Thunderdome 2015 » Printable Version of Topic

Forum: General Stuff
Topic: Hillary 2016
started by: Leisher

Posted by Leisher on May 15 2014,10:35

Might as well get this started because if I was a betting man, I'd wager that she's our next president.

Posted by TPRJones on May 15 2014,10:41

No! Bad Leisher! Bad! *swats with newspaper* No!

Posted by Leisher on May 15 2014,11:12

Does anyone honestly think she's not going to cruise to a victory?

Posted by TPRJones on May 15 2014,11:17

Too soon to know what will happen. I mean, do we even have any idea who she will be up against yet?

Posted by Leisher on May 15 2014,11:23

I think that's part of the problem.

We know it'll be a Republican, so there goes...what?...40% of the vote immediately with zero chance of getting it back?

Name one Republican you'd vote for right now. To make it fun, don't think of them as running against her. Just them running alone.

The most interesting thing about her running will be the male Democrat votes. I'd be very curious to see what their turnout numbers are if she wins the nod, and how many of them vote against their party in the presidential election. Let's see what the bigger problem is in this country, racism or misogyny.

Posted by TPRJones on May 15 2014,11:26

My point is that as of this date back in 2006 no one had even heard of Obama yet. He didn't even announce he was running until the equivalent of next February.

Who knows who will pop up between now and next year.

EDIT: In fact I bet if we looked back at the old threads from May of 2006 we may find that Hillary was woefully considered a lock back then, too. Well, if GORDON hadn't gone and deleted it all.

EDIT2: Hah! From the equivalent of October of 2015, but, you know, eight years ago:

(Leisher @ Oct. 31 2007,12:30)

QUOTE

< Ladies and gentlemen, your Democratic front runner, Hillary Clinton. >

Posted by Leisher on May 15 2014,11:48

QUOTE

Well, if GORDON hadn't gone and deleted it all.

He's the Bush of our forums.

QUOTE

Ladies and gentlemen, your Democratic front runner, Hillary Clinton.

Yes, but I said front runner, and she was, so I wasn't wrong.

Now if 2016 rolls around and she's not the nominee or doesn't win the presidency, then bring this up, and my response will be "Thankfully, I was wrong."

Posted by TheCatt on May 15 2014,13:04

(Leisher @ May 15 2014,14:12)

QUOTE

Does anyone honestly think she's not going to cruise to a victory?

What odds are you giving?

Posted by Leisher on Feb. 13 2015,06:30

QUOTE

What odds are you giving?

Based on everything we know since this chain was created, would those odds have gone up, down, or remain unchanged?

I've got to go with unchanged or maybe even up.

Sure, maybe she's somewhat responsible for folks in Benghazi getting killed, and maybe she was corrupt as fuck before she became a senator, and maybe she's married to a guy who kinda, sorta was involved with a guy pimping out underage girls, but she's still a woman, still a Clinton, and still a Democrat. Plus, show me a Republican who is even remotely electable BEFORE the left leaning MSM starts slamming him/her.

Anyway, why am I resurrecting this thread today? Because a co-worker just showed me < this ad >.

Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 13 2015,07:54

QUOTE

Plus, show me a Republican who is even remotely electable BEFORE the left leaning MSM starts slamming him/her.

Not my fault they've forgotten their job is sucking the press's collective cock while simultaneously punching the public in the balls.

Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 13 2015,08:07

Now that Jon Stewart will have some free time, maybe he'll run?

Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 13 2015,08:26

(TPRJones @ Feb. 13 2015,10:07)

QUOTE

Now that Jon Stewart will have some free time, maybe he'll run?

No respectable human being runs for the office of prez anymore. Being mentally diseased is a prereq.

Posted by Leisher on Feb. 19 2015,08:24

< 40% of donations to her fund are from foreign donors. >

Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 19 2015,08:29

(Leisher @ Feb. 19 2015,10:24)

QUOTE

< 40% of donations to her fund are from foreign donors. >

Like "foreign" foreign or "tax shelter" foreign?

QUOTE

Mohammed Al-Amoudi, a billionaire businessman who lives in Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia, retired German race car driver Michael Schumacher, and Denis O'Brien, the Irish chairman of Digicel phone company, each donated between $5 million and $10 million.

Retired race car driver? Hmm, apparently he has lots of cash.

QUOTE

n 2010, his personal fortune was estimated at £515 million.

Posted by GORDON on Feb. 19 2015,08:30

Obama got a shitload of foreign money through his website that didn't have any checks to exclude foreign donors, as well. Nobody cared.

Posted by Leisher on Feb. 19 2015,10:01

I remember that. It'd be amazing to see what would be expected of our politicians if people actually gave a fuck.

Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 19 2015,11:04

(Leisher @ Feb. 19 2015,12:01)

QUOTE

I remember that. It'd be amazing to see what would be expected of our politicians if people actually gave a fuck.

My expectation of politicians has nothing to do with the voters not giving a fuck. It has to do with the politicians being greedy, corrupt douchebags.

Posted by Leisher on Feb. 19 2015,11:24

The point is if people cared more about that than Honey Boo Boo, the politicians would get away with less and the voters would force more honesty.

It's like this country is Boogie Nights. We're Little Bill and politicians are our wife. We keep showing complete apathy for their corruption and bullshit so they have no motivation to change. And just like the film, we know how it ends, the only variable is when.

Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 19 2015,11:28

QUOTE

...the voters would force more honesty.

The voters have spoken. They don't want competence or honesty. They want meaningless platitudes and vague promises.

Posted by GORDON on Feb. 19 2015,11:50

(Malcolm @ Feb. 19 2015,14:28)

QUOTE

...the voters would force more honesty.

The voters have spoken. They don't want competence or honesty. They want meaningless platitudes and vague promises.

And to not be perceived as racist.

Posted by Vince on Feb. 19 2015,12:05

(Leisher @ Feb. 19 2015,13:24)

QUOTE

Part of me thinks we often aren't willing to ask more of our politicians because we aren't wanting to look at ourselves either. We looked at Bill Clinton's cheating on his wife and lying his ass off and said, "But that doesn't make him a bad President".

That was so we didn't have to look at our cheating on our wife and lying our asses off and confront the possibility that we might be bad people.

Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 19 2015,12:16

QUOTE

We looked at Bill Clinton's cheating on his wife and lying his ass off and said, "But that doesn't make him a bad President".

That's double-edged sword. You want a slippery, lying bastard to deal with the rest of the world so they don't take advantage of your state. On the flip side, those same officials are in a prime position to take advantage of the citizenry as well.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 27 2015,10:28

The PC police are coming.

QUOTE

"You are on notice that we will be watching, reading, listening and protesting coded sexism this time around," West warned. "We expect you to exercise restraint and take editorial responsibility."

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 10 2015,10:26

< Fucking wow >. Republicans are giving her a boost. Nice one.

QUOTE

“This is just par for the course for the Clintons, they’re always a little bit secretive,” says a third.

Will this sway the vote of anyone that doesn't sport at tinfoil hat?

Posted by Leisher on Apr. 10 2015,11:46

Does one really need a tinfoil hat to think the Clintons have taken money?

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 10 2015,11:52

(Leisher @ Apr. 10 2015,13:46)

QUOTE

Does one really need a tinfoil hat to think the Clintons have taken money?

If the statement was, "The Clintons are awash in dirty money," I wouldn't complain. Then again, that statement's true of every member of Congress for several decades. The tone of that ad is pandering to the conspiracy theorists.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 10 2015,12:08

QUOTE

...secretive, ineffectual and dishonest...

It's almost like they've never heard of politics before.

Posted by Leisher on Apr. 28 2015,19:16

< Hillary is Vegas' favorite to win. >

However, Rubio is gaining steam.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 29 2015,17:15

I don't think she can pull it off. Not if any decent other choices come along.

Although admittedly a lack of decent choices is not improbable.

Posted by Malcolm on May 06 2015,12:08

< Bill says > his crackdown on crime was a major fuck up.

Posted by Vince on May 06 2015,13:16

Pffft. He'd say he's transgendered if it would a) get him laid b) help the family in politics.

Posted by Malcolm on May 06 2015,14:14

(Vince @ May 06 2015,15:16)

QUOTE

Pffft. He'd say he's transgendered if it would a) get him laid b) help the family in politics.

I don't think Bill needs help getting pussy. It's 100% that second thing, but it doesn't make him wrong.

Posted by Malcolm on May 22 2015,13:07

< Some emails > released.

Posted by Malcolm on May 31 2015,21:19

Heh. Was watching Die Hard 3.

QUOTE

Zeus: That's it!

John McClane: What?

Zeus: Hillary Clinton. The 42nd President.

John McClane: Nah, she'd be the 43rd President.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 02 2015,10:16

< The people's candidate >.

Posted by Leisher on Jun. 02 2015,10:44

< Most Americans don't trust her. >

That's the third time today I've left a word out of a sentence.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 02 2015,10:53

I don't trust anyone running for prez. They've no interest in serving the public.

Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 02 2015,11:23

(Leisher @ Jun. 02 2015,12:44)

QUOTE

< Most Americans don't trust her. >

Doesn't that make her over-qualified?

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 13 2015,11:19

< Hillary calls in a favour >.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 30 2015,10:13

< Can't afford Hillary >? Chelsea's a relative bargain.

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 13 2015,12:20

< Vows to chase away biz >.

QUOTE

Clinton also vowed to increase taxes on large corporations and the country’s highest wage-earners, an apparent effort to recapture her party’s progressive base now captivated by surging primary challenger Sanders and the reformer agenda of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who is not a 2016 candidate.

Posted by Leisher on Aug. 10 2015,10:43

< Hey look, a Democrat running for president is offering free stuff! >

What a novelty!

Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 10 2015,10:47

(Leisher @ Aug. 10 2015,12:43)

QUOTE

< Hey look, a Democrat running for president is offering free stuff! >

What a novelty!

Student loans costs are presently bullshit, but that's because the big schools can get away with insane prices.

Posted by Leisher on Aug. 10 2015,11:04

(Malcolm @ Aug. 10 2015,13:47)

QUOTE

(Leisher @ Aug. 10 2015,12:43)

QUOTE

< Hey look, a Democrat running for president is offering free stuff! >

What a novelty!

Student loans costs are presently bullshit, but that's because the big schools can get away with insane prices.

College is bullshit for most people and professions, but the way to fix that isn't to make taxpayers fund a free ride for everyone. Especially not in an election cycle when it's clearly a way to buy votes.

Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 10 2015,11:30

(Leisher @ Aug. 10 2015,13:04)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Aug. 10 2015,13:47)

QUOTE

(Leisher @ Aug. 10 2015,12:43)

QUOTE

< Hey look, a Democrat running for president is offering free stuff! >

What a novelty!

Student loans costs are presently bullshit, but that's because the big schools can get away with insane prices.

Having the gov't pay for about 50% of a degree for an in-demand field or hard science wouldn't be a bad thing. Saddling your grads with tens of thousands of dollars in debt is about as stupid as you can get.

Posted by Alhazad on Aug. 10 2015,12:06

(Malcolm @ Aug. 10 2015,11:30)

QUOTE

Well, it's at least as stupid as the tradition of choosing a field of study based on a snapshot and a hunch, with zero months of actual adult job sampling in the field.

Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 10 2015,12:17

(Alhazad @ Aug. 10 2015,14:06)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Aug. 10 2015,11:30)

QUOTE

Well, it's at least as stupid as the tradition of choosing a field of study based on a snapshot and a hunch, with zero months of actual adult job sampling in the field.

If they saw what jobs were actually like, they'd be in a better position to call out all the bullshit in college. Can't have that.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 10 2015,16:14

(Malcolm @ Aug. 10 2015,13:47)

QUOTE

(Leisher @ Aug. 10 2015,12:43)

QUOTE

< Hey look, a Democrat running for president is offering free stuff! >

What a novelty!

Student loans costs are presently bullshit, but that's because the big schools can get away with insane prices.

TPR will argue, but that's because their target market is easily given massive loans to pay for it. If colleges actually had to work with real economics in their operation, things would be a lot different

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 10 2015,17:04

Four year university prices are disgustingly inflated to the point of horseshittery. It's a system that's been propped up for decades by government money, and now that the government money has been drying up more and more gets pushed onto the students to the point of absurdity. This is compounded by the fact that it's treated in the same way medical care is; damn the price you better go to the best school you can or you'll be flipping burgers for the rest of your life. But of course that's self-reinforcing bullshit perpetuated by college graduates.

Two-year colleges are better. They're a little overpriced right now due to the decreases in government money but they weren't already wildly inflated like the four-year schools and generally have to tighten up the belt and act like a real business because the students they serve often just can't afford tuition hikes.

Although even the two-years are somewhat insulated from real economic pressures. Not all programs can be profitable without seriously jacking up the prices. We charge the same per credit hour whether you are taking a cheap-to-produce English course or a money-loosing Welding course. But the world still needs welders so until a better system replaces it it's all we've got.

What we don't need is more students getting a four-year academic bullshit degree and ending up with insane student debt they will never pay off in their lifetimes. That's wack.

Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 10 2015,19:40

(GORDON @ Aug. 10 2015,18:14)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Aug. 10 2015,13:47)

QUOTE

(Leisher @ Aug. 10 2015,12:43)

QUOTE

< Hey look, a Democrat running for president is offering free stuff! >

What a novelty!

Student loans costs are presently bullshit, but that's because the big schools can get away with insane prices.

I say stop the willy-nilly loans. Most children are bad investments in college. < We're barely > above a 50% graduation rate with a six-year time window. If you get more brutal and toss out the more worthless degrees, the useful grad rate has to be below 50%.

Posted by Alhazad on Aug. 10 2015,21:25

(Malcolm @ Aug. 10 2015,19:40)

QUOTE

Now here's a good idea. After parents and employers fail to pull their heads from their asses and notice that degrees are garbage, surprising no one, this move will have freed up additional market share for private banks and predatory lenders.

Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 11 2015,07:22

Most of my loans when through private banks.

Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 12 2015,10:19

< More info > on emails.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 13 2015,12:23

I have a dollar that says Hillary's personal IT guy is going to take the fall for her email server.

"It was our understanding that encryption was in place, and all procedures were being followed. Mr. IT Guy assured us we were in compliance with all regulations. We feel we observed our due diligence and are culpable for no wrongdoing. Hillary '16."

And then she'll win.

Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 13 2015,13:07

QUOTE

And then she'll win.

Because so far, the Republicans can't find a candidate legit enough to top Trump in most states.

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 13 2015,13:43

(GORDON @ Aug. 13 2015,14:23)

QUOTE

I have a dollar that says Hillary's ~~personal IT guy~~ cousin who works help desk at his day job and helps everyone in the family with their computer problems is going to take the fall for her email server.

Fixed.

I mean, we all know how that works.

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 01 2015,08:44

< 150 classified emails. >

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 01 2015,12:49

< Troll resurfaces >.

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 03 2015,06:11

< The fall guy is going to invoke the 5th. >

< It'll look like this. >

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 03 2015,06:31

(GORDON @ Aug. 13 2015,15:23)

QUOTE

I have a dollar that says Hillary's personal IT guy is going to take the fall for her email server.

QUOTE

Pagliano is a former IT staffer who worked for Clinton and assisted with her email and server.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 03 2015,07:26

Posted by Leisher on Oct. 01 2015,07:56

< Bill tries to push a "vast right wing conspiracy" theory. >

Sorry Bill, but unless the right is trying to make themselves look like dopes to the American voters, there's no right wing conspiracy. Their crazy is on full display.

Posted by Leisher on Nov. 05 2015,12:49

< Guy interviews woman Hillary voters about Sharia Law. They all think it's a great idea. >

I'll bet they're all familiar with the day to day news on the Kardashians though!

There should be a quiz people have to take before they can vote just to prove they're not morons.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 05 2015,12:51

(Leisher @ Nov. 05 2015,15:49)

QUOTE

The Spiritual Successor to The Man Show's "End Womens Suffrage Now!" awareness that tons of women supported, on camera.

Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 05 2015,12:55

QUOTE

There should be a quiz people have to take before they can vote just to prove they're not morons.

That ought to apply to both voters and votees.

< Here >.

QUOTE

Bill Maher: You are one of the very few people who are actually running this country. It worries me that people are running my country who think-, who believe in a talking snake.

Sen. Mark Pryor: You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the Senate, though.

Posted by Leisher on Nov. 05 2015,13:00

(Malcolm @ Nov. 05 2015,15:55)

QUOTE

There should be a quiz people have to take before they can vote just to prove they're not morons.

That ought to apply to both voters and votees.

< Here >.

QUOTE

Insert a joke about Bill Maher being a talking snake himself here.

Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 05 2015,13:11

I've seen that documentary several times. I wouldn't be able to keep a straight face and finish 75% of those interviews. The dude's quite the socialist and his grasp of economics is so far off the map, it's in another solar system. To his defense, he does try to find some non-insane priests/shamans/whatever to put on camera, like < this guy >, who I'd support for Pope in half a second flat. Why the fuck don't they make priests like that anymore?

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 05 2015,13:13

(Malcolm @ Nov. 05 2015,15:55)

QUOTE

There should be a quiz people have to take before they can vote just to prove they're not morons.

That ought to apply to both voters and votees.

< Here >.

QUOTE

I forget when they stopped doing literacy tests at the voting stations, but it was deemed illegal because of racism.

Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 05 2015,13:24

(Leisher @ Nov. 05 2015,14:49)

QUOTE

There should be a quiz people have to take before they can vote just to prove they're not morons.

Of course that will never happen; the two parties are counting on people being idiots. That's their power base.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 05 2015,13:33

(TPRJones @ Nov. 05 2015,16:24)

QUOTE

(Leisher @ Nov. 05 2015,14:49)

QUOTE

There should be a quiz people have to take before they can vote just to prove they're not morons.

Of course that will never happen; the two parties are counting on people being idiots. That's their power base.

I unironically think it should go back to only landowners being allowed to vote. It suggests the voter has their shit together to some extent.

Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 05 2015,14:14

(GORDON @ Nov. 05 2015,15:13)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Nov. 05 2015,15:55)

QUOTE

There should be a quiz people have to take before they can vote just to prove they're not morons.

That ought to apply to both voters and votees.

< Here >.

QUOTE

I forget when they stopped doing literacy tests at the voting stations, but it was deemed illegal because of racism.

Because those tests were frequently racist back in the day. The white dudes got the equivalent of explaining two sentences from the contemporary version of "Go, Dog, Go" while everyone else got the densest, driest, vaguest literature they could dig up from insane philosophers and overachieving playwrights or authors.

I doubt that shit would be pulled today because we have things like grading scales that can approximate how much of a bitch something is to read ... and mofos would be recording that shit on their phones nowadays.

QUOTE

I unironically think it should go back to only landowners being allowed to vote. It suggests the voter has their shit together to some extent.

Home ownership is not a good measure to judge anything, be it financial, political, or mental.

Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 05 2015,14:34

Literacy tests would still be considered racist now because minorities don't get the same educational opportunities as rich white kids. Therefor white privilege and whatnot.

No one gives a crap about poor white kids, mind you.

Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 05 2015,14:48

I'm pretty sure you can find a literacy class wherever you live for free with minimal effort.

Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 05 2015,15:55

But poor minorities are too busy working three or more jobs to make ends meet and have no time for literacy classes. Why do you hate poor people?

Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 05 2015,18:43

(TPRJones @ Nov. 05 2015,17:55)

QUOTE

But poor minorities are too busy working three or more jobs to make ends meet and have no time for literacy classes. Why do you hate poor people?

If they want to vote, they must prove they see the words as more than arbitrary symbols. Unless they have kids/G's MiL, they waste money like mad, or they're sending it home to whomever they don't need three jobs. Communication is an inescapable necessity for voting and if you can't read, you can't even point out where your right to piss away your votes on retarded people and things is guaranteed in the bill o' rights.

Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 06 2015,04:01

Well if that's all you are worried about, that's easily solved in this age of electronic voting machines. Put little pictures of the candidates next to their names. Or have the machine read out the ballot to the voter. Problem solved.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 06 2015,04:46

Let's also keep pulling Alzheimers zombies out of nursing homes and telling them, "You always vote democrat, so have at it."

Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 06 2015,07:44

(TPRJones @ Nov. 06 2015,06:01)

QUOTE

Works fine unless your vote is something more complex than who's elected to what office. Comprehension involves more than hearing what's said. Ballots would need to be overhauled to bring them down to an appropriate vocabulary level for the mythical busy illiterates who still aren't quite sure what document gives them this "right to vote" nor how any of those words are spelled, or maybe even sound like. There are matters that are occasionally annoying enough to warrant detailed debate. In those cases, pandering to the lowest common denominator means stupifying your law. Which brings me back to the "you must prove you're mentally competent to vote, and that means fucking literacy" law. You can also go back to the voting system they had in the olden days when gov't motherfuckers would just stop by your house and you'd declare your choice on your porch in front of the rest of the neighbourhood.

Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 06 2015,16:39

Personally I think a literacy test doesn't go far enough. Each item on the ballot should be accompanied by a couple of fairly simple questions specific to that proposal or those candidates, and if you can't answer correctly and thus prove you are informed about that item on the ballot then your vote is invalid.

Do your homework or your vote is junked.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 07 2015,19:15

This guy breaks down her money laundering operations, and notes the MSM will never cover it.

< http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archive....es.html >

Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 07 2015,19:21

(GORDON @ Nov. 07 2015,22:15)

QUOTE

This guy breaks down her money laundering operations, and notes the MSM will never cover it.

< http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archive....es.html >

< Here's the apparent source of the accusations. >

Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 18 2015,10:06

< Bernie hacks Hillary >.

Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 18 2015,12:08

QUOTE

She added, "That is just like if you walked into someone's home when the door was unlocked and took things that don't belong to you in order to use them for your own benefit. That's inappropriate. Unacceptable."

No. No it is not. If someone walks into your house and takes your television you will no longer have a television. The data was not subsequently deleted so that the Hillary campaign no longer had it. This is still wrong and should be treated as such, but it's a very different sort of wrong than burglary you brainless twat.

Posted by Leisher on Jan. 05 2016,07:27

< Hillary will get to the bottom of Area 51 and UFOs. >

QUOTE

“I think we may have been [visited already]. We don’t know for sure,” she responded.

Maybe I'm jaded, but I think if you're looking for media bias, here's the story for you. The MSM didn't bat an eye to this, yet if any GOP candidate made this statement they'd be mocked for it.

Without even taking into account the aliens don't exist crowd, we're to believe a presidential candidate is going to reveal huge secrets to us that former presidents, including her husband, didn't share with us?

I mean, she hasn't considered that perhaps there's a reason the public isn't told the truth if it's out there? Oh wait, this is the lady who sends classified emails via her Yahoo account.

Posted by GORDON on Jan. 05 2016,08:05

(Leisher @ Jan. 05 2016,10:27)

QUOTE

Oh wait, this is the lady who sends classified emails via her Yahoo account.

Is it cool to keep calling people who criticize dems "racist" even after Obama is gone? I guess we'll prolly have to move on to calling people "sexists."

Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 05 2016,19:21

QUOTE

“I think we may have been [visited already]. We don’t know for sure,” she responded.

< Aliens >. I guarantee it.

QUOTE

They have been sighted from mountaintops to the deep sea, from tropical rain forests to the Antarctic.

Tardigrades are notable for being perhaps the most durable of known organisms; they are able to survive extreme conditions that would be rapidly fatal to nearly all other known life forms. They can withstand temperature ranges from 1 K (−458 °F; −272 °C) to about 420 K (300 °F; 150 °C),[7] pressures about six times greater than those found in the deepest ocean trenches, ionizing radiation at doses hundreds of times higher than the lethal dose for a human, and the vacuum of outer space. They can go without food or water for more than 10 years, drying out to the point where they are 3% or less water, only to rehydrate, forage, and reproduce. They are not considered extremophilic because they are not adapted to exploit these conditions. This means that their chances of dying increase the longer they are exposed to the extreme environments, whereas true extremophiles thrive in a physically or geochemically extreme environment that would harm most other organisms.

There is literally no reason on Earth that any species would evolve like that.

But the Area 51 talk is fucking stupid.

QUOTE

The Democratic frontrunner also added that her campaign chairman John Podesta is a big fan of UFOlogy.

UFOlogy = "unnecessarily fucking over" someone?

Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 29 2016,12:49

< Remember those emails >? You aren't going to see them all.

Posted by GORDON on Jan. 29 2016,12:52

Why can't we see them? The Chinese already have.

Posted by Leisher on Feb. 02 2016,09:35

< Article about Iowa's tie/just barely Hillary win/whatever. >

Anyway, this quote amazes me, and it's really a Sanders thing:

QUOTE

“Tonight, while the results are still not known, it looks like we are in a virtual tie,” Sanders said to raucous cheers at his caucus-night party in a Holiday Inn ballroom in Des Moines. “I think the people of Iowa have sent a very profound message to the political establishment, to the economic establishment — and, by the way, to the media establishment.”

Huh?

Does he realize he's a Democrat? They are the establishment. They are the media.

Do his voters really believe this stuff?

Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 02 2016,09:43

His voters believe that the media has it out for him, and so does the Democratic machine. He and his supporters believe that both are firmly in the pocket of Hillary. He's certainly not wrong about the latter, I can't comment in an informed manner about the former.

Posted by Leisher on Feb. 02 2016,09:59

Ah. Ok, I'll accept that line of reasoning.

Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 17 2016,12:56

< You know Bill was there >, working the audience.

Posted by Leisher on Mar. 03 2016,07:28

< FBI grants immunity to Clinton staffer. >

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 03 2016,07:44

Just in time for her to get the Democratic nomination.

Which wont hurt the base, they'll just call it a republican witch hunt and double down on her.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 03 2016,07:54

(GORDON @ Mar. 03 2016,09:44)

QUOTE

Just in time for her to get the Democratic nomination.

Which wont hurt the base, they'll just call it a republican witch hunt and double down on her.

The alternative to her is Trump. I'd take either the aliens from ID4 or Pacific Rim before I'll see a Trump in the White House.

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 03 2016,07:57

(TheCatt @ May 15 2014,16:04)

QUOTE

(Leisher @ May 15 2014,14:12)

QUOTE

Does anyone honestly think she's not going to cruise to a victory?

What odds are you giving?

At that point, I couldn't believe Hillary would win.

Now, I can't believe she won't win.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 03 2016,08:00

(Malcolm @ Mar. 03 2016,10:54)

QUOTE

(GORDON @ Mar. 03 2016,09:44)

QUOTE

Just in time for her to get the Democratic nomination.

Which wont hurt the base, they'll just call it a republican witch hunt and double down on her.

The alternative to her is Trump. I'd take either the aliens from ID4 or Pacific Rim before I'll see a Trump in the White House.

I've been saying "let it burn" for years, now. I see Trump as the culmination of that. I am amused by his successes.

Calling it: If Trump starts actively speaking out against established politics, he'll win in a landslide. I think he's securing the republican nomination, though, before he starts trashing them.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 03 2016,08:13

(GORDON @ Mar. 03 2016,10:00)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Mar. 03 2016,10:54)

QUOTE

(GORDON @ Mar. 03 2016,09:44)

QUOTE

Just in time for her to get the Democratic nomination.

Which wont hurt the base, they'll just call it a republican witch hunt and double down on her.

The alternative to her is Trump. I'd take either the aliens from ID4 or Pacific Rim before I'll see a Trump in the White House.

Trump will be crushed in a way not seen since the < '84 election >. Kind of like this, but with the colours reversed, and I'm not sure what his one state will be. It could be a shutout for the first time in presidential election history.

Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 03 2016,09:56

I just don't know. Ask me in five minutes and there's a 50/50 chance I would swear it will be a Hillary landslide. Ask me five minutes after that and I'll be just as sure it will be Trump-astrophic. And both times I will be very annoyed about it.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 03 2016,10:06

QUOTE

Ask me five minutes after that and I'll be just as sure it will be Trump-astrophic.

Normally, I'd say wait until running mates and debates with both parties come into play. Normally.

1) Republicans have a hard enough time winning when the majority of them are fully behind a candidate. They need to win over people pissed about Obama who voted for him in the first place. Trump is not the dude to capitalize on that. There's no fucking way a left-leaning citizen takes a look at Hillary, then Donnie Dickweed, and says reality TV show guy scares him less. The donkeys aren't losing support to the right.

2) Trump can't even get a united pachyderm party. Are those voters going Hillary? Shit, no. They're going 3rd party or not at all.

3) There's the chance Donnie's cloak of invulnerability springs a leak and he says something so fucking dumb he becomes an older, whiter Kanye.

Posted by Leisher on Mar. 03 2016,10:46

Here's the problem with the polling numbers people keep quoting... They're asking people who won't vote in November.

They keep showing Sanders crushing Trump, but Sanders isn't going to win his party's nomination. Once Hillary gets the nod, the Democrats will lose the "young vote". All of the morons who embrace Bernie's socialist message will not be turning out to vote like they did for Barry.

Meanwhile, while the MSM keeps proudly writing articles about polls showing Hillary beating Trump, just as many other polls show Trump beating Hillary.

And the thing about Trump that people keep talking about, but not focusing on is that his supporters are angry. They're going to vote. Even the folks who backed Cruz and Rubio and whoever else are going to come out to vote for Trump because they will NOT vote for Hillary.

I could be wrong and maybe Hillary wins in a landslide, but she's not the better of two options. She's a crooked, unethical, elitist cunt and even the Dems know that. It's why they passed her over for Barry, and why they want to pass her over for Sanders, but being that he's a socialist many refuse to go that route.

Do NOT overlook Dems simply not showing up to vote, and thus, Trump wins.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 03 2016,11:45

QUOTE

Even the folks who backed Cruz and Rubio and whoever else are going to come out to vote for Trump because they will NOT vote for Hillary.

I disagree entirely. Those votes, for the most part, just stay home.

QUOTE

She's a crooked, unethical, elitist cunt...

Except for "she," I'd say that's much like Trump.

QUOTE

Do NOT overlook Dems simply not showing up to vote...

If Rubio or Cruz wins the nomination, then maybe. But I expect the blues to get galvinized precisely because Trump's their opponent. Even I have to fight back the strong urge to go out and vote for the candidate running against him.

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 03 2016,12:05

I probably would have voted for Rubio or Bush. I will not vote for Cruz or Trump. I would vote for Hillary if Trump wins the R nomination.

Posted by Leisher on Mar. 03 2016,12:10

I'm just saying that all I hear from "people who know" is that Trump will get crushed by Hillary. These same people said Trump's lead won't last.

I won't vote for Trump, but I also won't vote for Hillary. Third party vote for me!

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 03 2016,12:16

(Leisher @ Mar. 03 2016,15:10)

QUOTE

If you want to put $ on it... and odds... lemme know

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 03 2016,12:20

(TheCatt @ Mar. 03 2016,14:16)

QUOTE

(Leisher @ Mar. 03 2016,15:10)

QUOTE

If you want to put $ on it... and odds... lemme know

I'll take a piece of that action.

Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 03 2016,13:36

You know, if it really does come down to Hillary and Trump then this is the ideal year for a popular figure to jump in as a third-party candidate and maybe win the whole thing. It would have to be someone that isn't really aligned with either party and can appeal to a wide range of voters who will be willing to overlook the fact that they don't agree on all the issues but will do so because they like the individual and think he or she will make a good figurehead compared to the other shittier options.

Deadpool 2016.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 03 2016,14:09

(TPRJones @ Mar. 03 2016,15:36)

QUOTE

Not a chance.

1) Way, way, way too many single issue voters and morons swayed by misinformation. Had Trump run independent, Rubio and Cruz would be openly stealing his shit.

2) Any popular 3rd party candidate will have their most appealing ideas stolen and subverted by one or both major parties.

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 03 2016,14:23

(TPRJones @ Mar. 03 2016,16:36)

QUOTE

If it had been Sanders/Trump, I'd agree with you. Perhaps just cuz I would never vote for either of those people.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 03 2016,14:35

(Malcolm @ Mar. 03 2016,17:09)

QUOTE

2) Any popular 3rd party candidate will have their most appealing ideas stolen and subverted by one or both major parties.

Who, after the election, will ignore them.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 03 2016,14:39

More I think about it, the more funding has to be cut to major candidates.

QUOTE

Hillary Clinton (D)
$57,748,407
$130,443,637

Ted Cruz ®
$46,726,605
$54,661,506

Bernie Sanders (D)
$45,234
$96,311,423

Marco Rubio ®
$34,313,903
$34,652,654

Donald Trump ®
$1,894,509
$25,526,319

Top number is outside funding, bottom is committee money. I'll attribute the Trump anomaly to the fact he has sizable personal wealth and is going for the nomination of a party that could kindly be called "a motherfucking joke" right now. Who's got $20M to test this "third party" theory?

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 03 2016,14:43

The best part is that a lot of that bribe money comes from overseas cuz gosh darn it, they just plum forget to track it.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 03 2016,14:44

(Malcolm @ Mar. 03 2016,17:39)

QUOTE

Who's got $20M to test this "third party" theory?

Doesn't matter, the networks aren't going to invite you to the debates because you aren't one of the two approved parties, and no one is ever going to hear of you.

As I keep saying, the system is unfixable, and it needs to burn so we can get back to something that works.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 03 2016,14:51

QUOTE

the networks aren't going to invite you to the debates because you aren't one of the two approved parties, and no one is ever going to hear of you.

Really? If that retarded Korean rapper Psy can get a billion youtube hits, I'm sure some third-party dude could hit up 100M. You could simulcast during the debates, and inject your own wise-ass commentary into them, < which seems to be the new thing these days >. You could MST3K that shit. Did you see the last pachyderm debate? It was like 3 of the shittiest, least likable insult comics all on stage at the same time filming an episode of "Whose Line Is It Anyway?"

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 03 2016,14:57

(Malcolm @ Mar. 03 2016,17:39)

QUOTE

Who's got $20M to test this "third party" theory?

< Someone has heard Malcolm's call >

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 03 2016,15:10

(TheCatt @ Mar. 03 2016,16:57)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Mar. 03 2016,17:39)

QUOTE

Who's got $20M to test this "third party" theory?

< Someone has heard Malcolm's call >

Optimistically, I hope he's more than a one-article-trick pony. Realistically, I think the best any 3P candidate could do is pull a Perot from '92 and be a 50/50 serious/comic sideshow.

QUOTE

The antivirus millionaire calls the election a "clown show" and describes the current candidates as "children."

1) Unless they are of the killer variety and hail from outer space, most people like clowns and the circus.

2) They are children. But then again, that describes exactly the voting sheep to whom they pander. Since 9/11, the American presidential race has been little more than which mouthpiece sounds and looks better and therefore can herd more brainless voters into their particular corral through lies, platitudes, and fear-mongering. I don't want a "better" candidate or player in that system, I want the game changed. The tradition needs to go out the fucking window.

Traditions that need to fucking die:
1) Two-party system: I wish I knew how. Maybe they'll cluelessly run their fund wells dry one day or the voting public will smarten up. Debates must include more options, period. Determining that "fairly" is a bitch without having 100 candidates in the mix all claiming equality. A popularity tally might work. Every citizen gets to vote for up to X parties to show at a debate, cap it at 5-6 parties max. Do that shit online.

2) Something must be done about the cash. The adverts themselves aren't the real issue. You can do a decent one with a grey background and YouTube that mofo. It's the money to buy off the right motherfuckers to endorse you. That goes back to that single issue thing again. Want the NRA endorsement? Better not vote for gun control in any way, shape, or form. Want the AARP endorsement? Better not even think about entitlement cuts. If only you could send their boards of directors on multi-week vacations to the Bahamas to see things your way.

3) Debates: FUCK live debates with all the corrupt bastards in the same room. The pachyderms looked like goddamn preschoolers bitching about which of them would make a better Batman. Do it online. Why? Because then you can 100% guarantee that only one puppet candidate is talking at a time. Mute button, motherfuckers, at the moderator's disposal.

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 03 2016,15:54

You can't trash the 2 party system, the system is setup for it. Sure, there'll briefly be 3rd parties, but never for long.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 03 2016,16:16

(TheCatt @ Mar. 03 2016,18:54)

QUOTE

You can't trash the 2 party system, the system is setup for it. Sure, there'll briefly be 3rd parties, but never for long.

Unless they can make a earworm pop song while telling people to vote for them.

Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 03 2016,16:48

(GORDON @ Mar. 03 2016,16:44)

QUOTE

Our two-parties-filled-with-extremists system is the inevitable result of our first-past-the-post voting system coupled to the primary system. It heavily punishes anyone that doesn't vote for the two main parties and because everything gets boiled down to two choices only the most extreme candidates get past the primaries.

If we switched to a < single transferable vote > that would fix most of the problems over time. There'd be more parties with more options and the extremists end up alone in their own crazy parties instead of being lumped in with - and basically taking over - their less-crazy ideological neighbors.

Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 03 2016,16:54

(Malcolm @ Mar. 03 2016,17:10)

QUOTE

...most people like clowns...

< Nope >.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 03 2016,17:21

(TPRJones @ Mar. 03 2016,19:48)

QUOTE

(GORDON @ Mar. 03 2016,16:44)

QUOTE

Why would "they" fix anything when the current system assures them they make money? "They" control the government, media, and federal law enforcement. Nothing is going to change without blood.

How's that for melodrama.

Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 03 2016,17:38

Indeed. I didn't saw we would switch, just that it's a required change in order to improve the situation. I expect the next iteration of our nation to use a better voting system than this one did.

Nothing melodramatic about what I said above, by the way. It's just game theory built on human psychology applied to voting systems. It's "inevitable" just because people are what they are and the way they respond collectively to systems is highly predictable.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 03 2016,19:38

(TPRJones @ Mar. 03 2016,18:54)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Mar. 03 2016,17:10)

QUOTE

...most people like clowns...

< Nope >.

I guess I underestimated the impact of

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 10 2016,18:30

My final guess is that the executive branch has no intention of allowing the FBI to charge Hillary for crimes with all with all that private email server/classified document stuff.

Either nothing will happen, or as I predicted a long time ago, the IT guy gets thrown under the bus.

Or, long odds, it drags out until after the election, THEN it will be ignored.

Posted by Leisher on Mar. 14 2016,13:38

< Hillary got a new endorsement today. >

Remember what I was saying in the Trump thread about the opposition using plants to get you bad headlines?

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 14 2016,13:46

Unlike with Trump, I don't expect the press to ask her over and over on the campaign trail why the KKK would endorse her.

Posted by Alhazad on Mar. 14 2016,13:59

(GORDON @ Mar. 14 2016,13:46)

QUOTE

Unlike with Trump, I don't expect the press to ask her over and over on the campaign trail why the KKK would endorse her.

If you take three months off from work and follow her press events around to bring it up, I promise to write you in as my vote after Senator Sanders loses.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 14 2016,14:08

(Leisher @ Mar. 14 2016,15:38)

QUOTE

< Hillary got a new endorsement today. >

Remember what I was saying in the Trump thread about the opposition using plants to get you bad headlines?

QUOTE

We want Hillary Clinton to win. She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda.

Stop the fucking presses.

Posted by Leisher on Mar. 15 2016,08:38

< The Secret Service hates her. >

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 15 2016,08:51

(Leisher @ Mar. 15 2016,10:38)

QUOTE

< The Secret Service hates her. >

QUOTE

As he told me: “No one would hire such a person to work at a McDonald’s, and yet she is being considered for president of the United States.”

Describes Trump just as accurately. Shit, I wouldn't hire him to shine shoes.

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 15 2016,11:38

(Leisher @ Mar. 15 2016,11:38)

QUOTE

< The Secret Service hates her. >

I'm really fine with that.

Posted by Leisher on Mar. 15 2016,12:41

People talk about Trump being a child and not wanting to put someone with that temperament in the Oval Office, but is she better? (And this is NOT a argument for Trump.)

Do I really want a president who has earned the hate and disrespect of everyone around her?

If she hates and is disrespectful towards the people who fight and die for the country, hell...FOR HER, then how does she feel about us peasants?

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 15 2016,12:43

QUOTE

...then how does she feel about us peasants?

The same way every other politician does, which I assume is the same feeling I get about stairs when I walk on them.

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 15 2016,12:50

(Leisher @ Mar. 15 2016,15:41)

QUOTE

I'm not trying to be friends with the person. We aren't Canada, we are a real country.

Posted by Alhazad on Mar. 15 2016,12:59

(TheCatt @ Mar. 15 2016,11:38)

QUOTE

(Leisher @ Mar. 15 2016,11:38)

QUOTE

< The Secret Service hates her. >

I'm really fine with that.

I liked the part where she was rude to cops.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 08 2016,11:19

< The REAL > issue finally surfaces.

QUOTE

John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, says it’s time for the U.S. government to release any evidence it has about the existence of alien forms of life in outer space.

Posted by Leisher on Apr. 08 2016,12:28

< Clinton's hacker extradicted to the U.S., but why? >

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 08 2016,12:37

(Leisher @ Apr. 08 2016,15:28)

QUOTE

< Clinton's hacker extradicted to the U.S., but why? >

A dollar says he ends up dead.

Posted by Leisher on Apr. 08 2016,13:11

(GORDON @ Apr. 08 2016,15:37)

QUOTE

(Leisher @ Apr. 08 2016,15:28)

QUOTE

< Clinton's hacker extradicted to the U.S., but why? >

A dollar says he ends up dead.

You could have made that $100 and felt safe about your bet.

After all, he's in his twenties and if he lives to old age, you'll be long gone before he dies, and thus, would have to pay up.

Posted by Leisher on Apr. 08 2016,13:26

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 08 2016,14:09

(Leisher @ Apr. 08 2016,16:26)

QUOTE

Challenge ac.... um.... no. But I can use that image to last longer now.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 08 2016,18:22

(Leisher @ Apr. 08 2016,16:11)

QUOTE

(GORDON @ Apr. 08 2016,15:37)

QUOTE

(Leisher @ Apr. 08 2016,15:28)

QUOTE

< Clinton's hacker extradicted to the U.S., but why? >

A dollar says he ends up dead.

You could have made that $100 and felt safe about your bet.

After all, he's in his twenties and if he lives to old age, you'll be long gone before he dies, and thus, would have to pay up.

I was going to use that excuse as a fallback in case he didn't die. Thanks for costing me a dollar.