What's new
By:
Filters

In today's news...


Re: In today's news...

RIP Arnold Palmer, one of the greatest golfers to ever play the game. You will be missed.

You must be registered to see the links
 
Re: In today's news...

What interesting times we live in

When cartoon frogs are considered hate symbols
You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links
 
Re: In today's news...

Rule 34 said:
You must be registered to see the links
Click to expand...

It's difficult to trust videos like this when they don't give equal bashing to the opposite candidate.

I've heard bad things about Hillary too. I don't think either candidate is a good idea, but we're going to get one of them for president, unfortunately.
 
Re: In today's news...

Oh, Keith Olbermann is undoubtedly biased. Each and every segment of "The Closer" has attacked Trump. However... that doesn't change the fact that Trump did each and every one of the things in that video. To see it summed up like that really puts things into perspective, I think.
 
Re: In today's news...

You can't fall into false equivalency though. Everything accused of Hillary could be true and she'd still be head and shoulders above Trump.

I mean, a phrase exists almost perfectly for this election cycle: The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know.
 
Re: In today's news...

Actions speak louder than words. Anyone can go out and make themselves infamous for what they say. I'm sure everyone's been guilty of saying something awful in the heat of the moment (probably not nearly as bad as the things Trump has said).

The video says it's things that Trump has done, but if you'll notice every single thing is dumb crap that he's said or lied about. A video about Hillary might be shorter, but it would actually be about things she's done.

I notice people claim Trump "says" he could walk outside, shoot someone, and still have the popular vote. They claim that Hillary actually IS guilty of murder. Of course, if that were the case then you'd think she would actually be in jail.

I don't know the actual facts about either candidate, but I'd much rather have other candidates running for president. I wish Sarah Palin had run. The worst I've ever heard about her is that she used campaign money to buy clothes for her and her family. Wow.. isn't that just the most evil thing? lulz

I say we replace both of them with Justin Beiber and Miley Cyrus. That way the third party candidates will have a chance. xD

Honestly the party system sucks. It's like having to choose between peanut butter and jelly, when you might want pudding or chicken.
The problem with wanting pudding or chicken is that the other 90% of the population is voting for either peanut butter or jelly, so it doesn't matter that the other 10% wants pudding or chicken.
 
Last edited:
Re: In today's news...

Paladox said:
Honestly the party system sucks.
Click to expand...

This video nails it down most accurately:
You must be registered to see the links


Problem is, the USA had an exeptionally advanced and way ahead of its time governmental system.. almost 250 years ago and no one has dared a complete update ever since. Most European countries have systems that were renewed not even 100 years ago with WW 2, not to say that they don't have troubles, just look at Brexit, but if a majority of the people wants something, it actually gets done, just look at Brexit. :p
 
Re: In today's news...

Yeah.... Brexit.... that thing that happened and the politicians keep glossing over and hopping people will forget about it and go back to watching x factor and big brother.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XSI
Re: In today's news...

ToxicShock said:
Everything accused of Hillary could be true and she'd still be head and shoulders above Trump.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not! Hillary has been accused of using her influence in the DNC to rig the Democratic nomination against Bernie Sanders. She and her husband also run the Clinton Foundation, with has been alleged take money from foreign powers in exchange for influencing US policy. Then there is her being involved with the deaths of multiple US citizens, including supposed assassinations.

Trump? He's a business man with dumb hair that talks in a funny way and says stupid shit. Big whoop. Even if he was some racist dirtbag, as some accuse him of being, to my knowledge he still wasn't accused of sending out assassins to [deal with] people who were inconvenient to him.

If every accusation against Clinton was true, then she is the last person I'd want to have in one of, if not THE most powerful office in my country.

As far as devils go, I don't see how either of them are more mysterious than the other. One is a career politician, the other is a businessman. They're both bullshitters, and politics is a profession of bullshitting. I'd go with the bullshitter that doesn't have a track record of disastrous fuck-ups. dat "bad experience," yo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XSI
Re: In today's news...

"Career politician" is a negative term surrounding the corruption and double talk of people masquerading as politicians, when they're really in business for themselves. So people who are sick of politicians are trying to skip the middleman and go straight to a businessman surrounded by corruption and double talk.

I said the things accused of her standing for the things that she is accused of that she hasn't already been cleared for, unlike Trump who is still under multiple investigations. I guess we're not talking about illegally using his foundations money, bribes, or multiple bankruptcies in business (ya know, the one thing he's supposed to be good at) as fuck'ups?

What SHOULD be the biggest example, but no one really mentions it is how everyone assumes Hillary will go after the second amendment. I like the second amendment, I think it's very important. It's not our most important amendment, though. That would would be the 1st, which Donald has explicitly said multiple times would be the first thing he would go after as president. Most of this is driven by his thin skin and inability to adult, and how he can almost borderline-illegally claim things like Obama being the founder of ISIS, or advocating violence at his own rallies, that would also have turned out illegal if they followed through on it, while turning around and trying to sue anyone who says he said things that he says he didn't say, even though they're on video. The man can contradict himself multiple times in the same sentence, but even when his sentences have only 1 point to them, telling him later that he said it will result in him telling you you're wrong. How is he going to handle foreign policy or even internal politics of congress when he can't help but view anyone who doesn't agree with him as his enemy, and has actually publicly reveled in them being hospitalized or killed, as long as he thinks it proves his point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XSI
Re: In today's news...

You must be registered to see the links


You must be registered to see the links


You must be registered to see the links


You must be registered to see the links


You must be registered to see the links


In their wisdom, the Obama administration thinks that handing over the keys to the internet to entities like the UN will be a good idea. I can't say I agree with them.
 
Re: In today's news...

robdelobe said:
You must be registered to see the links


You must be registered to see the links


You must be registered to see the links


You must be registered to see the links


You must be registered to see the links


In their wisdom, the Obama administration thinks that handing over the keys to the internet to entities like the UN will be a good idea. I can't say I agree with them.
Click to expand...

Fuckups handing control over to fuckups. How can so few politicians and administrators understand the internet and how it works? This seems less like the relinquishing of control, and more just giving up on trying to actually oversee it correctly.
 
Re: In today's news...

ToxicShock said:
I said the things accused of her standing for the things that she is accused of that she hasn't already been cleared for, unlike Trump who is still under multiple investigations. I guess we're not talking about illegally using his foundations money, bribes, or multiple bankruptcies in business (ya know, the one thing he's supposed to be good at) as fuck'ups?
Click to expand...

Fair enough. The Trump foundation has been in some scummy shit. I don't think the Clinton Foundation is any better. We have no evidence, but I wonder if that will change with the new info wikileaks says they're planning to release.

ToxicShock said:
What SHOULD be the biggest example, but no one really mentions it is how everyone assumes Hillary will go after the second amendment. I like the second amendment, I think it's very important. It's not our most important amendment, though. That would would be the 1st, which Donald has explicitly said multiple times would be the first thing he would go after as president.
Click to expand...

You're wrong on this one. Trump has stated that he wanted to open up libel laws, which can be a crime. Not something I agree with, since I see it being easily abused, like libel suits were prior to 1964. It's not an attack on the First Amendment, but it would most likely have a real chilling effect.

I think it's more of a statement directed at people like me, who are sick of the mainstream media's obvious biases favoring left-wing and corporate values/agendas. Give a disincentive to the news media in an effort to make them less partisan.

Hillary has stated that she would go after alternative media like Breitbart. Stating in an e-mail that: "It goes without saying that we have to beat these people. But I want to beat them so decisively that their kind never rises again.”
The vagueness of that statement worries me. In what way is she going to "beat them" so that they never "rise" again? this is not an attack on the First Amendment, sure but It seems to me that she has little respect for free speech if she wants to go after sites like Breitbart because they're too right-wing.

As far as Hillary's stance on the Second Amendment goes:
You must be registered to see the links


Whether or not this is her official stance is irrelevant to me. If she thinks banning law-abiding citizens from purchasing high capacity magazines and "assault weapons" would help anything, she is mistaken.
 
Re: In today's news...

Really i cant understand why this attempt to choice a monster over other only because you think is not so bad, you dont need to choice any of them.
 
Re: In today's news...

plmnko said:
Really i cant understand why this attempt to choice a monster over other only because you think is not so bad, you dont need to choice any of them.
Click to expand...

It's the intentional effect of the bi-partisan system. You worry that the person you hate more is going to get into office so you vote for the one you hate less instead of ANYONE ELSE who you might actually like.

Meanwhile the presidency is just a giant smokescreen for the positions that matter: congress and the senate. These are where the true power lie (just look at ObamaCare, despite an executive order from the president it was cockblocked by the other two houses, the president however can't really do shit when THEY vote something through).
 
Re: In today's news...

super_slicer said:
Meanwhile the presidency is just a giant smokescreen for the positions that matter: congress and the senate. These are where the true power lie (just look at ObamaCare, despite an executive order from the president it was cockblocked by the other two houses, the president however can't really do shit when THEY vote something through).
Click to expand...

This is the important bit
The president can veto shit, but if the congress and senate agree they can tell the president to shove that veto right up his ass
(See example here)
You must be registered to see the links


And that is why I'd rather see Trump than Hillary(Though I am European, so I give no shits about your internal affairs). Trump says stupid shit, but he doesn't have that much support from the established political parties. So him getting elected would likely force people to examine their political system and find that the president is just the figurehead. Trump isn't going to push through a lot of shit because he simply doesn't have the support. While corruption and behind the scenes crap from Hillary is likely to push for another SOPA or whatever the latest one is, on behalf of big businesses funding her.

That, and Hillary is so incredibly unlikable and full of corruption scandals that it's a surprise she's even getting any support at all that isn't directly paid for in cash. She's likely to start a war on for whoever pays, likely Saudis or Israel, against Iran. And we know how Iraq and Afganistan worked out.
Trump might insult a bunch of countries, but at least he's not going to repeat the mistake that has been made twice before already
 
Re: In today's news...

I mean, Paul and Sanders had a lot of the same supporters because they had the same track record of legitimacy, yelling about the same problems for years and years, never flipflopping, and not being the type who took massive amounts of money in, despite both of them being political bizarros to each other. If these people really wanted to throw a finger in the face of the establishment, they had their choices.

I think Clinton is the face of everything wrong American government, and that Trump is the face of everything wrong with American culture. If these were two people who had to drive the car of the United States with us in the backseat, it's either being driven by a car thief, someone who did everything they could to get the car because they think they're a really good driver and they like the feel of driving, or a 3 year old, who has no idea how to drive a car but just enjoys anything they do, because they're 3, and they enjoy everything as long as they don't have a poopy diaper. To me, I'm not happy with either. I'd rather drive the car myself. I'd rather fucking walk. But I think the car has less chance of crashing with the car thief, because she'll have a better chance having the car get into motion. Politicians who 'play the game' suck, but getting shitty ass congress (the real electoral problem this country needs to fix) to get off their ass and get anything done can often take someone who plays the game, which Trump doesn't. That's not how he drives. He'll either shout at the engine to get it to move or bribe it. If the car DOES somehow get moving, the first sign of some car tailgating us, and Trump is the type of driver to brake-check that motherfucker in a second. If someone in the backseat comments that the Chinese car ahead of us is drifting over the line, Trump would miss our exit to follow it to wherever it parks, and get out of the car with a pipewrench in his hands ready to bust some knees while the rest of us are in the backseat going "I'm sorry, shouldn't we be going to work now or something?"
 
Re: In today's news...

Since we are on the subject on presidential candidates, what do you think of
You must be registered to see the links

Do you think he's right or not?
 
Re: In today's news...

Zepheral said:
Since we are on the subject on presidential candidates, what do you think of
You must be registered to see the links

Do you think he's right or not?
Click to expand...

Guy's pretty hype for Trump, yo. I got nothing against what he said, though I think his slavery comments are a bit hyperbolic. But I can understand why he might feel like that way, given an infamous quote from former president LBJ, whom was referenced in the speech.

On to some keks:
You must be registered to see the links


kek

also: fuck you Obama
 
Re: In today's news...

Clown case:

You must be registered to see the links


Police chief to clowns: We will arrest you for 'politely terrorizing public'
Chief Ken Miller says clowning around needs to stop
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top