Donald Trump... Narcissist in Chief!

Any chance we can keep the Anti-Hillary posts contained in the Anti-Hillary thread?

Where's dat at?

I see's a whois Hillary thread but nothing specifically anti-Hillary… unless all the press she's getting is negative because thats all thats going to surface around this time.

Gnomewaddyiamsayin?

ps: I've said it before but look into how the US repealed laws against domestic propaganda. And I didnt link to the top two RT articles listed in the googles for this forums lack of trust in RT since they consider it state sponsored media. Oh, the ironies.

Where's dat at?

I see's a whois Hillary thread but nothing specifically anti-Hillary… unless all the press she's getting is negative because thats all thats going to surface around this time.

Gnomewaddyiamsayin?

ps: I've said it before but look into how the US repealed laws against domestic propaganda. And I didnt link to the top two RT articles listed in the googles for this forums lack of trust in RT since they consider it state sponsored media. Oh, the ironies.

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

We have a thread called "Donald Trump… 2016 Presidential Candidate" and a thread called "Who is Hillary Clinton?".

My post should have read: Any chance we could keep the Trump related posts in the Trump thread and the Hillary related posts in the Hillary thread?

That way, those interested in discussing Trump don't have to scroll past pages and pages of Tungsten rambling to himself about Clinton and Vice versa.

Gnomewaddyiamsayin?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBbGkVIiT_MThis gave me a chuckle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBbGkVIiT_MThis gave me a chuckle.

You have to admit, that t-shirt "Hillary sucks, but not like Monica" was pretty funny. Not as funny as the guys wearing it claiming he is all about women's right, but funny still.

So are we all for Hillary because Trump?

I think it is more that we are all for the status quo because con man.

I think it is more that we are all for the status quo because con man.

I'm for status quo because con man had to ask 3 times in a 1 hour long foreign policy briefing 'We have the nukes, why can't we use them?'.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3721706/Trump-asked-three-times-one-hour-U-S-doesn-t-use-nuclear-weapons.html

Automagic disqualification.

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

We have a thread called "Donald Trump… 2016 Presidential Candidate" and a thread called "Who is Hillary Clinton?".

My post should have read: Any chance we could keep the Trump related posts in the Trump thread and the Hillary related posts in the Hillary thread?

That way, those interested in discussing Trump don't have to scroll past pages and pages of Tungsten rambling to himself about Clinton and Vice versa.

Gnomewaddyiamsayin?

Oh ok, thats fair and stuff.

Not like it really matters though. I just find it ironic since both candidates are so flawed whether its criminal corruption or bankruptcy's and e-uni's, Don gets my nod on the basis of the "why the eff not" vote.

I'm for status quo because con man had to ask 3 times in a 1 hour long foreign policy briefing 'We have the nukes, why can't we use them?'.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3721706/Trump-asked-three-times-one-hour-U-S-doesn-t-use-nuclear-weapons.html

Automagic disqualification.

Maybe he wants to blow up the moon. It's not a natural satellite anyways and it caused the flood of Noah. Fuckin' moon. And why not use a few - they're not being maintained so if you got 'em, smoke 'em.

sidetrack but related to nukes: Anyone read any updates on the US Air base in Incirlik Turkey that stored a various amount of nu clears that was recently surrounded by Turkish citizens and or the army? Thats pretty much the last I read of it.

ps edit: What if the other party candidate doesnt ask to use them; just does? I dont think "they're" known for going through proper channels.

Oh ok, thats fair and stuff.

Not like it really matters though. I just find it ironic since both candidates are so flawed whether its criminal corruption or bankruptcy's and e-uni's, Don gets my nod on the basis of the "why the eff not" vote.

Ya but the thing is… say you have an emergency tooth issue and you have to pick between 2 choices to work on your teeth ASAP. They both have a shady past, a couple malpractice suits and like to get high on their laughing gas between patients… but only one went to school to be a dentist.

It's not a tough choice unless you don't care what happens to your teeth/mouth. Be honest, do you care if the world goes to shit? It really is the only thing that makes sense if Don gets your nod.

Ya but the thing is… say you have an emergency tooth issue and you have to pick between 2 choices to work on your teeth ASAP. They both have a shady past, a couple malpractice suits and like to get high on their laughing gas between patients… but only one went to school to be a dentist.

It's not a tough choice unless you don't care what happens to your teeth/mouth. Be honest, do you care if the world goes to shit? It really is the only thing that makes sense if Don gets your nod.

While thats a great analogy and easily understood, what can I do as a non US citizen?

Obviously I do care about the worlds well being yet as I've alluded to in the past, I dont think voting truly matters - do you get a say in it or just side with who youre closest aligned to and hope they're able to implement policy. I'm also semi unclear why you think I'd give the nod to vote for a pre-establishment person over an equally crazy apparent pro-nationalist that by all accounts is essentially US public enemy #1 and abroad.

In the case of your analogy, it'd be Trump that has the degree since the US was incorporated around '33 if I'm not mistaken (probably am). Career politician riding the name or career businessman inheriting a name. If you want to dig into career pasts to argue each further, perhaps look into various books about each first. And not the ones authored by said dentites.

ps edit: What if the other party candidate doesnt ask to use them; just does? I dont think "they're" known for going through proper channels.

What if giant alien bees land in Manitoba and Trump decides that nuking Canada is the only way to protect Trump tower?

See, I can play the ridiculous what if game too. Most people who run for office have the capacity to understand the concept of mutually assured destruction.

What if giant alien bees land in Manitoba and Trump decides that nuking Canada is the only way to protect Trump tower?

See, I can play the ridiculous what if game too. Most people who run for office have the capacity to understand the concept of mutually assured destruction.

Then why do I see two running for office who lack the concept? And its Manitoba, would it really matter?

I see Don as change and not the BO type that Clinton would continue the Democratic Party path. Look into the Dem candidates health, its concerning for that level of office.

How about on a real level: The debt ceiling is still suspended until 2017 and people want to re-elect the same team. Right - republican controlled this and that. Whoever inherits that will be, lets say, scrutinized while the USD is depegged.

Being purposely ridiculous isnt the same as thinking of what a ridiculous person might do.

Quoted out of context. It was a rhetorical question intended to steer conversation.

But don't expect accuracy from the thoroughly compromised 4th estate.

I see Don as change.

Rob Ford was a "change" too. Waiting for the Trump crack video to surface.