KevinG Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 I'll bet he's (Trump) read thorns other books, the ones that got thorn killed by crooked Hillary. Trump finds ways to ignore inconvenient stuff like the book you linked to. What matters is that thorn wrote books critical of the clintons and they killed him for it. They didn't really kill thorn, I'm just anticipating.., I guess I wouldn't put anything past Trump. But for all his bad press in recent weeks you would think he would not repeat and bring to light such a ridiculous conspiracy theory. Outside of hard core conservatives and conspiracy nuts I highly doubt anyone knows who this human piece of garbage* was. I had to look him up and found his ridiculous book on the Holocaust hoax (plus a myriad of other stupid things this man had said). By insinuating that the Clintons had him killed, he will simply alienate the center to a further degree. It will open up the questions, have you read his books? Have you head his Holocaust book? Do you believe the Holocaust was a hoax? I am not sure his standing with Jews, but I know he is very pro-Israel. Aligning himself in anyway with this shit stain on humanity* would undoubtedly put the final nail in his coffin. Trump already has the right wing conspiracy nut bag vote tied up, so it would be extremely stupid of him to press this further. Let the Alex Jones types do it for him. But at least this conspiracy makes more sense then Obama killed Scalia. *Note, I generally do not like name calling, especially of the dead. But I believe there is a special place in Hell for Holocaust deniers and we should mince no words when talking about them. I feel bad for his family, suicide is a terrible thing, but the world is a better place without people like him. Link to post Share on other sites
tinnitus photography Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 I am a party insider, given the prestige as a Super-delegate. Who should I pledge my support for? A long time Democrat, who has been groomed for this job for the last two decades? Or should give it to a Senator who is not a democrat and other than voting with my party in the Senate does nothing to help or fund raise? I am surprised that what the DNC did in the primaries is such a big deal or that much of a shock to people. Bernie is NOT a Democrat, he is an independent. Of course the superdelgates weren't going to support him. Of course the Democratic machine is going to be against him. Bernie new this, the supporters should have know this too. It doesn't make it right, but it is not surprising. it's not a surprise, and i wasn't questioning the DNC's non-support for Bernie. Maybe i'm wrong, but it seemed like all the superdelegate votes were counted right up front, regardless when their state primary happened. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 Maybe i'm wrong, but it seemed like all the superdelegate votes were counted right up front, regardless when their state primary happened. Yes, and often times the superdelegates went against the vote of their state. In fact, I don't even think they are actually tied to a state other then they may live in or represent a particular state. There is no rule to when they can say who they are voting for. It is a group of Democratic politicians and party insiders. Of course they are going to vote for Clinton (and probably declare their intentions early). In fact the superdelgates were set up so they don't get some crackpot running effectively destroying their party (I bet the GOP wishes they had superdelegates). Also it is not like the superdelgates is a new thing. It was discussed back in 2008. When Bernie entered the race, he certainly knew about the superdelegates and knew they would vote for Clinton. It is ridiculous to think he could change their minds. Here is the breakdown of who and how each superdelegate voted (though I could not find out when) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016#Totals_by_group It seems like I am defending the SD system, which I am not. It does not represent the will of the people and heavily favors party insiders. With that being said, it is the rules of a private organization. They are free to set their rules however they want to. Every candidate knew these rules before entering the race (if they didn't they are just plan stupid and have no business running for president in the first place). Complaining about the rules during or after a race is just plan silly and make you look childish. The process is over, Clinton is the nominee. Although the debate on the fairness of the process can be had, the simple fact remains the rules set forth by the DNC were known to all parties and they entered into the contest willingly. Just because the outcome did not go the way some people wanted does not mean the primaries were rigged or any less legitimate then every other contest before. Link to post Share on other sites
tinnitus photography Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 you must be a blast at parties. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 you must be a blast at parties. No, actually I am kind of a know it all dick that doesn't get invited to parties. Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 About the time I wonder why I even check this thread......Hahaha Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 yes, as evidenced by his statement that he intends to return to the Senate as an Independent. The process is over, Clinton is the nominee. Although the debate on the fairness of the process can be had, the simple fact remains the rules set forth by the DNC were known to all parties and they entered into the contest willingly. Just because the outcome did not go the way some people wanted does not mean the primaries were rigged or any less legitimate then every other contest before. I constantly feel like I have to preface everything with the fact that I voted for and gave money to Bernie (but won't to Hillary). But I never had any Bernie or Bust feelings at any point in the process. Bernie knew going in what the game was (agreeing with KevinG) and his so quickly dropping his party affiliation seems like a cheap shot now. So he both knew the uphill climb going in and proved to be lacking in any long term dedication or identification with the DNC. So he was just using them (wham bam thank you ma'am.) and then moving on. Yea sure the early super delegate's decision to go with Hillary may seem tacky, but wouldn't any of us do the same thing if someone new came to our organization and we had a friend we knew for decades and the new person tried to take over our our club? It's human nature. At this juncture and frankly at every juncture the DNC and the Clinton campaign treated Bernie respectfully if not entirely fairly. I keep waiting for someone to tell me what they actually did to sabotage his campaign as opposed to simply talking shit about him in emails which were not going to be public until they were (you want your email hacked? I think not.) He got a ton out of the DNC, including major planks in the platform and ongoing thanks for his participation, but history may not be so kind to him. Now the Clinton campaign is doing exactly what we all knew it would, tacking to the center to pick up not only independents (a rather large group and way bigger than the disaffected Bernie Bros such as Susan Sarandon and those who planned to vote Green or LIbertarian or Trump if Bernie lost) and not surprisingly at this juncture the not crazy GOPers who can't stomach the disintegrating Trump. 90 some days from now this election may landslide to Hillary simply because slightly dishonest ( or very dishonest depending on how much you believe the right wing and far left wing echo chambers) and trumps the seriously pathological Trump. Is he quitting, is he just a narcissist, early onset Alzheimer's, what's his diagnosis, is he a genius, is he ADD, etc. All these questions have begun to overtake Clinton's fitness for office. This may well be the year that the third party (ies) make a mark. You can vote for the fun loving but ultimately anti-government Libertarians or the pie in the sky and anti-vaxxer Green Party and feel like you have made your mark on the political system. But for the rest of us, it's batshit crazy versus boring. I'm going with boring because fascism seems a bit too interesting at this point in my life. LouieB Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted August 5, 2016 Author Share Posted August 5, 2016 About the time I wonder why I even check this thread......HahahaWait, you're conservative right (?). Come back! We need perspective on the future of the right! Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted August 7, 2016 Share Posted August 7, 2016 Perspective on both parties: The more things change, the more they stay the same. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted August 7, 2016 Share Posted August 7, 2016 Perspective on both parties: The more things change, the more they stay the same. Actually was excited when I saw your name as the last post. Hoped there was some sort of perspective from the right. Instead we got this. Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 I'm the last person to be a conspiracy theorist, but this has the stink of a dirty trick all over it. http://www.npr.org/2016/08/09/489311398/clinton-campaign-says-it-didnt-know-orlando-shooters-father-was-at-her-rally Link to post Share on other sites
jff Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 I don't see a problem with the killer's father attending the rally. What am I missing? Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 I don't see a problem with the killer's father attending the rally. What am I missing?"Taliban supporter also a Clinton supporter" = Hillary is bad for our safety. - Is what I'd imagine her foes would cobble together from this. Link to post Share on other sites
jff Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 "Taliban supporter also a Clinton supporter" = Hillary is bad for our safety. - Is what I'd imagine her foes would cobble together from this. The only people who are going to somehow equate Clinton with the Taliban are the dwindling number of Trump cultists. If this was a plant, it was pretty weak. Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 If this was a plant, it was pretty weak.Yes. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 "Taliban supporter also a Clinton supporter" = Hillary is bad for our safety. - Is what I'd imagine her foes would cobble together from this. I don't see a problem with the killer's father attending the rally. What am I missing? Well, regardless of if they committed a crime or are a threat, we need to watch these people. Muslims are a scary bunch of people that want to destroy America. If we are not vigilant and monitor their places of worship and their every move we are certainly doomed. I surprised we allow these people out of their houses, let alone influence American Politics. It is things like these that show how the American political system is rigged. Clearly a candidate like Clinton feels that everyone has a right to freely move an associate with whomever they want to and not bar people from places, because of their religion or an incident they had nothing to do with. I mean really, do we want a president who values the freedom of all people? Come on people wake up. And Scene Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 So now the latest conspiracy theory trending on Twitter is that Hillary has Parkinson's. That has got to be some kind of new low. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 So now the latest conspiracy theory trending on Twitter is that Hillary has Parkinson's. That has got to be some kind of new low. Some people are saying that. Most notably pharma-bro Martin Shkreli. You remember him right? He was the executive who increased prices on a life saving Daraphim from $13.50 a pill to $750. He is also been indicted for securities fraud. But of course what would expect from human garbage. We all know that Clinton is not the healthiest person to run for president. That honor belongs to Donald Trump. Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 Today in NC Trump: "if she gets to pick her judges, there's nothing you can do folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know" Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 So now the latest conspiracy theory trending on Twitter is that Hillary has Parkinson's. That has got to be some kind of new low.If anything, I thought Bill's hands seemed a little shaky during his convention speech. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 Today in NC Trump: "if she gets to pick her judges, there's nothing you can do folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know" And this man will get 45% of the vote Link to post Share on other sites
chisoxjtrain Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 Condemnation, still endorsing, rinse and repeat. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 This is the time where I really wish Hixter was around. Not only did Trump infer assassination, he inferred Gun Rights advocates are potential assassins. Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 Just to be fair, he didn't necessarily imply assassinate Hillary, he could have been referring to judges. His campaign released a non- denial of violence/condemnation of the press. The press who simply reported his exact words. The video is interesting for the reactions of the audience, especially those sitting behind him. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 His campaign released a non- denial of violence/condemnation of the press. The press who simply reported his exact words. The video is interesting for the reactions of the audience, especially those sitting behind him.I have often heard one of the reasons people like Trump is because he means what he says. For a candidate with this attribute there sure is a lot of denial and spin around what he says. But of course it is because the Press is unfair to him. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts