Post: #751

(04-14-2016 06:18 PM)eradicator Wrote:  OK I am convinced. WNB. From what I understand, Chelsea was a total slut 20 years ago when she was at Stanford, rode the cock carousel and was too damaged and washed up even in her 20s.

While that professional portrait did look good, it was not real.

Links? I'm surprised someone as ugly as her would actually get dick lol

Post: #752

(04-14-2016 09:08 PM)Prince of Persia Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 06:18 PM)eradicator Wrote:  OK I am convinced. WNB. From what I understand, Chelsea was a total slut 20 years ago when she was at Stanford, rode the cock carousel and was too damaged and washed up even in her 20s.

While that professional portrait did look good, it was not real.

Links? I'm surprised someone as ugly as her would actually get dick lol

https://twitter.com/robmorroliberty/stat...1622523904

of course Rob Morrow is the link that comes up when I type in "Chelsea Clinton slut stanford" into google.

EDIT for what it's worth, I am about Chelsea's age, I first heard this from other Stanford guys that were in college at the same time as Chelsea. I never went to Stanford, but this is what I heard, a few times. And sure enough, again just now by googling. But now we are starting to sound more like the Howard Stern show than guys talking about politics.

Post: #753

I just hopped on the Sanders vs Clinton debate and Hillary isn't looking too good right now. Sanders is maintaining massive frame over her right now and keeps pointing out that she's basically adopting the platform he's been performing for his entire career.

Post: #754

   

Post: #755

I'm not sure why anyone's bothering to beat around the bush on this.

Either Hillary gets indicted or Hillary gets the nomination.

And if Hillary gets the nomination I fully expect her to win a narrow victory which is later (too late) proved to have been won on the back of massive electoral fraud.

Post: #756

Can you really get away with massive electoral fraud? I guess the 2000 and 1960 elections would say "yes, you clearly can", but if it is really blatant, it would be too easy to be found out. I would think?

Post: #757

(04-15-2016 01:04 AM)eradicator Wrote:  Can you really get away with massive electoral fraud? I guess the 2000 and 1960 elections would say "yes, you clearly can", but if it is really blatant, it would be too easy to be found out. I would think?

During the Romney/Obama election there were several voting districts who's final voting tally exceeded the number of adults in the district. Not just registered voters, mind you, but voting aged citizens full stop.

The thing is, America is supposed to be the capital of world democracy. As such, no recognition of vote fraud will ever be allowed to grace the mainstream media feed. Not that anyone takes American democracy seriously except some Americans.

Post: #758

(04-15-2016 04:05 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(04-15-2016 01:04 AM)eradicator Wrote:  Can you really get away with massive electoral fraud? I guess the 2000 and 1960 elections would say "yes, you clearly can", but if it is really blatant, it would be too easy to be found out. I would think?

During the Romney/Obama election there were several voting districts who's final voting tally exceeded the number of adults in the district. Not just registered voters, mind you, but voting aged citizens full stop.

The thing is, America is supposed to be the capital of world democracy. As such, no recognition of vote fraud will ever be allowed to grace the mainstream media feed. Not that anyone takes American democracy seriously except some Americans.

It did in 2000 and 1960(you should remember the mainstream media covering the Florida and Ohio election fraud, the Florida case ended up in the Supreme Court). The losers in those elections had 2 options: suck it up and accept that they got screwed, or drag the nation through a lengthy appeals and lawsuit process that would ultimately hurt, even if they won after all of that, they would be starting off in a hell of a hole.

Post: #759

(04-15-2016 06:19 PM)eradicator Wrote:  It did in 2000 and 1960(you should remember the mainstream media covering the Florida and Ohio election fraud, the Florida case ended up in the Supreme Court). The losers in those elections had 2 options: suck it up and accept that they got screwed, or drag the nation through a lengthy appeals and lawsuit process that would ultimately hurt, even if they won after all of that, they would be starting off in a hell of a hole.

While I can't speak to the 1960 event, I would cast serious doubt on whether the mainstream media would have been as interested in the 2000 fracas if Gore had secured the presidency fraudulently rather than Bush.

I should have been more specific. The mainstream media will never report on electoral fraud as and where it benefits the most progressive candidate.

Post: #760

Every week, it seems like there's a racial misstep from the Clinton campaign. Last week it was Bill Clinton's response to the BLM protesters.





This week, Bill de Blasio's endorsement joke is blowing up in Hillary's face. The left is so sensitive that even cheesy jokes like that are taken as 'microaggressions.'





Hillary has been making mistakes with black voters like this the entire campaign. This won't win Sanders the Democratic nomination, but it will hurt Hillary in the general election if she can't count on the same enthusiastic support from black voters as Obama.

Post: #761

   

Post: #762

^

Two crazy cat ladies mind melding.

Post: #763

(04-16-2016 01:37 PM)Bacchus Wrote:  Hillary has been making mistakes with black voters like this the entire campaign. This won't win Sanders the Democratic nomination, but it will hurt Hillary in the general election if she can't count on the same enthusiastic support from black voters as Obama.

If just 20% of the black vote doesn't show up at all or a substantial number votes Republican they are going to be fucked.

In 2012 only around 18 million from that demographic showed up to vote.

I imagine turnout will be much lower this time around because of general apathy and political burnout.

Plus these media flubs are hilarious. Hillary trying to sound hip and down with the minorities has failed each and every time because she's a sociopathic mannequin.

Post: #764

I would give Bill an award for his slapdown of the BLM protester. He needs to keep that shit up for years to come.

Post: #765

(04-16-2016 06:10 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(04-16-2016 01:37 PM)Bacchus Wrote:  Hillary has been making mistakes with black voters like this the entire campaign. This won't win Sanders the Democratic nomination, but it will hurt Hillary in the general election if she can't count on the same enthusiastic support from black voters as Obama.

If just 20% of the black vote doesn't show up at all or a substantial number votes Republican they are going to be fucked.

In 2012 only around 18 million from that demographic showed up to vote.

I imagine turnout will be much lower this time around because of general apathy and political burnout.

Plus these media flubs are hilarious. Hillary trying to sound hip and down with the minorities has failed each and every time because she's a sociopathic mannequin.

It's high comedy for us, but it's deadly serious for Hillary. Trump is stealing large sections of the Democratic base, i.e. disaffected whites. She has to lock down the rest of core Democrat voters (single women, queers, and blacks), but this campaign is revealing a real weakness with blacks, who were a clear strength for Bill and Obama.

Hillary is in real trouble if doesn't get out black voters in numbers comparable to Obama. The one thing that makes me discount predictions of low black voter turnout is the 'Trump is racist' slander. But a lot could change between now and November.

If Trump wanted to do some real mischief in the general, he could fund a group of activists to swiftboat Hillary from left on racial issues. Of course, he would deny any involvement, as he presses her about Iraq, Libya, and the Clinton Foundation.

Post: #766

(04-16-2016 10:30 PM)Bacchus Wrote:  

(04-16-2016 06:10 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(04-16-2016 01:37 PM)Bacchus Wrote:  Hillary has been making mistakes with black voters like this the entire campaign. This won't win Sanders the Democratic nomination, but it will hurt Hillary in the general election if she can't count on the same enthusiastic support from black voters as Obama.

If just 20% of the black vote doesn't show up at all or a substantial number votes Republican they are going to be fucked.

In 2012 only around 18 million from that demographic showed up to vote.

I imagine turnout will be much lower this time around because of general apathy and political burnout.

Plus these media flubs are hilarious. Hillary trying to sound hip and down with the minorities has failed each and every time because she's a sociopathic mannequin.

It's high comedy for us, but it's deadly serious for Hillary. Trump is stealing large sections of the Democratic base, i.e. disaffected whites. She has to lock down the rest of core Democrat voters (single women, queers, and blacks), but this campaign is revealing a real weakness with blacks, who were a clear strength for Bill and Obama.

Hillary is in real trouble if doesn't get out black voters in numbers comparable to Obama. The one thing that makes me discount predictions of low black voter turnout is the 'Trump is racist' slander. But a lot could change between now and November.

If Trump wanted to do some real mischief in the general, he could fund a group of activists to swiftboat Hillary from left on racial issues. Of course, he would deny any involvement, as he presses her about Iraq, Libya, and the Clinton Foundation.

Trump doesn't have to. There's enough rope to hang the hag on.

Post: #767

Not up to date with this thread and the Trump thread at all, but I believe there's the subject of what nickname Trump should give to Hilary.

I think he should call her "the Goldman Sachs candidate"

That would make it easy for him in any debate - he could repeat what she said, just add "says the Goldman Sachs candidate" and frown/smirk:

• "bla bla wage gap bla bla ... says the Goldman Sachs candidate"
• "bla bla high unemployment of african americans bla bla ... says the Goldman Sachs candidate"
  

It's teenage discussion game, but works great to ridicule somebody - and that's what Hilary hates the most.

Post: #768

The GS angle has been played out with Cruz.

Calling her "Madame Hillary" would be the ultimate passive aggressive hit considering Slick Willy's inclinations. It would hurt Hillary with women because he'd be essentially labelling her as pimp for Bill's whores.

It also has a politically toxic European synergy. Technically being a term of gentlemanly respect, it's a passive aggressive tour de force.

edit: Too high brow?

Post: #769

I don't know if anyone else noticed, but Trump called her "Crooked Hillary" at the Watertown rally.

Post: #770

(04-17-2016 06:28 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  The GS angle has been played out with Cruz.

Calling her "Madame Hillary" would be the ultimate passive aggressive hit considering Slick Willy's inclinations. It would hurt Hillary with women because he'd be essentially labelling her as pimp for Bill's whores.

It also has a politically toxic European synergy. Technically being a term of gentlemanly respect, it's a passive aggressive tour de force.

edit: Too high brow?

"Madame Hillary" is just weird.

"Goldman Sachs candidate" works, because the goal is to get part of the anti-establishment Bernie vote and other anti-corruption voters to switch to Trump.

Post: #771

Post: #772

Crooked Hillary is going to work. I also liked Corrupt Hillary but that might be to hard since it's a legal term whereas crooked is villainous and captivates the imagination. It's harder to defend against such a label and is surely not a sexist term, if anything it is normally associated with sleazy men.

Nothing will ever beat Low Energy Jeb Bush because it was the first use of Trump's linguistic weapon of mass humiliation. A big and powerful establishment candidate, heir to the throne, brother and son to previous presidents completely neutralized by one devastating label.

What makes a good label? It should not be technically correct, or legally justified, or politically conventional. That's boring. It should feel right. Capture the imagination.

I liked Corrupt Hillary but it might be too hard, too real. It's a legal term with a defined meaning and while that women is indeed corrupt to the bone, it doesn't feel as right. Crooked Hillary sounds like a villain and it evoked a rich mental picture of a sleazy woman that only cares about herself and her cronies. Someone that doesn't care about the law nor the people.

And because it's such a ambiguous label it is hard to defend yourself against it. It's not a formal accusation, it's not sexist against women, but it creates an imagine in your mind's eye: This woman is not to be trusted.

What would other good labels be?

I think Corrupted would be better than corrupt, because it sounds like she's corrupted by someone else. She's a tool, a puppet, so who is really in power behind the scenes. With Trump you don't have to worry about that, he is self-funding and can't be bought by anyone, he works for the people and the people only.

On her stamina: exhausted, tired, worn out, sleepy, fatigued.

What else?

Post: #773

Empire Files: Abby Martin Exposes What Hillary Clinton Really Represents

Post: #774

(04-17-2016 11:51 AM)Dusty Wrote:  

"I see your walk-in closet has a kitchen..."

Post: #775

I swear to God. I wouldn't be surprised if in the days to come some sort of massive alien parasite shed the translucent husk formerly known as Hillary Clinton.

With every minute that goes by she just looks less and less like a living, breathing human being.