-syrians/

imo theres a much bigger picture here that everyones missing. why the f does hillary wanna get involved in syria, anyway? allegedly its for humanitarian causes butt thats hard to believe. if she were so benevolent why does hillary, instead of sanctioning, bolster terrorist states like israel, saudi arabia, turkey etc?

as the palestinians, yemeni, and kurds get slaughered, hillary continues to fan the flames of conflict. we live in a world where weve given the saudis $20 billion in weapons alone since 2015, and earlier this yr when obama gave israel $38 billion the republicans were actually dissatisfied w how paltry the donation was xD and yet weve still got lead in our childrens water supplies and veterans on our streets.

i mean its one thing to turn a blind eye but were actively aiding these savages lol

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-strikes-are-civilians-un-report-9606397.html
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/10...u-s-bombs-at-site-of-yemen-funeral-masssacre/
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/...d-kurdish-fighters-syria-161022184745848.html

the funny thing, too, is that none of this stuff is ever reported by news organizations here in the us. its crazy how some ppl still dont think the mainstream media is wholesomely biased vs trump.

u think trump is violent cuz hes a bit feisty w the ladies? hillarys the puppet of wall st and her policies r gonna lead to another subprime mortgage crisis-esque crash in the near future if she gets elected (she doesnt even wanna reinstate glass steagall and supports dodd frank rofl) but whats even worse imo is that shes the puppet of the military industrial complex. even taking republicans into account, hillary's received more $$$$ from arms and military service companies than any other candidate during the 2016 election.

hillary reigniting cold war rhetoric has everything to do w all of this. this is hillary's campaign platform, its fear mongering 101, and an attempt to deflect and distract from the substance of her leaked emails.

the reason hillary wants to get involved in syria is bc of the geopolitical chessboard. doesnt matter that assad is fighting isis and that a regime change would result in iraq 2.0. obama won the nobel peace prize for his foreign policy lol but take a look at how he describes iraq. he describes it as a strategic and tactical miscalculaion as opposed to a moral or ethical mistake. imo its reminiscent of the nazis talking about how invading russia during the winter was a mistake, lol.

as long as russia and iran r backing the stability of the country, hillary wants a regime change so that the new leader of syria is a puppet of hers, too, regardless of the civilian casualties as a result of the process or the fact that we'd be further supporting isis and al-nusra (al-qaeda in syria). most of the conflict on the "rebel"'s side (most of them are gone at this pt) are mercenaries anyway who have no loyalty other than the side that pays them more.

forget how she paid ppl to go to trump's rallies and incite violence to smear trump's campaign, this is a girl who touted fucking henry kissinger as an inspiration for her foreign policy x x

honestly w the constant fighting and destabilization of the middle east being so profitable for the military industrial complex and oil companies and with them bonding so strong w hillary thru dirty and even bloody money, i question whether hillary even wants to defeat isis. getting rid of them + bringing peace to the region = no more revenue for the companies that she in turn receives money from...

on the other hand, trump says hes willing to work with the russians in defeating isis to ultimately bring peace and stability to the region o o

lets not even get started on both candidates' positions on trade deals, too, it couldnt be clearer how much better trump would be in regards to this than hillary. trumps been opposed to the tpp from the very beginning and has rightfully touted nafta as the worst deal ever whereas hillarys voted for nafta countless times as a senator then called the tpp the gold standard and only recently flip flopped when she realized she underestimated how stupid the american ppl are. its rly an insult to our intelligence. obviously, here, too, u can see how her corruption is at play: more free trade deals like nafta and tpp -> us companies can ship jobs overseas to the mexicans or the chinese etc -> higher profit margins thanks to lower wages at the cost of raw jobs for our people here at home -> hillary receives an incomprehensible amount from the very companies that abuse these predatory deals as a thanks for fucking over hard working americans. shes literally on the board of fucking walmart for crying out loud.

look at the colombia free trade deal too. at first she was against it but oops, took money from industries in colombia and what do u know, she flipped her position to support it. on the contrary, trump wants to tax companies who want to bring their products back from slave labor countries into the us to make them rethink producing products overseas at all.

hillary might be a woman but compared to trump, shes the one who wants to either bomb or exploit the labor of women and children :/

this all comes down to money. the us has so much power but were using it in all the wrong ways. we have enough power in money to leverage isarelis saudis and turks to quit their carnage and we have enough power in money to leverage our corporations from abusing labor outside our borders. trump would run the country like a smart businessman in these respects whereas hillary would continue the corrupt and failed policies of obama, and u guys still wonder why this dude's done so well in the primaries and now against hillary? everyone is so pc now and tbh literally everyone is brainwashed by propaganda LOL
Okay, Hillary is probably as far from perfect as you can get. I hate her, and I hate having to vote for her to get that Democratic platform, instead of Bernie, who I trust far better.

But people like you need to stop painting Trump as this honest, perhaps messianic businessman, and just fucking admit that both candidates are fucking terrible, and the less terrible of the two is going to win! Is Hillary corrupt? Absolutely! But there is so much dirt on Trump, and he's never even been involved in politics (well, or at least held a political position)!
 

Sam

i say it's all just wind in sails
is a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
anti semitism? you know trump's daughter is jewish right? you know he is more pro israel than bernie? my god people trump is not hitler lol. on the red scare point yes he would use that but that's nowhere near as dirty as two candidates accusing each other of covering up sexual assault lol
If sanders won he would have not been as dirty as hillary either because he had no scandals like the clinton foundation so he could just win on policy. clinton has to throw mud because she's a bit dirty. he would have easily won
What does him having a Jewish daughter have anything to do with Trump being anti-semetic or not? Hogg has already pointed out a lot of his rhetoric mirroring common anti-semetic dog whistles and the like. And is all of that absolved because he has a Jewish daughter? Absolutely not. A white man who marries a black woman can still be racist. Someone with a gay sibling can still be homophobic.

Additionally, being pro-Jewish != being pro-Israel. It's a pretty split issue among the Jewish community, and the context for one supporting Israel is much more complex than just supporting Jewish people.

Where the fuck do you bring Hitler in to this? So long as Trump doesn't want to kill all Jews it's ok? C'mon.
 

thesecondbest

Just Kidding I'm First
I think you have a pretty naive view of Trump and his rhetoric. He's already trotted out a lot of classic anti-semitic talking points this election. What do you think his conspiracy-mongering about George Soros, Sidney Blumenthal and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is all about? And his talking points about international banks is something right out of fucking Protocols of Elder Zion. Not to mention his ties to various white supremacist groups, and shit like this:



Also, Trump is in no way pro-Israel. He's anti-Palestine, which might seem like the same thing if you squint a bit and don't think about it too much, but it's not.

Anyhow, my point is that Trump has already sounded plenty of anti-semitic dogwhistles to rile up his base in the Hillary campaign, and I suspect we'd have seen a LOT more of that if Bernie had been the Democratic Party nominee.
Funny, when Bernie was against the big banks nobody called him anti semitic... Then trump does the same thing and he's anti semitic? And Trump was also against the AT&T Comcast merger in his Gettysburg address, just like bernie is. So it's probably that he is looking out for the common man and against big corporations, not that he is anti-semitic.

Then you bring up fucking Soros, Blumenthal, and DWS. Soros is closer to a nazi than a jew. From his own wikipedia page,
"Of the Nazi occupation of Hungary, Soros would write in 2000 (in the foreword to the publication of his father's autobiography): "It is a sacrilegious thing to say, but these ten months were one of the happiest times in my life". Soros said that he "grew up in a Jewish, anti-Semitic home," and that his parents were "uncomfortable with their religious roots." They changed their name from Schwartz ("black" in German) to Soros (a successor in Hungarian) in 1936 to disassociate themselves from the Jewish community. (...) Soros has argued that Jews are partly responsible for antisemitism, and that Jews would overcome antisemitism "by giv[ing] up on the tribalness."

Pretty swell guy right? and like the big banks he did some pretty messed up shit, like making money during a UK currency crisis and wanting open borders.

Blumenthal is a racist who started the birther movement (or at least that's what trump claims, but he's not doing it out of anti-semitism). And DWS is a proven hack for Clinton who rigged the primary against bernie. So yes, naturally saying anything bad about her must be anti semitic! Logic 101!

And maybe Trump is also anti muslim but when he says stuff like happy yom kippur or gives condolence to the passing of shimon peres I would think any reasonable person would realize he isn't anti semitic.
 

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
^I want some of whatever this guy is on, he's like the bill mitchell of smogon.

on a more interesting note I recently came across this representative graphic. can't trace back to source zero so you may choose to take it with a grain of sand.



the only outcome that surprised me was college educated whites. that paints an outlook darker than a simple case of information asymmetry.
 

Sam

i say it's all just wind in sails
is a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
Some Jewish people being anti-semetic doesn't mean Donald Trump isn't anti-semetic. Saying "happy yom kippur" doesn't mean Donald Trump isn't anti-semetic. Mourning the death of Shimon Peres doesn't mean Donald Trump isn't anti-semetic.

Saying and doing anti-semetic things means Donald Trump is anti-semetic.
 

atomicllamas

but then what's left of me?
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
on a more interesting note I recently came across this representative graphic. can't trace back to source zero so you may choose to take it with a grain of sand.



the only outcome that surprised me was college educated whites. that paints an outlook darker than a simple case of information asymmetry.
That's cause the most determinate trait for how a white person votes is religiousness vs. education, 538 had a pretty interesting article on it: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/religion-and-education-explain-the-white-vote/
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
when he says stuff like happy yom kippur or gives condolence to the passing of shimon peres I would think any reasonable person would realize he isn't anti semitic.
I don't know if he actually said this or not, but saying happy yom kippur means you're an idiot.

It's the day of atonement, a day where Jews fast.



And anyway, I'm a secular Jew (pretty much atheist), but I was raised plenty Jewish and was sent to a Jewish school for nearly a decade. I know how to listen to the dog whistles and Trump has been firing them away this whole campaign even before he hired Bannon.
 

EV

Banned deucer.
^I want some of whatever this guy is on, he's like the bill mitchell of smogon.

on a more interesting note I recently came across this representative graphic. can't trace back to source zero so you may choose to take it with a grain of sand.



the only outcome that surprised me was college educated whites. that paints an outlook darker than a simple case of information asymmetry.
I've never been prouder to be from Washington state.
 

thesecondbest

Just Kidding I'm First
Some Jewish people being anti-semetic doesn't mean Donald Trump isn't anti-semetic. Saying "happy yom kippur" doesn't mean Donald Trump isn't anti-semetic. Mourning the death of Shimon Peres doesn't mean Donald Trump isn't anti-semetic.

Saying and doing anti-semetic things means Donald Trump is anti-semetic.
If someone alleges you are anti semitic is it possible to prove otherwise? (This question has gone completely ignored by the post below. Why? Because you can't disprove it. Once someone accuses you of being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, it's too late.) And the convenient thing about so called dog whistles is when you're the only one to hear them, it's easy to allege that you're the enlightened one, not that you're over sensitive.

And what did he even do that was anti semitic? I disproved all your examples lol

Edit: OK you weren't the one who used there phrase dog whistles but whatever point still stands
 
Last edited:

Hogg

grubbing in the ashes
is a Site Content Manageris a Social Media Contributoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris an Administratoris a Tournament Director Alumnus
UU Leader
I don't know why I'm bothering, since I'm sure you'll try to excuse away anything that doesn't agree with you, but sure, I'll bite. The reason the phrase dog whistle is used is because the vast majority of racism and prejudice does not manifest itself overtly. This isn't a cartoon where every racist is hiding a white hood in their closet. Where it manifests openly in politics is in choice of language meant to play on fear of otherness, call to old biases, etc. You see it, for example, in seemingly innocuous places like alt-right and conservative mouthpieces referring to President Obama as Barack Hussein Obama whenever possible. I mean it's his name, right? Can't get mad at someone for using his full name! But the way it's emphasized in contexts where the formality of the full name is otherwise awkward serves to highlight his otherness, call out to anti-Islamic fears and paint him as foreign.

So yes, I say Trump is blowing a big fucking dog whistle when he talks about Clinton's "handlers," and calls Clinton a puppet to international bankers, says things like how she hates Catholics, and jumps on every opportunity to list off a litany of every Jewish name associated with the Clinton campaign as though they are these sinister, manipulative bogeymen.

Similarly, look at when he criticizes a Jewish figure like Bob Dylan or Jon Stewart. Trump goes out of his way in these instances to refer to them by their birth names, Robert Zimmerman and Jonathan Liebowitz in an effort to highlight their Jewishness.

Then there are more overt dogwhistles, such as his tweet placing a Jewish Star of David over Hillary Clinton when calling her the most corrupt politician ever, or his constant references to the war on Christmas, even going so far as to promise in his stump speeches that shopkeepers will start saying "Merry Christmas" again when he is President. Or, you know, going in front of the Republican Jewish Coalition, starting things out by saying he's a negotiator, just like "you folks," and after he failed to receive the welcome he thought was his due, going so far as to say that they don't like him because they can't use their money to control him.

I doubt Trump is some mustache-twirling villain secretly planning a new holocaust. I doubt he considers himself anti-Semitic (most racists don't think they're racist, after all). But he is absolutely playing to anti-Jewish fears with much of his rhetoric, and saying "Happy Yom Kippur" doesn't excuse it anymore than eating a fucking taco bowl on Cinco de Mayo excuses the inflammatory rhetoric he's used about Mexicans.

But hey, don't mind me, I'm probably just being too sensitive....
 

Sam

i say it's all just wind in sails
is a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
Yes it is possible to prove otherwise by...not being anti-semetic.

You didn't prove shit. You said George Soros is a self-hating Jew (so anti-semitism is the Jew's fault I guess?). You said "Blumenthal is a racist who started the birther movement (or at least that's what trump claims, but he's not doing it out of anti-semitism)." Emphasis mine. And you claimed DWS rigged the primary which is a huge fucking [citation needed] (saying bad things about a candidate in private email exchanges != rigging an election). So yes, rallying against Hillary for her connection to these people and using language closely tied to anti-semites...is anti-semetic.

Or maybe it's just all a huge coincidence. He didn't know that a picture of Hillary on a backdrop of money with a Star of David calling her corrupt was wrong. He didn't know intentionally pointing out that fact that Jon Stewart is Jewish would make people think that's wrong. He didn't know know he used coded language commonly used by anti-semites. :(

You know how you don't get accused of being racist, sexist, bigoted, etc.? By not being a fucking racist, sexist, bigot, etc.
 

thesecondbest

Just Kidding I'm First
I don't know how I'm supposed to convince anyone who doesn't think the primary was rigged against Bernie lol...
But anyways i apologize for getting into this argument. I even said earlier in response to aberforth that I was glad the argument didn't get into calling people buzzwords, yet here I am in exactly what makes this thread cancerous. So let me just convince you that Debbie rigged the primary and end this there:
https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18997 Kaine knew he was VP back in 2015.
Kaine was also the DNC chair before Debbie. Why would you ever give up a position as powerful as DNC chair? Maybe if u were promised VP in return.
And Debbie was Hilarys campaign chair in 2008. Must be a pretty unbiased DNC chair... And keep in mind she resigned after the email leaks. Polling places were cut or had hours reduced in areas Sanders was winning in, in new York among other places.
You wanna talk dog whistles? Well here's a Freudian slip from hrc:
After Debbie became Hillary's 50 state plan chair, there announcement said she would "continue working on Hillary's campaign." So she was working on it while she was the DNC chair. Pretty solid proof.
And speaking of anti semitism, we're just going to ignore the anti atheist bigotry in the emails? "My southern Baptist peeps would draw a big distinction between a Jew and an atheist"
And the emails proving Hillary hatred Catholics? Ignore those!
But like I said I don't want the thread to be about that trash. Let the media cover the bullshit scandals, I want to talk on policy
 
Last edited:

Sam

i say it's all just wind in sails
is a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
If you think someone telling John Podesta that they heard HRC told Kaine he would be the VP pick in 2015 (already at like 3 degrees of separation) is proof of an entire primary being rigged, well...I don't know how to respond besides saying that is quite a low level of proof for such a heinous accusation. And like, even if she picked Kaine in 2015, so what? Do you think candidates wait until the day before it's announced to decide their VP candidate?

This is an election thread. You know what's relevant to an election? The candidates. You know what's relevant to a candidate? Whether or not they are a bigot. If you think talking about racism, sexism, anti-semitism, homophobia, and other issues are "cancer" to the discussion, I'm sorry to tell you but many people are affected by them. Not wanting to talk about them doesn't make them go away.
 

thesecondbest

Just Kidding I'm First
thank god you you don't wanna because your threshold of evidence is conspiratorial hearsay and a fucking freudian slip. lmfoa
What? Are you talking about their threshold of evidence for racism? Never mind the fact that the emails after proven true. If you bothered to read my post your would see there is hard evidence for it lol
 

thesecondbest

Just Kidding I'm First
If you think someone telling John Podesta that they heard HRC told Kaine he would be the VP pick in 2015 (already at like 3 degrees of separation) is proof of an entire primary being rigged, well...I don't know how to respond besides saying that is quite a low level of proof for such a heinous accusation. And like, even if she picked Kaine in 2015, so what? Do you think candidates wait until the day before it's announced to decide their VP candidate?

This is an election thread. You know what's relevant to an election? The candidates. You know what's relevant to a candidate? Whether or not they are a bigot. If you think talking about racism, sexism, anti-semitism, homophobia, and other issues are "cancer" to the discussion, I'm sorry to tell you but many people are affected by them. Not wanting to talk about them doesn't make them go away.
Why would Debbie resign if she didn't get caught rigging the primary? If trump and Huff Po agree on something I'm pretty sure every reasonable human would believe it, because those two are as far apart as it gets
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top