It has become quite a common occurrence on this forum for posters to start threads based on what is obvious lies...and many times with misleading or lying titles. Two were started today. Stein DIDN'T miss the deadline to file... yet Trump supporters flocked to the thread like flies to shit to praise the OP and trash Stein. Another OP started a thread that a Somali refugee killed people at Ohio State with a gun. Not only did the refugee NOT use a gun, he didn't kill a single person, not even a critically injured person. And people are giving Trump credit for the refugee getting shot and killed... when Obama is President still! Yet if you say something about Trump that is negative, they will quickly point out that Trump isn't President yet.
So, my question is... is there some kind of rule around here about creating threads that are complete lies and using misleading and lying thread titles? Especially in regular parts of the forum?
Look, not everyone's racial supremacy goes hand in hand with feminism, and one day, neither will yours.Just remember, if feminism goes unchecked, it's worse for everyone, progressively.The election was rigged. Bernie was just there for show. The msm was very much on Hillary's side and did everything they could to take Trump out. If he used them in any way who's fault is it?Oldstyle, yes Hillary was vetted like no one I have ever seen. By congress and quite a bit by the hacks that Assange (thanks to that specific foreign entity). Funny how Clinton, the DNC, plus others were hacked. The think
g that causes me concern is that the GOP/Trump; were left alone. I fimd that seriously concerning.
Do I have a problem with Clinton/DNC getting hacked? Actually, no. I never had any intention of ever voting for Clinton. I voted third party, again (McMullin). I have never liked the Clintons and have never voted for the Clintons.
The rightwing hated media. Well, they sure covered Clinon's woes. And it's a fact that Trump got a ton of media, both good and bad. Trump got far more attention (as noted by you) than the other GOP candidates during the primary season. Why? Trump is excellent at getting media attention, that's how and why he won the GOP nomination. He played the press. Trump has said more than once, as long as he is dominating the media, good or bad, he is happy.
Being quite the salesman, he sold the public that the media was rigged, the election was rigged, Cruz's dad was involved in killing JFK; etc. Trump, by far, was the world's best know billionaire even before the election. All because he is an expert t manipulating the press.
Thanks to that skill, America elected the most unqualified president in it's history. It's a marketing wonder.
And it wasn't the "right wing hate media" that payed protesters to cause problems at Trump rallies or prevented people from attending Hillary's. You saw nothing but what you wanted to because hate blinded your eyes.
"Hate" is a pretty strong word.
"Disprove of" would be more accurate.
I looked at both party's negatively, which my posts directed at either clearly displayed. I believe you would find me stating often, that both candidates were very bad choices. What has you all excited is that I deem Trump to be the worse ever, followed closely by Clinton. That is my opinion which wasn't dictated by the media. It was dictated by their actions and lack of total trustworthiness. Being as I'm basically not a narrow minded ideologue, I can be much more objective than a willing and dedicated follower of a given ideology.
Well that depends on your definitions of "feminism," "progressively" and "everyone".
When you typed your statement, were the veins in your neck bulging or were to leaning back in your chair, typing with one hand while scratching your nuts with the other hand?
Are you a soothsayer?