It's hard to admit and I know there is still a lot of time left but I'm really starting to get the feeling that Trump won't get 95 percent of the African-American vote in his reelection bid.
Printable View
It's hard to admit and I know there is still a lot of time left but I'm really starting to get the feeling that Trump won't get 95 percent of the African-American vote in his reelection bid.
:lmao
he already got more then any other republican
Re-election. :lmao
He'll be a bless man if he actually finishes out his 1 term.
This, coming from the same cuck who predicted Hillary in a landslide victory :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Reck
I'm just wondering if he'll make it to Friday. :lol
I thought she would win. But feel free where I said she would win it in a landslide, faggot.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrengthAndHonor
Everyone thought she was going to win, tbh. Everyone else is lying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reck
I did not
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by ducks
I didn't think Trump would win until Michael Moore said he would. :flypig
He's comin' to Phoenix!!!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHY-spiW0AAQPwS.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thread
Ambush
This is very interesting.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/26/politi...tes/index.html
He's basically underwater in states he won---red states, mind you.
In Arizona he's at 43% and that was last month. Expect lots of protest.
The lack of diversity in that pic :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Thread
Rally for what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thread
Anyone who goes to his rallies are racists. So, it's a KKK rally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavlov
They might be the only ones showing up by then.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Well, people were already being attacked wearing those retarded MAGA hats last year. I can only imagine it will be worse now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavlov
You mean both sides attacked each other last year.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Antifa thinks all those MAGA hat fanboys are fascists. It was pretty one-sided back in 2016. Chicago, San Jose, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavlov
:lol Now Trump supporters never attacked nobody nowhere nohow.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Damn, you liberal fanboy it up in every thread. I never knew you were such a bleeding heart, chump :lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Pavlov
White supremacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavlov
Are you saying Trump supporters never attacked nobody nowhere nohow?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
No, I'm saying you're a big time liberal fanboy, obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavlov
But by and large it is the left initiating the violence. What's your excuse for that?
Ah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
Do you have statistics on violence initiation or is this another one of your adorable anecdotes?Quote:
But by and large it is the left initiating the violence. What's your excuse for that?
I have two eyes; apparently, you don't. You can see video after video of droves of vitriolic lefties showing up to violently crash outings. I mean seriously, this even debatable. If you're debating this, then you are at lefty cuck status.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavlov
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Pavlov
I watched a lot of YouTubes that confirmed my bias, so what I believe must be true!Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
What college did you attend?
Damn, son. You got him!Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
I get that you have no use for the power of observation. You only like what's shoved down your throat by corporate approved sources, lefty cuck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavlov
I am perfectly willing to look at statistics collected on the instigation of violence at these events.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
Do you have any such statistics?
The number of YouTubes you have personally watched has no bearing on this issue whatsoever.
Where did you go to college?
Obviously, it'd take omniscience or something almost as unrealistic to compile such stats. Thus, one must observe the patterns. Rioters are by and large on the left; this is no secret, lefty cuck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavlov
By and large?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
How is by and large determined?
Where did you go to college?
Where did you go to college if you're asking such a fundamentally dopey question?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavlov
UTSA, which really isn't anything to brag about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
You bragged about going to college before failing to back up any of your claims.
Which college did you attend?
I never bragged about going to college. I stated that why learn stuff in college and then not go out into the world and apply it? Check the record if you have any doubts, lefty cuck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavlov
In which college did you learn stuff?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
It's not relevant to the discussion, lefty cuck. Nor do I have interest in revealing personal information in the second place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavlov
You already stated you learned stuff in college. That's personal information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
You have a fundamental void in your education. There is stuff you did not learn like supporting a claim with verifiable evidence.
Which college did you attend?
I've also stated or implied that I'm a male. The point that any rational non-troll would have received or deduced is that there are limits to the personal info I divulge on a message board.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavlov
And we don't have to take this to college, when you aren't even meeting the high school civics standard of knowing that the govt. is accountable to the people. Nice tries, lefty cuck, but you lost this one, "big time."
You're an implied male who probably didn't really go to college.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
You made the claim.Quote:
And we don't have to take this to college, when you aren't even meeting the high school civics standard of knowing that the govt. is accountable to the people. Nice tries, lefty cuck, but you lost this one, "big time."
Where is your evidence to back up your claim?
http://www.gematrix.org/?word=by%20and%20largeQuote:
Originally Posted by Pavlov
Obstinance won't win a debate you already lost, lefty cuck / chump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavlov
And you're not even accurately debating at this point to say that I implied I didn't go to college. You're expressing your doubt is more accurate. And I'm fine with that. My honor does not hinge on showing credentials to a left cuck / hardcore internet troll.
Jewish GematriaQuote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Soros!
You're an implied male who has shown no particular signs you have attended college and who has repeatedly failed to support several goofy conspiratorial claims with anything resembling actual evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
Damn straight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavlov
I was blind but now I can see.
I've shown you the subversive level at which the govt. operates.... Again, you like evidence until you don't have any (that you as a citizen are fundamentally supposed to have at that). Anyhow, you're not doing anything to reverse your L b/c it's pretty much in the books now. So if I may just say, I think there's a chance that you're actually a closet conservative or moderate. But vanilla isn't a flavor conducive to trolling, is it, lefty cuck?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavlov
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
You have shown me absolutely nothing that would support any claim you made tonight.
Or ever as far as I can recall.
You just got emo and started calling me names, demanding I prove a negative.
You can't show the govt. is properly doing their job; and yet your case is built on the rock of govt. You lost, lefty cuck. I don't demand you show anything either. I know you can't is pretty much the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavlov
Actually I only asked you to provide evidence to support your claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
The only claim I made is that there is a very small number of documented cases of the kind of vote fraud you claim is rampant -- and that claim is easily proved. I can see how your emotions could lead you to think something else happened, but that's it.
From the hip-hop lyrics (No Vaseline) of IceCube............"hangin with tha whites and not anutha nigga in sight"Quote:
Originally Posted by unleashbaynes
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017...-in-his-sightsQuote:
A decade later, of course, much has changed. Bayrock, which was once located in Trump Tower, is now defunct. Trump SoHo has been involved in ongoing litigation, including a lawsuit claiming that it was partly financed from “questionable sources,” as the Times would put it, from Russia and Kazakhstan. More recently, it has again found itself at the center of a new scandal. As Bloomberg News reported on July 20, Trump SoHo is among the targets special counsel Robert Mueller is scrutinizing in his probe into ties between the president and Russia. Mueller’s mandate, of course, is investigating possible collusion relating to the 2016 presidential election. The fact that Bayrock, which began working with Trump nearly 15 years ago, is now in his sights suggests that he understands that Russian-intelligence tradecraft is often indistinguishable from business, with its operatives navigating international flows of capital. In Vladimir Putin’s regime, business and organized crime and intelligence are often intertwined, and can all be used as weapons of the state. Mueller’s investigators are looking to unravel this web by following the money. And one company that potentially questionable Russian money flowed through was Bayrock.
Mueller time.
The charges potentially include bank fraud and RICO against Trump and his family.
We may get to see his children testifying against him.
Quote:
Donald Trump and I have something in common: When right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt asked the GOP frontrunner about America's nuclear triad at Tuesday night's debate, neither of us had heard that phrase before.
But Donald Trump is running for president, and I'm not.
10 WTF Moments From the Fifth GOP Debate
"He's a chaos candidate," Jeb Bush said of Donald Trump
There's another difference between us: I could glean from the context of Hewitt's question that he was asking Trump what he would do to maintain our nuclear arsenal. (The triad refers to our land-, sea- and air-based systems for delivering nukes.) Trump had absolutely no idea what Hewitt was asking, and his answer was genuinely terrifying.
Trump has said a lot of scary (and racist) things on the campaign trail, from calling undocumented immigrants rapists to saying he'd ban Muslims from the country to urging supporters at his rallies to attack protesters.
But his answer Tuesday night was especially terrifying; it revealed what it means to put an ignorant blowhard with a head full of jagged rocks in charge of enough munitions to blow up the entire world several times over.
Let's go through his answer. If you didn't see it in real time, know that you should experience the stomach-churning terror you feel when you climb that first hill on an especially tall roller coaster.
First, Hewitt's question:
"Mr. Trump, Dr. Carson just referenced the single most important job of the president, the command, the control and the care of our nuclear forces. And he mentioned the triad. The B-52s are older than I am. The missiles are old. The submarines are aging out. It's an executive order. It's a commander-in-chief decision.
"What's your priority among our nuclear triad?"
No matter how little you know about the makeup of our nuclear forces, it's clear Hewitt is suggesting the technologies we use to deliver a nuclear attack are too old, and asking Trump what his priority would be when it comes to maintaining them. Right? You'd have to be completely ignorant, an utter buffoon with the intelligence of an earthworm the other earthworms make fun of for being dumb not to get the gist of what Hewitt is asking here.
And yet.
This was Trump's response:
"Well, first of all, I think we need somebody absolutely that we can trust, who is totally responsible, who really knows what he or she is doing. That is so powerful and so important."
On the face of it, Trump's first comments may seem reasonable. We do need someone we can trust, who is totally responsible, who knows what he or she is doing when it comes to taking charge of our nuclear arsenal. But this wasn't an introduction to a fuller answer explaining why he knows what he's doing (or what his plans are). To Trump, that was the substantive answer. Listen to Trump for 30 seconds at any of his rallies and you realize that's the entirety of his thought process. "Make America Great Again" is a perfectly fine slogan if you have a plan to make America great again, but with Trump, the slogan is the entire agenda. There is no plan.
How do we know Trump is responsible enough to handle our nuclear arsenal? He went on:
"And one of the things that I'm frankly most proud of is that in 2003, 2004, I was totally against going into Iraq because you're going to destabilize the Middle East. I called it. I called it very strongly. And it was very important."
First of all, Trump is simply lying; he did not, in fact, strongly object to the Iraq War before it began. But even if he was against the Iraq War, that doesn't qualify him to control and maintain the world's largest collection of nuclear bombs. I opposed the war, marching with signs and everything. And please believe me when I tell you I have no business anywhere near a bomb with the power to evaporate a city.
Trump wasn't done yet.
"But we have to be extremely vigilant and extremely careful when it comes to nuclear. Nuclear changes the whole ballgame. Frankly, I would have said get out of Syria; get out – if we didn't have the power of weaponry today. The power is so massive that we can't just leave areas that 50 years ago or 75 years ago we wouldn't care. It was hand-to-hand combat."
Yes, in 1940 soldiers only fought in hand-to-hand combat. The boxing-related deaths of World War II were truly devastating.
Again, Trump is right, in a childlike way. We do have to be careful with nuclear; it does change the whole ballgame. But these are generalities borne out of ignorance. In 145 words Trump has yet to approach anything remotely like an answer to Hewitt's question. He hasn't said what his priority would be when it comes to maintaining or upgrading our nukes. He hasn't even said what his principles would be. But surely that's coming soon, right?
You know what? Let's just finish the exchange.
Trump: "The biggest problem this world has today is not President Obama with global warming, which is inconceivable, this is what he's saying. The biggest problem we have is nuclear – nuclear proliferation and having some maniac, having some madman go out and get a nuclear weapon. That's in my opinion, that is the single biggest problem that our country faces right now."
Hewitt: "Of the three legs of the triad, though, do you have a priority? I want to go to Sen. Rubio after that and ask him."
Trump: "I think – I think, for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me."
The devastation is very important to him. That flailing nonsense is the best Trump can manage. A reasonably well-informed fifth grader could come up with something better.