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

  • Thread starter Thread starter JU 199
  • Start date Start date
  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • 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:
Click to expand...
exposethebad said:
How has he "attacked" them? By wanting to assure the citizens of his native country aren't paying the bills of those who shouldn't even legally be in said country? That is attacking? K....
Click to expand...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-keeps-up-attacks-on-judge-gonzalo-curiel-1464911442
Brent Kendall
Updated June 3, 2016 10:03 a.m. ET
Donald Trump on Thursday escalated his attacks on the federal judge presiding over civil fraud lawsuits against Trump University, amid criticism from legal observers who say the presumptive GOP presidential nominee’s comments are an unusual affront on an independent judiciary.

In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage” and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association. Mr. Trump said the background of the judge, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. “I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest,” Mr. Trump said.


For judges, being criticized for rulings comes with the territory, but court watchers say it is a degree far different when the critic could win the nation’s highest office, is involved in a pending case and references the judge's ethnicity.

University of Pennsylvania law professor Stephen Burbank said it was “absolute nonsense” that the judge shouldn’t be able to preside over the case because of his ethnicity.

“If this continues, I would hope that some prominent federal judges would set Mr. Trump straight on what’s appropriate and what’s not in our democracy,” Mr. Burbank said.
Click to expand...
We've been over this again and again.
 
Sweet and Savoury said:
I don't think I've ever seen such a spectacle in politics as this election.

I thought GWB was the lowest they could go but man, was I wrong.
Click to expand...
The thing is, and this is something none of my fellow liberals seem to get, Bush the Younger wasn't all that much of a republican at the end of the day. He got some tax cuts through, but his main policies were the foreign wars, something democrats are famous for. He also started the cycle of madness where the legislature cedes their power to the Executive branch more every fucking election cycle. That's not liberal or conservative - just a power grab both parties have been happy to continue with.

At the end of the day - Trump or Hillary - neither of them will be able to get shit done with the House and Senate such a clusterfuck. They'll hate whoever gets elected and continue with doing everything possible not to pass a bill. They'll probably get one or two Supremes through to the bench and the success rate for your nominee staying true to their past decisions appears to be about 50/50.

Basically, I find the specter of Donald Trump being President not all that worrying. If the RNC had managed to push through a real conservative candidate, who could work with Congress and get them to unfuck themselves - well, that would get me worried.
 
Last edited:
Oh Long Johnson said:
The thing is, and this is something none of my fellow liberals seem to get, Bush the Younger wasn't all that much of a republican at the end of the day. He got some tax cuts through, but his main policies were the foreign wars, something democrats are famous for. He also started the cycle of madness where the legislature cedes their power to the Executive branch more every fucking election cycle. That's not liberal or conservative - just a power grab both parties have been happy to continue with.

At the end of the day - Trump or Hillary - neither of them will be able to get shit done with the House and Senate such a clusterfuck. They'll hate whoever gets elected and continue with doing everything possible not to pass a bill. They'll probably get one or two Supremes through to the bench and the success rate for your nominee staying true to their past decisions appears to be about 50/50.

Basically, if find the specter of Donald Trump being President not all that worrying. If the RNC had managed to push through a real conservative candidate, who could work with Congress and get them to unfuck themselves - well, that would get me worried.
Click to expand...
He shucked and jived when it came time for him to give the party's answers to abortion, healthcare, and guns. He'll be doing it again, but now he can pander to Russia and her allies openly.
 
Oh Long Johnson said:
They'll probably get one or two Supremes through to the bench and the success rate for your nominee staying true to their past decisions appears to be about 50/50.
Click to expand...

That's actually a good thing, as partisan, "loyal" Supreme Court Justices are generally the worst.
 
AnOminous said:
That's actually a good thing, as partisan, "loyal" Supreme Court Justices are generally the worst.
Click to expand...
It is frustrating when they flip, but you are right. I'd rather have nine octogenarians who believe their own bullshit than nine taking two separate sets of marching orders.
 
Rou said:
Might be possible. I'm no expert, but I can see either third parties fragmenting the Democrats, voters protesting by not voting (which is how the Republicans got so many seats in the last election) or hell could even freeze over and Bernie voters could vote for Trump out of spite. Oh, and it's funny reading over the media about Sander's speech of unity, like if it'll placate the increasingly angry mob. I'll be surprised if there's no riots by the end of this.
Click to expand...

Third parties and voter apathy will likely hit the Democrats at least mildly noticeably this time around. Many Clinton supporters have voiced anger over the idea that Sanders supporters might "elect Trump" by causing a spoiler effect as Ralph Nader is supposed to have in 2000. That apparently was what gave us the presidency of George W. Bush. What those who bitch about Nader forget--often conveniently to avoid the introspection that should come with the revelation--is that about 12 times as many Democrats voted for Bush than did for Nader in Florida.

Try as he might now to bridge the gap, there is a serious ideological difference (at least in policy, personality is a matter of debate and something for the eye of the beholder) between Sanders and Clinton. Supporters from each side know this, but since Clinton is the one headed for the general it is the Sanders group that is the critical one now.

The Clinton supporters must now solicit the support of the Sanders supporters. Based on what I've seen fucking around political sites' comment boxes (always an entertaining stroll), the Clinton supporters couldn't be doing a better job of antagonizing the Sanders camp. Based on what they are saying and how they are saying it, I do believe that these are real Clinton supporters, not trolls trying to undercut her campaign. As I have shown in previous quotations reposted here, these buffoons vary from the female supremacist, white-hating types to the "it's misogyny if you don't vote for her!" These are obviously not very compelling arguments to most reasonable people and the fact that they resort to immediate personal attacks if you question either of these sorts of comments does them no favors either.

As far as hell freezing over and Bernie supporters voting for Trump go, I wouldn't bet against a fair block breaking ranks with the Democrats and doing so (the 2000 precedent talked about above also comes into play). Many of the Bernie backers are there because they do not want to see Hillary as president. Even so, I still do not see it ultimately changing the outcome. I suspect Clinton will still win, regardless of a defection of Sanders voters to Trump.

AnOminous said:
Especially considering Bernie consistently polled higher against Trump than Hillary did, then they forced this cunt down our throat anyway.
Click to expand...

By every estimation I ever read, Sanders fared better than Clinton in the general election projections facing Trump. I think it's exceptionally foolish of the DNC to run Clinton against such a foe that might actually be able to topple her in the general. (I don't think Trump will, but he's close enough to where the DNC should have seen the better move and taken it).
 
Spellskite said:
The Mexican judge shit was beyond ridiculous and only the biggest Trump fanboy would argue otherwise.
Click to expand...

Why? That judge has an entirely dubious record and is connected to some ridiculous groups/people. It's wrong to call out such things just because a person is a judge? Have you even looked at the background of that judge, you may want to and then cross reference that background with Trumps comments as he is accurate.

For example, in 2015 (Jul) the Hispanic National Bar Association publicly stated it planned to "target the business interests of Mr. Trump." This Judge is a leading member of said organization. So Trump called him out, what's the big deal? Further, he is connected to La Raza, again Trump called him out, what's the big deal?

Trump has, from my opinion, not "attacked" anyone or any group outside of the candidates he disposed of. People exaggerate and create such ridiculous fictions to attempt to create a non existent narrative about him being some sexist, racist, meanie poo poo head. The guy called a spade a spade - he should be congratulated given the internal corruption we have seen over this past decade. Nothing wrong with that in my view.
 
Last edited:
exposethebad said:
Why? That judge has an entirely dubious record and is connected to some ridiculous groups/people. It's wrong to call out such things just because a person is a judge? Have you even looked at the background of that judge, you may want to and then cross reference that background with Trumps comments as he is accurate.

For example, in 2015 (Jul) the Hispanic National Bar Association publicly stated it planned to "target the business interests of Mr. Trump." This Judge is a leading member of said organization. So Trump called him out, what's the big deal? Further, he is connected to La Raza, again Trump called him out, what's the big deal?

Trump has, from my opinion, not "attacked" anyone or any group outside of the candidates he disposed of. People exaggerate and create such ridiculous fictions to attempt to create a non existent narrative about him being some sexist, racist, meanie poo poo head. The guy called a spade a spade - he should be congratulated given the internal corruption we have seen over this past decade. Nothing wrong with that in my view.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should read the top post on this page:

In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage” and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association. Mr. Trump said the background of the judge, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. “I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest,” Mr. Trump said.

You can scream LA RAZA all you want, your candidate said that someone's ethnicity and birth disqualified them from performing a job. Let's call a spade a spade - that is racist. How many times does this possibly need to be said?
 
Spellskite said:
Maybe you should read the top post on this page:

In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage” and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association. Mr. Trump said the background of the judge, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. “I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest,” Mr. Trump said.

You can scream LA RAZA all you want, your candidate said that someone's ethnicity and birth disqualified them from performing a job. Let's call a spade a spade - that is racist. How many times does this possibly need to be said?
Click to expand...

.. and Trump has stated his comments were "misconstrued" which can definitely be the case when using words such as "background" which could relate, in totality, to the groups and organizations one is connected to and not have anything to do with race.

I am not screaming anything. I am simply stating that his point is valid that he called out someone with a severely questionable background which includes drug cartels, American hate groups and, most of all for this case, the financing of illegal aliens for college. That alone should disqualify such a Judge based on this situation unless said Judge feels they can be impartial. I don't see calling someone's background into play as a big deal at all as it is simply stating facts.
 
exposethebad said:
Why? That judge has an entirely dubious record and is connected to some ridiculous groups/people. It's wrong to call out such things just because a person is a judge? Have you even looked at the background of that judge, you may want to and then cross reference that background with Trumps comments as he is accurate.
Click to expand...

Bunch of bullshit. If you think the judge is biased, your lawyers file a motion to recuse at the outset of the case.

You don't sit on your ass and wait for him to rule against you and only then publicly make racist remarks about him while, again, not filing any actual motion to disqualify him. There's a good reason no such motion has been filed and that's that it would be sanctionably frivolous.
 
AnOminous said:
That's actually a good thing, as partisan, "loyal" Supreme Court Justices are generally the worst.
Click to expand...
tmp_2640-scalia_11865398713.png
exposethebad said:
.. and Trump has stated his comments were "misconstrued" which can definitely be the case when using words such as "background" which could relate, in totality, to the groups and organizations one is connected to and not have anything to do with race.

I am not screaming anything. I am simply stating that his point is valid that he called out someone with a severely questionable background which includes drug cartels, American hate groups and, most of all for this case, the financing of illegal aliens for college. That alone should disqualify such a Judge based on this situation unless said Judge feels they can be impartial. I don't see calling someone's background into play as a big deal at all as it is simply stating facts.
Click to expand...
If Mr. Trump thinks a judge is being biased against him, the burden of proof falls on his legal team. The fact is that they didn't make a fuss until the judge made a motion that hurt Trump in unsealing embarassing documents. If Obama had said SCOUTUS had been biased against him in the Hobby Lobby case because the 5 justices in favor were all Catholic or appointed by the GOP, there would be a justified uproar. We have strict laws to protect all parties from a biased judicial system, real concerns of bias would be brought up in a legal and timely way. The foundation of a nation of laws depends on the concensus being that the legal system is not set against anyone at any echelon, from traffic court to SCOUTUS. We don't have to like a judge's ruling, but to go and outright say that a judge is willingly harboring a bias or is involved in corruption is a very grave statement that needs more proof than differing politics. Otherwise we open Pandora's box to remove some of our most treasured cases
 
Last edited by a moderator:
exposethebad said:
Trump has, from my opinion, not "attacked" anyone or any group outside of the candidates he disposed of.
Click to expand...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/11/politics/donald-trump-john-mccain-hero/

Pressed further on whether he regrets his initial comments, Trump said many people agreed with what he said and cited an increase in his poll numbers.
"I don't, you know -- I like not to regret anything," Trump said. "You do things and you say things. And what I said, frankly, is what I said. And you know some people like what I said, if you want to know the truth. Many people that like what I said. You know after I said that, my poll numbers went up seven points."
Click to expand...

So insulting POWs is cool now among the right? What a fucking world!
 
The Sanders for President camp is going from a dumpster fire to a nuclear meltdown. They mentioned having to remove a load of death threats against Sanders. It could be the really fringe Bernie fags or it could be Trumpsters trying to get said far left supporters to make bigger asses of themselves.

tmp_2640-NoBrokeyHart09-241847041.png

KingGeedorah said:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/11/politics/donald-trump-john-mccain-hero/



So insulting POWs is cool now among the right? What a fucking world!
Click to expand...
"Trump has, from my opinion, not "attacked" anyone or any group outside of the candidates he disposed of." :story:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom