Reply With Quote
She is the single most qualified candidate that either party has fielded in quite some time.
She does seem to genuinely care about womens issues, and childrens issues.
She is quite intelligent, and extremely well informed.
Aldo, your vote may not even count because of the electoral college, e.g. a Rebulican vote in California doesn't count.
She is the single most qualified candidate that either party has fielded in quite some time.
She does seem to genuinely care about womens issues, and childrens issues.
She is quite intelligent, and extremely well informed.
she's a dog and you know it.
How is her memory?
That is the problem. Confirmation bias.Also I love the idea that she cheated in the primaries.
Such a load of bull . Even the Sanders camp acknowledges that's bull . Swear to god all these hacked emails are the "climategate" out of context bull all over again.
Yes that is the problem, confirmation bias.
Wasserman Schultz terminated for confirmation bias.
Foval terminated for confirmation bias.
Creamer terminated for confirmation bias.
nothing wrong with that at all. people shouldn't be forced to vote for those they don't like. my brother isn't voting and i respect it.
i probably like Trump more than you but you gotta admit, had our Overlords gotten their Clinton vs Bush rematch bs (which would've been a true win/win for them) this election would be far more depressing imo.
Shes corrupt. No question.
You mean depressing as in the entertainment factor? I mean, I never thought Jeb had a chance after dubya, tbh, but if the purpose was to actually win the election, I think he would've had a better shot than Trump (which doesn't man he would have won though).
Very few 'exciting' candidates this time around, IMO. Maybe Bernie for the novelty and amongst the GOP, Kasich was probably the guy that was more pragmatic. The rest was pretty much a freak show.
The only reason you even have to make this post is the insane political climate. Anyone R didnt get recorded saying grab her by the pussy would be exponentially more electable.
Bigger womanizer: Trump or Bill Clinton?
HRC only approves on one of them doing it. Oddly it's her husband.
That would be two people fixating on you, including you.
Pretty sure no one gives your ideas any serious consideration, seeing how special you are, how precious.
Appears to have a functional recall of briefed material.
https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_h...nd?language=en
Purity of one sort or another is, apparently, one of the bases for morality for conservatives, much more so than liberals.
Makes a certain amount of sense.
Not that it's new, it's actually a signature of theirs, but it's still funny how hypocritical LOLiber s are with their projecting. Yeah, Trump is the sexual predator when we are about to let back in a known sexual predator and molestor in Billy Clinton. Just shows the inep ude of the Left when being purposefully hypocritical.
Fuzzy just got:
AGAIN.
Fuzz, I'm certain you've heard this from more people than just me, but since you're ultra-selective like a typical Liberal, in what you read and interpret and in your hypocrisy, but using the words you employ doesn't make you any smarter than you think you are. Just thought I'd remind you as it's obvious you are selective about your self-awareness.
Beware of the oft repeated stock phrase.
To some degree, I think so. I also think the evidence is far thinner for that than many seem to. Bear in mind there are quite a few people who have every reason to claim this no matter what the veracity.
That said, Trump is just as corrupt, if not more so. The two things sort of cancel each other out when it comes to weighing votes, despite what thesanityannex might wish.
So now I have people getting on alts to claim victory. The troll brigade in its fullest nihilist dimwit glory. Getting you guys angry is always a good way to get you to out yourself.
What words do I use that you think I am using to 'sound smart?' This is a good indicator of where you are at although you think it is an indicator of what I am trying to do.Fuzzy just got:
AGAIN.
Fuzz, I'm certain you've heard this from more people than just me, but since you're ultra-selective like a typical Liberal, in what you read and interpret and in your hypocrisy, but using the words you employ doesn't make you any smarter than you think you are. Just thought I'd remind you as it's obvious you are selective about your self-awareness.
It's hilarious to me how certain people, almost always raised in the lower classes, are intimidated by multisyllables. The whine works better if you can show I used them wrong but we both know that is not the case.
I talk to everyone the same. What is extra hilarious is when people get upset on account of their kids even though I pay attention and teach them what the word means. I like to think of it as the cycle of stupidity.
So since you're teaching them, you're part of the cycle of stupidity.
You just use random debate buzz words with some passive aggressive vaginal bleedings here and there. You're Chumpdumper's lover.
It's tiring that our elections have come to that.
Voting for the lesser of two evils.
You have to be rich and connected, and you have to have lived a life in the public eye so that all the little nasty parts of you are disinfected through political maneuvering or cover-up. The smartest, most capable people in the county could never get elected because they might have hired a hooker once, or cheated on an exam, or used the N word on tape. Even if they haven't, they cannot gather the funds to campaign, and the two parties, as we've witnessed, shut out everyone but their ideal candidate, the one who they think can win, not necessarily the one who should.
It's always about getting the party in office. The candidate is just a conduit.
We need to start using more fitting terms. Instead of "party" we should call them "gang" or "syndicate".
They weren't always like this though. What we're seeing nowadays, IMO, is a lack of leadership. It's like everyone wants to be Reagan, who is a mythological figure for nostalgic conservatives, tbh... makes sense from an opportunistic standpoint, due to the base being mostly old white baby boomers, but at some point they're gonna have to figure out that the tent needs to grow, and it won't happen invoking St Ronnie.
Reagan was so overhyped (still is) that his VP became only the 4th ever (I think) to be elected to POTUS, and none since.
I'm sure he did some good stuff for people to remember him fondly, and it's unquestionable that he's left a giant leadership void (along with a great legacy).
But reinventing yourself is always a necessary process to step forward. The GOP really needs new ideas and leadership, less dogma and more pragmatism. It's just going to be difficult with the current base, tbh. When the last two guys standing are Cruz and Trump, you're kinda screwed. Gonna probably take a generational change, or a major Dem up (the latter being more likely, IMO). It's easy to blame the liberal media, etc for Shillary walking into the WH, but the conservative movement is far from blameless. I would even say, they have a huge hand in that too.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
