patrick.net

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.

Rashomon says

It's the first time I've heard a presidential candidate talk about the size of his dick, etc. etc. etc.

Yeah, after somebody commented on small hands, and I'm sure the leftist tabloids "voluntarily" overlooked the joking nature of his remark. Again, we go apeshit about "insensitive" comments, yet welcome and house people who openly advocate sharia law. You can't make this stuff up.

Rashomon says

The Donald though, well he's different.

True dat.

mell says

Yeah, after somebody commented on small hands, and I'm sure the leftist tabloids "voluntarily" overlooked the joking nature of his remark. Again, we go apeshit about "insensitive" comments, yet welcome and house people who openly advocate sharia law. You can't make this stuff up.

You're an apologist for that? It doesn't make any difference if he was joking or not. What about all the other ridiculous/hateful/offensive... nonsense he's vomited out when off script? Yeah, I know, he was joking about all those as well, or you know, being sarcastic. Quite the pattern. He truly has the intellectual and social skills to be the leader of the free world. Or perhaps not.

mell says

Rashomon says

The Donald though, well he's different.

True dat.

Yep, but unfortunately not in the positive way you are probably imagining.

Rashomon says

What about all the other ridiculous/hateful/offensive... nonsense he's vomited out when off script. Yeah, I know he was joking about all those as well, or you know, being sarcastic.

I agree that if one values diplomacy and political correctness mostly that in their eyes it does not make him look presidential. There are things he could have worded a less edgy way. However voting for a criminal can't be the solution. I have no problems with people voting for Stein to Johnson for that reason. Lastly, Trump is in good standing with Putin, one of the most important world leaders we should work with together, while Hillary has been shamelessly fanning the flames of the cold war. Dangerous.

mell says

I agree that if one values diplomacy and political correctness mostly that in their eyes it does not make him look presidential. There are things he could have worded a less edgy way.

Diplomatic skills are somewhat important skills for the world's most powerful politician.

mell says

Lastly, Trump is in good standing with Putin, one of the most important world leaders we should work with together, while Hillary has been shamelessly fanning the flames of the cold war. Dangerous.

What is it with the love in that you right wingers have for Putin? You are aware of how corrupt and brutal a regime he runs, aren't you? Anyway, the Donald said he didn't know him, didn't he? If Putin is backing him, it's for very obvious reasons.

Rashomon says

I'm curious what you actually think Trump will do/be able to do.

Precisely: from an indeterminate disruption to a determinate outcome. Doesn't hold water.

mell says

Lastly, Trump is in good standing with Putin

Oh gawd, this tripe again. Underlying the pandering to being non-PC and bold and anti-establishment and effective is the presumption that Trump would be anything as productive as Putin in forcing people by threat and violence to "get shit done." Whether it's mell hiding under soft libertarianism or thunderlips11 hiding under the gauze of advocacy of the "bottom 50%" of earners, it really boils down to a slavish devotion to the strongman who will force an homogenization of culture and secure a national identity of both persons and capital. Remarkable. And the wingnuts called Obama our "messiah" when he was just a garden variety centrist. Jesus!

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'll have to entirely walk back my comments about him as he has put me on ignore as well, ha-ha-ha. Pretty funny given all his complaining to Patrick about the ignore function. Apparently he likes to dish it but can't take it. Ironpussy indeed.

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?

Thanks for your response.

Trump will almost certainly have a Republican Congress, baring a miracle, and his victory will put the Country Club Republicans more on the back foot than they are already. All but the most secure Republicans - maybe a handful from Cruz Country, sparsely populated geriatric backwaters, will kiss his ass for off-year endorsements in 2018. Those who don't play along will face Trump backed Populist Primary Challengers.

Whereas Hillary wil face an implacable Congress and except for being happy to pass TPP together, it'll be "Back to the Culture Wars" with both sides dogwhistling and fiddling over abortion and guns 24-7 while Rome Burns. For Dems (not aimed at you) who are well off professionals or sheltered from globalization like Government workers and Public School Teachers, 4-8 years given over to meaningless BS and mostly gridlock (except for Bankster Bills, which will all pass), might be fine. The late night talk shows will be all abortion wars and gay cake baking.

Trump's trade stance has been solid for almost 30 years. I've watched videos going back to the 80s on this. They've been posted to this forum many times.

But most importantly, you can't find a candidate more in bed with monied interests than Hillary Clinton. At best, McCain, Lindsay Graham, and Mitch McConnel are even with her.

She's said during the debates with Bernie (before she started leaning to the left in fear of his polling and certain victories) she still believes that Glass-Steagal is obsolete, and that Single Payer is undoable. Any hints at reform from her are full of vague qualifiers; refuses to take a firm stance on anything except possibly Abortion, which I don't give much of a crap about (Ireland and Argentina don't have women wearing dog collars and leashes because of abortion bans). Finally, the Democratic Party needs to be punished for selecting such a horrible nominee. There were plenty of people who could have run; the Clinton Machine that runs the DNC discouraged it and created this situation. The only way to disempower them and give them a burned finger not to do it again is to defeat Hillary.

Hillary winning is the worst possible outcome: Monied elites know that money and 24-7 media smears can win an election; the Country Club Republicans and Neocons will be vindicated, as will the Blairite/Third Way Neoliberals and Liberal Warhawks. They're probably still on the way out, but they probably brought themselves at least 8 more years.

Even if you don't like Trump, voting for him is a push to enter some kind of new paradigm, to get away from the Culture Wars of the Boomer Era.

thunderlips11 says

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?

Thanks for your response.

Trump will almost certainly have a Republican Congress, baring a miracle, and his victory will put the Country Club Republicans more on the back foot than they are already. All but the most secure Republicans - maybe a handful from Cruz Country, sparsely populated geriatric backwaters, will kiss his ass for off-year endorsements in 2018. Those who don't play along will face Trump backed Populist Primary Challengers.

Nothing about: "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?" Nothing like "gettin' shit done" but not specifying the shit. Details, details, we don't need no steenkeen details.

thunderlips11 says

Hillary winning is the worst possible outcome: Monied elites know that money and 24-7 media smears can win an election; the Country Club Republicans and Neocons will be vindicated, as will the Blairite/Third Way Neoliberals and Liberal Warhawks. They're probably still on the way out, but they probably brought themselves at least 8 more years.

Really strong points on why to vote for Trump.