Prelude to the Apocalypse

[Durandal]

After he slammed Canada's healthcare system, it's pretty obvious he has no intention whatsoever of winning. He never did from the start.

He's the shit milkshake to make Hillary easier to swallow. That was his job. This entire thing was a farce from the beginning.

I don't know how long it'll take for guys like Quash to ever realize this. That he voted for Hillary during the primary, instead of against her like most of us here did.

For some reason this sounds more plausible with the day. Would anyone of you have voted for Cruz, Rubio etc. instead of Trump with Hillary as the Democrat candidate?

[BryanM]

We're mostly white dudes under the age of 45 here, so probably no difference, I assume? Trump is identical to any other republican to most of us, except more entertaining.

[Xyga]

Cruz was entertaining too, his puppy eyes and the people chasing him yelling "the power of christ compels you!" things like that.

[EmperorIng]

I'll draw a sharp distinction with Bryan here by reiterating that nearly any other Republican candidate could have beaten Hillary - especially with the constant leaks, exposes, lying-on-film, etc.

Low-Energy Jeb could have done it. The election would have been a 51%/49% affair, but he would have. Rubio, maybe Kasich, and maybe even Ted Cruz. The baggage Hillary carries is immense: if you consider if the incessant gossiping news networks had no pussy-confessionals to talk about, what do you think would fill the void?

[quash]

Yeah, like the time he lied about being against the war in Iraq.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=you ... hwaDSaoGU8

Where in the video does Trump say he is opposing the war in Iraq? Provide the time at which he says it.


In the meantime, here is Donald on September 11, 2002, saying he supports invading Iraq (3m38s):

https://soundcloud.com/buzzfeedandrew/t ... 002#t=3:38


Not gonna bother with the other ones until you can present facts for the first.

He didn't explicitly support it in that interview, either, if you want to play that game.

"Maybe we should wait for the UN" = let's see if this whole WMD thing isn't BS. Considering that even the Bush administration admitted that the UN resolution gave no cause for invasion, you'd have to assume he was against it at that point.

Nice job getting hung up on one issue, too. This is exactly the kind of programming the elites are counting on: if one thing doesn't fit rank and file with everything else you've been told, it's clearly false and you shouldn't bother cross referencing anything else. It's not like the media has been caught lying to our faces time and time again the past five years.

[BryanM]

I'll draw a sharp distinction with Bryan here by reiterating that nearly any other Republican candidate could have beaten Hillary - especially with the constant leaks, exposes, lying-on-film, etc.

To clarify, I wasn't saying that. Of course any other republican would have been a coin flip. They weren't in league to help the Clintons win the election, after all.

I just meant pussygate means little to young white guys. It obviously means a heck of a lot more to older women and is probably the ending they had written from the start.

Even post pussygate Trump could have defeated her, if he had attacked her from both the LEFT and the right. If he really wanted to be president, he only had to say one line: "I want to repeal and replace Obamacare... with Medicare. We're gonna take care of everybody."

Hell, I'm not entirely 100% convinced this kabuki show is going to go like they've planned it to. Maybe a month from now, talking about pussy will be totally acceptable thing in society. Even hip and trendy. Every day everybody and every word will be pussy. "Pussy pussy pussy."

...... pussy.

[Ed Oscuro]

He didn't explicitly support it in that interview, either, if you want to play that game.

No, we don't want to be wishy-washy about this. Donald has repeatedly stated that he was against the war in Iraq before it started.

And, to be serious again, if somebody really doesn't want Clinton, they can write in whoever they want and still vote for Democrats down the ticket. Of course you'd be voting against a good Supreme Court justice as well, but at least you'd be voting for changes in the House and Senate.

[quash]

No, we don't want to be wishy-washy about this. Donald has repeatedly stated that he was against the war in Iraq before it started.

That interview I linked was from January 2003, right when the UN resolution had been passed.

And, to be serious again, if somebody really doesn't want Clinton, they can write in whoever they want and still vote for Democrats down the ticket.

I have the pleasure of choosing between two Democrats for my state's senate election. Both staunchly pro-immigration, anti-gun and pro-carbon tax. They're not even trying to maintain the illusion of choice anymore.

Political hegemony isn't the solution, it's the problem.

[mamboFoxtrot]

100 pages in a little over a year. Is that a new record for this forum? I feel like we should commemorate this somehow...

[MOSQUITO FIGHTER]

Crook vs Nazi. Who will win? You decide.

[BryanM]

100 pages in a little over a year. Is that a new record for this forum? I feel like we should commemorate this somehow...

I propose we all put on Nikes and drink some grape flavoraide together. Then take a long nap.

Who's with me?!

[Mischief Maker]

100 pages in a little over a year. Is that a new record for this forum? I feel like we should commemorate this somehow...

I propose we all put on Nikes and drink some grape flavoraide together. Then take a long nap.

Who's with me?!

Don't make castration jokes! Don't make castration jokes!

[BryanM]

An article that considers how the structure of society is pushing us toward being more and more like Harlow's monkeys.

Another of Harlow's students, William Mason, who also conducted deprivation experiments elsewhere, said that Harlow "kept this going to the point where it was clear to many people that the work was really violating ordinary sensibilities, that anybody with respect for life or people would find this offensive. It's as if he sat down and said, 'I'm only going to be around another ten years. What I'd like to do, then, is leave a great big mess behind.' If that was his aim, he did a perfect job."

[antron]

Been wondering why the LA times polls favor trump so much? Wonder no more.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/upsho ... rages.html

It's not a poll, but a panel. One that reuses the same individuals over and over. And one young black trump supporter is weighted 30x (for example).

[Ed Oscuro]

And, right on cue, look! There's a crazy Russian guy, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, talking about nuclear war, and meddling in the election.

Or maybe not so crazy. Trump clearly isn't in step with Russian wishes right now, but - unless the Russians really are stupid as well as unscrupulous - I think the provocative comments aren't meant so much to swing the election, as they are to try to foment unrest over here, and setting up the incoming President to look like "the devil" to the Russian people. It's crude, but perhaps effective.

But maybe Hillary can do something to stop that. FiveThirtyEight's panel discussion on what's happening openly discussed the racist white nationalist core of the current Republican party, and there's a good argument Hillary should use the opportunity to break that party:

http://theweek.com/articles/654462/how- ... hould-kill

No, we don't want to be wishy-washy about this. Donald has repeatedly stated that he was against the war in Iraq before it started.

That interview I linked was from January 2003, right when the UN resolution had been passed.

Since you're being lazy in addition to dumb, here's a source which lays out the transcript:
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald ... -iraq-war/

Trump's point seems to be that we "have to do something" (as if you just say "let's have a war" and it's underway in 24 hours!) and he is more worried about the economy. Nowhere in that interview is he saying the war is a bad idea.

He trots out the same lines we heard recently about "telling the enemy" (again, showing he has no idea how the diplomacy is supposed to work, as this is war and not business; people don't just get stiffed, they get killed; oh, he's certainly still the same Donald that he was in 2005) and MacArthur, but he also leaves us with this gem:

He’s — I think he’s doing a very good job.

Talking about the same President Bush he now blames for the war.

And in March, talking to the same clown, he says the war looks like "a tremendous success."

[Ed Oscuro]

At the moment, though, the most aggressive actions are being taken by Russia, which sent anti-aircraft missiles to Syria as a signal to Western powers.

That's almost as onerous as when we sent anti-aircraft missiles to Mexico to tell Russia to stay the hell out of Mexico.

After they had already destroyed Canada and left it a smoldering ruin under the control of religious moose zealots, of course.

Kandarian cultists are a bitch, eh.

What in blazes are you on right now?

[quash]

Since you're being lazy in addition to dumb, here's a source which lays out the transcript:
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald ... -iraq-war/

I linked this exact source earlier in the thread and made it clear that you were wrong about him supporting the war.

Trump's point seems to be that we "have to do something" (as if you just say "let's have a war" and it's underway in 24 hours!) and he is more worried about the economy. Nowhere in that interview is he saying the war is a bad idea.

If there is one thing I can't stand about the Don, it's his insistence on compressing his thoughts into quips and leaving gaps in his statements. But at the same time, it's a very effective way to get people talking about him.

Since all you can do is take said quips out of context to support your stance, let's take a look at the raw transcript:

Trump: Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn’t be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know. He’s under a lot of pressure. He’s — I think he’s doing a very good job. But, of course, if you look at the polls, a lot of people are getting a little tired. I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned.

You claimed he said "we have to do something". What he actually said is "the president has to make this decision, but should wait until all the information comes in". Even without a familiar understanding of Trumpanese, there's only one way you could read this as anything else.

At the rate things are going, we won't even need media shills: useful idiots like Ed will do their job for them.

[BryanM]

What in blazes are you on right now?

We're comparing apples to apples, Ed. Which is an impossible fantasy because we're the aggressors here. I know you might have gotten the continents mixed up and forgotten this; they're so close together and all.

Fuck Russia for caring about Russia, right? Good luck with your nuclear holocaust goals of 2016.

[BulletMagnet]

"Vast right-wing conspiracy?" Pfft, small potatoes!

[supergrafx77]

"Vast right-wing conspiracy?" Pfft, small potatoes!

Hardly a conspiracy, and Trump is right concerning that a globalist agenda is present regarding the US and its NATO allies. Neoliberalsm and neoconservatism is actually a thing, despite the few nuances they have in relation to each other...
Watched Trump's complete rally/speech on CSPAN, and was later dismayed at Chris Hayes (MSNBC) referring to Trump's talk of a globalist agenda, as anti-semitic. MSM has lost all credibility. We have now reached THX 1138 or mass Project MKUltra mind enslavement levels.
This just in from Wikileaks: turns out that President Abomination's administration was handpicked by Wall Street a year before he was elected and he just complied like the neolib puppet corporate whore he has always been. Article was cited by Wikileaks, Glenn Greenwald & Ralph Nader.
https://newrepublic.com/article/137798/ ... ry-clinton
Oh and here comes Podesta leaks #7:

[Durandal]

Someone's getting Assange'd, and it ain't Clinton.

[BryanM]

Of course Trump would be well-informed of the conspiracy arrayed against him.

Because he's a central part of it.

It's not rocket science people.

In other news the leaks confirm that Obama's cabinet was selected by Citigroup. I guess that's no surprise whatsoever, it's just a little depressing to have the worst confirmed.

[Mischief Maker]

"Vast right-wing conspiracy?" Pfft, small potatoes!

Hardly a conspiracy, and Trump is right concerning that a globalist agenda is present regarding the US and its NATO allies. Neoliberalsm and neoconservatism is actually a thing, despite the few nuances they have in relation to each other...
Watched Trump's complete rally/speech on CSPAN, and was later dismayed at Chris Hayes (MSNBC) referring to Trump's talk of a globalist agenda, as anti-semitic. MSM has lost all credibility. We have now reached THX 1138 or mass Project MKUltra mind enslavement levels.
This just in from Wikileaks: turns out that President Abomination's administration was handpicked by Wall Street a year before he was elected and he just complied like the neolib puppet corporate whore he has always been. Article was cited by Wikileaks and Glenn Greenwald.
https://newrepublic.com/article/137798/ ... ry-clinton
Oh and here comes Podesta leaks #7:

Would've been nice to get all this a couple months earlier, Mr. Putin.

Silly Russians, no October surprise trumps a rapist!

[BryanM]

It's more likely they're coming from the FBI tbqf

[Ed Oscuro]

What in blazes are you on right now?

We're comparing apples to apples, Ed. Which is an impossible fantasy because we're the aggressors here. I know you might have gotten the continents mixed up and forgotten this; they're so close together and all.

Fuck Russia for caring about Russia, right? Good luck with your nuclear holocaust goals of 2016.

No, you idiot, I'm talking about the air defense missiles Russia sent to Syria, which does not border it. (Speaking of foreign meddling, Obama freed up Cuban rum and cigars for unlimited importation, woohoo.)

There's no reason for those missiles to be there except to prevent outside interference against their war crimes. In fact, those missiles send the signal they don't even want cooperation on Syria.

The US is so far respecting that Russia has been invited by the Syrian government into the conflict, but so long as this war crime continues we're pushing into uncharted territory for international law (not to mention basic human morality).

The only people talking about a nuclear war and warning their citizens to go home are Russians.

Again, with any luck they'll start straightening out their knickers after the election.

Since you're being lazy in addition to dumb, here's a source which lays out the transcript:
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald ... -iraq-war/

I linked this exact source earlier in the thread and made it clear that you were wrong about him supporting the war.

You can't understand that March is later in the year than January? That Trump said Bush was doing "a terrific job?"

[BryanM]

The US is so far respecting that Russia has been invited by the Syrian government into the conflict, but so long as this war crime continues we're pushing into uncharted territory for international law (not to mention basic human morality).

So you're a hero of justice. I suppose you support the death penalty for George W Bush, Cheney, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and all the other war criminals who broke international law?

Right?

Yes or no, Ed. If you say "no", you're beyond full of shit.

you idiot

I can insult imaginary people on the internet too!

"You suck."

Wow I won the argument aren't I a smarty-cool guy too.

[BryanM]

The only people talking about a nuclear war... are Russians.

Ok I had to come back to gawk in awe at this masterful example of projection and hypocrisy.

"I'm not racist, you're the racist."
"When I do it, it's good. When you do it, it's bad."

Incredible. Trés bien. Same exact verses we heard back in the run up to Iraq, parroted once again right off the CNN talking points of the day. Guess you aren't happy we didn't finish the job the first time around, eh?

[Ed Oscuro]

"You idiot" is a manifestly appropriate response to your smarmy, dismissive absurdities.

And do tell me what the loving fuck "the Russians are engaged in unfriendly activities and a war crime" has to do with Bush, again? You know I'm not in love with that former administration, but even through your court jester act I had imagined you were sane enough to realize there was a difference between what Bush and co. did, and the actual intentional bombing of civilians the Russians and Syrians (and Iranians) are engaging in here. If anything the Russians seem to have taken the lesson away that we let ISIS form because we didn't engage in extrajudicial killings of captured fighters, so they'll just bomb everybody and "let God sort them out."

I guess my mistake was thinking that your supposed half-joking was a mask for hidden rationalization of circumstances. If you want to be cynical, that's fine, but try thinking before you trot out another non sequitur, okay?

[BulletMagnet]

Watched Trump's complete rally/speech on CSPAN, and was later dismayed at Chris Hayes (MSNBC) referring to Trump's talk of a globalist agenda, as anti-semitic. MSM has lost all credibility. We have now reached THX 1138 or mass Project MKUltra mind enslavement levels.

White nationalists, as they frequently have during this campaign, appear to disagree.

I always find it fascinating how whenever Trump says something laughably ridiculous on its face his followers always assure us "no, you need to look beyond the surface, read between the lines, he's umpteen steps ahead, you're foolish for going the obvious route", but as soon as he mutters anything that might or might not be innocuous, suddenly "you're overreaching, you're making silly assumptions to confirm your bias, stop looking for something that isn't there, just listen to what the man says, it's not that complicated."

[Ed Oscuro]

Not to mention his two-faced game for dealing with criticism: If other people make claims, they're "horrible liars" without witnesses. But if Humpty Trumpty makes claims, that's just the truth.

Come to think of it, that's the strategy BryanM seems to be following: I can insult you on two levels, but don't call me an idiot or else I will post multiple paragraphs and image macros at you!

Right now his strategy is the same as the abuser from this film, so we've been hearing a lot about "gaslighting" recently.

The good old GROPE party.