Longknife

Like hell I'm missing an opportunity to sit on my ass all day just so I can vote for one of these losers.

Volo's "schtick" is one of the reasons I gloss over his posts. Not judging and he can do what he wants. I mean I've seen others complain about Gronmir's thing and people sometimes criticize my walls of text, all of us keep doing our thing though. I say it more as a point of letting him know it drives some off. Also we're not gonna be overly diverse with ideas given this forum seemingly scares off anyone with two X chromosomes. Kinda difficult to hit diverse ideas when 50% of the population is immediately off the table. This is precisely why currently, I expect Trump to win. Granted both candidates are so nuts anything could happen until the election, not to mention Hillary rigging it is honestly VERY likely, so it's by no means a surefire thing, but when it comes to morale and who's gonna hit the polls? For all his problems, Trump is a human. He can be entertaining in his own way and has a persona. Hillary is a lizard folk who still hasn't mastered basic facial expressions and their meanings amongst our species. Hillary has to avoid cameras to keep her ratings from dropping, Trump can do either and his ratings stay as-is so long as he doesn't get TOO outrageous (which he often does). If one candidate is laughing it up with hollywood stars and the other one is hiding so we don't find out that yesterday she threw up her heart, gave a rich CEO a handjob or fed a bus full of orphans to the emperor of her home planet, guess who looks better: the one that's not afraid to socialize, of course.

I'm still waiting for an email that leaks the details of how many delicious houseflies and glasses of lizard drink Hillary consumes each day, plus details on how expensive it is to import those drinks from her home planet.

Foreshadowing for future leaks...?

At this point I'm pretty sure the question isn't "who will win," but rather "will Hillary rig the election so she wins instead?" Both candidates are terrible but Trump supporters just seem more enthusiastic.

Look how happy she is!!!

Who the **** are these people and how the hell do they get so much power? I cannot stress enough how there are many, MANY different forms of intelligence, and even if you graduate top of your class with a fancy degree to your name, dear God keep that ego in check. It's crazy to me to think that a lot of these people are practiced lawyers or other educated workers, and yet the most basic security measures or the most basic human relations tactics seem completely alien to them. I will never stop being amazed at the mistakes that educated people can make. I do not expect anyone to know the correct handling and procedures for every aspect of life, but some basic humility and a healthy pinch of self-doubt would mean you ask people who know better, get second opinions and get a result that's far superior. It feels like half these idiots just stand around like "HAHA I AM THE PRESTIGIOUS HEAD OF THE SECURITY FOR THE DNC, PEASANTS! EVERY ACTION AND EVERY CHOICE I MAKE IS INFALLIBLE! MY JOB TITLE SAYS SO!" I guess in the end though with all the instances of "pay to play" going on and the possibility it extends to the basic DNC jobs as well, it would be a fitting end for them if the people who paid are just idiots with a lot of money rather than people actually qualified for the job, and THAT is their undoing.

More wikileaks info. Haven't had the chance to look through it myself, but figured this image serves as a nice summary (of what people are focused on thusfar, at least) in the mean time since I've seen it shared on multiple communities. Links donations to ambassador positions, as is the pattern with this campaign. The main thing I think is this implies something about wikileaks: yes, they absolutely have a vendetta against Clinton. This week she's come under scrutiny for her health, they smell blood in the water, and ta-da, more info released. Very curious to see how this unforlds, but if people aren't expecting a bomb to drop before the election...? They're kidding themselves. Wikileaks has made it obvious they have every intention to make sure Clinton isn't elected, and Clinton has given us zero reason to think there isn't more dirt on her name. It'll happen again.

Clearly all those links are nothing but Russian propaganda!

I would argue the fact we're even having this discussion and debating it is a sign that no, no he doesn't. I fully believe you that some uncouth groups use him a lot, but did they redefine his usage...? I would think "the ends justifies the means" in this case, so the fact the Clinton camp made this claim and the internet is laughing at her rather than agreeing is more or less a sign that they definitely haven't redefined Pepe's usage as we know it. I agree it's not the best of company, but for me? I see that (the post, not the photoshop) and I'm more curious what the HELL is going on with Clinton's campaign. They just seem notoriously bad at doing their job, and it's been like this all election season. You would think the establishment candidate would have all the funding and research neccesary to produce a campaign that knows exactly what to say, but they always come off as though they're from another country or something. It's like if I came up to you guys and told a joke about those crazy Bavarians (no I don't dislike Bavaria. Actually love the place, but northern germany mocks southern mocks Austria, etc etc) and then couldn't grasp why on earth that would fall flat amongst an audience that isn't German. I know plenty will claim the Clinton camp uses outdated politics, but again REALLY? They SHOULD be able to figure that out and correct it, yet they don't. They just keep on making a laughing stock of their candidate.

Thing is though: 1) No, it's not something that belongs to the alt-right, even if they use it a lot. A lot of people use it, so claiming it's theirs is a bit of a stretch. 2) Let's say for sake of argument it were a white supremacy meme used by racist people. It still seems rather odd to use a cartoon frog in your serious political statement about problematic people. It's kinda just an odd choice in general because for half their targets they have to introduce them to Pepe and then claim he's racist and people have to blindly trust him, and for the other half...? The internet is all around a ridiculous place. Like 4chan as an example? Constantly spouting racist stuff. I would instantly believe that a good chunk of 4channers actually aren't the least bit racist and are doing that stuff sort of "satirically," just it loses it's tone and message entirely in the context. Not endorsing it because since it does lose it's message, it means plenty of other 4channers DO become racist cause they think it's cool or sincerely believe all that crap, but my point is if you were to link me a post of someone else in this thread saying something racist on 4chan or posting a racist meme on 4chan, no, I would not immediately think they're racist. The internet does have this tone where I feel a lot of people will enjoy their anonymity to say something sinister not so much because they believe it, but just as a gag. That's why people tend to draw a **** or write the N word so frequently if you, say, give them a chance to draw something anonymously: because it's so rude and crude that there's a style of humor to it. Point is, I would not pick this fight cause I think a lot of people would have difficulty taking it seriously, even if it WERE a purely racist meme.

And on that note, I actually know loads of people who'll vote for Hillary because they hope to get Bill back. They don't want her, they want Bill. Whatever criticisms a person may have about Bill Clinton, give him this: that man is wildly intelligent and wildly charismatic. (or was) That man can run a country, that man can do some good. (if and when he wants) Look up any interview where a reporter attempts to throw a hardball at him, Bill always did his homework, always had a retort and could always tell the reporter EXACTLY why he did what he did and EXACTLY why he felt it was the right choice. Love him or hate him, he commanded a degree of respect. Fast forward and he's lost his touch a bit, and now it's clear some of his decisions were actually very detrimental to this country in the long term, and of course you question the intent of the Clintons, but that man is at least pretty brilliant and knows his stuff. Intelligent, charismatic, "responsible," (as in he educated himself on matters he should, not as in he neccesarily did things the way he should) and always on top of everything he should be on top of (whether you agree or disagree with his choices), including some things and some people he shouldn't be on top of. (HEYYY-YOOOOOOO!!) Now compare Hillary. No charisma, no likeability, and honestly she just doesn't seem as intelligent. I'm sure she's plenty intelligent, there's no doubt about that, but just not as much as Bill. I can't recall a time Bill got caught in a question he lacked an answer for (besides the whole sex scandal thing), but with Hillary it's a regular occurence. And again, no charisma. Every speech she gives, you feel like someone had to coach her on how to talk like a human, and it shows. She's got all the downsides Bill tries to hide, but offering almost none of the upsides. She even fails at hiding some of her downsides too, as her answers to questions are oftentimes very direct and definitive, meaning lo and behold people easily have clips on-hand of her supporting unpopular stances simply because those stances were less controversial or unpopular back when she said them. I think any normal human would claim that times change and with it, our opinions become more refined, thus the change is understandable. Whether you truly mean that or not, that's a line that functions both as something spoken with honesty and integrity or as a pretty effective lie. Hillary, being of the lizard-men rather than of humans, will try to tell you she never said that while dawning the world's worst pokerface. I think it's rather clear Hillary is only running because she's currently the only Clinton eligible to run. She's not a first pick, she's just the only pick that the Clintons and the establishment have got. Unfortunately for them (and for us), it's an abysmal pick. I'd be one of the first to criticize reddit for a number of reasons (hate their downvote button and how it inadvertedly "censors" unpopular opinion, hate people's tendencies to bandwagon onto upvoted opinions without thinking for themselves), but what do you mean by this? It's a huge website, very mainstream, and a rather good source of info. What's more, if your concern is that I reference one thread with people all jerking each other off as they all agree with each other in typical reddit fashion, this is not a one-off, but rather the entire tone of the website and subreddits all the way to the front page are suddenly speaking out against her, which hasn't happened since the DNC. It's a decent indication of the voter concern that's going on right now.

When I had pneumonia I specifically asked about that since I have 2 young nephews I see regularly and was told not to worry about it. One of them actually got pneumonia later (9 months later, and viral, so not from me) and while he had to go into hospital he didn't go into isolation or anything. So she was probably fine with that, corny/ fakeness etc notwithstanding. It's a damned if she has it, damned if she doesn't situation. The jist of it is that pneumonia comes in various different forms, some less contagious than others, and the thing is that the less contagious forms happen to be very very common amongst people with Parkinson's. The video I linked on the last page will explain it for you quite well. If she had a "normal" pneumonia case, then it's contagious and hugging that child was a big no-no. If it's not contagious, it adds evidence to claims she's suffering from Parkinson's, which does indeed seem to be the case as it explains some of her oddball outbursts and actions in the past, not to mention her history of falling down. Parkinson's is a serious disease. It will absolutely bother some voters to think that this candidate may not be capable of doing the job in a year's time. Sure enough, not even the bought-and-sold news outlets can do much to cover this story, because people are 1) Ticked off she's lying yet again, and 2) Legitimately questioning just how unhealthy she is.

That's a great point Bruce, but what about the fact Hillary is a terrible human being?

It's like they think this is a democracy or something!!

I'm irritated by these Sanders supporters, they were asked to vote for Hillary Clinton. It was explained to them ....nicely They should be doing everything to ensure a Democratic victory.....why dont they understand they are weakening the Democrats possible win by voting for these smaller parties ?

Let me see if I can re-find the article about it, cause the one I saw suggested he can simply rejoin and all that demands is some paperwork. While I'm at it, this: Towards the end he will give you his position on policies and basically tell you not to vote for Clinton. His assessment of her health however is very detailed and informative. I honestly don't know if I should feel sorry for her or just be glad we may (may...still a total cynic here) at least get rid of one of these god awful candidates before election day. EDIT: Found the article but it doesn't cite it's argument (doesn't explain why it's no problem) so not much point in linking it. Either way, I'm sure we can find out if he can or cannot simply rejoin should it come to that. (which again, it won't. DNC would elect Ronald McDonald if it meant not getting someone anti-establishment)

Agree completely. But holy hell can you imagine the outrage? An entire presidential campaign built upon lies, ended abruptly due to health concerns or a corruption scandal, and then amidst the move to get a new candidate, the DNC says no to the beloved runner-up that's slaughtering Trump in the polls, instead opting for some new surprise candidate that hasn't had any time to campaign or win support? Would be an absolute ****storm.

Actually on the topic of Bernie... Reddit is lit up like a Christmas tree today about everything regarding Hillary, her health (concerns of brain damage, symptoms of Parkinson's, concern about hugging a child while allegedly having a contagious illness, you name it), and amongst those is the realization that Bernie never actually conceded. He agreed Hillary got more votes and should be the candidate as per democracy, but he did not concede and bow out. If two weeks from now she's hospitalized and incapable of running, Bernie can and will replace her as the runner-up candidate of the DNC. I don't bring this up so much as wishful thinking it'll happen because I'm a cynic. However, I find it very interesting he had to remain rather concious of his word choice and he specifically chose to remain. Likewise, imagine if it were to actually happen. This would go down as the strangest, most dramatic election cycle in American history. Hands down.

If you live in a religious community where you are not a part of the dominant religion, trust me, it is "compulsory" in it's own way. I lost a number of friends who found out I wasn't christian, simply because they refused to have anything to do with anyone that wasn't a christian. Had fun with it though. I remember my "prayers" vividly: "Hey God, it's me again. That guy they're forcing to pray. Yeah, that guy. The one you designed to have one leg, three toes, and allergies to morphine and latex. **** you too, haha nah just kidding, how are the kids?"

I don't really get this. Just read the opening but isn't this a matter of seperation of church and state? Calling for a group prayer of the team is effectively endorsing a religion to the students. That the students partook in it is largely irrelevant: I grew up in Oklahoma and I'm not a christian, I just knew better than to go letting anyone know that. When my school (illegally) did group prayers and other such events, damned right I was bowing my head like everyone else. We had one outspoken athiest and guess what happened to him? No friends, social outcast, treated like ****. If you don't understand the why of it, imagine going to a school and one of your teachers is a Muslim that wants you to pray to Allah or what-have-you. Would you do it? Would you be comfortable being told/encouraged/ordered/coerced into praying to a God and a creed you don't believe in? Would you like it if his lectures had hints of Muslim ideologies and beliefs sprinkled in? The reality is that yeah it never happens in the USA that a Buddhist or Muslim teacher has an opportunity to do that because the chances the students let him get away with that are very slim, but that does not excuse Christian teachers who would do the same. After all, what if a teacher is an adamant athiest and encourages students to pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster as his way of pushing back? The general philosophy is that teachers play a huge role in our lives. Parents have the most control over who we are and who we become, teachers are probably second. Because of this, the state takes special precautions to ensure the people that sending their students to class isn't a shot in the dark regarding what morals or philosophies they'll be taught, and the classes remain "strictly business" and cover solely the curriculum.

Ya but how is the jet heat supposed to bend the beams if the jet heat doesn't have thumbs to grab them with? Wake up, sheeple!

Giant Meteor - Pneumonia 2016

Guys remember when the Democratic Party made the smart choice and chose the candidate that could slaughter Trump in the polls with zero chance for oddities or random news stories tanking their favorability? Me neither.

At least George Bush was able to finish that storybook for the childrens. That's what really matters, in the end.