patrick.net

The candidate whose campaign planted people to start riots at her opponents rallies is not Donald Trump.

Disputing a rigged election system is righteous.

Gore was a pussy, not a hero, for not fighting harder.

Thunderlips Russian Agent 0069 says

Disputing a rigged election system is righteous.

Claiming that a very fair election system is rigged in an effort to save face and delegitimize his opponent at the expense of the country is not righteous. The stupid birther thing was in the same ballpark, but was a single. This is a home run in shameful stupidity.

They don't care. They want Thunderdome. Trump's entire plan is simple and it follows his overarching credo in life: If you can't spend it or fuck it then shit on it.

What will you do if Obama tries to enact a No-Fly Zone in the next weeks to create some wind for Hillary? What will you do if Hillary, frustrated the Russians don't trust her, says fuck it and starts a No-Fly in January?

What will you personally do to stop a Nuclear Winter at that point?

Thunderlips Russian Agent 0069 says

Yes, the Establishment wants Thunderdome.

Have you already given up? Another 300 threads might make you feel better. You only have 20 days to devote to this particular #TimeSuck (20 days oughta about do it) before moving on to whatever the next one will be.

#TrumpTimeSuck #LoserDoucheBag #BannonNeedsThunderdome

neplusultra57 says

Have you already given up?

You guys are being dangerously unserious. Your "hypothesis" are the kind of rhetoric seen in the bottom ranks of the internet, like Free Republic in 2000 suggesting Clinton wouldn't leave office and use the FBI and "Magic Lantern" to round up everybody's guns.

We are "Sleepwalking" into a potential Nuclear War and Hillary is not playing with fire, but nuclear holocaust.

Sleepwalking isn't my term, but those of William Perry, long time Defense Positions in two administrations.

Perry does not use his memoir to score points or settle grudges. He does not sensationalize. But, as a defense insider and keeper of nuclear secrets, he is clearly calling American leaders to account for what he believes are very bad decisions, such as the precipitous expansion of NATO, right up to the Russian border, and President George W. Bush’s withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, originally signed by President Nixon.

In his foreword to the book, George P. Shultz describes Perry as a man of “absolute integrity.” His record is remarkable: Ph.D. in mathematics, vast technical training and experience in high-tech business, management of research and weapons acquisition as an undersecretary of defense under President Carter, and deputy secretary and then secretary of defense under Bill Clinton.

No one I have known, or have even heard of, has the management experience and the technical knowledge that William Perry brings to the subject of nuclear danger. Few have his wisdom and integrity. So why isn’t anyone paying attention to him? Why is fear of a nuclear catastrophe far from the minds of most Americans? And why does almost all of official Washington disagree with him and live in nuclear denial? Perry himself may provide the answer:

Our chief peril is that the poised nuclear doom, much of it hidden beneath the seas and in remote badlands, is too far out of the global public consciousness. Passivity shows broadly. Perhaps this is a matter of defeatism and its cohort, distraction. Perhaps for some it is largely a most primal human fear of facing the “unthinkable.” For others, it might be a welcoming of the illusion that there is or might be an acceptable missile defense against a nuclear attack. And for many it would seem to be the keeping of faith that nuclear deterrence will hold indefinitely—that leaders will always have accurate enough instantaneous knowledge, know the true context of events, and enjoy the good luck to avoid the most tragic of military miscalculations.

While many complain of the obvious dysfunction in Washington, few see the incomparably greater danger of “nuclear doom” because it is hidden and out of public consciousness. Despite an election year filled with commentary and debate, no one is discussing the major issues that trouble Perry. It is another example of the rigid conformity that often dominates public discourse. Long ago, I saw this in the Vietnam War and later in the invasion of Iraq: intelligent people were doing mindless—and catastrophic—things. “Sleepwalking” is the term historians now use for the stupidities that got European leaders into World War I and for the mess they unleashed at Versailles. And sleepwalking still continues as NATO and Russia trade epithets and build their armies and Moscow and Washington modernize their nuclear overkill. A new cold war.

Fortunately, Bill Perry is not sleepwalking and he is telling us, in My Journey at the Nuclear Brink, to wake up before it is too late. Anyone can begin by reading his book.

Thunderlips Russian Agent 0069 says

You guys are being dangerously unserious.

No, your candidate idol is, obviously. By the way, your temple has a poll running on who won the debate tonight. You're on breitbart 24/7 so go check it out, right now it's Clinton 62% Trump 38%. Oh well, in three months the #DoucheBag will launch #DoucheBagTV and you'll have another reason to forget the outside world. Enjoy.

B people are business people or billionaires. E people are employees earning W2s.

SubOink says

what's the consequence of the deflationary depression? I don't understand the concept of it.

Don't worry about this Sub, it will never happen with our demographics, we don't have the issues Japan or Europe has for decades

Thunderlips Russian Agent 0069 says

Elites often crash the system or ride it down (in denial most of the time because power is largely relative) to destruction to preserve their power.

"People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage."
John Kenneth Galbraith

I think pollsters know how to do a statistical sampling much, much, much better than you do.

When I look at Nate's "real time" election forecast with Trump only at 13% chance of winning - I laugh my ass off.

I've seen one Hillary sign in five states - and I've traveled through some pretty liberal areas. Trump signs on the other hand are popping up everywhere.

Hmm... Maybe the number of signs you see while driving isn't really a good indicator of election results?

And for the superhero--I don't know what % people who say they are Dems vs. % of people who say they are Reps will adequately represent the voting public. But pollsters do a LOT of work in this area to ensure that their statistical sampling works(and historical data shows they are getting pretty good at it), so I'll trust them over you.

None of those people was running for President of the United States.

Tampajoe says

Hmm... Maybe the number of signs you see while driving isn't really a good indicator of election results?

Except that when Obama ran, he was plastered everywhere - same with Bush.

Certainly not a great methodology, but I have yet to see any Hillary support anywhere.

Bernie on the other hand, HAD a good shot. I've seen plenty of his swag. With him out, and Clinton robbing him - I don't think she has what it takes to pull it off.

Yep--and Al Gore accepted the result and began the healing process for the country.

And pretty sure Trump is running.

Not really--there were way more Romney signs than Obama.

And Bernie wasn't robbed. He just never got the minority vote he needed.

Who's they? I was talking about pollsters. That sentence is not representative of the vast majority of polls.

I know--anyone who doesn't believe in your Breitbart conspiracy theories is sheep.

I'm not your google monkey. If you have a point, make it.

junkmail says

Chuckle.

You think a democratic process really exists?

Electoral college

Gerrymandering districts

Backroom deals

Lobbyists

Capitalism

Privatization

Corruption

Entitlements

State Secrets

Plausible Deniability

Populism

Super Delegates

Super Pacs

Mob Rule

Bundling

Campaign Committees

Shell Companies

Slush Funds

You are a dimmer bulb than I though...

Are you actually stating that the existence of all of these things means that Trump should not accept the results of the election and should instigate a revolt?

Tampajoe says

Not really--there were way more Romney signs than Obama.

And Bernie wasn't robbed. He just never got the minority vote he needed.

You're missing the point. Whether it was a red state or a blue state - you'd always see support for candidates in the past - Bush/Gore/Kerry/Obama - no matter who was winning or losing. ALWAYS.

I don't know where you live, but I haven't seen any Hillary swag at all - except for one sign on a liberal college campus in Nashville, and a bumper sticker TAPED to the inside of a car window just outside Philadelphia. That's it.

Whereas, I see Trump bumper stickers, yard signs, billboards and all sorts of swag for this guy on a daily basis. This is across the 5 states I've visited over the last 2 months.

If I flew in from another country, and didn't know the election candidates, I'd have zero idea Hillary was even running.

Another Troll Thread.
Bush v Gore
Forgot to mention the activist Rep/Con SCOTUS
not requiring a full recount or another vote to make sure every Republican
vote was counted in Red State wingnut Florida.
Now that there is some major rigging.

Trolling with facts is fun.

I think I get your point, but I just don't see the relevance. Just look at ironman's post-he saw much more Bernie swag but he still lost pretty decisively.

By Saturday, Clinton's average-of-all-polls/national survey lead will be down to + 4 points max. The margin of error will be +/-3.

But much more importantly, Trump will have made critical gains in key battleground states such as Ohio, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, and especially, Pennsylvania, which I predict will turn "leaning Trump" within a week.

Trump did much better last night than the lame stream media is collectively suggesting today; he not only stemmed the bleeding, but REGAINED MOMENTUM on economic issues, security concerns, and re-shifted the spotlight to the long-standing pattern of corruption of Hillary, her acquaintances, and the Clinton Foundation, too (this is Hillary's Achilles heel, for very good reasons).

On a sidenote, and on a more subjective basis, Hillary looked somewhat feeble physically at the 3rd debate. She lacks physical gravitas, which whether some people want to accept or not (e.g. Maco Rubio), still matters at a deep, psychological level to many voters.

Tampajoe says

Just look at ironman's post-he saw much more Bernie swag but he still lost pretty decisively.

He lost, but look at all the shit the DNC had to go through to ensure a hillary victory. I mean really, Bernie got screwed, and a lot of people lost faith in the DNC party, since they rigged the entire thing in her favor.

Now what? The DNC has a candidate who is largely unpopular, and alienated half the DNC base because of how Bernie was screwed. No one likes her.

And I only know of one person in my workplace of hundreds who'd even consider voting for the hag.

(Disclaimer: I voted Dem in the last two elections)

Meanwhile, Bill's getting a bj in the back of hillary's campaign jet.

How many times do Fat Birther's cocksuckers have to claim that the ferret-haired mollusc is qualified? Will they ever convince themselves he is?

Is the process rigged?
Ask Bernie.

For someone who hates the rotten-and-corrupt, parasitic too-big-to-fail banks, DBOAPD, with good reason -

- it's a mystery to me as to how you seem very much anti-Trump and slightly pro-Hillary.

Hillary's literal fund-raising foundation (not to mention 23 million earned in bank speaking fees - nice payday), is generated by the likes of BofA, Goldman, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, et al.

She is THE banks' candidate, by a galactic distance.

How many times do bankster-backed, catheter wearing, diazepam injecting, grandma's carpet-munchers' have to claim that the bleached-hair, exoskeletonwearing vermin is qualified? Will they ever convince themselves she is?

Brexit

I didn't know that the statement that Gore accepted the results was controversial. Do I really need to back that up?

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/algore2000concessionspeech.html

HEY YOU says

Forgot to mention the activist Rep/Con SCOTUS

not requiring a full recount or another vote to make sure every Republican

vote was counted in Red State wingnut Florida.

Now that there is some major rigging.

What about stooopid Dem voters?

U biased, bro?

Both sides same!

Hillary has stolen elections, sexually assaulted women, left Ivana for Marla Maples, & evaded taxes.

Trump will fall in line. He made a big mistake in the debate last night out of ignorance, but once the election is certified, #LoserDonald will accept the results.

You can despise every single thing about Trump and still recognize that the media has been ridiculously biased and unfair in reporting on him. They fucking hate him and can’t hide it. Even the goons at Fox.
It is not hard to see that from his point of view he has not had fair treatment and that the “system” is “rigged” against him.

The comments on patnet are an exhibit of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

What happened to the Trump is a master at manipulating the media narrative? Did he suddenly lose his Svengali powers over them?

Red Hats come out Facebook and Twitter goes Ghost town, and Gab informs everyone where to meet next.
We're going to organize like Hillary apparantly legally did for all of 2015 and 1016, it's our turn to be a Dick.
I don't think you kids will like it when we're the Dicks. You better hope Trump wins. Because Republicans are even better at being Dicks than Liberals. We don't do petty shit.