MASSIVE Erection Thread 2016 - Lizard has the advantage. Trump is spiraling towards defeat.

  • Thread starter Thread starter JU 199
  • Start date Start date
  • ⚙️ Performance issue identified and being addressed.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Status
Not open for further replies.
First title
NEtitle.png


second title
title2.png


third title
US 2016 Presidential election  Trump victory leaves rivals distressed and confused    Kiwi Farms.png


Fourth title
trumptitle4.png


Fifth and Sixth title
new title (1).png


Seventh title
Screenshot_2016-06-07-12-33-22.png


eighth title
Apocalypse 2016.png


Ninth title
Screenshot_2016-07-25-23-47-41~2.jpg


tenth title
title10.png


All discussion of the candidates, updates and results should go here

For example- here's a video of Ted Cruz vying for world domination.


Also Hilary Clinton is a crook and nobody should have sex with her.

Discuss

(Note- The title will change as we get nearer the election, previous titles will be archived in the OP)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He does it to lose future jobs.
People need to spam his Twitter account with this picture. Just like when people spammed Clinton's Instagram with RIP Clintons and demands to change fire ants to spicy boys.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The party base chose him over everyone else, granted that everyone else was already on a weak footing because the GOP had no real political leadership and everyone who thought that they might have had a shot entered the primary race. Again, Trump tapped into currents that had been present within the Republican base for the past several years (and the American public at large for a while longer). If not him, someone else would have done the same in the next election cycle. He is what they wanted.

Not gonna lie, that eerily sounds close to how Hitler ended up getting elected as the leader of Germany - somebody radically extremist inevitably was going to rally Germany on underlying public discontent and Hitler was naturally not the only one who thought extermination of minorities was going to work in the long run, since IIRC it is postulated if Hitler had not been elected it would just lead to somebody like Gobbels (who was pretty much real life Red Skull but also too loyal to Hitler to go to even more horrifying extremes) coming to power.

With Trump thus far, just replace Jews with...pretty much everybody not born on US soil at this point. And it wouldn't need to even be the next election - I really do believe if Trump had not ever run for president in the first place, Ted Cruz would be holding the nomination atop a far more united GOP for much the same reason Trump does now. Only difference is Cruz would stay on message instead of Trump constantly running his mouth about everything except staying on message.


Can't wait to see the spin on this one from the GOP
 
The fucker's name is IN a lobbying firm that represented people like Said Barre, a Somali dictator who's government murdered 50,000 people in '88 alone and which ordered the use of rape. His firm also helped prolong the Angolian Civil War by getting Congress to directly support a terrorist. And not just a little help, quite a bit of support to be honest.
I am no longer suprised by anything anymorehttp://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,960803-1,00.html
 
I don't blame them too much, seeing as how the other side is packed with worthless "Southern Strategy" hicks.

What blacks should really aim for though is a hostile takeover. Register Republican en masse and cause as much disruption to the system as possible from within. Kinda like what Trump and Sanders both did this year.


The "Southern Strategy" was devised in the 1960's, is that right? A lot of that generation has died off or are in the final stages of their lives anyway. I don't know when the majority of Southerners switched parties, but I can go by my family and neighbors from growing up in N.O. Most of them were hardcore Democrats until the late 80s early 90s, and a lot of people I know switched parties almost solely based on one man, Edwin Edwards lol. Though a lot of people loved Edwin Edwards, even after his corruption was widely known and he went to prison for it, he still has supporters.

Hell, he ran for some minor office like last year and he had only been out of prison a couple years at the most. Just FYI, if you don't know who I'm talking about, Edwin Edwards was governor of Louisiana, served like four or five nonconsecutive terms. He was your classic, Southern "populist" governor. Stuck up for the little guy, came from a tiny little town in a heavily French part of the state, and spoke with a thick Cajun accent.

People liked that he stood up to the federal government and the big corporations, and the fact that he had that "neighborly" quality about him. He is the person responsible for bringing river boat gambling, and then gambling in general to Louisiana. The problem with him though, was that he was a greedy, extremely corrupt thief through and through. His rampant theft and his legalization of river boat gambling was what made many staunch Democrats switch parties in the 80s/90s from what I remember.

You may remember when former Klan leader David Duke ran for President in the 80s? He's the man that ditched the robes for a suit and tie, and tried to give the Klan and its unsympathetic hateful messages an "intellectual" front. Anyway, he ran for governor against Edwin Edwards in the early 1990s and it was actually a very close election!! LOL. Edwards won though, and a few years later, ended up in prison for accepting huge bribes among other things.

You can watch the Edwards/Duke gubernatorial debates on youtube, and despite David Duke being a former Klansmen, and a white separatist, you can't argue that he isn't clean-cut, well spoken, and can actually form a decent argument unlike most of the people that came out of that fringe group of separatist extremists.

One idea he proposed, which I personally didn't think was too awful, was that a single mother receiving welfare benefits could get a bonus to her monthly benefits if she agreed to have those birth control "rods" implanted in their arms to prevent them from having even more kids, thus adding to the burden of the taxpayers of supporting more children from unwed mothers with fathers who "disappear" and who aren't in the picture for whatever reason.

It's not even a racial thing. I, for one, don't like the idea of having to constantly support another persons bad decisions that they make over and over again, in this case, having kids with various men out of wedlock and who either don't work themselves or drop off the grid to prevent paying child support.

Of course its necessary to support these children, I don't blame the kids and I agree that they should be supported through government social programs if the family doesn't have the means to. But I don't think these irresponsible individuals need to keep having more children and if getting a birth control implant that lasts a few years would keep them from getting knocked up and having kids they can't afford to feed, I'm all for it.

Even still, I understand the unfortunate implications it could have and how the civil liberties crowd would be vocal against a measure this severe.

[EDIT: Wow, I think that might be my longest post in my entire history of internet use. TL:dr Governor Edwards caused many staunch Louisiana Democrats to switch parties in the 80s and 90s due to his legalization of riverboat gambling and his rampant corruption, long after the "Southern Strategy" was implemented in the 1960's.]
 
Last edited:
I don't know when the majority of Southerners switched parties, but I can go by my family and neighbors from growing up in N.O. Most of them were hardcore Democrats until the late 80s early 90s, and a lot of people I know switched parties almost solely based on one man, Edwin Edwards lol.
Most southern states went Republican in the EC by 1968, but occasionally would go Democrat. Helps to have a simple way of tracking electoral history.
 
Haven't said shit? A simple search result shows we're actually saying and doing quite a bit. Or are we going by the Trump-Standard now? Just buster on national TV while pulling extraordinary claims out of our ass about Jinping and try to talk tough without putting any effort into it.
Lots of talk and no action.
And no flying 60 year old bombers "close" is not action.
But yeah throw Taiwan and phillipines under the bus.
If Obama took China seriously he would had stopped construction of those bases.
Keep appeasing China,it will be a very good strategy /sarcasm
 
Lots of talk and no action.
And no flying 60 year old bombers "close" is not action.
The B-52 is still an effective aircraft that is expected to continue service into 2040. And giving our allies a supply of ships isn't just talk, nor is it just talk to continue to enforce our presence.
But yeah throw Taiwan and phillipines under the bus.
Where was that anger when Trump wanted to extort Japan and Korea? Its no different throwing them under the bus if we withdrew our navy from the region.
If Obama took China seriously he would had stopped construction of those bases.
Keep appeasing China,it will be a very good strategy /sarcasm
Diplomacy should be the first course of action in most cases unless you would be OK with starting a war large scale war. Appeasment isnt diplomacy either. If we were appeasing them, we wouldn't buff up naval patrols, continue to give our allies aid, or continue to deny them a right to control the sea.
You can bitch out Obama all you want. I have my own ax to grind with him, but how is kissing Putin's ass not appeasment?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Haven't said shit? A simple search result shows we're actually saying and doing quite a bit. Or are we going by the Trump-Standard now? Just buster on national TV while pulling extraordinary claims out of our ass about Jinping and try to talk tough without putting any effort into it.
The B-52 is still an effective aircraft that is expected to continue service into 2040. And giving our allies a supply of ships isn't just talk, nor is it just talk to continue to enforce our presence.
Where was that anger when Trump wanted to extort Japan and Korea? Its no different throwing them under the bus if we withdrew our navy from the region.
Diplomacy should be the first course of action in most cases unless you would be OK with starting a war large scale war. Appeasment isnt diplomacy either. If we were appeasing them, we wouldn't buff up naval patrols, continue to give our allies aid, or continue to deny them a right to control the sea.
You can bitch out Obama all you want. I have my own ax to gring with him, but how is kissing Putin's ass not appeasment?
Yeah try to do a b 52 attack run on the Chinese bases,air defenses would obliterate them.
Some coast guard cutters and less than 10 fighter planes are not enough.
Back in the 60s America sent a entire battlegroup through the Taiwan straight;subs,cruisers and a air craft carrier carrying over 60 planes.
You still have a chance to deploy and show China you ain't fucking around:

http://m.scmp.com/news/china/diplom...-builds-scarborough-shoal-it-would-come-after
http://thediplomat.com/2015/12/chinas-south-sea-fleet-gets-another-guided-missile-destroyer/
I want to see the coast guard cutters face those destroyers and win.
 
I love how people here are pissed at Russia while China is literally taking islands from your Asian allies and you don't say shit
FieryCross_marked_web.jpg

FieryCross_6_3_16_Hangar_1.jpg

FieryCross_7_21_16_Hangar_2.jpg


Shit's been going on for years. One of the major reasons the Obama administration undertook its whole "pivot to Asia" deal. Goal is build up US military installations and allies in the region, create stronger economic ties in Asia (TPP is a major part of that, which is an oft ignored aspect of it), and hopefully stop China from expanding its sphere of influence.

You can't really say the US isn't doing anything. It is.
 
Shit's been going on for years. One of the major reasons the Obama administration undertook its whole "pivot to Asia" deal. Goal is build up US military installations and allies in the region, create stronger economic ties in Asia (TPP is a major part of that, which is an oft ignored aspect of it), and hopefully stop China from expanding its sphere of influence.

You can't really say the US isn't doing anything. It is.
Question is that enough?
China has finished building those bases,they can deploy their anti ship planes from there and resupply their ships
Or worse: resupply their diesel subs,which are far more quiet than nuclear ones.
 
Question is that enough?
China has finished building those bases,they can deploy their anti ship planes from there and resupply their ships
Or worse: resupply their diesel subs,which are far more quiet than nuclear ones.

China won't do shit if it means risking a war with the US or any of its partners in the region. So, probably. In real terms they need our cooperation just as much as we need there's. A war between the US and China would be economically disastrous for both sides (never mind human life). Not only that, while China has a good military the US navy could very probably decimate it. Just to put this in perspective the Chinese have one active aircraft carrier (from googling it real quick anyway). The US has about 10 in active service and others currently under construction.

If they were to try to start shit over those islands they'd have a shitshow on their hands they probably wouldn't be able to control.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom