RugbyRebels

Sandydragon wrote:

Lizard wrote:I think that if he does get the nomination, a centre-right independent will do enough to split the vote and ensure Drumpf doesn't become president. There's word that Michael Bloomberg will fund himself into that role if necessary.

There was a suggestion in the Times yesterday that the republicans could find an independent candidate. Of course, it's not like Trump is rich enough to run as an independent himself.

Why would the Repubs run an independent when they have the war criminal La Clinton?

I'm starting to believe Trump would be better than Clinton...

If the answer is Trump or Clinton - then we really need some new questions

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Lizard wrote:I think that if he does get the nomination, a centre-right independent will do enough to split the vote and ensure Drumpf doesn't become president. There's word that Michael Bloomberg will fund himself into that role if necessary.

There was a suggestion in the Times yesterday that the republicans could find an independent candidate. Of course, it's not like Trump is rich enough to run as an independent himself.

Why would the Repubs run an independent when they have the war criminal La Clinton?

Id happily respond to that if I understood what point you are trying to make?

Stom wrote:I'm starting to believe Trump would be better than Clinton...

Trump or Clinton. Neither option fills me with that much joy; assuming Clinton isn't arrested before the inauguration.

I watched a documentary the other day on the possibility of Trump being President. In it was an interview with someone who expressed alarm at the rising number of protests when the convention was months away, let alone the Presidential election.

It got me thinking with regards to the possibility of mass protests kicking off should Trump get nominated. Would this likely result in martial law being declared? If so, what are the implications of that?

Many preppers and so called truthers believe the day for something like that is getting closer. No surprise considering their beliefs, but could something like this be the catalyst?

WaspInWales wrote:I watched a documentary the other day on the possibility of Trump being President. In it was an interview with someone who expressed alarm at the rising number of protests when the convention was months away, let alone the Presidential election.

It got me thinking with regards to the possibility of mass protests kicking off should Trump get nominated. Would this likely result in martial law being declared? If so, what are the implications of that?

Many preppers and so called truthers believe the day for something like that is getting closer. No surprise considering their beliefs, but could something like this be the catalyst?

What are "so called truthers"?

WaspInWales wrote:I watched a documentary the other day on the possibility of Trump being President. In it was an interview with someone who expressed alarm at the rising number of protests when the convention was months away, let alone the Presidential election.

It got me thinking with regards to the possibility of mass protests kicking off should Trump get nominated. Would this likely result in martial law being declared? If so, what are the implications of that?

Many preppers and so called truthers believe the day for something like that is getting closer. No surprise considering their beliefs, but could something like this be the catalyst?

Well, if they're so busy trying to sort out their own country they pay less attention to the rest of us, that can't be a bad thing...

I'm firmly in the "anyone but Clinton" camp now. I don't see how Trump can be worse than her...

UGagain wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:I watched a documentary the other day on the possibility of Trump being President. In it was an interview with someone who expressed alarm at the rising number of protests when the convention was months away, let alone the Presidential election.

It got me thinking with regards to the possibility of mass protests kicking off should Trump get nominated. Would this likely result in martial law being declared? If so, what are the implications of that?

Many preppers and so called truthers believe the day for something like that is getting closer. No surprise considering their beliefs, but could something like this be the catalyst?

What are "so called truthers"?

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... sh/truther

Stom wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:I watched a documentary the other day on the possibility of Trump being President. In it was an interview with someone who expressed alarm at the rising number of protests when the convention was months away, let alone the Presidential election.

It got me thinking with regards to the possibility of mass protests kicking off should Trump get nominated. Would this likely result in martial law being declared? If so, what are the implications of that?

Many preppers and so called truthers believe the day for something like that is getting closer. No surprise considering their beliefs, but could something like this be the catalyst?

Well, if they're so busy trying to sort out their own country they pay less attention to the rest of us, that can't be a bad thing...

I'm firmly in the "anyone but Clinton" camp now. I don't see how Trump can be worse than her...

I'm struggling to see how Trump can implement any of the things he has promised. That said, if he is able to ban Muslims, build a wall and other promises, I just wonder what the result will be on the streets and internationally?

He is 100% full of shit. He will renege on everything and go back to fucking people over with daddy's money and emptying his orange muck into sedated models. They will wheel out some tasty dirt on him the closer he gets to looking like getting a sniff. What a stupid cunt he is.

www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35933156

Am I over-reacting at this or is it indeed anti-Corbyn propaganda?

"Though Trump probably has a better chance of occupying the White House than Corbyn does of living in Downing Street"

WaspInWales wrote:

UGagain wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:I watched a documentary the other day on the possibility of Trump being President. In it was an interview with someone who expressed alarm at the rising number of protests when the convention was months away, let alone the Presidential election.

It got me thinking with regards to the possibility of mass protests kicking off should Trump get nominated. Would this likely result in martial law being declared? If so, what are the implications of that?

Many preppers and so called truthers believe the day for something like that is getting closer. No surprise considering their beliefs, but could something like this be the catalyst?

What are "so called truthers"?

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... sh/truther

So it's an epithet for skeptics.

UGagain wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:

UGagain wrote:
What are "so called truthers"?

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... sh/truther

So it's an epithet for skeptics.

I think the term originated from 9/11 conspiracies theorists and has since been applied to similar theories on other events.

WaspInWales wrote:

UGagain wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... sh/truther

So it's an epithet for skeptics.

I think the term originated from 9/11 conspiracies theorists and has since been applied to similar theories on other events.

Yes well, 'conspiracy theorist' is also an epithet for skeptics.

cashead wrote:There's a reason why "truther" or "conspiracy theorist" has an implied criticism where skeptic doesn't.

Indeed. It is used as a censorship tool.

cashead wrote:

UGagain wrote:

cashead wrote:There's a reason why "truther" or "conspiracy theorist" has an implied criticism where skeptic doesn't.

Indeed. It is used as a censorship tool.

Ehhh, not really.

Yes, really. It is used as an insult and a smear to shut down debate. Ad hominem in pure form.

Well you want to hope that Sanders wins the Dem nomination because he's the only one in the race that would be certain to beat Trump (excluding electoral fraud).

And the Queen of Chaos is a far more dangerous and deranged beast than Trump.

UGagain wrote:Well you want to hope that Sanders wins the Dem nomination because he's the only one in the race that would be certain to beat Trump (excluding electoral fraud).

And the Queen of Chaos is a far more dangerous and deranged beast than Trump.

The c*nt is starting to quake. You can see it in here eyes. Smear tactics from her campaign, publicly trying to say Sanders should back off because she has it "in the bag".

New York is going to be huge.

cashead wrote:

jared_7 wrote:The c*nt

Using such a misogynistic term to describe a woman is probably not a good look, dude.

misogyny |məˈsäjənē|
noun
the hatred of women by men : she felt she was struggling against thinly disguised misogyny.
DERIVATIVES
misogynous |-nəs| adjective
ORIGIN mid 17th cent.: from Greek misos ‘hatred’ + gunē ‘woman.’

cashead wrote:

jared_7 wrote:The c*nt

Using such a misogynistic term to describe a woman is probably not a good look, dude.

I don't want to derail this, but seriously? If the word c*nt, in it's modern usage, was used to describe a certain type of person, then Hillary Clinton falls perfectly within that type. The fact she's a woman has no bearing on it. She's a c*nt, Osbourne's a c*nt, John Key is a c*nt, etc.

cashead wrote:

jared_7 wrote:The c*nt

Using such a misogynistic term to describe a woman is probably not a good look, dude.

She is a c*nt, just like Donald Trump is a c*nt. I'm sure the last thing Hillary Clinton wants, as a champion of women's rights, is for me to call her something different because she is a woman...

I can call her a d*ck head if you like, but would that be disrespectful to men?

cashead wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

cashead wrote: Using such a misogynistic term to describe a woman is probably not a good look, dude.

She is a c*nt, just like Donald Trump is a c*nt. I'm sure the last thing Hillary Clinton wants, as a champion of women's rights, is for me to call her something different because she is a woman...

I can call her a d*ck head if you like, but would that be disrespectful to men?

Would you like me to explain privilege to you?

No thank you, I have no time for a lecture, from you.

I apologise and from here on in will call her a lying-f*ck-face.

Sometimes you've got to call a cunt a cunt because that cunt is a fucking cunt.

Stom wrote:

cashead wrote:

jared_7 wrote:The c*nt

Using such a misogynistic term to describe a woman is probably not a good look, dude.

I don't want to derail this, but seriously? If the word c*nt, in it's modern usage, was used to describe a certain type of person, then Hillary Clinton falls perfectly within that type. The fact she's a woman has no bearing on it. She's a c*nt, Osbourne's a c*nt, John Key is a c*nt, etc.

I've had this discussion as a moderator elsewhere on the internets - it also comes down to location. Apparently it's far more offensive, and gender-specific Stateside than it appears to be elsewhere; whilst being (typically) less so in Aus than it is elsewhere.