Trump "Only in America"

[The Great Goose]

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.

Are you a soothsayer?

I'm living your future.

View attachment 100264
Well, if you have half the fun I have had so far,,enjoy.

Well, have fun doubling up feminism with your NZ Nazism.

Nazism?
That would involve racist nationalism. I'm a centralist who appreciates diversity. Sorry, I'm not one of those. I think you have me confused with Steve Bannon.

He's a white nationalism and unlike all other racial nationalisms, white nationalism is not allied with feminism.

 

[kiwiman127]

Are you a soothsayer?

I'm living your future.

View attachment 100264
Well, if you have half the fun I have had so far,,enjoy.

Well, have fun doubling up feminism with your NZ Nazism.

Nazism?
That would involve racist nationalism. I'm a centralist who appreciates diversity. Sorry, I'm not one of those. I think you have me confused with Steve Bannon.

He's a white nationalism and unlike all other racial nationalisms, white nationalism is not allied with feminism.

What exactly is your definition of feminism? You seem to have an obsession.

 

[The Great Goose]

I'm living your future.

View attachment 100264
Well, if you have half the fun I have had so far,,enjoy.

Well, have fun doubling up feminism with your NZ Nazism.

Nazism?
That would involve racist nationalism. I'm a centralist who appreciates diversity. Sorry, I'm not one of those. I think you have me confused with Steve Bannon.

He's a white nationalism and unlike all other racial nationalisms, white nationalism is not allied with feminism.

What exactly is your definition of feminism? You seem to have an obsession.

No, you just keep trying to distract from the fact that you support feminism to further your own race. The white race is the enemy of feminism. Being white, I'd feel icky about myself if I supported feminism.

 

[kiwiman127]

But then, I'm a mix of Spanish, British and Moari, so I'm not exactly white. But I do support equality for women, so count me in, reagrding guys supporting women's rights.

 

[Oldstyle]

Another liberal who can't come to terms with the American people turning their backs on Hillary Clinton and what's left of the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party?

Say what you will about Trump, Lew...Clinton was STILL a worse choice! I know you don't want to admit that...but it's true. You folks ran probably the only candidate who Trump COULD have beaten...and what's laughable is that you fixed the process so that she had no competition from the Democratic side to make it all possible!

Were all the Republicans worse choices?

Than Hillary? I can't think of a more flawed candidate in my lifetime, Fridgid. Hillary Clinton had so much "baggage" coming along with her during this campaign it's a miracle her plane was even able to get off the ground!

I think who had the most "baggage" is debatable. We had Clinton, who has investigated in ther 90's and during this decade and who was also hacked, all the leads to her being the most vetted presidential candidate ever.
And then there's Trump, who wouldn't even release his taxes and is the least vetted presidential candidate in modern history.
Yet, based on who could manage the presidential office the more effectively, more people chose Clinton, dispite her massive flaws.
I personally, think it's a dirty shame that a third party can't get can't get a footing in our political landscape. The GOP and Dems haven't been cutting it when it comes to representing America's diverse demographics and that leaves way too many unrepresented in the power base.

I'm curious, Kiwi...you describe Clinton as "the most vetted presidential candidate ever"...yet it took Julian Assange and WikiLeaks to expose her? Kind of calls into question the validity of the vetting you say took place...doesn't it?

I would describe Clinton as the most "protected" Presidential candidate ever! It was the ability of the main stream media to ignore her past and present scandals that even allowed her to run. I can't think of any other candidate in American political history who would have even attempted a run at being President with as much baggage as she had. Ted Kennedy couldn't pull it off because of one scandal. Hillary had dozens.

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.

Come on...Trump didn't manipulate the press...the "press" wanted to see Hillary Clinton in the White House so they pushed Trump hard in the primaries and then as soon as he was locked in against Clinton they completely changed tack and started non stop attacks on him while doing their best to cover for Clinton. They didn't report the news...they attempted to MAKE the news!

Be honest, Kiwi...everything the liberal main stream media WANTED to happen in this election...DID...right up to the election itself...at which point most of the media were absolutely shocked that the electorate didn't vote the way they'd been told to vote by them!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Were all the Republicans worse choices?

Than Hillary? I can't think of a more flawed candidate in my lifetime, Fridgid. Hillary Clinton had so much "baggage" coming along with her during this campaign it's a miracle her plane was even able to get off the ground!

I think who had the most "baggage" is debatable. We had Clinton, who has investigated in ther 90's and during this decade and who was also hacked, all the leads to her being the most vetted presidential candidate ever.
And then there's Trump, who wouldn't even release his taxes and is the least vetted presidential candidate in modern history.
Yet, based on who could manage the presidential office the more effectively, more people chose Clinton, dispite her massive flaws.
I personally, think it's a dirty shame that a third party can't get can't get a footing in our political landscape. The GOP and Dems haven't been cutting it when it comes to representing America's diverse demographics and that leaves way too many unrepresented in the power base.

I'm curious, Kiwi...you describe Clinton as "the most vetted presidential candidate ever"...yet it took Julian Assange and WikiLeaks to expose her? Kind of calls into question the validity of the vetting you say took place...doesn't it?

I would describe Clinton as the most "protected" Presidential candidate ever! It was the ability of the main stream media to ignore her past and present scandals that even allowed her to run. I can't think of any other candidate in American political history who would have even attempted a run at being President with as much baggage as she had. Ted Kennedy couldn't pull it off because of one scandal. Hillary had dozens.

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.

Come on...Trump didn't manipulate the press...the "press" wanted to see Hillary Clinton in the White House so they pushed Trump hard in the primaries and then as soon as he was locked in against Clinton they completely changed tack and started non stop attacks on him while doing their best to cover for Clinton. They didn't report the news...they attempted to MAKE the news!

Be honest, Kiwi...everything the liberal main stream media WANTED to happen in this election...DID...right up to the election itself...at which point most of the media were absolutely shocked that the electorate didn't vote the way they'd been told to vote by them!

But then again every time Trump farted they reported it.