I'm Back From Eternal Exile In the Black Desert of Despair!

[Flink]

anyway guys, end story is :

Trump is a *****,

Hilary is a stupid ****.

so do you prefer being ***** over by a ***** or a ****.


Your choice 'murica

[TotalyMeow]

Ted Cruz just called Trump a 'Sniveling Coward' after trump tweeted a picture of Cruz's wife next to his and hinted that Cruz's wife is ugly.

Are you sure you don't think this guy is misogynistic Tmeow?

Misogyny is a predjudice against women. So a Cruz-supporting Super PAC created and released an ad with nude photos of Melania Trump from an old photoshoot. Trump responded that if Cruz is going to bring Melania into it, he would 'spill the beans' on Cruz's wife. Meaning what? Spill the beans that you won't find nudes of her floating around? That he thinks his wife is prettier? He retweeted that picture, which someone else made, and to which Cruz responed "Your wife is lovely, and mine is the love of my life". I'd say they both agree on who has the objectively prettier wife. It's silly, but it's not misogyny.

[saltmummy]

"Your wife is lovely, and mine is the love of my life".

That's pretty clever but I doubt Trump would understand the parallel being drawn by that statement, considering his general nature.

[Claeyt]

I'd say they both agree on who has the objectively prettier wife. It's silly, but it's not misogyny.

Clearly you haven't been following the internet tonight. They are going to war. Did you watch the first video?

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-quick-cuts/w ... 1690051905

In this one he basically calls Trump out:

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watc ... 1997251851

Gawker and the National Enquirer are now reporting that they received information and proof "from sources" that Ted Cruz has had 5 affairs.

http://puu.sh/nTi8m/4ce54ee263.jpg

Washington Times reporter is confirming:

http://puu.sh/nTicL/bb50db3c4c.png

...and of course 4chan and Trump's Reddit forum is now ID'ing the women by looking for old photos of Republican Operatives who worked for Cruz.

http://puu.sh/nTieV/568d1cd629.jpg

[An_Infinity_of_War]

Tell me when you come back to our wonderful state next time. : )

We'll throw you a 1488 party you'll never be able to see again.

Good job Meow! You are quite right. Claeyt is a prime example of white trash, commonly know under the genesis of trailer-trash. Just by calling this trash that makes you an honorary Aryan.

[Inotdead]

So it's misogyny to call a woman ugly?
Is it by same logic misandry to call a man ugly then?

Why are you so keen on putting labels on everything, Claeyt? The world is such a big place, it's much more than simply black and white.

[TotalyMeow]

I'd say they both agree on who has the objectively prettier wife. It's silly, but it's not misogyny.

Clearly you haven't been following the internet tonight. They are going to war. Did you watch the first video?

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-quick-cuts/w ... 1690051905

In this one he basically calls Trump out:

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watc ... 1997251851

Gawker and the National Enquirer are now reporting that they received information and proof "from sources" that Ted Cruz has had 5 affairs.

http://puu.sh/nTi8m/4ce54ee263.jpg

Washington Times reporter is confirming:

http://puu.sh/nTicL/bb50db3c4c.png

...and of course 4chan and Trump's Reddit forum is now ID'ing the women by looking for old photos of Republican Operatives who worked for Cruz.

http://puu.sh/nTieV/568d1cd629.jpg

I don't follow that kind of nonsense. Unless it has a direct impact on their political views, I'm not interested in prying into their personal affairs. As for all this... stuff... you've just posted, wtf? No one believes what the National Enquirer or the Gawker say, their stories are like 90% fiction with just enough facts thrown in to suspend disbelief. And anyone who doesn't know that 4chan is a seething mass of trolls has been living under a rock. The fact that you seem to be posting this as something to be accepted without question is just... I can't even say.

[saltmummy]

Wait, you tried to cite the national enquirer as a source? Oh you silly silly fool.

[Claeyt]

Wait, you tried to cite the national enquirer as a source? Oh you silly silly fool.

No, I'm not. Just showing what's going on with Trump today.

[Claeyt]

Well that's the question isn't it. Was there any actual classified material on it and did they actually break the law by setting it up. Like I said, if you compare it to the Petraeus case she'll end up with nothing against her. Either way it's pointless in arguing about it until the FBI determines anything this summer.

Dude, really? They said over a month and a half ago that there was top secret information in the emails going through her private email server. Releasing information that is top secret or above is a serious crime. The FBI only investigates criminal acts, if they are investigating her, it is a clear indication that they think she broke the law. They would have charged her by now except for one thing: A comment made by Obama in an interview by 60 Minutes. He claimed that Hillary's actions didn't pose a National Security issue. If he makes a comment like that, he's almost giving her a pardon. So, he's now made it very difficult for the FBI to proceed.

She did not "RELEASE" any of the emails, they were simply stored on a privately secured device. According to the wiki page it was not hacked directly and nothing was taken off of it. The FBI does not ONLY INVESTIGATE CRIMINAL ACTS they investigate to SEE IF AN ACT WAS CRIMINAL, it has not said if any laws have been broken or how serious. Of course he's not "giving her a pardon" or making it difficult for the FBI to proceed, don't be stupid. He's simply saying what the State Department found out when they looked at the 32,000 private/family emails that went through the server which was never hacked or compromised (even if it could have been). The State Department said that it did not pose a National Security issue. The vast majority of the crap on the server was just her private emails. She used her own email for both her general State Department emails and her private emails. The state department said it was poor security and has changed their policy. I don't disagree that it was sort of comically bad security and she should have just had 2 email accounts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_C ... ontroversy

Yes, there are people that want to kill Americans in the Middle-East. Yes they are theocratic terrorists and should be stopped. We've been fighting them for 50 years now and I don't doubt we'll be fighting them for at least 50 more. This is not ALL Muslims and it's not even a small minority of them. As Juda showed in another thread t's a puny fraction of a percent of Muslims who would kill themselves to kill others.

No... Judaism said that IF ONLY .0001% of Muslims are suicidal terrorists, that's still a dauntingly large number, enough people to launch some major attacks. He didn't claim that is a real percentage. He was using an illustration, which you seem to have a very difficult time with.

If .0001 of white evangelical Christians are willing to shoot up an abortion clinic or .0001 of gamers are willing to shoot up an elementary school should we outlaw them? What the ***** are you guys arguing? That we should ban all Muslims from Europe because .0001 of them might be homicidal or part of ISIS? I think it's a testament to Muslims in Europe that even this minuscule number isn't a reality of how many ISIS supporters there are in Europe.

We accepted 70,000 refugees last year and 85,000 from around the world this year. Why are you so afraid if we accept 10-15,000 Muslim refugees this year? Canada has already taken in 20,000. Europe has taken in millions. WE ARE FACING THE LARGEST REFUGEE CRISIS SINCE WWII. Where is your compassion for other people? How is it not American to help people in need who are fleeing war? We took in 10x as many refugees after the Vietnam war. I personally am embarrassed that my country didn't take in more people to help them.

I'm afraid due to the fact that the refugees are currently thoroughly vetted to be sure their backgrounds are benign and that those backgrounds are the truth. That takes time, money, and a lot of people. Just arbitrarily increasing the numbers of people being allowed into the country could overwhelm the system we have that is working fairly well right now. So far, only a few refugees have been arrested for terrorist activities. I'd like to see it stay that way. I certainly do feel sorry for the plight of those of those who are innocent, but I also don't want to be murdered at the airport when I go home for the holidays. Be embarrassed all you want, it's easy to do when you feel misguidedly safe.

This country has always and WILL always be a country of immigrants and refugees. An extremely small group of possible refugees supporting ISIS can not scare us into turning our back on the world or denying our history as a land of immigrants.

Then you are an uninformed fool and will be supporting the most racist, misogynistic and bigoted candidate we've had since George Wallace tried to roll Jim Crow back into the South.

Openly, maybe. But certainly not the most.

Who do you possibly see as being more racist, misogynistic or bigoted than Trump over the last few presidential elections?

Immigration laws didn't change hundreds of years ago, they changed dramatically during the Cold War so as to favor White, Rich, and European immigrants. Why do our immigration laws make it easier for the rich to jump the line and come to this country? Why do our immigration laws criminalize people who come here to pick fruit? I agree that we need order to our immigration laws but we need to change them and the Republicans refuse to do anything on the subject except talk about a giant wall and mass deportations even if people have been here for 20 years and their kids are grown and citizens.

I didn't say they changed hundreds of years ago, I said they were different hundreds of years ago; we didn't really have any. Now, you've been harping on this point for several posts now, saying the same things over and over again, and I've been largely taking your works for truth since this is very tangential to the actual subject at hand. But I feel it's time to actually see if your words have any truth. Here's a nice article:

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-f ... fact-sheet

It explains that the US grants 480,000 visas to close family members of US citizens yearly, with that number often being a bit higher. There are 140,000 permanent employment visas available for people of extraordinary ability, artists, surgeons, scientists, and the like, and other temporary visas for touring bands, athletes, corporate employees needing to come here for some project or other, etc. Additionally, there are a number of visas for permanent immigrants for people from various countries, the total from any one country not to exceed 7% of the total, so that no one country or area dominates in any given year. There is also a diversity program that takes the countries that have sent less than 50k immigrants in the last 5 years and just awards visas to people in that country who want to immigrate. They have to meet only minimal qualifications to prove they can support themselves. It all seems exceedingly fair to me, and there is nothing here about rich people jumping any lines, though I see nothing wrong with great wealth being a qualification for a 'person of extraordinary ability', myself.

As for why our immigration laws 'criminalize people who come here to pick fruit', well, it's because they aren't coming here with visas! They're not applying and waiting their turn and working within the law. They're just crossing the border illegally and making it difficult for us to take in people who want to come here by legal means. We can only support so many extra people into this country each year and EVERYONE who comes here has to be accounted for. Having illegal people here means that people waiting to immigrate on actual visas, can't. It's selfish, it's immoral, it's illegal, and it's unfair. So again, if they want to come here, they must do it legally or not at all.

We have been a nation of immigrants for our entire history. The continuous malignant tumor of racism, intolerance and bigotry has forever grown and showed it's hatred every once in awhile. It's certainly erupting all over the face of America now with Trump's continuous bile. Immigration has been an absolute necessity of our country for generations to make us the fresh and new place that we treasure. We would become stale and our culture would become inbred without it. Racism in the early centuries, Communist bashing after WWII and now fear of Hispanics and Muslims is leading us down the dark path of fascism.

Yes, that's what they are saying. David Duke literally said "Hi, I'm David Duke and I endorse Donald Trump for President" and then encouraged his supporters to help him.

Umm... have you even read what I've said twice now? Sure, David Duke said that, but what the Hell does that have to do with individual people working in minor capacities in Trump's campaign? I'm saying that, assuming this one woman isn't the only one in the entire campaign, these people are reading the same script every other Tom, *****, and Harry volunteering for Trump is reading and who they are or what they believe in makes no difference and should not. I mean, really, if you're going to discriminate about this, what's next? Religious affiliation? Employment status? Place of business? National Origin? What?

We're not talking about one person here and there. These groups (White Supremacists, Border Militia's and the KKK) have been organizing groups of campaign volunteers, group bus rides to his rallies and most recently "volunteer security groups" for his rallies. This is not some small thing by one person.

When are you going to quit ***** dogs Tmeow? You don't have to keep ***** dogs just because Trump says that if you don't keep ***** dogs the country won't become great again.

Get. Help.

Only when you stop ***** dogs.

Unedited version:

Only when you stop letting Trump rule your mind with fear of Muslims and Hispancs.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has nothing to do with campaign volunteers.

It certainly does. That's not the issue. My question is, can someone's social activities legally be discriminated against or not? If not, then they aren't even allowed to ask about it when deciding whether to let someone volunteer.

It doesn't cover volunteers.

If someone's social activities include a history of lynchings, church bombings and violence towards black people, then yes... yes they can be discriminated against/arrested and disallowed to organize.

The point is that Trump does not denounce or say he will stop members of the KKK or readers of Stormfront from volunteering for him when they hold recruitment drives for him. ... By not rejecting them utterly and by not explaining how he does not want HIS message to encourage them he is failing morally and is not fit to be President of the United States.

He has said he doesn't accept their endorsement. There's not a lot else he can do. You think that the people interviewing volunteers for his campaign should ask everyone if they are a member of the KKK or if the read Stormfront and refuse them if they answer 'yes'? And that by not doing that, Trump is agreeing with the opinions of those groups?? Do the other political campaigns ask those questions? Is it even legal to ask those questions? I'm tired of doing all the research. If you want to argue about this, find out if such a question is even allowed or your entire argument is invalid.

I'm sure it's legal to ask if someone wanting to volunteer for you has ever been involved in a nation wide group dedicated to white supremacy and violence towards black people. The bigger question is why he's playing to this crowd at all and why the rest of the Republican party are so disgusted by it. He should be admonished for appealing to this lowest base of American fear and hatred and he should be shown to be completely not suited to be the president of the United States.

Again, she's the most proven competent candidate we have running even if we do disagree with some of her policies. Hell, even the Republicans who say Trump isn't fit to be president won't say she isn't fit to be president. That says something.

That mostly says they're concentrating on the nomination right now, not the presidency.

No.. they are saying that he is completely unfit to be the president of America. They do not say that about her because they recognize that though they may hate her personally and her policies especially, they do not see her as unfit for the office.

No, I mean they SEEM presidential before they become president. They SEEM capable and reasonable and fit to be president. I think Hillary, Bernie, Kasich seem like they could do the job. Trump and increasingly Cruz do not seem like they could do the job without embarrassing our country tremendously.

I like how you decide who you think is fit to be president. They seem presidential.

I'm not the only one who's describing the candidates this way. I highly recommend you watch a variety of news sources.

Again, she was a Senator and the Secretary of State. You don't get those jobs by being an incompetent boob like Trump.

Oh there have been plenty of incompetent boobs in governmental offices, even high ones. It's not a disqualifying trait by any means. I posit that Hillary is, indeed, one of them.

I challenge you to find one incompetency of her's that she committed in office that is directly attributed to her.

And I still want an answer to this post Tmeow after you said Obama was one of our worst presidents:

that has long since ceased to mean anything since the first day obama was allowed to defame the position.

How exactly has Obama "defamed the position"?

Both Darwoth and Tmeow have said he's been a horrible president. Am I missing something?

The one thing I never understand about Obama haters is how they think he's somehow the worst President we've ever had and how he's somehow **** all over the White House.

Just basic facts about his term contradict everything they say.

1. He hasn't gotten us into any ground wars.
2. When he took over, the economy was in shambles and we've seen steady growth if not 90's growth ever since.
3. He's actually CUT the budget and slowed the deficit more than Bush did with the republican congress.
4. He hasn't embarrassed us internationally like Bush did occasionally with his gaffes.
5. He seems like a good husband and father in general and there have been zero sex scandals from anyone in his administration.
6. He's had the absolute least amount of scandals of any President we've had over the last 50 years besides maybe Carter (no Watergate, or pardon of Nixon, or Iran Contra, or Sex Scandal, or the congressional scandals and torture under Bush)
7. He's had the least amount of people who work for him deposed, questioned, charged, tried or anything else criminally. He's run one of the cleanest presidencies ever. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are Hillary's non-scandal about her emails and the ATF thing where they lost some guns they sold to a Mexican cartel and neither one lead to any criminal charges (yet). It still makes his the cleanest presidency in my lifetime (besides maybe Carter).

Edit: I forgot about the supposed intentional targeting by the IRS of TEA party groups who declared themselves tax exempt organizations back in 2011 that the Republican congress held hearings about and then dropped.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... nistration

So why or how exactly can conservatives like Tmeow and Darwoth hate him as president so much or say he's corrupt? It just seems stupid and partisan.

New York Times columnist David Brooks, a center-right pundit, highlighted a notable exception.

“I have my disagreements, say, with President Obama, but President Obama has run an amazingly scandal-free administration, not only he himself, but the people around him. He’s chosen people who have been pretty scandal-free.

“And so there are people in Washington who do set a standard of integrity, who do seem to attract people of quality.”