TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

Voters
144. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term (4 Years)

    26 18.06%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    51 35.42%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    50 34.72%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    4 2.78%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    13 9.03%

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #1401
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2010
    More "silly conspiracy talk"?

    Top Stratfor analysts speculate about Hillary's assassination of Polish President Lech Kackzynski:

    https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1...ne-crash-.html


    Re: [Analytical & Intelligence Comments] Polish plane crash


    I had never heard that, I thought Vince Foster was the only person the
    Clinton's killed. How naive I was.

    Sean Noonan wrote:

    hillary killed ron brown?

    what about ron browz?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVXlq1ldIRE

    downzero@cfl.rr.com wrote:

    Robert Rudisill sent a message using the contact form at
    https://www.stratfor.com/contact.

    I'm eagerly waiting for your excellent analysis of the situation.
    While I'm sure Putin would have enjoyed using Polonium on all those
    Poles, the crash instead has the earmarks of Hillary's method of
    disposing of an inconveniently talkative Commerce Secretary Ron Brown.
    Perhaps someone has radio navigation aids data that could show the
    plane was drawn off course?

    Source: http://www.stratfor.com/

    --
    Sean Noonan
    ADP- Tactical Intelligence
    Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
    Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
    www.stratfor.com

  2. #1402
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Geez. Hillary has so much power already, easily capable of killing foreign heads of state at a whim, it makes you wonder why she'd run for a position as public and thoroughly watched as the presidency.

  3. #1403
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    So, is Vae going to be telling us on Wednesday that when he said Trump would win, he meant 2020?

  4. #1404
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    I wouldn't dismiss Trump's chances of taking the presidency so easily. The polls have been showing a tight race since the FBI announced they were reopening the email case, with Hillary left maintaining only a razor thin advantage in the aftermath. He has a better than good chance winning this election.

    Even worse, if Hillary does end up winning, I have a feeling there are going to be a lot of people doing a lot of stupid things here soon. With all the rumors, innuendos, and hurt feelings being fielded about, all backed up by Donald Trump screaming of a rigged election, it could get ugly.

  5. #1405
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Trump claims searching through 650k e-mails in eight days cannot be done. On the other hand, people who know what they are talking about wonder what took the FBI so long: https://www.wired.com/2016/11/yes-do...ls-eight-days/

  6. #1406
    You all need to start actually reading some of these leaks.

    https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1...ne-crash-.html




    https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1...ne-crash-.html

    Released on 2013-04-25 00:00 GMT

    Email-ID 1643150
    Date 2010-04-13 16:38:19
    From matthew@stratfor.com
    To sean@stratfor.com
    Re: [Analytical & Intelligence Comments] Polish plane crash


    I had never heard that, I thought Vince Foster was the only person the
    Clinton's killed. How naive I was.


    Sean Noonan wrote:

    hillary killed ron brown?

    what about ron browz?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVXlq1ldIRE

    downzero@cfl.rr.com wrote:

    Robert Rudisill sent a message using the contact form at
    https://www.stratfor.com/contact.

    I'm eagerly waiting for your excellent analysis of the situation.
    While I'm sure Putin would have enjoyed using Polonium on all those
    Poles, the crash instead has the earmarks of Hillary's method of
    disposing of an inconveniently talkative Commerce Secretary Ron Brown.

    Perhaps someone has radio navigation aids data that could show the
    plane was drawn off course?

    Source: http://www.stratfor.com/

    --
    Sean Noonan
    ADP- Tactical Intelligence
    Mobile
    Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
    www.stratfor.com



    --
    Matthew Powers
    STRATFOR Research ADP
    Matthe@stratfor.com

  7. #1407
    Quote Originally Posted by Muzman View Post


    I'm kinda wondering if Vae is emotionally prepared for the crushing disappointment of nothing at all happening that he wants to happen. Manwe too for that matter. There's plenty of that disappointment in life and there's only so much cynicism and "hidden truths" and "real information" someone can earnestly absorb before something pops. It's all so obviously dramatic and serious and evil that something just has to happen.
    The cottage industry of youtubers going on about this stuff is going to have plenty to do. Their fans might be a different story.
    Technically speaking, Hitler was never convicted of any crime either. I guess that must mean he was innocent.


    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    Geez. Hillary has so much power already, easily capable of killing foreign heads of state at a whim, it makes you wonder why she'd run for a position as public and thoroughly watched as the presidency.
    Sarcastic scoffing doesn't disprove evidence. Besides which it's ill founded. There are plenty of reasons why one would want the job, such as being "first female president", and the assertion that the president's activities are "thoroughly watched" is bunk given that Obama was able to get away with extra-judicial killings without any significant scrutiny or criticism.

    At this point your logic and mentality are similar to someone who vehemently denies that climate change exists while refusing to read any of the studies because they're just biased bunk.
    Last edited by Tony_Tarantula; 7th Nov 2016 at 07:40.

  8. #1408
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    You all need to start actually reading some of these leaks.

    Some guy's comments in an email discussion...
    What, so basically everything which is said in an email is a fact now? What do you imagine the oink you just posted proves? That a person thinks "The Clinton's" [sic] have had people killed?

  9. #1409
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2010
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    What, so basically everything which is said in an email is a fact now? What do you imagine the oink you just posted proves? That a person thinks "The Clinton's" [sic] have had people killed?
    When regular folks speculate about murders it's just conspiracy talk.

    When high ranking military intelligence folks who specialize in identifying assassinations speak about such things, it raises a few more eyebrows.

  10. #1410
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    I asked what it proves, not what level of suspicion it provides. There is also no context to that email, so it's not really possible to see how well informed or even how serious it is.

  11. #1411
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Have to admit though, it's generally fascinating to see just how low the tone of political discourse has dropped in the US.
    The fact that Donald Trump is even in the running is a huge red light which can't be ignored.
    Sure Hilary is everything which is wrong with politics in the US, but Trump is an unhinged psychopath who seems to hate our species.
    Hilary is symptomatic of there being too much money in politics. Trump is symptomatic of the US losing its shit.

  12. #1412
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2010
    That is why you vote for neither. You vote 3rd party (Jill Stein) so that you can begin the long process of breaking the two-party problem.
    It can't even start if everyone is so desperately partisan that they need to vote "against" a Mob Boss or Murderer instead of simply
    voting with their conscience.

  13. #1413
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: The Land of Make Believe
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    Sarcastic scoffing doesn't disprove evidence.
    There needs to be some evidence to disprove in the first instance.

  14. #1414
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: The Land of Make Believe
    Quote Originally Posted by nbohr1more View Post
    When regular folks speculate about murders it's just conspiracy talk.

    When high ranking military intelligence folks who specialize in identifying assassinations speak about such things, it raises a few more eyebrows.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E...for_email_leak

    Max Fisher, the associate director of The Atlantic, argued that Stratfor has a poor reputation "among foreign policy writers, analysts, and practitioners" and that as a result Anonymous and Wikileaks have exaggerated the significance of the information they released. He also suggested that Assange may have targeted a relatively unimportant firm and over-hyped the results in order to "regain some of his former glory".

    Australian Broadcasting Corporation foreign correspondent and Stratfor subscriber Mark Corcoran also wrote that the e-mails showed Stratfor's methods used to gather information are similar to those employed by journalists, though he wrote that the quality of its reports are often inferior to news reports.
    High ranking military intelligence folks? No, hacks and bums.

  15. #1415
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Quote Originally Posted by nbohr1more View Post
    That is why you vote for neither. You vote 3rd party (Jill Stein) so that you can begin the long process of breaking the two-party problem.
    It can't even start if everyone is so desperately partisan that they need to vote "against" a Mob Boss or Murderer instead of simply
    voting with their conscience.
    I get where you are coming from, but in this instance, a vote for 3rd party is just a vote for Trump in all but name. If I thought Trump might be the "we took it too far" moment that shocks the US to its core and forces an overhaul of politics and the two-party system, then I might think it would be a good idea. However, I believe that in this case, Trump is a bad step in the direction of something a whole lot more sinister than corruption and sabre rattling.
    With Hilary in the oval office, the world will continue to despair at America's venal politics and dangerous tampering with world affairs, but with Trump in, you'll get that plus a gigantic drop in credibility.
    Trump is a fucking one-man circus sideshow.

  16. #1416
    Member
    Registered: Jun 1999
    Location: Procrastination, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    Technically speaking, Hitler was never convicted of any crime either. I guess that must mean he was innocent.
    Huh, wha ,huh?

  17. #1417
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    Technically speaking, Hitler was never convicted of any crime either. I guess that must mean he was innocent.

    Well, except for that one time he was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison.

  18. #1418
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2003
    Location: The Plateaux Of Mirror
    Quote Originally Posted by nbohr1more View Post
    That is why you vote for neither. You vote 3rd party (Jill Stein) so that you can begin the long process of breaking the two-party problem.
    Yeah, that's not how you break the two-party problem. You break it by electing third parties at local then state levels first. That's how you build the base of support that you need to not only win at a national level, but to have the system in place to actually run the country after that.

  19. #1419
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    What Jason said. The biggest problem with the 3rd parties is that they always make a semi-big showing during the presidential elections, but only put in the barest of efforts for the house and senate.

    The structure of our government makes it very, very difficult for the system to be usurped from the top down. It's designed to prevent just any random person from showing up, getting the popular vote, and landing himself in the highest seat in the land. Any changes to the system have to be made slowly over time, from the bottom up. If our 3rd parties want a larger stake in the government, they need to stock it with more representatives and senators.

  20. #1420
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    When does the election kick off anyway?

  21. #1421
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2003
    Location: The Plateaux Of Mirror
    There are some places that open really early if memory serves (they always make a big deal out of it in the media), but in general the east coast starts voting at 6am EST tomorrow.

  22. #1422
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    When does the election kick off anyway?
    The final vote and tally begins tomorrow, ending by around midnight on the 9th.

  23. #1423
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    You want to vote for the greater good? Well then show up for the primary. That's where stuff like greater good and clerical issues belong. Once you get to the general election and one of the candidates to hold the nuclear codes can't be trusted with a Twitter account, it's too late for that stuff.

    You want to break the two party system? I got news for you, even if you successfully vote in a third party, all you've got is a new set of two parties, and it won't be the two you like. Nevermind that the odds of even accomplishing that are miniscule. No, you break the two party system by modifying how voting works. Yeah, you'll need a constitutional amendment (speaking of miniscule odds), but at least it would work if you managed it.

  24. #1424
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    I get where you are coming from, but in this instance, a vote for 3rd party is just a vote for Trump in all but name.
    No, it's not. I'm so tired of hearing this illogical argument. It assumes that if a person doesn't vote for a 3rd party, they would cast their vote instead for Clinton. That's a false assumption. Most people who are considering a 3rd party are doing it because they have already ruled out the two major party candidates.

    A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump, a vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton, and a vote for anybody else is neither a vote for Trump or Clinton.

    In my case, the choices I've considered are:
    a. Stay home
    b. Jill Stein
    c. Gary Johnson
    d. Be a spoilsport and write in Bernie Sanders

    I very quickly ruled out a. and b. I ruled out a. because I care about voting for Governor, State Legislature, and US Rep. I ruled out b. because I realized years ago that the Greens aren't really interested in forming a national political party and not many of them are interested in electing candidates to office. The Greens are mostly a grass roots organizing movement focused on issue advocacy not elections.

    Until this year, the Libertarians have just been a brand, not a party. But with two former Governors coming together to unite Libertarian voters, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, in a year with shitty nominees from the Republican and Democratic parties, I thought they could use the election to gather some momentum toward building a party. Unfortunately, Gary Johnson flaked out in Sep and Bill Weld revealed he's only in it to deny Trump. I'm very disappointed.

    So now it's ~26 hours till I vote. I will probably still vote Libertarian just to help them to the 5% threshold for federal funding next time around, and hope that a serious Libertarian candidate will emerge to take advantage of it. But part of me is tempted to throw away the vote and write in Bernie.

  25. #1425
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    No, it's not. I'm so tired of hearing this illogical argument. It assumes that if a person doesn't vote for a 3rd party, they would cast their vote instead for Clinton. That's a false assumption. Most people who are considering a 3rd party are doing it because they have already ruled out the two major party candidates.
    It's more the assumption that, unless that particular candidate is insanely responsible, a vote for a 3rd party would only serve to split the electorate, sending it to the House, who will then more than likely vote for Trump, since he's a Republican appealing to a majority of Republican representatives.

Page 57 of 558 FirstFirst ... 71217222732374247525354555657585960616267727782879297102107157307557 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •