patrick.net

thunderlips11 says

Is it all about Trump? How about canning somebody who clearly used her position as a DNC Chairman to rig it against Bernie.

The convo they had about playing up Bernie's New York Secular Jew thing in the South was priceless.

She lost her job, did she not?

And I'd love to see all the conniptions that have been going on in the Republican party since Donald got the nomination (and before). You're wasting your breath with all this. No one cares because it's assumed it goes on. Why wouldn't it? Party establishments want the candidate that gives them the best chance of winning. Why do you think the Repub establishment is in such turmoil?

I'm not a team player. My goal is to fuck up the establishment of both parties hard. That's why I support Trump and I supported Bernie as well.

Rashomon says

You're wasting your breath with all this. No one cares because it's assumed it goes on. Why wouldn't it? Party establishments want the candidate that gives them the best chance of winning.

Which was Bernie, who polled better than Hillary against Trump for much of the nomination season. Numerous threads on this board have documented it.

The reason we have primaries in the first place is to give the voters a choice over the nominee; in the past the Party Insiders just picked the nominees.

It couldn't be that Wasserman-Shultz was a Clinton Protege? I think the many millions of disappointed Bernie Supporters - not to mention America as a whole - has a right to know. She also lied to 300+ Million People, denying that she was rigging things for Clinton.

Theft and Larceny also goes on everywhere and probably always will. That doesn't mean we don't punish it when we discover it, or that we shouldn't bother investigating it.

The Clintons will just laugh and tell the dumb Ameircans they don't understand how Saving lives and building communities work.

You're supposed to take bribes from deposed dicators, that is persona nongratis in every country in the world but one.

The Number one reason I'm voting for Trump is because I'm too fucking stupid to vote for Hillary.
And I really want you all to know that. When Trump wins, and he will, I hope you take your burning ass to the grave with you what a dumb son of a bitch I was to not want to be the Liberal patsy for all of their pie in the sky shit. Where the Crackers are racist but we make them work anyway to pay for all of the free shit, and make the things they don't get the same subsidies that the rich and poor gets even extra expensive, BECAUSE!!!.

I'm just too stupid for that! Capeech Motherfuckers?

thunderlips11 says

I'm not a team player. My goal is to fuck up the establishment of both parties hard. That's why I support Trump and I supported Bernie as well.

That's ridiculous. You want to elect an embarrassment of a human being in order to fuck up a political party. What about the country?

thunderlips11 says

Which was Bernie, who polled better than Hillary against Trump for much of the nomination season. Numerous threads on this board have documented it.

And you think it would have continued to a head-to-head? I doubt it given the general knee jerk reaction of many Americans to anything with even the vaguest hint of SOCIALISM.

thunderlips11 says

The reason we have primaries in the first place is to give the voters a choice over the nominee; in the past the Party Insiders just picked the nominees.

And they did, but there always has been and always will be insiders who pull one way or another despite supposedly being neutral. Hillary won. The establishment got in line behind her. Big deal. They didn't put guns to the heads of those voting in the primaries. Yet here you are getting in all of a rage over this and yet not a squeak about the repulsive shit that Trump threw around and continues to throw in order to push his campaign.

Tenpoundbass says

I was to not want to be the Liberal patsy for all of their pie in the sky shit.

Such as? What about Trump's massive tax breaks for the rich and completely unfunded 'yuuuge infrastructure' plans? His immigrant 'plans'? His ISIS 'plans'? His ideas give a new definition to pie in the sky. But clearly you aren't thinking too hard about what he's actually saying. That's good. Your brain probably needs a rest.

Not to give the dems any ideas... But why don't they get Sweden to drop the charges? We could all drop the charges and then Julian would be a free man. Their problem could take care of itself. You know, another one of those "accidents."

Rashomon says

You want to elect an embarrassment of a human being in order to fuck up a political party. What about the country?

The country is last on the list of the burn-it-downers.

Rashomon says

Media sources? I think you mean polling companies... presumably ones that show Trump's poll numbers improving since the Republican convention. Feel free to link to those.

Ironman says

You mean these polling numbers that were so accurate during the Primaries?

I know you're dense, but feel free to explain how that relates to what was posted - you know, polling numbers POST convention, and, amazingly enough, relating to Trump vs Hillary.

thunderlips11 says

Kim Dotcom says "Tomorrow"

I don't see the connection between Kim Dotcom and Wikileaks. Did Dotcom submit something to Wikileaks?

thunderlips11 says

“I think it’s significant,” he added. “You know, it depends on how it catches fire in the public and in the media.”

I wish if Assange had something to show, he would just go ahead and show it.
Stop crowing already.

Heraclitusstudent says

Stop crowing already.

Two reasons:
* Wikileaks has a perfect record on releasing authentic documents, so it's a slow process by volunteers.
* If he leaks it all at once, it doesn't perculate, it lasts a few news cycles, and then the MSM drops it and moves on. By Chinese Water Torture Method, he keeps the Media speculating, and keeps the leaks in the news.

Dan8267 says

I don't see the connection between Kim Dotcom and Wikileaks. Did Dotcom submit something to Wikileaks?

He may be a facilitator of leaks. Kim Dotcom has a thing for Obama/Clinton because of the Megaupload asset seizure attempt on behalf of Hollywood and Record Companies, big Dem Donors.

thunderlips11 says

He may be a facilitator of leaks. Kim Dotcom has a thing for Obama/Clinton because of the Megaupload asset seizure attempt on behalf of Hollywood and Record Companies, big Dem Donors.

When you screw too many side characters along the way, you have to expect a few knives in your back.

Ironman says

So you think that the poll numbers POST convention will be so more accurate?? Really??

I absolutely know they're not, but I'll let you prove me wrong. Post some facts, data or links instead of bloviating for a change.

So you want me to post links to polls showing Trump behind Hillary as that was what was being talked about. You think I can't? You yourself have already said that (according to you) they're wrong, so that must mean you know what they show. What other unrelated facts/data/links did you have in mind? Speak up or do your usual tail between your legs routine.

And as you 'absolutely know' the polls are wrong, why don't you post up facts/data/links to prove it? Or are you just spouting shite as usual and are now going to run away and click the dislike button on every other post of mine you can find?

Ironman says

Let's see, you're up to 84 comments with your new profile with zero facts or data to back them up. I doubt you'll ever post supporting data to support your bullshit, but keep spewing...

Hey, that must mean I've got over 25,000 posts to go to match your record then.

Feel free to point to where I said they were accurate or otherwise. I said (and I quote) the following:

Rashomon says

And that had what affect exactly? I haven't noticed Trump's poll numbers improving since then. Quite the opposite in fact.

Rashomon says

Media sources? I think you mean polling companies... presumably ones that show Trump's poll numbers improving since the Republican convention. Feel free to link to those.

Polling companies have a pretty good history of calling national elections over the years, so we'll see closer to polling day what they say and how accurate they are, won't we? As for now, they show what they show. You don't believe them because they don't show what you want them to show. That's your choice. If you have facts/data/links to demonstrate that Trump is actually ahead, then please feel free to share them. I won't hold my breath.

Ironman says

Rashomon says

and click the dislike button on every other post of mine you can find?

Sorry, not me, but apparently there are others here that also can see your totally full of shit. Is that why you had to get a NEW profile, too many dislikes and ignores on your old one?

Nah, the dislikes always appear as soon as you make an appearance. I've noticed it with other posters you troll as well.

And how many alts have you created, not including all your pussy-alts of course? The ignore button got you frustrated? Don't worry, just go and cry to Patrick some more.

Wikileaks-here is video proof of Hilalry eating babies alive
Dem voters-but Trump called soemone an idiot-vote Hilalry!!

This country is doomed.

Ironman says

So, if the electorate is even based on Gallup polling, who do they get such an imbalance in their polling? They sampled 11% MORE Dems and Clinton only came out 7 points higher.

Your point? You don't like the way this one company has weighted its polling? I take it you consider every single polling company biased. Were they all biased in past elections when they showed a Republican candidate ahead?

And nobody has claimed that polls are 100% accurate. I simply said that they show Hillary ahead. Now they do, don't they?

And you still didn't post anything that shows Trump ahead...

Trump is not ahead because he keeps saying stupid shit that the media makes sure is front and center of all news. He need to let the HRC email story fully flower.... He needs to shut up and let her campaign undo itself. If he must speak, he must say something very presidential (obviously written by someone else)... And he should be good to go.

turtledove says

Trump is not ahead because he keeps saying stupid shit that the media makes sure is front and center of all news. He need to let the HRC email story fully flower.... He needs to shut up and let her campaign undo itself. If he must speak, he must say something very presidential (obviously written by someone else)... And he should be good to go.

So you're saying that he's incapable of being presidential unless someone else gives him the words? Very reassuring. And after all this time, do you really think that Hillary is going to come a cropper because of the email server issue? It's been beaten to death.

PCGyver says

I am 1 of IDK how many that has been ignored by ironhead and I can still troll him!

How do you get rid of the smell?

PCGyver says

I am 1 of IDK how many that has been ignored by ironhead and I can still troll him!

Rather strange wording. I haven't ignored him, and I'm pretty sure he hasn't ignored anyone on here (would be rather counterproductive to what he likes to do).

Rashomon says

That's ridiculous. You want to elect an embarrassment of a human being in order to fuck up a political party. What about the country?

Our economic situation, for the bottom 50% especially, is why Trump must be President. And I'm not waiting 20 years for another non-Neoliberal to get a nomination. Hillary is the embarassment, she has a track record of failure and pandering, and is an empty pantsuit run by Powerful Interests. You can't say you're for women's rights then take millions and millions from a Country (as well as individuals and organizations of that country) that stones women to death, doesn't let them drive, forces them by law to only leave their home accompanied by a male relative, doesn't let them drive. A few months in basket weaving prison given to Anarcho-feminist troublemakers is peanuts in comparison. Trump talks often unfiltered, Hillary doesn't say a damn thing that isn't vetted and put before a focus group. I like genuine, even if it puts it's foot in it's mouth occasionally.

This country will be in dire straits if it continues to export manufacturing to China. Goldman Sachs and RE/MAX can't switch from producing financial paperwork to tanks. GM and Caterpillar can. You can't be the arsenal of Democracy if the only thing you can produce domestically is Donuts, MILF Porn, and Mortgage Insurance Paperwork. High Frequency Trading Algos can't sink submarines.

Rashomon says

And you think it would have continued to a head-to-head? I doubt it given the general knee jerk reaction of many Americans to anything with even the vaguest hint of SOCIALISM.

You may be right. But Bernie has several great advantages: He's perceived as an honest person, despite his socialism. Unlike Clinton he can speak off the cuff, which as we will see in the Debates, is a big plus. Remember Choke Artist Rubio who kept repeating the same memorized lines? Finally, Bernie isn't so closely tied to Wall Street and Big Money like his opponent is.

Rashomon says

And they did, but there always has been and always will be insiders who pull one way or another despite supposedly being neutral. Hillary won. The establishment got in line behind her. Big deal. They didn't put guns to the heads of those voting in the primaries. Yet here you are getting in all of a rage over this and yet not a squeak about the repulsive shit that Trump threw around and continues to throw in order to push his campaign.

If we're talking about the Establishment, Trump crushed his own Party's Establishment that wanted Jeb! (or failing that, Rubio or Kasich, or even Cruz as a last resort).

The Democrat Establishment and Low-Information voter must be punished by rejecting their ridiculous, horrible Neoliberal Stooge candidate. She has to be defeated, or they'll psych themselves out about "Gee, willikers. We CAN still run Wall Street drones for office. The Bernie thing was just a fart in the wind."

I want Democrats to think in 2018 and 2020, "We can't select another Thirdway Blairtard Clintonista Corporate Crony in the Primary, or we'll get creamed in the upcoming election like Hillary did."

thunderlips11 - I'm with you on the premise of removing monied interest from politics and walking it back to serve the actual people. I hear ya. You are right, Hillary is no grand answer or fix here. Is Trump? Is that what his campaign is focused on? Restoring the health of governance: campaign finance reform, citizens united, lobbying dollars? You think he works to walk the influence out of politics? Banks? The NRA? Really?

Trump seems to always be talking immigration and trade protectionism, not that one can clearly find what his stance actually is. I'll be surprised if the campaign can move off of these points. I'll be extremely surprised if they articulate anything beyond: rigged election, emails, donations, with regards to a criticism of how influence works on the hill. I think the campaign thinks anything too nuanced wouldn't capture the 'red blooded American'. They are playing down down and working to appeal to the base-est of nature.

If the October surprise is that Trump abandons speaking to the lizards, that would be quite a surprise indeed.

#LizardsForTrump

Rew says

thunderlips11 - I'm with you on the premise of removing monied interest from politics and walking it back to serve the actual people. I hear ya. You are right, Hillary is no grand answer or fix here. Is Trump? Is that what his campaign is focused on? Restoring the health of governance: campaign finance reform, citizens united, lobbying dollars? You think he works to walk the influence out of politics? Banks? The NRA? Really?

This should help you: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-25/paul-craig-roberts-trump-vs-hillary-summarized

Rashomon says

And that had what affect exactly? I haven't noticed Trump's poll numbers improving since then. Quite the opposite in fact.

Not sure Julian's goal is to get Trump voted in.

Wikileaks reports/leaks on covert action/information on...

- War, killings, torture and detention
- Government, trade and corporate transparency
- Suppression of free speech and a free press
- Diplomacy, spying and (counter-)intelligence
- Ecology, climate, nature and sciences
- Corruption, finance, taxes, trading
- Censorship technology and internet filtering
- Cults and other religious organizations
- Abuse, violence, violation

mell says

This should help you: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-25/paul-craig-roberts-trump-vs-hillary-summarized

Zerohedge? Really? Ok, I'll play ...

Here is the argument: the establishment hates him so therefor he is in-line with my cause, which is anti-establishment. #FailedLogic The rest is just an I hate Hillary diatribe including this bolded gem ...

article says

a vote for Hillary is a vote for their own emasculation?

We are going there? Really?

thunderlips11 says

Our economic situation, for the bottom 50% especially, is why Trump must be President. And I'm not waiting 20 years for another non-Neoliberal to get a nomination.

Based on what? Tax breaks for those who already have more than enough? I'm curious what you actually think Trump will do/be able to do.

thunderlips11 says

You may be right. But Bernie has several great advantages: He's perceived as an honest person, despite his socialism. Unlike Clinton he can speak off the cuff, which as we will see in the Debates, is a big plus. Remember Choke Artist Rubio who kept repeating the same memorized lines? Finally, Bernie isn't so closely tied to Wall Street and Big Money like his opponent is.

I like Bernie and I like a number of his policies. It's a shame he didn't get nominated because a head-to-head with Trump gave him an outside possibility of getting elected. Not that it would have made any difference as it would have been impossible for him to pass anything - just one look at the problems Obama has faced tells you all you need to know about what would happen to Bernie.

thunderlips11 says

If we're talking about the Establishment, Trump crushed his own Party's Establishment that wanted Jeb! (or failing that, Rubio or Kasich, or even Cruz as a last resort).

The Democrat Establishment and Low-Information voter must be punished by rejecting their ridiculous, horrible Neoliberal Stooge candidate. She has to be defeated, or they'll psych themselves out about "Gee, willikers. We CAN still run Wall Street drones for office. The Bernie thing was just a fart in the wind."

I want Democrats to think in 2018 and 2020, "We can't select another Thirdway Blairtard Clintonista Corporate Crony in the Primary, or we'll get creamed in the upcoming election like Hillary did."

Trump just did what a lot of potentially dangerous individuals do and appealed to the basest of instincts. It's a real shame that that has such a wide appeal... at least in the Republican party. Hillary isn't a great choice, but Bernie was obviously a divisive candidate as well, though obviously for entirely different reasons. Hillary had the machinery to get the nomination. That didn't particularly require any Machiavellian maneuvers - just spend the absurd amount of money she has to call upon and get enough of the vote out.

Rashomon says

Trump just did what a lot of potentially dangerous individuals do and appealed to the basest of instincts. It's a real shame that that has such a wide appeal...

No, it's how people sustain themselves over centuries, listening to their instincts. There's nothing negative about that, humans are instinctive creatures as well and when ivory-towered pseudo-intellectual pretend do-gooders rob the general populace blind while smearing them, the people's instincts kick in as they should and say enough is enough. Again. politics and the presidency is not supposed to be an elite convention, it's supposed to be for the people. Trump didn't come out of a vacuum.

Rew says

mell says

This should help you: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-25/paul-craig-roberts-trump-vs-hillary-summarized

Zerohedge? Really? Ok, I'll play ...

Here is the argument: the establishment hates him so therefor he is in-line with my cause, which is anti-establishment. #FailedLogic The rest is just an I hate Hillary diatribe including this bolded gem ...

article says

a vote for Hillary is a vote for their own emasculation?

We are going there? Really?

It's actually amusing (in a sad sort of way) that anybody could think that article is in any way persuasive.

mell says

Rashomon says

Trump just did what a lot of potentially dangerous individuals do and appealed to the basest of instincts. It's a real shame that that has such a wide appeal...

No, it's how people sustain themselves over centuries, listening to their instincts. There's nothing negative about that, humans are instinctive creatures as well and when ivory-towered pseudo-intellectual pretend do-gooders rob the general populace blind while smearing them, the people's instincts kick in as they should and say enough is enough. Again. politics and the presidency is not supposed to be an elite convention, it's supposed to be for the people. Trump didn't come out of a vacuum.

He's playing you and you're falling for it. Good governance doesn't come from pandering to people's basest instincts. Do you agree with that or not?

Rashomon says

He's playing you and you're falling for it. Good governance doesn't come from pandering to people's basest instincts. Do you agree with that or not?

Trump was never my favorite candidate, but it's Hillary who is playing her voters who are essentially voting for a proven criminal. Instincts are as important to listen to as logic, and both came together to produce such a large support for Trump. I don't think he will win, but Hillary's presidency will be a failed one from the get-to and there is a real possibility she will be indicted and convicted. Bring on the downfall, dis gun b good.

Is it tomorrow yet? If I didn't know any better I'd swear Hillary was taunting thunderlips11 ...

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fb2946b7e60d4bc2ba7a7127de5d5396/trump-rebukes-racism-claims-clinton-warns-radicalism

"Hillary Clinton vigorously defended her family's foundation against Donald Trump's sniping on Friday and declared she's confident there will be no new blockbuster accusations on the foundation, her emails or anything else that could undermine her chances of defeating him in November."

(/Trump)Better fire some shots soon, soon, soon ... like very soon. People are saying, I mean not me .... just some people ... that she is winning. (/endTrump)

thunderlips11 says

You can't say you're for women's rights then take millions and millions from a Country (as well as individuals and organizations of that country) that stones women to death,

Not to mention the fact that she character assassinated a young girl, not woman but girl, who was raped so brutally that the girl could not even have children afterwards and then Hillary laughed about it. That completely invalidates her worth as the first woman president.

Tenpoundbass says

When Trump wins, and he will

This reminds me of your predictions of a McCain victory, then a Romney victory. As Vice-president Palin would say, "You're batting a 1000! You betcha!"

PCGyver says

Anyway I feel accomplished because I out trolled the troll.

Pretty sure some of the ignores seen on some people are fake aliased accounts. Some users got a little sensitive when they were being called out by their dislike to post ratio, and ignore ratio. Believe there was a little campaign to inflate ignore numbers on some of their opposition. It is the same type of mentality of those, who when finally catching enough ire of the Pnet community as a whole, change their username.

Rashomon says

So you're saying that he's incapable of being presidential unless someone else gives him the words? Very reassuring.

Not at all. Most presidents have had speech writers. In Trump's case, his "shoot from the hip" style isn't working for him in the general. Surely you aren't going to sit there and tell me that this is the first time you ever heard that these candidates have speech writers, image consultants, style consultants, PR managers, etc...? Does that mean that no candidate in the history of televised politics was capable of being president because they didn't write their own words, pick their own clothes, and plant their own stories?

turtledove says

Not at all. Most presidents have had speech writers. In Trump's case, his "shoot from the hip" style isn't working for him in the general. Surely you aren't going to sit there and tell me that this is the first time you ever heard that these candidates have speech writers, image consultants, style consultants, PR managers, etc...?

It's the first time I've heard a presidential candidate talk about the size of his dick, etc. etc. etc. Of course they have speech writers, but they generally seem capable of behaving above the level of the average primary school kid taunting his mates in the playground when off script. The Donald though, well he's different.

PCGyver says

Rashomon says

pretty sure he hasn't ignored anyone on here

No really ironpussy is 1 of the 2 people who ignore me. Not sure who the other is but maybe it is cic. Anyway I feel accomplished because I out trolled the troll.

I'm amazed to be honest given what he does and how he's been pleading to Patrick to remove the ignore function.