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.

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

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.

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.

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.

morepork wrote: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.

It'll be difficult for Trump to get the nomination, as there's a possibility that the Republican Party will deny him one, which will lead to a contested convention. To definitely prevent this, he needs to win an outright majority of GOP delegates (just north of 1200), but Cruz and Kasich may do enough to deny him this. The risk is that it'll make the GOP look like an even bigger unelectable clusterfuck of callous shitlords than they already are. The scuttlebutt is that 1 in 5 Republicans are likely to withdraw from the party should he get the nomination, and it'll be a question of how many will also opt to sit out. I'd also like to see the turnout rates for the demographics he's strong with (ignorant dipshits), because I'd wager it won't be particularly great. He's also lagging behind in overall polls against Clinton and Sanders, and the coming presidential elections is projected to be a comfortable landslide to the Democrats. The Republican Party right now are paying the price for hitching their wagon to the Tea Party crazies for short term gains in the mid-terms, at the cost of long-term losses in presidential elections, as they end up looking like a gaggle of rabid racist, misogynist, xenophobic scumbags and most people can see through the weak rhetoric of the likes of Paul Ryan, when they say Trump does not represent GOP values. It's like, "yeah? Explain the last 15 years, then."

He also just absolutely fucked himself with his abortion comments. "If a woman gets an abortion, she should be punished for it." What in the everloving FUCK was that chucklefuck thinking?

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.

jared_7 wrote:The c*nt

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

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.