US Presidential Race 2016

[SWP's back]

always thought that being a blue meant you had at your core some basic decency no matter what your place in the World.

No. simply means you support City. We have loads of cunts that follow us.

 

[SWP's back]

I would suggest you`ve been playing too much American football without your helmet.

Ironic given he is a helmet.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

Ironic given he is a helmet.

8-)

 

[r.soleofsalford]

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/4/wikileaks-john-podesta-invited-to-spirit-dinner-ho/

John Podesta attended a Spirit Cooking dinner, a type of satanic ritual...

sounds yummy

 

[CitizenTID]

Consider the sources...Washington Times & Wikileaks!

"Founded on May 17, 1982 by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon, the Washington Times was owned by News World Communications, an international media conglomerate associated with the church until 2010, in which Moon and a group of former executives purchased the paper. It is currently owned by diversified conglomerate Operations Holdings, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Church."

WikiLeaks isn't a source, they publish the source.

Unless your quoting/referencing their comments, or an article they wrote, which in this case your not.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

I don't think the options were anything other than suggestions.

got to agree with you BP.
SWP`s back is a bit of a lefty

 

[Eebo]

Easy, they'll be calling you a rag next.

Donald Trump must be a Rag, he's a bully, a hypocrite, a pathological liar, doesn't have any principles, only cares about money, is a bit rapey and has about a hundred other rag characteristics.

 

[chesterbells]

Donald Trump must be a Rag, he's a bully, a hypocrite, a pathological liar, doesn't have any principles, only cares about money, is a bit rapey and has about a hundred other rag characteristics.

Yeah, but I mean apart from that, he's alright isn't he?

 

[CitizenTID]

What is quite scary about this thread is the number of blues who seem to be trump fan boys. I always thought that being a blue meant you had at your core some basic decency no matter what your place in the World. What makes this even more embarrassing is that the parallel thread on RagCafe actually has a far more credible and rational view of the walking cock that is Donald Trump.

Don't mistake someone presenting an argument for Trump over Clinton as being a Trump fanboy. As long as he's not partook in or been privy to Paedophilia then my preference is for Trump (as a Brit, I have no need to consider what my preference would be if I was a yank). He's undoubtedly a massive tw@ and a lot of what he says is laced with xenophobic undertones (if that is even logical coming from a European-descendent American), but it's so blindingly clear what Clinton is and it is far, FAR worse for the people of the world (potentially at least), including Americans who are part of their armed forces, rely on US health services and other things affecting their quality of life - Clinton's continual behaviour heavily indicates she would care little about further jeopardising that if it profits certain people, giving her a bung or scratching backs.

One of the annoying things I've found about this whole thing is, so many are so quick to jump on anyone showing any sort of preference for Trump over Clinton and dismiss them as an "idiotic Trump fanboy" or the like. I feel like so many are only looking at the superficial shit and regurgitating what other people keep saying - "Trump is racist, all his supporters are idiots, Clinton is the only option" etc. Again it comes down to celebrity culture, gossiping about the shit people are talking about instead of weighing up the important matters. People automatically prefer Clinton because "Trump is racist" and just dismiss all the stuff coming out about Clinton that plenty enough other people have been going on about for a long time and it's now being proved. Instead of taking in the positives and negatives of either candidate and weighing it up objectively without preconceived biased opinion, so many are just writing off a majority of info coming out on Clinton, so to call people that have actually weighed up the info and thought for themselves idiotic is a bit ironic!

Already been through what i think way back in this thread a few times but if a President Trump looked at reducing immigration or anything someone might deem as coming from racist sentiment, then as bad a thing as that is, I think it's worth sticking out for 4 years whilst he builds relations with Russia which could last through consecutive Presidencies once foundations are built and would be a significant step to killing the US/Russian tensions that've threatened much more than just Americans and Russians because of stubborn Presidents of the past/circumstances or whatever. The opportunity has presented itself now, Clinton will not take it and has actually made it very clear she'd likely raise the tension further. Would you write all that off just because he's a dick who says things he shouldn't because you prefer the personality of some puppet with George Soros' hand up it's arse making it talk? There's obviously a line before I'd reconsider this viewpoint, but even if he's sexually abused co-workers by the "lesser means" then sometimes you have to concede certain things for the greater good (from the viewpoint of a voter/citizen, not legally of course). Clinton is not just some standard politician, she propels a clear agenda fuelled by other people that've shown a negative regard for the wellbeing of the populace.

For what it's worth, for the good of the people of the US, my preference would actually be both candidates to be dropped by whatever means possible and replaced by people that aren't an embarrassment to their country.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

WikiLeaks isn't a source, they publish the source.

Unless your quoting/referencing their comments, or an article they wrote, which in this case your not.

At present, the entire idea of Wikileaks and their numerous anti-Hillary releases are under suspicion, because there are KNOWN FAKE LETTERS being released. There is some thought that these Wikileaks are more a part of a propaganda campaign than anything else.

As for Wikileaks being a source, I'm seeming jumping off from the original post, where Wiki was quoted, without the original source, so I can't know where it supposedly came from. If you see the source, other than Wikileaks, feel free to share it....or did you think I didn't know that Wikileaks is a clearing house for mostly stolen shit?!

Edit: Went back and looked. In the article, the "source" was....

"After news of the invitation broke on the Drudge Report Friday morning..."

WOW!!