Are we seriously going to make Trump president?
- Thread starter Floydical
- Start date
Power Bottom
Active member
Awards
Hmm.. ... though now I wonder about the story why Clinton were interested in Yugoslavia...
Dramatic speech of the day. I hope that's a water gun you are holding just in case....
Last edited:
Conspirator.
Active member
Awards
Yes, he's very serious. No words in the current English dictionary can describe how serious he was. He was so serious with that comment, that he makes students writing a thesis for their PhD look like a bunch of clowns or comedians like Anh Do. All in all, he was as serious as I was in explaining how serious he was in this comment.
CrimsonReaper
Active member
Awards
Bernie Sanders doesn't even have much support among black people. He's popular among stupid communists in college who think they know something about economics. He doesn't really connect with the average person.
She has plenty of support among people, in general. Her polling numbers have been steadily improving relative to other Republican candidates, and she could easily pull support.
Keep in mind that women make up 50% of the population and about 40% of the voting population (women don't necessarily vote as much as men). Although the brutal reality is that women tend to prefer male leadership to female leadership, all other elements being the same.
Rubio was being passed around by the GOP establishment last election cycle, and he never really went anywhere or did anything. He's just kind of there, and his polling data supports that assessment. He's there... but... not really all that motivational.
He would still manage to draw the defacto: "well... I don't want the other option" votes.
Bush would win against Sanders.
People don't want a Dynasty, but they also don't want a socialist. The only real problem would come in the fact that Bush would probably lose his mind and start trying to sound like Sanders.
Cruz and Carson are idiots?
Cruz is motivated by the concept of a Constitution and believes in constraints on government, though we're so far into a fascist society and structure that I'm not sure if anyone on the political scene truly could be considered an advocate for a Constrained Government even if they are, relatively, for the limitation of federal government authority. National Parks, for example, shouldn't exist. It is not Constitutional for the federal/national government to own land. The Presidential act that created them is unconstitutional and should have been challenged in the courts and struck down. Simple things like that, which have been around since pretty much everyone alive, today, was born are taken for granted and not seen as the corrosive abuse of power that they are.
Carson is not a politician to begin with, and a neurosurgeon. And he's not an affirmative-action hire. He may not come out of the gate with strong opinions on things because it is not a field he is yet familiar with - but as he has had time to research issues, he has refined his position to a more stable and solid footing. The fact that he shows signs of actually researching issues he is presented with (as opposed to simply saying whatever he thinks the people assembled want to hear, as if recording devices don't exist) is a huge bonus. To call him an idiot is simply ignorant. Even if you disagree with his stance upon things, the fact of the matter is that the man is very intelligent and aims to improve his understanding of situations, particularly before making a decision.
Trump pulls more of the female vote than Bernie.
Women gravitate toward decisive people who exert an air of both authority and security. Bernie doesn't really do that. He isn't going to pull large numbers of women within the 'swing vote.'
No, they won't.
Interestingly enough, Bernie Sanders is still a believer in such a thing as the Rule of Law. He just believes the law should be socialism.
Bernie is out of league with the college professors spouting "white privilege" and he will end up being a victim of the pro-palestinian movement in America that has pretty much hijacked every left activist party (including the communists).
The Democrats couldn't be happier that there aren't any debates going on within their party. While the Republicans are in a state where the voters are at odds with the party establishment... the Democrats are having an identity crisis. They have Black Supremacists, Jihadists, National Socialists, Global Communists, and several other political microcosms embedded that are operationally exclusive of each other. The Worker's Party type agenda does not blend well with the Global Communists' goals, nor the Jihadi movement.
Most of them aren't registered to vote in the first place.
There really isn't any hype behind him of any substance. He has garnered a bit of flare left over from the "occupy wallstreet" movement - but even that group has fragmented, considerably, since its inception. Anonymous and similar groups started as anti-over-reach groups rooted in something closer to Libertarian philosophy. It has since been fragmented amid different pro-communist agendas and those who wish to launch attacks against private business ownership, etc.
These groups have become entrenched and embattled against each other in both the real world and the digital one.
Bernie does well against Hillary because a ****ing robot does better than Hillary.
The President doesn't have the authority to declare war. It really isn't the President's decision whether or not we go to war. It is the President's job to execute the decisions made by Congress as the head of an Executive Office.
Further, I agree with his position after I, myself, have done more research.
Bin Laden believed that the key to bringing about the return of the Caliphate was to drag Western powers into wars within the Middle East. The Caliphate has always been the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood, which Al Qaeda is an extension of (you can trace it all the way back to Hassan Al-Banna). After the Soviet Union collapsed, Bin Laden saw it as a sign that a similar pattern could be produced in the West by goading the western powers into wars in the Middle East.
Of course, he wasn't fully aware of Muslim Brotherhood activities in the U.S. and how deeply they had penetrated foreign policy advisory positions. The toppling of Saddam in Iraq marked the beginning of the West's campaign to put an end to dictatorships in the Middle East....
Dictatorships that were essentially put into place in order to suppress the Islamic impulse to return to a Caliphate....
It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Carson is well aware of -why- going to war was essentially doing precisely what Bin Laden would prefer and that it was not a sound move from a strategic standpoint. I do believe he has attempted to express that idea, although constrained to the time limits and context of the discussion.
The only real thing Rubio has going for him is his being a first generation American.
Otherwise, he just doesn't really have much to make him stand out above some of the other candidates. His views are relatively genetic and his personality is relatively generic in terms of politicians. He's just not all that inspiring.
I don't think he would be a -bad- candidate, necessarily - but I don't really see him as the pick of the litter.
I bet if Kanye pull the race card, use his fans and market himself saying "Murica! We don't give a ****, man **** the politicians, yeah!" using his influence over the pop culture to get people with a delusional sense of patriotism to vote for him, he could actually become the president, there are enough mericans out there to at least give him a fair chance.
You must be registered for see links
I covered it a bit, here. Some of the sites I link to cover the interest in breaking up Yugoslavia to a greater extent.
The arms smuggling through Croatia began in 1992 as did the Pentagon's plan to move Al Qaeda operatives into Bosnia to train the Bosnian muslims how to be terrorists. In the mean time, the U.S. offered military support to Bosnia so long as their President maintained the position that Bosnia should secede from Yugoslavia.
Al Qaeda had been trained and supplied by the U.S. since around 1984, when it was still the Muslim Brotherhood (renamed because the Muslim Brotherhood was officially still wanted for war crimes in connection with the Nazis). Specifically - they were trained in propaganda wars. They instigated militant operations against the Afghani government in Kabul and prompted the Soviet response. During this time, they held themselves up as pro-democracy freedom fighters that Americans and Westerners would empathize with (particularly Americans).
This same media propaganda arm was used in Bosnia and Kosovo. It went so far as re-dressing and mutilating corpses in attempt to paint the Serbs as the aggressors in the entire affair.
After the Serbs finally had enough - they struck against regions being used by Al Qaeda as terrorist training camps. Of course - the media covered it as if it was a massacre of innocent people.
This was finally enough, coupled with the propaganda war, to support a military operation against Serbia - who was essentially blown the **** up for defending their own sovereign state. The same scenario repeated, basically, in Kosovo.
Agendas for breaking up Yugoslavia varied, but as one of the last dictatorships within the European sphere, there was considerable sentiment to change the style of government. There were also claims of plans to run pipelines through the region and some other thoughts that it was to try and secure U.N./NATO alignment to form a greater hedge against potential soviet influence (should it return).
You'll note the pattern is very similar to what was uncovered at Benghazi - where we were running arms through Libya to support Syrian rebels. While Hillary was chairing the State Department.
It's no coincidence. Hillary is the one who has the connection to Zbigniew Brzezinski, not her husband.
After I came across this information, I did post a response at the end of this thread:
You must be registered for see links
Curiously, that apology post was deleted by a moderator (I can only assume). The thread wasn't locked. The thread wasn't deleted. The post making the apology was deleted in order to make it look like no post ever happened.
A brief look at the pages of the individuals involved is really all that is necessary to formulate some suspicions on what happened, there, and I'll go ahead and risk a public comment about it.
Kind of reminds me of this:
[video=youtube;zf2wbRWb9xI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zf2wbRWb9xI[/video]
No particular reason or relation, honestly, other than the idea of moderators being people.
Well usually posts get deleted when they are too inflammatory or breaking some other rules. Too inflammatory- since it's not a political/Religion/XYZ controversy forum even if such topics are allowed to an extent. However I am not sure why an apology was deleted. There were some spam posts generated over comments about the post, right after it so it might have been tagged along when they were removed.
Last edited:
I never saw much of any activity on it - I posted it, went off to do some stuff, and came back to see that it went 'poof.'
Usually, entire threads are deleted or just locked. But if you locked a thread with an apology in the form of a quote - a user would still receive a quote notification indicating that the response was made to their post. If you were someone who, for whatever reason, wanted to insulate another forum user from such a post.... you can't simply lock the thread. Of course, why the thread would be left open after the offending post was deleted is a bit of a mystery... perhaps the fear that something would still be said about it and said member would review the thread to find it locked?
Of course, why attribute to conspiracy what could simply be a moderator who deleted a series of posts and figured I'd be smart enough to get the message and not post again? (or just forgot to lock the thread afterward - human errors)?
Perhaps it looks more suspicious from my side of the fence than if I'd seen some of the follow-up.
In either case - I'm really voicing things that shouldn't be voiced in public. But... I've got a bit of a "whatever will be" attitude at the moment. May a Ninja drop from the ceiling and gut me stem to stern, if that be the result.
You look for a controversy and conspiracy everywhere. "Fear" of anyone saying "something" won't keep a thread open if a section mod felt it needed a closer. Unless that someone is a senior mod or admin. Mostly admins since ultimately mods are their responsibility.
Not all the thread get closed even if we remove some posts -depends upon the posts and thread topic. People get quoted in deleted posts/threads all the time. If anyone cared we would ask the admins to remove the plug in itself. Also, no one responded to your post. They were arguing over your debating skill and whether they exist or not.
If you didn't understand why a post was deleted you can ask the reason to a section mod. Even if they didn't delete it themselves they can guide you whom to ask or you can make a thread in Q&A private section. Section mod and admins can check it out and reply.
And now we are spamming the thread. Please send a PM/VM if you have any more questions.
Last edited:
SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO
Active member
Awards
'If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.' - Mark Twain
You must be registered for see images
Cruz and Carson don't believe in climate change, despite being the two most intelligent people on the Republican side. That should tell you something right away, and that's that they represent special interests. Cruz looked like a televangelist during the debate, staring so ****ing awkwardly into the camera. He is by far the most fake candidate in the race, with Fiorina coming in a close second. Carson on the other hand could have bodied Trump with that vaccine question, but he decided to go the un-scientific route and agree with Trump that vaccines needed to be more spread out with no evidence to back it up.
Fiorina outright lied to audience about that video. There is no video that currently exists of what she was explaining. On the contrary, it was after a miscarriage. And that brings me to another point. It says a lot when Republicans are still clamoring about that damn planned parenthood video which was biasedly edited by a Pro-life group. Furthermore, they keep spouting off shit that just isn't true. Abortions can't be federally funded. End of. Fiorina is a liar. Like Im glad she made it clear during the debate
Now when it comes to Trump. He's a wild card, but the fact that he hasn't came out with any plans for anything besides building a wall and making Mexico pay for it (a good majority of illegal immigrants don't even come from Mexico) should say a lot. On top of that, he's an anti-vaxxer.
Rubio, Kasich, and at time, Paul, can come off as sensible, so if I was a republican, that's who I'd support.
Basically, the Republican Party is playing off of the fear, stupidity, and racism of their voterbase, which aligns well with the GOP's history. So yeah, support any one of those dumb**** and disengenious candidates who continually ignore science.
oh yeah, and anyone who supports a flat tax is an idiot. I'm glad Trump isn't THAT stupid. Like I feel dumber every time I listen to Carson explain what Socialism is.
Fiorina outright lied to audience about that video. There is no video that currently exists of what she was explaining. On the contrary, it was after a miscarriage. And that brings me to another point. It says a lot when Republicans are still clamoring about that damn planned parenthood video which was biasedly edited by a Pro-life group. Furthermore, they keep spouting off shit that just isn't true. Abortions can't be federally funded. End of. Fiorina is a liar. Like Im glad she made it clear during the debate
Now when it comes to Trump. He's a wild card, but the fact that he hasn't came out with any plans for anything besides building a wall and making Mexico pay for it (a good majority of illegal immigrants don't even come from Mexico) should say a lot. On top of that, he's an anti-vaxxer.
Rubio, Kasich, and at time, Paul, can come off as sensible, so if I was a republican, that's who I'd support.
Basically, the Republican Party is playing off of the fear, stupidity, and racism of their voterbase, which aligns well with the GOP's history. So yeah, support any one of those dumb**** and disengenious candidates who continually ignore science.
oh yeah, and anyone who supports a flat tax is an idiot. I'm glad Trump isn't THAT stupid. Like I feel dumber every time I listen to Carson explain what Socialism is.
Last edited:
But that's just it, you had to use hindsight and logic to determine it was potentially the wrong decision after the fact. Any presidential candidate must consider the Nation's emotions at the time of the tragedy. No one can deny that the vast majority of the nation felt a need for revenge, and it was the right vengeance to seek.
So no I totally disagree. No matter how much logic you use and say the war was not worth it, it was. 99% of decisions should be made with logic and reasoning, but there are rare, 1% situations that should be handled with emotions. Seeking revenge after 9/11 was one of those instances, and a candidate saying he would not have given in to those emotions is either a liar or is not strong enough to take action in such a situation.
Awards
