• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT12| The last days of the Republic

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sianos

Member
"HEY SHE DIDN'T RESIST"

that's basically the argument.

its so sick.
And if there is proof of physical resistance and subsequent injury - which there shouldn't even have to be - the argument morphs into "well, she didn't resist enough [because she was still raped]"

It's absolutely disgusting.
 

Nafai1123

Banned
You wants reporters to investigate the sources of other reporters and other media organizations? Good luck with that.



Why would the Clinton campaign release this story from its communication team? It would lose legitimacy coming directly from the campaign. There's no physical evidence, unlike the Machado story.

Huh? I didn't say any of that. I want Cooper to mention that there's no evidence the Clinton campaign has been involved in any of this stuff coming out against Trump when his surrogates claim that this is just a distraction by the "opposition" to avoid the issues. It's a completely hypocritical excuse. That's it.
 
how
do
you
have
a
log
in
your
eye

It's a metaphor for sin and it's talking about judgment. The "holier than thou" person is removing a speck from another's eye while ignoring the log in his own. Meaning, dude has enough sin in his own life to deal with (orders of magnitude more, even) and he needs to leave the other person well enough alone.
 

jonjonaug

Member
how
do
you
have
a
log
in
your
eye

Not quite sure if this is sarcasm, but it's a Christian figure of speech. One line from Christ in the bible is "Don't decry the speck in your neighbor's eye without first noticing the log in your own", or something like that.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
So the Trump campaign thinks that setting up a battle between:

A candidate whose husband assaulted women

Vs.

A candidate who assaulted women

Will somehow go to to the actual person who assaulted women? In what universe is that a winning plan?
 

Ithil

Member
I just saw a clip of Trump saying, "Wikileaks - I love Wikileaks" and the crowd around him cheered. LOL! So Republicans now like Wikileads? Jesus Christ. Can these fucking people decide on whom they like and whom they don't?

They like "things Trump says". Doesn't matter what he says, they applaud automatically.

"I hate all of you"

*applause*

"Big dashing fish flop purple smock"

*applause*

"I don't really want to win, I'm trying to tank my campaign on purpose"

*applause*

etc
 

Wilsongt

Member
Summary of all the allegations of the last 24hrs

Cum9ayBWgAMrn9m.jpg

Yeah, but Trump totally askes God for forgiveness and is a saint now.
 

Cyanity

Banned
All of this stuff is Trump when he's losing. I'm more concerned about what he does once he loses.


If we're lucky, he'll end up embroiled in the Titanic's worth of personal scandals and fraud charges he brought on himself by running for president. It will be the most satisfying schadenfreude in all of post WWII [American political] history.
 
They like "things Trump says". Doesn't matter what he says, they applaud automatically.

"I hate all of you"

*applause*

"Big dashing fish flop purple smock"

*applause*

"I don't really want to win, I'm trying to tank my campaign on purpose"

*applause*

etc

"No, literally - I hope you all burn in hell; you are all idiots!"

WOOO I LOVE TREMPF HE'S NOT PALATIK'LY CUH'REKT!

All of this stuff is Trump when he's losing. I'm more concerned about what he does once he loses.

He won't do shit; you've seen just how big of a fraud this guy is. When he loses, he'll be in the news for a bit - claiming there was voter fraud - but eventually he'll whither away and then the only time he'll be mentioned is when his "university" fraud case comes up.
 

shiba5

Member
They like "things Trump says". Doesn't matter what he says, they applaud automatically.

"I hate all of you"

*applause*

"Big dashing fish flop purple smock"

*applause*

"I don't really want to win, I'm trying to tank my campaign on purpose"

*applause*

etc

"I think BLM brings up important issues."

*crickets*
 

Effect

Member
I wish I could just go to sleep and wake up on election day. I want this to be over. This shit about Trump is bad and well just fucked up but how he reacts to it is horrible as well and nonsensical.
 
If we're lucky, he'll end up embroiled in the Titanic's worth of personal scandals and fraud charges he brought on himself by running for president. It will be the most satisfying schadenfreude in all of post WWII [American political] history.

The proper conclusion would be him being in jail for sexual assault but i have doubts there's any out there that's provable in court beyond a reasonable doubt.

At least his businesses are taking a huge hit.
 

Cyanity

Banned
The proper conclusion would be him being in jail for sexual assault but i have doubts there's any out there that's provable in court beyond a reasonable doubt.

At least his businesses are taking a huge hit.


As long as the ultimate conclusion ends up being Trump dragged through the pig trough of political embarrassments throughout history, forever remembered as a fool - I'll be happy
 
Huh? I didn't say any of that. I want Cooper to mention that there's no evidence the Clinton campaign has been involved in any of this stuff coming out against Trump when his surrogates claim that this is just a distraction by the "opposition" to avoid the issues. It's a completely hypocritical excuse. That's it.

Again, if you're expecting reporters to investigate other reporters, not gonna happen. So of course there's no evidence of oppo research. And yes it should be mentioned that there's no evidence, but there's also no evidence of a connection between Roger Stone and Wikileaks, but he seemed to know Podesta's email was hacked in August, so...

It doesn't however take a genius to realize that researching into a subject like this isn't cheap and media organizations aren't full of cash. Trump's too cheap to oppo research on himself and Clinton so he's paying the price for that (and rightfully so, oppo or no oppo his actions are inexcusable).
 

Goodstyle

Member
I love how they have to defend themselves by their own standards now. They brought in Bill's accusers and asked America to take them at their word for it, why can't we say the same for the women accusing Trump? They can't win. They're being done in by their own evil.
 
"I think BLM brings up important issues."

*crickets*

Ok, on a serious note - that does happen.

Any time Trump talks about how African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos are treated "unfairly", and how he'll spend all this money helping inner cities (aka "my African Americans"), the crowds at his rallies are completely silent. This has happened in every speech he has mentioned it.
 
Starting to look like Podesta is just a big fucking idiot who doesn't understand technology despite his position. The guy e-mailed his apple login and password openly to other people.
 
Does anyone know why the fuck the whack jobs on my wall are claiming wikileaks proves Clinton doesn't support gay marriage? I've seen literally nothing, and I don't want to engage them on this nonsense.
 

Cyanity

Banned
I'm starting to feel bad for Podesta.

Does anyone know why the fuck the whack jobs on my wall are claiming wikileaks proves Clinton doesn't support gay marriage? I've seen literally nothing, and I don't want to engage them on this nonsense.

They're tweeting as many false claims as possible without even reading the emails in the hopes something sticks.
 
Starting to look like Podesta is just a big fucking idiot who doesn't understand technology despite his position. The guy e-mailed his apple login and password openly to other people.

Yeah it amazes how lax people are with security. Especially those high up. If the Clinton camp hasn't hired a security expert to give them some lessons about taking precautions in the future, god help us all.
 
I'm starting to feel bad for Podesta.



They're tweeting as many false claims as possible without even reading the emails in the hopes something sticks.

I did some googling. It's breitbart bullshit. I just read the e-mail in question and it absolutely positively doesn't support any such conclusion.
 
Clinton campaign shouldn't have responded to this. Just let it play out. As much as I believe these reports nothing is confirmed and people could say the same thing about the Bill accusations.
 
Does anyone know why the fuck the whack jobs on my wall are claiming wikileaks proves Clinton doesn't support gay marriage? I've seen literally nothing, and I don't want to engage them on this nonsense.

It comes from this article:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...illary-clinton-is-still-against-gay-marriage/

Which purposefully misinterprets this email:

I’m not saying double down or ever say it again. I’m just saying that she’s not going to want to say she was wrong about that, given she and her husband believe it and have repeated it many times. Better to reiterate evolution, opposition to DOMA when court considered it, and forward looking stance

As Hillary believing in the DOMA, when the email is in response to:

The most recent Blade article has Elizabeth Birch quoted as saying there was no amendment threat in 1996. Hilary Rosen has already tweeted the same. I'll ask on the call, but my sense is that there aren't many friends who will back us up on the point. That's why I'm urging us to back off as much as we can there.

Which means that the email Breitbart says shows Hillary "believes in the DOMA" actually shows that Hillary believed that a constitutional amendment against gay marriage was going to happen without DOMA.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2631
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom