The American Government Thread: We have many subs, hidden subs, the Best subs

24567441

Comments

  • pedoviejopedoviejo Thuggin in da Kitchen Joined: Posts: 13,484
    So tell me, why would I want to go ven bite this election cycle. The notion that I should "compromise" is one of the reasons why we choose terrible presidents that aren't moderate.
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Complete my life Capcom, and make a Megaman Legends 3 exclusive for PS4. Do it, do it for the glory that should be and would be.
  • pheraipherai LIVE FOREVER Joined: Posts: 11,879 mod
    I think this notion that people will fall in line with the moderate choices without much courting involved is what has the republican party in its current situation, as well as why so little of hildawgs margin over sanders is made up of regular delegates.

    i dont think you necessarily can take for granted that a sanders voter is that motivated so strongly by womens reproductive rights. and even if you could, some people will vote idealistically, and some more pragmatically. I doubt arguments that start with "anyone but..." are very persuasive to idealistic voters.
    pherai gouki dated gwen stefani in HighSchool. Thats why today she likes all things Japan. smokin.gif
  • UglylittlebirdyUglylittlebirdy idiot. Joined: Posts: 440
    Compromise is better than saying "my guy didnt win so I just dont care anymore".
    Again, write ins help nobody but the party opposing the one youd otherwise vote for. Why not do something that counts and get some of what you want over doing something that accomplishes nothing.

    Like I said I have no problem whatsoever with Sanders, (I actually like him a lot.) but I know hes not winning unless he gets the nomination. Id rather put in a vote that actually might get some of his policies that I agree with in place than emotional support via vote.

    Us getting terrible presidents is more of an opinion. I think Donald Trump would be terrible. Split votes get him in office. So yeah, I like compromise.
    SFV: M. Bison/Alex/Necalli
    SF4: Akuma/M. Bison/Fei Long
    3S: Oro/Akuma/Alex
  • Raz0rRaz0r Did you really just write that? Joined: Posts: 23,643 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    Raz0r wrote: »
    Pertho wrote: »
    Also what the hell is up with the right's female pundits all being banging? You put on fox and its popping, you watch msnbc and its rachel maddow.

    The situation with the supreme court nominee is going to be interesting leading to the election. Hillary opposing the republicans in the matter would mean throwing a party member in the administration under the bus. PACs are gonna go ham on that point.

    It would be pretty unprecedented for Obama to try and ram a nomination through during such a lame duck session...

    This is so wrong I wish you were banned for it.

    http://www.ibtimes.com/can-obama-nominate-another-supreme-court-justice-history-presidents-making-election-2338280

    How does making 6 appointments set a precedent? That means that less than half the time there is no appointment made. Given the political climate in the US right now (a Democrat elected president but a Republican Senate elected more recently) it would be pretty absurd to try and nominate, just let the people decide in November

    The people decided, in 2012

    They decided again, more recently, in 2014

    Congress's job isn't to determine who is up for a SCOTUS nomination, that part is the leader of the executive branch, which is Obama. Their job is to vet him to see if he can do the job, not if he falls into their ideology. That's nonsense.
    This is offensive.
  • Raz0rRaz0r Did you really just write that? Joined: Posts: 23,643 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    Raz0r wrote: »
    Pertho wrote: »
    Also what the hell is up with the right's female pundits all being banging? You put on fox and its popping, you watch msnbc and its rachel maddow.

    The situation with the supreme court nominee is going to be interesting leading to the election. Hillary opposing the republicans in the matter would mean throwing a party member in the administration under the bus. PACs are gonna go ham on that point.

    It would be pretty unprecedented for Obama to try and ram a nomination through during such a lame duck session...

    This is so wrong I wish you were banned for it.

    http://www.ibtimes.com/can-obama-nominate-another-supreme-court-justice-history-presidents-making-election-2338280

    How does making 6 appointments set a precedent? That means that less than half the time there is no appointment made. Given the political climate in the US right now (a Democrat elected president but a Republican Senate elected more recently) it would be pretty absurd to try and nominate, just let the people decide in November

    The people decided, in 2012

    They decided again, more recently, in 2014

    Ok, that has nothing to do with Obama making a nomination though. If the senate decides not to act, that is entirely up to them. However they should also face any blowback by not doing their job (which some Repubs are seemingly facing in battleground states, threatening their job).

    First your issue was with how unprecedented this was, now its because there is a poisonous political climate in America? What happens if Hillary wins but the Repubs still control the Senate? How long should we wait because Republicans are in the majority? Not even being an asshole with that statement but I truly want to know. If Scalia died last November would Obama still need to agree to some bullshit gentlemen s agreement?

    The situation in general is pretty unprecedented to be completely honest (President on his way out the door faced with a nomination), and the fact that someone has made a nomination 6 times ever certainly doesn't say otherwise (if anything it just says how rare the situation is). The bottom line is that more times than not, no nomination was made during a lame duck session. Furthermore, the divisive political climate should definitely play a role in the decision if you ask me: the people elected a Democrat for president in, but then in 2014 they rejected said president's policies by electing a Republican senate, meaning 2016 seems a pretty good opportunity to cast the deciding vote so to speak. As to your other questions I really don't have an answer. All I can say is that the Republicans aren't stupid, there are a couple cases right now that they deem pretty important (I'm looking at you United States v Texas), and if they end up 4-4 with no precedent, the lower court decision is upheld. That is just one of the perks of holding the Senate I suppose

    You are one of those guys at the bar who found himself in an indefensible side of an argument and decided to just hoot and holler hoping the facts go away.

    I'm gonna go ahead and assume your age is 19.
    This is offensive.
  • Raz0rRaz0r Did you really just write that? Joined: Posts: 23,643 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    The two party system was NEVER the intention of the founding fathers. In fact, one of them wrote and spoke scathingly about it!
    This is offensive.
  • pedoviejopedoviejo Thuggin in da Kitchen Joined: Posts: 13,484
    The founding fathers didn't even like the idea of factions.
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Complete my life Capcom, and make a Megaman Legends 3 exclusive for PS4. Do it, do it for the glory that should be and would be.
  • drunkards_walkdrunkards_walk Joined: Posts: 3,284
    Raz0r wrote: »
    Raz0r wrote: »
    Pertho wrote: »
    Also what the hell is up with the right's female pundits all being banging? You put on fox and its popping, you watch msnbc and its rachel maddow.

    The situation with the supreme court nominee is going to be interesting leading to the election. Hillary opposing the republicans in the matter would mean throwing a party member in the administration under the bus. PACs are gonna go ham on that point.

    It would be pretty unprecedented for Obama to try and ram a nomination through during such a lame duck session...

    This is so wrong I wish you were banned for it.

    http://www.ibtimes.com/can-obama-nominate-another-supreme-court-justice-history-presidents-making-election-2338280

    How does making 6 appointments set a precedent? That means that less than half the time there is no appointment made. Given the political climate in the US right now (a Democrat elected president but a Republican Senate elected more recently) it would be pretty absurd to try and nominate, just let the people decide in November

    The people decided, in 2012

    They decided again, more recently, in 2014

    Ok, that has nothing to do with Obama making a nomination though. If the senate decides not to act, that is entirely up to them. However they should also face any blowback by not doing their job (which some Repubs are seemingly facing in battleground states, threatening their job).

    First your issue was with how unprecedented this was, now its because there is a poisonous political climate in America? What happens if Hillary wins but the Repubs still control the Senate? How long should we wait because Republicans are in the majority? Not even being an asshole with that statement but I truly want to know. If Scalia died last November would Obama still need to agree to some bullshit gentlemen s agreement?

    The situation in general is pretty unprecedented to be completely honest (President on his way out the door faced with a nomination), and the fact that someone has made a nomination 6 times ever certainly doesn't say otherwise (if anything it just says how rare the situation is). The bottom line is that more times than not, no nomination was made during a lame duck session. Furthermore, the divisive political climate should definitely play a role in the decision if you ask me: the people elected a Democrat for president in, but then in 2014 they rejected said president's policies by electing a Republican senate, meaning 2016 seems a pretty good opportunity to cast the deciding vote so to speak. As to your other questions I really don't have an answer. All I can say is that the Republicans aren't stupid, there are a couple cases right now that they deem pretty important (I'm looking at you United States v Texas), and if they end up 4-4 with no precedent, the lower court decision is upheld. That is just one of the perks of holding the Senate I suppose

    You are one of those guys at the bar who found himself in an indefensible side of an argument and decided to just hoot and holler hoping the facts go away.

    I'm gonna go ahead and assume your age is 19.

    What facts are you even talking about? The link you posted that showed that more often than not, a supreme court justice was not nominated? And where did I ever say we should let Congress decide who the Supreme Court nominee is? You like to make some wild leaps of logic, but I'll humor you and respond anyway. As far as holding up the nomination, that is there prerogative, it is one of the perks of holding the senate. Anyway, this is my last post on the topic because I really don't care about it much, but I actually think the current nominee seems pretty solid. Seems to me like maybe they should cut their loses, because when Hilary whens, someone less moderate might be elected...
    Opinions are like bedsheets: you only change them if it helps you get laid.
  • Raz0rRaz0r Did you really just write that? Joined: Posts: 23,643 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    Gonna go ahead and break up this post to reply to it.
    What facts are you even talking about? The link you posted that showed that more often than not, a supreme court justice was not nominated?

    The point of that link was to show you that there is precedent for it happening, not that one has happened more than the other. Just because one happened less doesn't mean that it's wrong to do.
    And where did I ever say we should let Congress decide who the Supreme Court nominee is? You like to make some wild leaps of logic, but I'll humor you and respond anyway.

    Don't play coy. You yourself brought this into play. Your response to the people's choice in 2012 was the 2014 elections, which put in a lot of Republican politicians into the House and Senate, as to why we should wait for the next president to choose the Supreme Court nomination. But it's not Congress's job to elect someone, it's the currently sitting president. The way I see it, he still has 9 months left in office. He was elected for four years, not 3 and some change. So he's well within his Constitutional power to give a nominee.
    As far as holding up the nomination, that is there prerogative, it is one of the perks of holding the senate.

    Not it isn't. That was never, EVER, the intention of electing Supreme Court justices. The Republicans are just using their majority share to strangle a working democracy to death. They themselves have admitted that all they want to do is stall the President's will. They are being childish and intransigent at the cost of a functioning country.

    What the Republicans are showing is a weakness in how the Constitution was drafted. Nothing more. If it plunges the government into utter chaos because they have a take-it-all-or-no-one-goes-home-happy attitude, fuck it. Even moderate Republicans have gone on record during that whole Tea Party rising fiasco to say that this is not the party that they had envisioned nor is it one they care to work for!

    But go ahead and believe what you will.
    Anyway, this is my last post on the topic because I really don't care about it much, but I actually think the current nominee seems pretty solid. Seems to me like maybe they should cut their loses, because when Hilary whens, someone less moderate might be elected...

    You care about it enough to partake but not enough to educate yourself on the facts of the matter.

    Got it. Go back to the SFV section. You're a better poster there, anyway.
    This is offensive.
  • drunkards_walkdrunkards_walk Joined: Posts: 3,284
    Raz0r wrote: »
    Gonna go ahead and break up this post to reply to it.
    What facts are you even talking about? The link you posted that showed that more often than not, a supreme court justice was not nominated?

    The point of that link was to show you that there is precedent for it happening, not that one has happened more than the other. Just because one happened less doesn't mean that it's wrong to do.
    And where did I ever say we should let Congress decide who the Supreme Court nominee is? You like to make some wild leaps of logic, but I'll humor you and respond anyway.

    Don't play coy. You yourself brought this into play. Your response to the people's choice in 2012 was the 2014 elections, which put in a lot of Republican politicians into the House and Senate, as to why we should wait for the next president to choose the Supreme Court nomination. But it's not Congress's job to elect someone, it's the currently sitting president. The way I see it, he still has 9 months left in office. He was elected for four years, not 3 and some change. So he's well within his Constitutional power to give a nominee.
    As far as holding up the nomination, that is there prerogative, it is one of the perks of holding the senate.

    Not it isn't. That was never, EVER, the intention of electing Supreme Court justices. The Republicans are just using their majority share to strangle a working democracy to death. They themselves have admitted that all they want to do is stall the President's will. They are being childish and intransigent at the cost of a functioning country.

    What the Republicans are showing is a weakness in how the Constitution was drafted. Nothing more. If it plunges the government into utter chaos because they have a take-it-all-or-no-one-goes-home-happy attitude, fuck it. Even moderate Republicans have gone on record during that whole Tea Party rising fiasco to say that this is not the party that they had envisioned nor is it one they care to work for!

    But go ahead and believe what you will.
    Anyway, this is my last post on the topic because I really don't care about it much, but I actually think the current nominee seems pretty solid. Seems to me like maybe they should cut their loses, because when Hilary whens, someone less moderate might be elected...

    You care about it enough to partake but not enough to educate yourself on the facts of the matter.

    Got it. Go back to the SFV section. You're a better poster there, anyway.

    I still think you are misunderstanding my point about the 2014 election. I'm not saying it is the job of Congress to elected a SC nominee. However, because during the 2014 election so many Republicans were elected into Congress, this could be seen as a sweeping rejection of Obama's policies and ideals. So I don't think it is that unreasonable to say wait until 2016 when it can be decided once and for all. Though, like I said before, I think that may be a tactical mistake by Republicans and I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the decision.

    Also, at one time it may have been unsual for Congress to try and ascertain the political leanings of a nominee, but it is something that has become increasingly common over the years. Not saying it is right or wrong, but it was a reality long before this nomination.

    I think you are going a bit overboard with the hyperbole about a "functioning country" and "plunging the government into utter chaos". It isn't ideal, but there are rules in place so that the Court can function without a full bench. It certainly isn't enough to make the country fall into disarray.
    Opinions are like bedsheets: you only change them if it helps you get laid.
  • Raz0rRaz0r Did you really just write that? Joined: Posts: 23,643 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    I thought you were done?

    Well, while I have your attention something has been bugging me since your post a while back.

    Unprecedented means never known or done before. It doesn't mean rarely used or done.

    I just wanted to clear that up.
    This is offensive.
  • UglylittlebirdyUglylittlebirdy idiot. Joined: Posts: 440
    I cant believe y'all brought up the founding fathers when like 90% of the people on heres ancestors were slaved tf up back then including mine. Fuck those mfs.
    SFV: M. Bison/Alex/Necalli
    SF4: Akuma/M. Bison/Fei Long
    3S: Oro/Akuma/Alex
  • pedoviejopedoviejo Thuggin in da Kitchen Joined: Posts: 13,484
    I cant believe y'all brought up the founding fathers when like 90% of the people on heres ancestors were slaved tf up back then including mine. Fuck those mfs.

    Because they knew their shit.
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Complete my life Capcom, and make a Megaman Legends 3 exclusive for PS4. Do it, do it for the glory that should be and would be.
  • FreezingCicadaFreezingCicada Joined: Posts: 527
    I cant believe y'all brought up the founding fathers when like 90% of the people on heres ancestors were slaved tf up back then including mine. Fuck those mfs.
    Kek. Blacks built America amiright.

    Also forgetting the Amerindians, though I suppose it wouldnt matter taking note of a dead race.
  • UglylittlebirdyUglylittlebirdy idiot. Joined: Posts: 440
    Okay, I miiiiiiiightve been a little drunk when I made that last post lol
    SFV: M. Bison/Alex/Necalli
    SF4: Akuma/M. Bison/Fei Long
    3S: Oro/Akuma/Alex
  • Negative-Zer0Negative-Zer0 Joined: Posts: 9,436
    Pretty sure that the Supreme Court nominee requires nominations to be confirmed by the Senate. I am not aware of anything that says that the president MUST appoint the nominee and it must be accepted by the Senate, only that it has to be confirmed by the senate.
    “I was trying to take the easy way out by running away from everything. No matter the pain, I will keep living. So when I die, I'll feel I did the best I could.” - Koala
  • UglylittlebirdyUglylittlebirdy idiot. Joined: Posts: 440
    Next animosity-proof thread cumming soon: "Best and Worst Religions of the World -The Poll"
    SFV: M. Bison/Alex/Necalli
    SF4: Akuma/M. Bison/Fei Long
    3S: Oro/Akuma/Alex
  • pedoviejopedoviejo Thuggin in da Kitchen Joined: Posts: 13,484
    edited April 2016
    Next animosity-proof thread cumming soon: "Best and Worst Religions of the World -The Poll"

    give me historical time periods.

    1300-1700, Christianity
    1950-2016, Islam
    1929-1945, Atheism
    Time after jews left Egypt and around before and after the time of david, Jews
    700-900, Islam
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Complete my life Capcom, and make a Megaman Legends 3 exclusive for PS4. Do it, do it for the glory that should be and would be.
  • truendymiontruendymion Beer Me! Joined: Posts: 2,084
    edited April 2016
    CfifC8yUkAA_H7P.jpg:large
    Fucking Bernie Sanders cant do shit

    While the media hyped a false narrative about Bernie Sanders’ competence and policies, three of Sanders’ policy proposals were implemented this week.
    http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-wins-policy-victories/
    I'm making a fighting game! http://www.disturbingtheverse.com/
    The SRK thread, the Discord server.
  • pedoviejopedoviejo Thuggin in da Kitchen Joined: Posts: 13,484
    Xvideos wrote: »
    Some black guy attacks Bernie Sanders for being a Zionist Jew, simply because he's a Jew.

    http://observer.com/2016/04/bernie-sanders-berated-with-questions-about-zionist-jews-at-harlem-forum/


    That conspiracy theory.

    Bwahahahahahahah
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Complete my life Capcom, and make a Megaman Legends 3 exclusive for PS4. Do it, do it for the glory that should be and would be.
  • truendymiontruendymion Beer Me! Joined: Posts: 2,084
    edited April 2016
    Wyoming makes 8 wins in a row for Sanders...

    Wait a minute, Sanders won Wyoming but they both get 7 delegates each? Rigged?
    I'm making a fighting game! http://www.disturbingtheverse.com/
    The SRK thread, the Discord server.
  • InfernomanInfernoman Bro as Hell Joined: Posts: 8,975
    Raz0r wrote: »
    The two party system was NEVER the intention of the founding fathers. In fact, one of them wrote and spoke scathingly about it!
    pedoviejo wrote: »
    The founding fathers didn't even like the idea of factions.

    The reason it works so well now is the average American is too stupid to look beyond anything else. Hence they pour everything into a system that favors one or the other while berating anything else. American won't wake up from this so long as they get their fix of social media BS/Starbucks/etc.
    Who else in a movie wrestled an evil lesbian and by forcefully kissing her, turned her not only heterosexual but good as well? Exactly. That, my friend, is the power of Sean motherfucking Connery - Valaris
  • KorbidonKorbidon Who can stand against such abominations? Joined: Posts: 4,224
    For a country that prides itself on its democracy, America has such a weird fucking system.

    You have a lunatic like Trump appearing simply because people feel so disconnected from their party, and a lady with a massive unfavourability rating is probably going win the Democratic nod because, hey, fuck you.
  • just5moreminutesjust5moreminutes Victor's propaganda manager Joined: Posts: 6,833
    Korbidon wrote: »
    For a country that prides itself on its democracy, America has such a weird fucking system.

    You have a lunatic like Trump appearing simply because people feel so disconnected from their party, and a lady with a massive unfavourability rating is probably going win the Democratic nod because, hey, fuck you.

    The problem is, that lunatic is saying things confidently and definitively, which is what his supporters like. It's not about truth or reality; they want a man to yell words on a stage and sound angry like they are.
    And the lady has basically married and bought her way into the upper echelon of the Democratic party. Sanders was an independent before now; the rest of the actual Democratic party has been intimidated and paid off to not run this election cycle as to unify everyone behind Hillary. Say what you want about her record and questionable morality, she's definitely done her homework as to how the election system works and is going for every advantage she can get by any means necessary. The fact that an Independent socialist from Vermont is still giving her this much of a problem should be telling of how weak she is as a genuine candidate.
    Sanders will beat Trump and Cruz if he wins the nomination. Hillary, I'm not so sure.
    Anakaris is still THA GOD, but sometimes gods gotta pay bills.
  • Negative-Zer0Negative-Zer0 Joined: Posts: 9,436
    Korbidon wrote: »
    For a country that prides itself on its democracy, America has such a weird fucking system.

    You have a lunatic like Trump appearing simply because people feel so disconnected from their party, and a lady with a massive unfavourability rating is probably going win the Democratic nod because, hey, fuck you.
    Korbidon wrote: »
    For a country that prides itself on its democracy, America has such a weird fucking system.

    You have a lunatic like Trump appearing simply because people feel so disconnected from their party, and a lady with a massive unfavourability rating is probably going win the Democratic nod because, hey, fuck you.

    We don't pride ourselves on democracy.

    We are a Constitutional Representative Republic. We pride ourselves on freedom.
    “I was trying to take the easy way out by running away from everything. No matter the pain, I will keep living. So when I die, I'll feel I did the best I could.” - Koala
  • ZeroZero Ruler of Dimension X Joined: Posts: 1,117 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    I will be attending Bernie's rally today at my alma matter, then Trump's at First Niagara Center next Monday. The turnout for Bernie should be significant, since UB is a pretty liberal college (arn't they all?! Hyuk-yuk). And Trumps is DEFINITELY going to be packed. There are a lot of Trump supporters outside the city that will show up, I'm sure.

    Never in my time as legally eligible to vote has the presidential primary gotten to New York with something at stake.

    Should be interesting (I hope)
    "Dont call it a comeback / I've been here for years"

    Avatar created by Buster Wolf

    Steam ID: drzerogi

    Aura Crusher:
    www.geocities.com/xybaz (this site is dead, BTW)
  • DoctaMarioDoctaMario Sometimes It Snows In April... Joined: Posts: 3,287
    Zero wrote: »
    I will be attending Bernie's rally today at my alma matter, then Trump's at First Niagara Center next Monday. The turnout for Bernie should be significant, since UB is a pretty liberal college (arn't they all?! Hyuk-yuk). And Trumps is DEFINITELY going to be packed. There are a lot of Trump supporters outside the city that will show up, I'm sure.

    Never in my time as legally eligible to vote has the presidential primary gotten to New York with something at stake.

    Should be interesting (I hope)

    Are you around Buffalo? Let us know how those rallies turn out, I'd be curious to hear about them as I'm from around that area originally.
    "Money matches are against the law in Japan. They can never be good at Marvel." -4r5
  • ZeroZero Ruler of Dimension X Joined: Posts: 1,117 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    edited April 2016
    DoctaMario wrote: »
    Zero wrote: »
    I will be attending Bernie's rally today at my alma matter, then Trump's at First Niagara Center next Monday. The turnout for Bernie should be significant, since UB is a pretty liberal college (arn't they all?! Hyuk-yuk). And Trumps is DEFINITELY going to be packed. There are a lot of Trump supporters outside the city that will show up, I'm sure.

    Never in my time as legally eligible to vote has the presidential primary gotten to New York with something at stake.

    Should be interesting (I hope)

    Are you around Buffalo? Let us know how those rallies turn out, I'd be curious to hear about them as I'm from around that area originally.

    @DoctaMario

    Yeah, I live in Buffalo, and sure, I'll gladly share.

    So we got there about 30 minutes before the doors opened, and the line was insane. It was also very cold, wet and poorly organized. Even though admission was free (and no tickets required), they suddenly wanted everyone in line to sign up on their website last minute to get a barcode to scan in with (obviously so that they can get your e-mail and spam you with campaign shit). Because of this, the line was moving really slow. Eventually, they realized how stupid this was and just let everyone in.

    We got inside, but there were about 3,000 more people who couldn't get in as the arena was in full capacity. We listened to about 4 other speakers (one of which was from Communication Workers of America union, who announced that Verizon workers are going on strike), before Sanders came. Unfortunately, he wanted to speak with all the people who were stuck outside before coming in, so he was about 30 min late.

    So he comes in, everyone is hype and screaming and thumping, etc. He basically reiterated his usual talking points (raise minimum wage, no fracking, free college, free health care, etc.), and bagged on Clinton's support of the Iraq War, her special-interest-backed super pacs, and her speaches to Wall Street. He also mentioned some Buffalo-specific stuff about how NAFTA supported businesses like Ford to move jobs overseas.

    Once he starting talking about the gender wage gap as if it were real (and not the myth it ACTUALLY is), we were sick to our stomachs and left.

    So yeah, big turnout, mostly young people. In fact, some weren't even old enough to vote. One group in particular were a bunch of shitheads making stupid jokes about Trumps penis.

    ...and apparently Black Lives Matters has a presidential candidate. A supporter was handing out flyers in line.
    Post edited by Zero on
    "Dont call it a comeback / I've been here for years"

    Avatar created by Buster Wolf

    Steam ID: drzerogi

    Aura Crusher:
    www.geocities.com/xybaz (this site is dead, BTW)
  • XvideosXvideos Xvideos Joined: Posts: 3,015
    edited April 2016
    Watched the debate on Wednesday. Debates really don't help Bernie very much because the medias are on Hillary's side and Hillary's speaking skills outrank Bernie.

    Bernie has been talking about the big money affecting Hillary's policies, and yet he couldn't raise one instance. He can't keep counting on her secret speeches to the big banks as his ticket to victory. This is his number 1 attack point on Hillary, he really needs to back that up if he wants to win.

    Also don't know why Bernie never calls out Hillary on "Obama did it too, why can't I?" He's letting her get away with pulling someone else's race card to win an argument.

    Hillary's policy on making community colleges free as opposed to Bernie's policy on making all the public colleges free make way more sense. College PC culture is already bad enough with expensive tuition, can you imagine if it's free?

    And lol, I didn't know he's against nuclear power. That's so bad. You can't run a country this size with just wind and solar.
  • pedoviejopedoviejo Thuggin in da Kitchen Joined: Posts: 13,484
    Xvideos wrote: »
    Watched the debate on Wednesday. Debates really don't help Bernie very much because the medias are on Hillary's side and Hillary's speaking skills outrank Bernie.

    Bernie has been talking about the big money affecting Hillary's policies, and yet he couldn't raise one instance. He can't keep counting on her secret speeches to the big banks as his ticket to victory. This is his number 1 attack point on Hillary, he really needs to back that up if he wants to win.

    Also don't know why Bernie never calls out Hillary on "Obama did it too, why can't I?" He's letting her get away with pulling someone else's race card to win an argument.

    Hillary's policy on making community colleges free as opposed to Bernie's policy on making all the public colleges free make way more sense. College PC culture is already bad enough with expensive tuition, can you imagine if it's free?

    And lol, I didn't know he's against nuclear power. That's so bad. You can't run a country this size with just wind and solar.

    I predicted that Sanders would lose this race by not having the will to outright crush Hillary from the beginning. He reaffirmed her position and viability, when he could have been done with it.

    If Sanders wants to win, he needs to go down the road trump is and start shining a light on the absurdity that are super delegates. For a party that professor itself on democratic principle and expanding that powerx the democrats sure are dull of shit.

    Like clockwork Sanders is just going to bow his head in shame and silence when he is robbed of the nominee just like that time he was cucked at his own rally by a bunch losers with no message.
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Complete my life Capcom, and make a Megaman Legends 3 exclusive for PS4. Do it, do it for the glory that should be and would be.
  • AcidicEnemaAcidicEnema Joined: Posts: 1,207 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    edited April 2016
    Someone should've gotten Sanders to read Domination 101 before running.

    His declaration in the first debate that no one cared about Hillary's e-mails was the equivalent of a mall rat scrub declaring at the start of a match that he's not going to throw.

    Meanwhile his opponent is ptw by any means necessary, jostling with her elbows and mashing loudly during his combos.

    "Studio-produced hetero porn is just a joke. Either the men are actually trying to steal screen time from the actress, or the cameraman is trying to give the actor a colonoscopy." - Taito
  • XvideosXvideos Xvideos Joined: Posts: 3,015
    edited April 2016
    Bernie's crowd in that debate was more on point than he was. They booed Hillary's bullshit every time she pull it.

    I don't think Bernie can count on the email thing until we are sure Hillary's going to prison because using Republican talking points is very likely to cost him supporters.

    He needs to take down all of Hillary's defense mechanism quickly, starting with her Obama crutch. He just need to point out that her campaign used to attack Obama for being a Kenyan Muslim drug dealer, and yet after a whole year he still hasn't done it.
    Post edited by Xvideos on
  • truendymiontruendymion Beer Me! Joined: Posts: 2,084
    Maybe after Sanders wins New York the media will start treating Sanders as a serious candidate...
    Sanders is within 200 pledged delegates in the wake of new boosts from Colorado, Missouri, and Nevada. With over 1,600 pledged delegates still to be allocated throughout the remainder of the Democratic primary, and with several major states with triple-digit delegate counts on the horizon, Sanders has plenty of room to catch up to Clinton before the Democratic National Convention in July.
    http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-delegates-accurate-count/
    I'm making a fighting game! http://www.disturbingtheverse.com/
    The SRK thread, the Discord server.
  • just5moreminutesjust5moreminutes Victor's propaganda manager Joined: Posts: 6,833
    That quote is WAY too optimistic. Unpledged delegates is where most of Clinton's lead is anyway, and he only got a handful of delegates from those 3 states. To get any major boost from NY, Sanders has to beat Clinton and beat her HARD. He can't keep going 50-50 and 55-45 with her.
    Anakaris is still THA GOD, but sometimes gods gotta pay bills.
  • XvideosXvideos Xvideos Joined: Posts: 3,015
    edited April 2016
  • pedoviejopedoviejo Thuggin in da Kitchen Joined: Posts: 13,484
    Xvideos wrote: »
    Too bad Democrat doesn't have winner take all states.

    Then it wouldn't give them the power to choose their candinate.
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Complete my life Capcom, and make a Megaman Legends 3 exclusive for PS4. Do it, do it for the glory that should be and would be.
  • XvideosXvideos Xvideos Joined: Posts: 3,015
    edited April 2016
    Larry King once again has to emphasize that Trump is not a racist, sure is difficult to be his long time friend.

    7:01

  • ZeroZero Ruler of Dimension X Joined: Posts: 1,117 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    edited April 2016
    Just voted in the New York primary. Been a registered democrat since I first enrolled when I was 18, and although I am still undecided, I do know that I do not want Hilary Clinton as our next POTUS.

    So the choice was obvious.

    Had a nice pipe smoke with my favorite tobacco on the walk home from the polls.

    A good day indeed.
    "Dont call it a comeback / I've been here for years"

    Avatar created by Buster Wolf

    Steam ID: drzerogi

    Aura Crusher:
    www.geocities.com/xybaz (this site is dead, BTW)
  • pedoviejopedoviejo Thuggin in da Kitchen Joined: Posts: 13,484
    Xvideos wrote: »
    Larry King once again has to emphasize that Trump is not a racist, sure is difficult to be his long time friend.

    7:01


    He's not though.
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Complete my life Capcom, and make a Megaman Legends 3 exclusive for PS4. Do it, do it for the glory that should be and would be.
  • PerthoPertho The Runed One Joined: Posts: 21,317 mod
    Thread needs a new title. Gonna think of something clever.
    Ronin Chaos on Pertho:

    "Oh, Pertho. You complete me."
    jimmy1200 wrote: »
    pertho attacked me first, saying i get all my life tips from 106th and park.
  • PerthoPertho The Runed One Joined: Posts: 21,317 mod
    God damn, none of my news streams work. Trump killed it in NY and the state went Hillary's way?

    Lol NY.
    Ronin Chaos on Pertho:

    "Oh, Pertho. You complete me."
    jimmy1200 wrote: »
    pertho attacked me first, saying i get all my life tips from 106th and park.
  • XvideosXvideos Xvideos Joined: Posts: 3,015
    edited April 2016
    Pertho wrote: »
    Thread needs a new title. Gonna think of something clever.

    Something something Trump and 711, something something people throwing dollar bills at Hillary

    Or just joke about super human level of optimism from Bernie supporters after New York.
    Post edited by Xvideos on