2016 Election Thread Part Deux

#2,377
#2,377
lawgator1 said:
We already see bits and pieces of how this right wing dance goes:

Step 1: Conservative blogger writes that she will be indicted. No source or fact cited.

Step 2: Breitbart reports that unnamed sources say that unnammed people in unidentified positions at unidentified agencies, are saying she will be indicted.

Step 3: Drudge links Breitbart with siren thingy.

Step 4: Fox has roundtable during "news" segment during which Krauthammer and that snide little f%ck from the Weekly Standard reference these reports as news and then make absolutely astonishingly stupid analogy to Petraeus, for the 3,945th time.

Step 5: WND or Breitbart (they are all interchangeable at this point) runs story that unnamed people claim that unidentified officials are saying some other unnamed people got fired because they wanted to indict her but couldn't.

Step 6: Drudge links with siren thingy.

Step 7: Fox has roundtable during "news" segment during which Krauthammer and that snide little f%ck from the Weekly Standard reference these reports as news and then claim it is proof she was supposed to be indicted but conspiracy by Obama must have blocked it.

Step 8: Fools, including a bunch of the folks on this board, nod in agreement, send in checks, never ask any question about the "facts," because to do so risks getting answers they don't really want to hear.

Repeat.
Click to expand...

It's quite the little fantasy world you've built for yourself. So full of hate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#2,378
#2,378
lawgator1 said:
We already see bits and pieces of how this right wing dance goes:

Step 1: Conservative blogger writes that she will be indicted. No source or fact cited.

Step 2: Breitbart reports that unnamed sources say that unnammed people in unidentified positions at unidentified agencies, are saying she will be indicted.

Step 3: Drudge links Breitbart with siren thingy.

Step 4: Fox has roundtable during "news" segment during which Krauthammer and that snide little f%ck from the Weekly Standard reference these reports as news and then make absolutely astonishingly stupid analogy to Petraeus, for the 3,945th time.

Step 5: WND or Breitbart (they are all interchangeable at this point) runs story that unnamed people claim that unidentified officials are saying some other unnamed people got fired because they wanted to indict her but couldn't.

Step 6: Drudge links with siren thingy.

Step 7: Fox has roundtable during "news" segment during which Krauthammer and that snide little f%ck from the Weekly Standard reference these reports as news and then claim it is proof she was supposed to be indicted but conspiracy by Obama must have blocked it.

Step 8: Fools, including a bunch of the folks on this board, nod in agreement, send in checks, never ask any question about the "facts," because to do so risks getting answers they don't really want to hear.

Repeat.
Click to expand...

Where was your indignation when Romney was smeared by strawman arguments on the left? Here were a quick couple but many more could be listed: Harry Reid (Romeny hasn't paid taxes in years) and George Stephanopoulos (war on women bs). The shoe is on the other foot this time and the strawman cometh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,381
#2,381
I don't think Hillary or Trump is a good choice. Trump is a blow hard who's mouth will get him in more trouble than his arrogance. Hillary is a career politician (yes being First Lady of Arkansas and the US is a political job) who's life long goal is to become the 1st woman president. Many people in this country will vote their party no matter who is running, so those votes will cancel themselves out. Which of the 2 is more appealing to the rest of America??? Who appeals to 1st time voters (college kids)? Who's gonna win the retirement communities like souther Florida?

This may end up the biggest mud slinging campaign in history. We're going to hear more lies about these 2 than we ever really wanna hear. As TO says, get ya popcorn ready
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,382
#2,382
A nation of nearly 325 million, and this is it. This is the best we're capable of: the two most despised (potential) nominees in our history.

If you're a religious person, I would advise you to pray. If you're a non-religious person, like myself, I advise you to lock yourself in a dark closet somewhere really lonely and just ride this one out, as you close your eyes and think of America.
 
#2,383
#2,383
Sin City Vol said:
I don't think Hillary or Trump is a good choice. Trump is a blow hard who's mouth will get him in more trouble than his arrogance. Hillary is a career politician (yes being First Lady of Arkansas and the US is a political job) who's life long goal is to become the 1st woman president. Many people in this country will vote their party no matter who is running, so those votes will cancel themselves out. Which of the 2 is more appealing to the rest of America??? Who appeals to 1st time voters (college kids)? Who's gonna win the retirement communities like souther Florida?

This may end up the biggest mud slinging campaign in history. We're going to hear more lies about these 2 than we ever really wanna hear. As TO says, get ya popcorn ready
Click to expand...

Either would be disastrous for the country. At this point I'm just going to enjoy the absurdity and laugh at the losers, because regardless of who wins the feigned outrage will be comical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,388
#2,388
marcusluvsvols said:
Am I the only 1 that thinks it is hilarious that LG watches more fox news than anyone in this forum? I don't know the name of a single person that Broadcasts this stuff except Megan jelly , because she is hot.

I would bet my left but that our liberal squeaker and designated Obama blower watches more fox news and reads more conservative websites than any conservative here. I am dead serious. He always knows exactly what they are talking about, who is on which program, etc. It's amazing.

By the way, I will vote straight conservative republican all the way down the liNE and I don't even know what channel fox news is here in charlotte. No idea. I read what I need to know online, and form my own opinions. Don't need a talking head to think for me.
Click to expand...

LG is VN's jester. And I'm with you. Of the 100s of channels I have I can name off the sports channels, history, natgeo, and several more. I have no idea which channel is Fox News. I always have to search for MSNBC when I want to watch the meltdown after a R sweep. Entertainment doesn't get much better than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,389
#2,389
Just watched Trump's foreign policy speech. Started kinda shaky reading from the teleprompter - very un-Trump like but he got away from straight reading and ended up doing pretty good with the teleprompter.

Nothing to controversial - took some big shots at Obama/Clinton. Biggest controversy will be making allies pull their weight. Otherwise it was acceptable for the big picture "Trump-doctrine" (if there's such a thing).
 
#2,390
#2,390
All one has to do to see the dishonesty inherent in what Trump says is to look at how he handled building the "world's greatest golf course" in Scotland. But he's gonna win, and we are all ****ed.
 
#2,391
#2,391
volinbham said:
Just watched Trump's foreign policy speech. Started kinda shaky reading from the teleprompter - very un-Trump like but he got away from straight reading and ended up doing pretty good with the teleprompter.

Nothing to controversial - took some big shots at Obama/Clinton. Biggest controversy will be making allies pull their weight. Otherwise it was acceptable for the big picture "Trump-doctrine" (if there's such a thing).
Click to expand...

Larger military and smaller deficit is about as incoherent as it gets, but, overall, it was his most sound statement on foreign policy. I vehemently disagree with his proposed tactics and strategies, but I do agree with his vision for an American foreign policy that is far more cautious and not as concerned about state-building.
 
#2,392
#2,392
UTCVol said:
Truer words have never been spoken.
Click to expand...

volinbham said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

I'm going to officially designate this the "Loser Election," because everyone involved - candidates and voters - will be losers, regardless of winning or losing the ballets.

I don't think I've ever felt so helpless, as both an American and a voter. It's like watching a car accident from across a busy intersection, and you can see it coming from a mile away but there's absolutely nothing you can do about it, other than to watch the collision and hope for the best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,394
#2,394
volprof said:
Larger military and smaller deficit is about as incoherent as it gets, but, overall, it was his most sound statement on foreign policy. I vehemently disagree with his proposed tactics and strategies, but I do agree with his vision for an American foreign policy that is far more cautious and not as concerned about state-building.
Click to expand...

Trump: Caution and restraint are signs of strength. Isn't that the Obama doctrine???
 
#2,395
#2,395
volprof said:
I'm going to officially designate this the "Loser Election," because everyone involved - candidates and voters - will be losers, regardless of winning or losing the ballets.

I don't think I've ever felt so helpless, as both an American and a voter. It's like watching a car accident from across a busy intersection, and you can see it coming from a mile away but there's absolutely nothing you can do about it, other than to watch the collision and hope for the best.
Click to expand...

Eh, I felt the same way in 2008.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,396
#2,396
SpaceCoastVol said:
You assume people care about any of that. Look at who occupies 1600 Pa. Ave. The electorate doesn't care about anything but voting in another Clinton.
Click to expand...

Yep, it's downright scary. Last time they got to vote for the first black president, so they could claim they made history. Then they doubled down on dumb after four years of incompetence. Now they can elect the first woman - and the first husband and wife presidents - maybe if enough of them watched Trump on absurd TV programs it counterbalances some of that.

The real problem is that while most of us here look at elections as serious matters (or at least as serious as you can get with the parade of clowns up for election), we'd really like for at least half the electorate to scrape up enough wit to even bring them up to the level of seeing the election as a popularity contest. A real attempt to educate themselves on issues and to divine something from candidate drivel is out of the question.
 
#2,400
#2,400
carlos86 said:
Trump: Caution and restraint are signs of strength. Isn't that the Obama doctrine???
Click to expand...

No the Obama doctrine is being out to lunch and avoidance. "Let's have a party - whatever - it will take care of itself." Send a couple of drones in, put some video on the news, claim another top terrorist gone, and pass out the T-shirts - party time!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top