Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: kill urself

Topic: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh) (Read 53470 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #3050
it's just a rhetorical "no u"

  • meepmeep
  • Administrator
  • zombiecat queen
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #3051
Those are their own pussies, right?

Women displaying their own sexuality is disgusting and will corrupt the children. Women need to stay at home and let sex be forced on them by good, Christian men who partake in their locker room talk.

Just think of those poor young women being forced to watch other women express their sexuality when they should really just be enjoying the fear of getting sexually assaulted just as God intended.

Honestly, though, my favorite thing about this is that when women talk about their experiences with harassment and assault and then say that this makes them cautious around men they don't know well, we're all misandrists and feminazis and paranoid hysterics because #NOTALLMEN. Yet here we are hearing everyone say that normal guys constantly talk about sexually assaulting women and we should just get over it and grow up. But we're still man-haters if we take them at their word and then react appropriately to protect our pussies from the tiny grabbing hands. :awgee:

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #3052
Muslims respond to Trump's "muslims report' comments:
Quote
"I'm a Muslim, and I would like to report a crazy man threatening a woman on a stage in Missouri."

"I need to report I saw an orange haired man on my TV scaring children," quipped Dean Obeidallah, a CNN contributor

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/10/politics/muslimsreportstuff-trump-debate-trnd/index.html?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

  • Bilirubin
  • Ain't nothing ta fuck wit'

Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #3054
Those are their own pussies, right?

Women displaying their own sexuality is disgusting and will corrupt the children. Women need to stay at home and let sex be forced on them by good, Christian men who partake in their locker room talk.

Just think of those poor young women being forced to watch other women express their sexuality when they should really just be enjoying the fear of getting sexually assaulted just as God intended.

Honestly, though, my favorite thing about this is that when women talk about their experiences with harassment and assault and then say that this makes them cautious around men they don't know well, we're all misandrists and feminazis and paranoid hysterics because #NOTALLMEN. Yet here we are hearing everyone say that normal guys constantly talk about sexually assaulting women and we should just get over it and grow up. But we're still man-haters if we take them at their word and then react appropriately to protect our pussies from the tiny grabbing hands. :awgee:
there is so much awesome about this post that a simple like isn't enough. :notworthy:
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • ravenscape
  • Administrator
  • Triggered
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #3055
Newsweek's Kurt Eichenwald thinks this is a huge deal.

Quote
The Russians were quoting two sentences from a 10,000 word piece I wrote for Newsweek, which Blumenthal had emailed to Podesta. There was no mistaking that Blumenthal was citing Newsweek--the magazine's name and citations for photographs appeared throughout the attached article. The Russians had carefully selected the "of course" paragraph, which mentions there were legitimate points of criticism regarding Clinton and Benghazi, all of which had been acknowledged in nine reports about the terror attack and by the former Secretary of State herself. But that was hardly the point of the story, "Benghazi Biopsy: A Comprehensive Guide to One of America's Worst Political Outrages." The piece is about the obscene politicization of the assault that killed four Americans, and the article slammed the Republican Benghazi committee which was engaged in a political show trial disguised as a Congressional investigation--the tenth inquiry into the tragedy.

Here is the real summation of my article, which the Russians failed to quote: "The historical significance of this moment can hardly be overstated, and it seems many Republicans, Democrats and members of the media don't fully understand the magnitude of what is taking place. The awesome power of government--one that allows officials to pore through almost anything they demand and compel anyone to talk or suffer the shame of taking the Fifth Amendment--has been unleashed for purely political purposes. It is impossible to review what the Benghazi committee has done as anything other than taxpayer-funded political research of the opposing party's leading candidate for president. Comparisons from America's past are rare. Richard Nixon's attempts to use the IRS to investigate his perceived enemies come to mind. So does Senator Joseph McCarthy's red-baiting during the 1950s, with reckless accusations of treason leveled at members of the State Department, military generals and even the secretary of the Army...The consequences, however, are worse than the manipulation of the electoral process. By using Benghazi for political advantage, the Republicans have communicated to global militants that, through even limited attacks involving relatively few casualties, they can potentially influence the direction of American elections."

Of course, this might be seen as just an opportunity to laugh at the incompetence of the Russian hackers and government press--once they realized their error, Sputnik took the article down. But then things got even more bizarre.

This false story was only reported by the Russian controlled agency (a reference appeared in a Turkish publication, but it was nothing but a link to the Sputnik article). So how did Donald Trump end up advancing the same falsehood put out by Putin's mouthpiece?

http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635

  • el jefe
  • asleep till 2020 or 2024
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #3056
two new national polls this morning

prri/the Atlantic has clinton leading by 11, duplicating the lead reported yesterday by nbc/wsj.  this survey was conducted mostly *before* pussygate, and reports an increase in hillary's lead from 6 points a week earlier. ....  I'd be cautious with this one, because I haven't heard of them before (prri = "public religion research institute") and don't see a 538 rating.  from googling, they seem to have done their first presidential polls ever just this august.

http://www.prri.org/research/prri-atlantic-october-11-2016-presidential-election-horserace-clinton-trump/

politico/morningconsult has hillary ahead by 5, which is up from the 2-point lead they reported before the video came out. 

https://morningconsult.com/2016/10/11/voters-say-clinton-won-debate-trumps-support-remains-stable/

  • linus
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #3057
Trump lashing out at Paul Ryan


ETA: stolen from the comments
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
  • Last Edit: October 11, 2016, 06:35:08 AM by linus

  • el jefe
  • asleep till 2020 or 2024
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #3058
a lot of trump fans are tweeting that he needs to not go after ryan right now.  even they are starting to get that he's being stupid.

  • meepmeep
  • Administrator
  • zombiecat queen
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #3059
But it'll be great for his ratings once TrumpTV gets off the ground.

  • linus
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #3060
a lot of trump fans are tweeting that he needs to not go after ryan right now.  even they are starting to get that he's being stupid.
I'm sure he'll listen...

BTW, this makes me think back to that newspaper article about the Mercers, who own the campaign. They apparently hate the GOP establishment, so maybe they don't mind too much if Trump pulls down GOP lawmakers in the fall.

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #3061
Now we know what clutch purses are for.

Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #3062
Newsweek's Kurt Eichenwald thinks this is a huge deal.

Quote
The Russians were quoting two sentences from a 10,000 word piece I wrote for Newsweek, which Blumenthal had emailed to Podesta. There was no mistaking that Blumenthal was citing Newsweek--the magazine's name and citations for photographs appeared throughout the attached article. The Russians had carefully selected the "of course" paragraph, which mentions there were legitimate points of criticism regarding Clinton and Benghazi, all of which had been acknowledged in nine reports about the terror attack and by the former Secretary of State herself. But that was hardly the point of the story, "Benghazi Biopsy: A Comprehensive Guide to One of America's Worst Political Outrages." The piece is about the obscene politicization of the assault that killed four Americans, and the article slammed the Republican Benghazi committee which was engaged in a political show trial disguised as a Congressional investigation--the tenth inquiry into the tragedy.

Here is the real summation of my article, which the Russians failed to quote: "The historical significance of this moment can hardly be overstated, and it seems many Republicans, Democrats and members of the media don't fully understand the magnitude of what is taking place. The awesome power of government--one that allows officials to pore through almost anything they demand and compel anyone to talk or suffer the shame of taking the Fifth Amendment--has been unleashed for purely political purposes. It is impossible to review what the Benghazi committee has done as anything other than taxpayer-funded political research of the opposing party's leading candidate for president. Comparisons from America's past are rare. Richard Nixon's attempts to use the IRS to investigate his perceived enemies come to mind. So does Senator Joseph McCarthy's red-baiting during the 1950s, with reckless accusations of treason leveled at members of the State Department, military generals and even the secretary of the Army...The consequences, however, are worse than the manipulation of the electoral process. By using Benghazi for political advantage, the Republicans have communicated to global militants that, through even limited attacks involving relatively few casualties, they can potentially influence the direction of American elections."

Of course, this might be seen as just an opportunity to laugh at the incompetence of the Russian hackers and government press--once they realized their error, Sputnik took the article down. But then things got even more bizarre.

This false story was only reported by the Russian controlled agency (a reference appeared in a Turkish publication, but it was nothing but a link to the Sputnik article). So how did Donald Trump end up advancing the same falsehood put out by Putin's mouthpiece?

http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635
Lot of liberals piled on this one this morning, pointing out that the obvious connection is that the Russian agitprop was probably posted by Russia to the trump subreddit and made it to Trump that way. It's not necessarily the case that Trump is in bed with Russian agents; he is just steeped in white supremacy communities that are completely infiltrated by Russian trollfarms.

Dunno if that's better or worse, but...

  • meepmeep
  • Administrator
  • zombiecat queen
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #3063
Regardless of the source, he is still literally spreading Russian propaganda.

The Republican candidate for President of the United States in 2016 on the planet Earth is parroting Russian propaganda.

Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #3064
  • Last Edit: October 11, 2016, 08:51:04 AM by Testy Calibrate
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #3065
Regardless of the source, he is still literally spreading Russian propaganda.

The Republican candidate for President of the United States in 2016 on the planet Earth is parroting Russian propaganda.

yep. it's totally fucked up but there's a major difference between "being manipulated by russian agitprop" and "being a direct pipeline for spread of russian agitprop"

  • meepmeep
  • Administrator
  • zombiecat queen
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #3066

Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #3067
Quote
He was a germophobe through most of his life

literally President Johnny Gentle.

  • el jefe
  • asleep till 2020 or 2024
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #3068
Maine governor paul lepage, who is p much trump's mini-me, has now actually said that we need trump to show some "authoritarian power", to save america

https://politicalwire.com/2016/10/11/lepage-suggests-u-s-constitution-broken/

Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #3069
year of the whopper

Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #3070
Has this already been posted?
https://youtu.be/5651NgzhkXQ
Beautiful
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • el jefe
  • asleep till 2020 or 2024
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #3071
trump's going after the real enemies now: ryan and mccain

eta: and now carson is defending ryan

  • SkepticTank
  • Global Moderator
  • Calmer than you are
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #3072
I think it's worth re-posting this.

Quote
Buchanan took the money we raised (at that point, we had quite a large national base thanks to Ross Perot and myself) and he used that money to retire his previous campaign debts. He had no intention of using our campaign money to run for president and that's what destroyed the Reform party. This was all done by design so that the Reform party would no longer be a threat to the Republicans. Well, Trump was there then. He saw it. And I believe he's doing the same thing to the Republicans that they did to us. I mean, come on, his own wife pretty much recited Michelle Obama's entire speech at the GOP convention and his daughter went on and on about the need for paid childcare, equal pay laws, and a bunch of liberal principles that we've never heard a Republican add to a presidential platform. And then Trump gets up and reiterates all the reasons why we need to build a wall. How is that not destroying the Republican Party? I have to say, as an Independent, I'm glad to see it.

  • SkepticTank
  • Global Moderator
  • Calmer than you are
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #3073
Has this already been posted?
[snip]
Beautiful
That was awesome.

Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #3074
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor