Longknife

Problem is nothing's going to happen.........at all. This election is setting a bar and I don't know if we can survive one trying to "one up" the bar they have set. I know, I'm still a realist. The only way they would amount to anything is if SOMETHING in there is pivotal or important *enough* that it severely threatens Clinton's electability or the Democratic party's future. I feel like even if something damned Clinton, we'd receive Biden, not Sanders, since those emails make it crystal clear the chairwoman of the DNC is not fond of Sanders. Still an improvement, but still a kick to the teeth aswell. It's more about just seeing them for yourself and being able to take in how *truly* corrupt this election cylce has been. In the past there's been electoral fraud, sure, but to *this* extent...? I'd love if I had some magical way of knowing if this is the most corrupt election in American history. I mean this is the gift that keeps on giving. And giving...

At least select a song that gets the adrenaline going and the bloodlust rising. I choose this one: Why? Because lines like "You won't be able to breathe, So either way you're a casualty" and "Either way it's all gonna burn" seem to fit the tone of this election, not to mention the backstory for the rock opera it's from involves mixed feelings that range from wanting to commit suicide to feeling more determined than ever to put a stop to things. I mean c'mon, this is a clear contender. The USA is actually a pretty important exporter in a lot of various medical fields. People always wonder wtf the USA exports since so many American goods are crap, but American medical supplies are pretty world renowned. By the sounds of it, Ireland likely works hand in hand with the US on those markets and helps supply some of the more basic resources, thus my guess would be USA gladly imports from Ireland as a deficit because they can use those goods to produce many of it's top exports for a net gain. Just a hunch.

I'm more shocked we DON'T have a deficit with Netherlands and Belgium. What are we giving them?

They aren't even PRETENDING they aren't corrupt!! C'mon man, it's another thing to be corrupt, it's another to insult my intelligence by not even having the common decency to try to lie and hide it from me!

At this rate, the entire debate is going to be disgustingly pathetic. BOTH of them are gonna be obsessively pointing the finger at one another, attempting to move the discussion to the other so the spotlight is off themselves. The Democratic side is already doing it, as you'll be hard-pressed to find any discussions involving Hillary, but plenty of talk about Trump and what an idiot he is. And sadly, both of them have enough cannon fodder to last the entire election cycle, so it's not like one side will be stuck to just one topic or just one piece of slander. All I can say is dear ****ing God I'm happy to be a dual citizen, lest I actually be housed in Freedomland when all of this takes place. If Trump wins and decides to nuke Germany though (Hillary would only nuke countries that offer personal profit, of which Germany isn't one, no clue what Trump would do), don't worry I'll rush back.

YOU GUYS SEE DEM WIKILEAKS EMAILS? Who woulda thought Hillary and the DNC were crooked? Certainly not I!

Sorry Fridge, but I already pledged my vote to Spongebob.

I vaguely recall that according to some recently (last 6 months I'd say) declassified documents, Bush actually wasn't that bad in terms of intent. He really was just that much of a puppet and woefully unqualified for the position, so much of his administration is him being oblivious to anything and everything while Cheney and his administration worked around him. Iraq for example, he genuinely believed they had weapons of mass destruction because the administration made the decision to keep him in the dark about that. I mean we all knew he wasn't the brightest, but you often think that SURELY a guy that high up must have some degree of intelligence to his name. The hilarious part is that yeah, he's accidently excused from any charges or offenses if he genuinely had no idea. You're right about Cheney though, but I'd say people are outraged about Hillary because it's never quite been THIS obvious we're getting a Wall Street candidate. I think that level of shamelessness just makes people all the more enraged about any wrongdoing; it's one thing when someone's a monster, it's another when they may as well be flaunting it in public.

TIL Serbia has Power Armor and Zerglings and is therefore the most awesome country ever. Brb while I get arrested for terrorism so I can come too.

Hate this attitude and pattern of thinking. To me, people have absolutely nothing to lose since both outcomes are terrible, so wtf might as well try for a third party candidate, because if Johnson or Stein were to pull in an abnormal amount of votes, better believe next election the USA might have a new party. Winning this one? Probably not, but a lasting impression for the future? Totally possible amidst all the discontent with Democrat and republican.

I kinda miss that idiot.

Who are you guys voting for? Idiot or Criminal?

Volo you not suggesting Kim Kardashian is a rapist are you? Thought it was obvious Kim Kardashian was a rapist.

Aren't we kind of making a rather bold, dramatic and unneccesary leap to connect dots between Bernie Sanders and Stalin?

Quite frankly, I don't think there's a single congressman you could name who I trust more than Bernie. Like no joke I'm more likely to become skeptical about one of them boo'ing him than I am to take their opinion to heart. Why? Well one, what the **** do they care about this? You mean to tell me the democratic congressmen are so passionate about Hillary that they were driven to this? I find this very difficult to believe for congressmen who must regularly listen to their opposition state stances they heavily oppose. And two? For sake of argument let's say Bernie has this huge ego and it's all about self-promotion now. I couldn't give two ****s, to be honest. All I care about is his policies and his stances. He could be someone I completely loathe on a personal level, but if his policies and political stances are things I agree with, he has my support. So spare me if I have a difficult time believing these congressmen that listen to opposing views daily are soooooo passionate about Hillary Clinton that they couldn't contain themselves.

Ridiculous. It is not Sander's responsibility to ensure people vote for Clinton. That responsibility falls on her and her alone. What am I, Sander's dog? If he tells me to vote for her, will I do it without question? Honestly, if he were to endorse her, my respect for him would fall. It would not raise my respect for her nor encourage me to vote for her. This is politics. Is it a **** tactic to convince voters that this is Sander's responsibility to bow out and endorse her? Yes. Does it work? Unfortunately, it probably does for some people, thus the Clinton campaign does it. But just because people fall for it does not make it a tactic that speaks the truth. Would you blame Nader for Al Gore losing in 2000? That's equally ridiculous, as Nader has every right to represent the people that would vote for him, and honestly in an ideal democracy people should have options and have candidates they feel represent him, so to try and say Nader had a duty not to run for the sake of the election is the absurd kind of logic that results in this corrupt terriawful two-party system. It's really quite simple: I am a human being. Give me an opportunity to spend all day sitting on my ass? I'll take it. If come November this is Hillary vs. Trump and I hate both, I will gladly take that opportunity to sit on my ass at home and do nothing. It is her responsibility and the responsibility of her campaign to convince me a vote for her is well-placed. That the Clinton Campaign cannot figure out that votes are earned via offering the proper policies rather than getting the proper people to shout your name...? Well, that's one of the reasons I won't be voting for her.

I'm kind of fascinated the US legal system has this level of negligence as a thing. I'm sure I'll get lost in translation a bit here but in attempt to explain, in Germany the golden rule is "could a third party take a look at this situation and deem one's actions negligent" or "is this mistake easily apparent to a third party," and if the answer is yes, there's your negligence. The only differences amongst negligence would be bewusst vs. unbewusst, aka concious vs. unconcious. That's the difference between driving while drunk and thinking "IT'LL BE FIIIIIINE" and driving while drunk because you're legit a special kind of retard that doesn't understand the risks involved. While that difference is similar to typical negligence vs. gross negligence, it seems their purpose is handled differently, as for Germany it's typically only relevant to the degree of the punishment, not IF someone is guilty of negligence. (though it could in some cases, depending on the case of course) What I find interesting is that to me and the legal system I'm familiar with, Hillary's qualifications damn her, not help her. Perhaps I misunderstood something but you say a prosecutor wouldn't tackle the case because Hillary is intelligent and thus proving gross negligence is more difficult. From my perspective and the legal system we have here, her intelligence raises the odds of her being charged. Each case is handled seperately regarding the capacity of the client. Someone who is mentally unstable or mentally disabled is of course not going to be charged with negligence in many cases, but someone highly intelligent has the capacity to be negligent. The mere fact that Clinton showcases the intelligence neccesary to become Secretary of State is a testament to how she should've known better and should've had the capacity to recongize the risks of what she did, to the point where absolutely this would be a question of if this could be a case of intent (thus the criminal investigation). But to see it go from a potential criminal indictment to nothing at all...? Exceedingly strange to me. The next step down is negligence, and the fact that Clinton is intelligent should only make it easier, not to mention I'm a bit surprised that her deletion of certain government documents isn't being handled more seriously. You could easily work the law in such a way that those government documents are seen as government property, thus deleting or moving them to an unsecure server could be viewed as theft or damaging another's property, which at the very least would result in a fine. Not judging, but I just feel like either I've completely misunderstood something OR it's kind of impressive the differences you can see in different legal systems. I've spoken with Americans before (obvious interest seeing as I'm a dual citizen) and typically the German and American legal systems are largely the same (well the philosophies behind them anyways. Case law is quite different) about topics and 9 times out of 10 the situation is similar. The extra 10% however can make all the difference, and while at times it can be understandable differences (for example I can understand a legal system where unconcious negligence receives no charge, even if that's monumental levels of stupidity that would make most angry), this one's definitely taken me by surprise, assuming I understood it correct.

Your women log on MMOs looking for military husbands to get citizenship and military benefits off of. Why would you want to go from Sweden to the US. They already have more benifits of every conceivable kind than practically everywhere else. That's what I told them, but I think they're blinded by the military benefits. Some girls like that: they marry a guy whose seldomly around but automatically provides them with all the financial support they could ever need, but I think they underestimate basic differences, such as a lack of affordable university costs (doesn't Sweden PAY YOU to study at university? Distinctly recall some dude advertising Sweden as a foreign semester opportunity and selling it by saying "dude they'll pay you lol") or health care. When their potential kid needs to attend university, they'll regret giving up that passport and realize just how short term they were thinking. Really, Swedish women taught me to avoid any woman that says she likes military men, cause in my experience that typically equates to "I like using people for money." Never really understood the appeal of Swedish women either, because the ones I've met have all wanted American soldiers for that exact reason, both ones I met in real life and in online MMOs. (which is apparently the go-to for finding soldiers, which is kinda funny and strange in it's own way)

Your women log on MMOs looking for military husbands to get citizenship and military benefits off of.

I just popped in but curious about this: is it confirmed there's no need to prove intent to show negligence, or is that something you've surmised? I'm only educated in German law, but the big difference between crimes of negligence is that you don't need to prove intent, only that someone conducted themselves in a manner that was so obviously negligent that they should've known better. (example, driving a car while intoxicated) Wish I were educated enough in US law because I too would be curious to know the circumstances she needs to meet to qualify as "grossly negligent."

Who's the bigger nitwit, Trump Bruce or (we) the people who keep engaging with and/or insulting him? The people who engage him. It's clear by now he's either a troll or an idiot, either way it's a waste of time. Anyways someone on Trump's staff browses /pol/ Hey if you guys want me to screw off, I can take the hint. No need to be put off, I want to debate with you. You are about as capable of debating as Helen Keller is at driving a car.

Who's the bigger nitwit, Trump Bruce or (we) the people who keep engaging with and/or insulting him? The people who engage him. It's clear by now he's either a troll or an idiot, either way it's a waste of time. Anyways someone on Trump's staff browses /pol/ Hey if you guys want me to screw off, I can take the hint.

Dude I was raised by a single mother, that's not a valid excuse. And look just so we're clear: I'm not blind to the fact I'm essentially screaming at a wall, I'm just too stubborn to give up, because it pains me to imagine someone like Bruce in any position of power exhibiting such a thought process while doing their job. Holy hell, think of all the chaos. Surely we can reveal this as a troll once and for all. Surely we can actually get through to him. I refuse to give up on trying, no matter how hopeless that is. I dunno if that's just stubborness, because I need to be able to sleep at night or because I hold a belief in the need to try or you can't critique such stupidity since you've done nothing to try and fix it yourself, but yeah, I refuse to stop trying. This is not something you should be proud of, since 1) If anyone's avoiding debate, it's you. You've glossed over counter-arguments TWICE now and 2) The alternative to being a troll is that you must be one of the most mentally challenged individuals I've ever had the displeasure of speaking to.

No really though: Is Bruce a troll? If not I think a part of me and my faith in humanity just died today.

Has anyone ever told you you have this wonderful habit of stating absurdly bold claims as fact and then not bothering to reinforce that idea with any evidence whatsoever? I mean you don't even live in the USA, the media is *insanely* biased in favor of Clinton, and yet you consider yourself in a good enough position to deduce that most of her critics surrounding this email scandal are "mostly people that don't like her." You feeling guilty LK? Yes I would be also if I was you. After all you have misread and been wrong about Hilary from day one, you were one of those that made absurd and belligerent comments like " Hilary will NEVER be president, its not possible. Anyone who thinks she may actually be president is utterly uninformed " Try to see it this way "The Clinton administration is inexorably coming like a slow-moving locomotive " Please ****ing quote me when I said Hillary will never be president. **** me man, let's double that down: please quote ANYONE here saying Hillary will never be President, because I'm super curious if your claim has ANY basis whatsoever or if you've completely invented this stance. I distinctly recall saying anyone that thinks she's trustworthy is blind as all hell, I do not recall for the life of me that I said she has no chance. I wish she has no chance, but she's far too much money backing her. Seriously though Bruce, do you pride yourself on being mentally retarded? I'm saying it again: please quote me, because I'm 99% sure you are falsely recollecting things I've said such as "It's obvious as hell Hillary subverted the law" or "you'd have to be blind to think Hillary is trustworthy" and somehow your brain has magically re-aligned this into me thinking she has zero chance of being president...? The only possible chance I ever said something along those lines would've been months ago. I'm seriously very very curious where the HELL you're getting this from. And guilty for what? For sake of argument, let's assume I did say she'll never be president. I should feel guilty for making that claim? I should feel guilty for being wrong? Let me connect the dots in that misfiring brain of yours for you: I believe you are trying to state people should feel guilty for accusing her of wrongdoing. If the point is that people accusing her of wrongdoing should be something we feel guilty about, well one, lol no it's not because hell yes people have a right to demand an investigation and potential trial, and two she has not been absolved of any guilt yet and you are already celebrating and calling it as if the FBI themselves publically announced her innocence and their opinion that we should all buy her a brand new car as an apology. None of that ****ing happened: they interviewed her under shady pretenses (not the FBI itself, but Bill's talk with Loretta is hella shady) and we must wait and see what comes of it. You are quoting an article with blatantly obvious bias, as even the wording they choose is clearly chosen to make the issue seem as non-controversial as possible (example, they call it "a discussion of her email arrangements" instead of a criminal investigation into her email scandal, call it a "voluntary interview" instead of "questioning," and then even PR as to why she won't comment further). Dude, no joke, you seriously worry me sometimes. The post you just wrote? Delusional. No joke, no hyperbole, no exaggeration: your post I'm quoting is 100% delusional. You've somehow convinced yourself that Hillary is hereby innocent and cased closed, that I've stated Hillary has no chance of winning, and what's more you have this childish attitude like you've "won" over Hillary's opponents. Dude it's a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION!!! It's THE ELECTION FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!! If tomorrow there were some breaking story where Bernie smuggled 90% of campaign donations into Putin's Swiss Bank account, damned right me and every other damned American has an interest in seeing that matter investigated, because I want to know and understand the candidates I can vote for, lest I vote for someone I don't actually want. There is no "well hot damn, he's the candidate I stuck my claim in! I better childishly defend him to the death and immediately denounce anyone that dares claim that investigation is warranted" like you seem to think, because that would be childish and arguing in bad faith. This is serious business, and you're treating it like the Dallas Cowboys vs. the San Francisco 49ers. Grow the **** up or shut the **** up and don't bother us with your god awful uneducated opinions about politics. Bruce, for the love of God and for my sanity, please educate yourself for once in your life. It is PAINFUL to read this delusional **** from you and to see you argue politics so childishly. And before you say it: I'm not saying supporting Hillary makes you uneducated, I'm not saying supporting Hillary makes you childish. I'm saying you and your last ~3 posts make it crystal clear how little influence other's dissenting opinions have on your brain, and how you only seem to consult yourself on matters and even use your own confirmation bias to draw new conclusions completely out of left field, such as "Longknife said Hillary can never win." If the voice in your head told you that, kindly ask that voice to quote me, because I got news for you: Bruce's Mind Voice #2 might be full of it. Your response seems emotional, yes you were wrong. Its not my fault, I'm not sure why you venting on me? OMFG guys is it just me or did this just become comedy gold? Look at this ****. Read my post where I initially quoted Bruce at the top (the one redneckdevil liked), now read what he just wrote here. The self-awareness levels...oh my god.