Random Politics & Arguments Over Nothing #16

Pot meet Kettle.

That's the logic of every left leaning poster on this forum along with the majority of progressives on the planet. The Ideology practically requires the side to ignore it's own short falls while attacking those "Evil White Racist Misogynist Christian Capitalist Pigs". Hillary does something bad and liberals respond "nah it's fine we should be happy she graces us with her presence", Trump does something bad and liberals froth at the mouth and demand his head on a stick.

Private Email server is a class example of this. She either A) committed a felony by knowingly circumventing national security regulations while also destroying evidence / records, or B) Was so incompetent that she accidentally circumvented national security and destroyed evidence. It's one or the other here.

I've worked in that field before, I know, as in personally know, the rules and regulation she violated. If I had set up a personal email server and then stored / transmitted classified material on it (technical term is spillage) then at the minimum I'd have lost my job and never be allowed to go near a classified system again, but likely I'd have been charged with a federal crime. But since her name is "Hillary" she's somehow immune those silly laws and somehow above the rules that govern us mere mortals.

And the liberals accuse the Republicans of being "Ultra 1% elitists". That ***'s mind boggling how they can support and defend someone who shown through her actions to not only believe herself to be an Aristocrat, but actually demonstrated her immunity via manipulation of federal agencies. You had FBI agents wanting to investigate deeper into all sorts of ***and being told by high ranking Justice department officials to drop any and all investigations into Hillary. The FBI director was forced to choose between doing his job or appeasing his boss's including President Obama, so he had to compromise and do both at the same time (not push forward but also give Congress the investigation results).

Wouldn't it be nice to order a lowly peon like the Director of the FBI to just cease all investigations into you because it's not politically expedient and might actually hurt your parties bid for the executive branch of the government.

But hey Trump is the "bad guy" for making money and having business connections.

As a geography enthusiast, I can't wait to see how the world will look like when Russia annexes America in two years!!

It's from a newspaper or it was mentioned by the paper but found on social media, not sure

Aren't you ever ashamed of lying like this?
Hardly anyone here liked Clinton, maybe 2 posters and that's about it. Everyone else has been complaining about what a shitty candidate they got since forever.

Or do you just not read what people say and imagine what it could be according to your head?

I lean left, I dislike Clinton

I was for Clinton but I felt she had too much legal baggage and shouldn't have been the nominee. I wanted Bernie.

Rex is ready! He's walking talk!

Tall*!

So is that the conversation we are having? Yes! Well Nausi I just thought you didn't have any clue what you were talking about anyways! Woooooo! I mean all you've pretty much said is he hasn't done anything yet even if he does profit from his actions what's wrong with that? Idk man I thought you were against people profiting from their actions in government... I suppose I was wrong... it must just be a if it's your guy thing it doesn't matter lol...

I like how every time zero posts it calls for a sweeping indictment of everyone that ever posted.... che guevara poster having mofo!

Well, at least Russian Orthodox churches are pretty, and Cyrillic is a cooler looking alphabet.

Reads posts, analyses tone rereads:

Where do you get the time to draft and proof these wall of texts responses to such a small post?

I guess we know now that we can't have discourse here, when we attribute so much anger towards people and ideas that weren't being inferred, let alone feelings on events that have been found to be factually untrue.

I lean left on most issues, and I thought and still think that Trump was the better option out of the two.

It's an honor and a privilege.

I find it ironic how you are quick to be critical of people not being critical on Clinton but then you continue to not be critical of Trump at all. Wouldn't it be crazy if we can be critical of both?

To me Trump was a gamble (That clearly isn't paying off), Clinton was a sure-fire and proven corruption while Trump was like 80/20 in terms of possible corruption.

Furthermore, non-strict Gun control laws are a big deal to my current job, potential career.

Hitler was on Time magazine hmm there's hope for all of us then !

Maybe Che did the political revolution just to sell T shirts !

Replace "left" with "right" and "Clinton" with "Trump" and your entire argument goes right against you.

Don't worry, Russia will annex America as soon as Obama takes away our guns.

You did watch the debates right? They share the same stances. Every point she made about gun control he would say "I agree".
It was bewildering to say the least especially since it was after he got the NRA endorsement.

But don't kid yourself, the threat of stringent over the top gun control is good business for the gun industry just ask the number 1 salesperson the last 8 yrs: Barry Sotero.

I don't think she was making a sweeping claim that everyone here likes Trump.

I do think his stalwart forum fighters are a lot more vocal though.

Cmon... you can't really be one of those people... lol...

This is wrong.

She claimed that Manufacturers should be held liable for mass shootings, she has gone on record that Assault rifles should be banned and in the Podesta emails it talks about a possible executive orders to ban guns or restrict guns more.

Trump on the other hand release a statement that he was going to make all states accept Concealed carry laws.

You defended Hillary's actions, just like the rest. You defended her not because you liked her but because you couldn't support The Enemy and not supporting her would be viewed the same as supporting The Enemy. This is the result of identity politics, it breaks people down into groups and then sets them against each other. Anyone who isn't with you is against you.


There is no universe where Bernie would of been allowed to run for President. The Democrat party only allowed him to run to act as a comparison for Hillary and to make her seem less extreme. This is the same reason Obama was allowed to run against Her Majesty except that he ended up being more popular then her and the Democrats ended up with an inexperienced President instead of Her Majesty. They were not going to make that mistake twice, if they had even the smallest thought that Bernie might of won the nomination they would of black listed his independent *** and pushed someone else as her foil the same thing the Republican party did to Trump back in 2012.


You guys might not really understand this but the election of the executive has been carefully controlled for the past several decades. Both sides pick who they want, then pick a few foils for them to create the appearance of a choice. The control the media message to create a narrative, most of the population buys into it and thus the executive pass's from hand to hand without anything ever really changing. President Obama's every policy and action here prepared and decided for him by heads of the DNC, most before he even came into office. The Republicans do the same thing so nobody think this only applies to one side. President Obama had a few ideas but his naivety and inexperience prevented him from doing anything not already approved by his party. President-Elect Trump is the first President in a very long time to not be controlled by a political party. He demonstrated this from the very beginning when he held a gun to the RNC's head and told them that if they blacklisted him against he would pull the trigger and spend his own wealth on ruining their election. The result of this was that Americans had their first fair open primary in a very long time. Unfortunately it was only for the Republican candidate as the DNC still had firm grip on it's primary, Her Majesty was going to win this one no matter what it took.

You can see the effect of this by looking at the sheer number of Republican candidates vs the Democrats. Democrats were Hillary and her foils, Republicans was a whole damn circus representing the entire spectrum. The Democrats process was a carefully controlled and crafted product to publish Her Majesty in the best light possible. Republicans was a wild unpredictable brawl with everyone taking swings at everyone else. The liberal media even showcased how biased it was by criticizing the Republican primary in how open and chaotic their primary was.

Ultimately the only Democrat candidate from the beginning was Her Majesty Elect. Maybe in 2020 or 2024 the Democrats will have an actual open primary and we'll see a dozen liberals brawl it out instead of a single one being lead to their coronation.

He isn't. It was a joke.

I work in the industry and I agree. The threat is a boon for our business. Mass shootings make our sales go up, same thing when gun control laws get traction. Unfortunately, actually acting on those threats hurts the business a lot more than the threats help. See California for a great example.

That's not actually addressing the point that everything she said on the matter during debates he actually said I agree, I agree.

Something else that Trump stated which is in the same vein is that Trump wants to go after doctors and the pharmaceutical companies for pill addiction. He also wants to change Sudafed from an OTC to a prescription (In Niko speak that means invest in cold medicine).

While drugs and guns on one level aren't the same; the fault of their misuse shouldn't fall on the manufacturers should it?

This is true, the difference is one effects me and the other doesn't. I disagree with both points but my decision will be based on the decision that effects me the most.