I don't eat cookies either, unless it's Christmas.
Not even if they're oreos, Captain?
Forget wine. I'm thinking bourbon.
I'm out of bourbon. Also I no longer live in Robert J Schwalb's liquor cabinet so I have no way of accessing that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not even if they're oreos, Captain?
Especially Oreos.
The filling tastes like plastic, gross, I don't know how people can eat that stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright. *writes down on his notepad "Do not send oreos to Captain as he will probably kill you for it'*
How do you feel about brownies then Captain? Or cakes?
I don't think that's actually the case.
Do I believe they are capable of it? Yes, I do, as far as they are white, rich and very politically connected. Cynicism, I suppose.
As I often say, public perception is what matters. If more people believe Hillary is capable of these things than Trump, then all of the sky falling about "Cinnamon Hitler" won't matter.
Well, no s#%!. It's pretty much a truism. If more people think candidate A is horrible than think candidate B is horrible, then candidate B is likely to win. Luckily, while thirty years of propaganda and a good deal of sexism have lowered Hillary Clinton's popularity, it's a tiny minority that actually believes the crazy conspiracy theories.
Meanwhile, the sky is falling attitude about Trump comes directly from his own statements and behavior on the campaign trail.
And seriously? You're so cynical that you've wrapped around to credulous? Here's a half-baked conspiracy theory about nearly 50 murders over multiple years that's been debunked many times and has no evidence behind it but the thinnest bits of coincidence. You don't even claim to believe it but pass it on anyway because you think they're capable of it, just because they're rich, white and politically connected. Is everyone in that boat both morally and practically capable of organized conspiracies on this scale? Dozens of deaths, all disguised as accidents, suicides, natural causes or just random street crime?
While the Clintons are politically connected, they also have well connected political enemies - who've spent millions and years trying to prove them guilty of pretty much anything. If there was anything to this nonsense, that apparently random conspiracy theorists can figure out, why have none of the investigations of the Clintons over the years found anything? If the Clintons are so powerful and so connected they can keep any investigation from finding anything so obvious, why do they allow all the probes in the first place?It's so damn stupid....
Good Lord, man. I didn't use the "I heard it could be" evasion. I'm not passing anything on, either. If you read any of this thread with a shred of objectivity you'd know most of this s*$+ is all hyperbole. Heaven forbid someone show that other folks out there believe in the same whacked out s&~% about your candidate! It's all craziness.
True story:Bugley made a comment in jest about Trump "accidentally" offing a detractor. I mention a website that says the same about Hillary, and you jump in my s*##! Absolute bananas. It was in jest also, perhaps 10% trolling in a neener neener kind of way. Your response was way over the top, imho.
Why would you need to give me anything, I don't know either of you.
How about just leaving me alone.
Me? No. I have a crackpot theory that eventually the sun will explode and become a black hole and then I can pilot the remaining humans to Faerun.
Other than, captain, nope.
Sun's not big enough to make a black hole
I suppose that's why it's a crackpot theory? XD
That said, it does feel a biiit tense in here - perhaps we should all relax a bit? I can probably find more comedy news to consider.
A reply to "Great, the Cinnamon Hitler just called for an armed insurrection/coup." upthread.A military coup, no. Trump has no friends among the military. But riots? Militia uprisings? In the era of Cliven Bundy, do you really think it's so unlikely?
Is there a point to this statement?American history is an armed insurrection circa 1776. With help from France, the insurrection won.
Yeah, that's what I figured. It being a reply is not the same as it having a point.
Riots and uprisings are not unique to Trumpkins.
This. This is a black hole of meaning and point.
Riots at worst. A bona-fide militia uprising ... maaaaybe. I dunno if such would garner any significant initiative. Nothing that I'm aware of in the way of 'social unrest' by Trumpkins has attained any significant steam.
Okay, but that has nothing to do with the fact that "other people have done riots". If anything, that statement would have meant that we're in more danger—"Oh, god, you know how the Revolutionary War started? RIOTS! JUST LIKE WITH TRUMP!"
So-and-so is grarr'ing mah gun rights! has been political football for an awfully long time. *shrugs*
And no politician has fed the flames like this in a long time. The polarization is worse than ever, the hatred for Muslims is worse than ever, and people like Trump are guiding vast portions of our population to hold someone who is probably going to be the next president as a literal criminal who murdered soldiers in Benghazi. The man has been ramping up his rhetoric for months, and it's looking quite likely he's going to "concede" by outright accusing Hillary of election fraud.
I find it remarkable that you are so determined to hedge your bets on whether Trump can win—a statistical impossibility as things currently stand—while being so utterly confident that his vocal, violent minority of diehard supporters isn't going to do anything serious.
That's all vague b*@#&%&*, you got anything that you know for sure.
Please, be as specific as possible.
Sure, here's why I disapprove of Hillary Clinton (who I will soon be voting for):
First, she is a hawk on foreign policy. I didn't love Obama's approach, but she has made it clear that she is even more likely to interfere than he has been (take their discussions on Syria). She could lead us into a World War by charging in just like Trump could lead us into a World War by refusing to get involved.
Second, she is a centrist first and foremost, a Clinton Democrat who is willing to pander to the South just like Nixon did. If someone can convince me that "Law and Order" is worse than "superpredators" in the field of dogwhistle politics, I'll eat my hat. She's already started pivoting to the right to market to conservatives. It was Democrats like her that doomed Obama's attempt at a single-payer system—Democrats who still think sliding to the right is the way to beat the Republicans at their own game. Incrementalism doesn't work.
Third, her Vice President opposes abortion rights and supports abstinence-only education (privately—he toes the party line when he's called in to vote, but dedicates money towards more conservative causes). I don't resent the pick, but his politics are a bit of a tell for where her priorities stand.
Fourth, they both support large portions of the TPP, though Clinton backpedaled on it when challenged by Sanders. I do not expect her to do much for LGBT issues outside of supporting the Equality Act, which is basically bare minimum s*%+.
Fifth, while this isn't something I personally care about, she does not appear to genuinely believe in much of what she fights for. Her positions shift more than Obama's did. She does not come off as honest. Like I said, not a priority for me. Her emails aren't, either, but a lot of people are justifiably irritated about that carelessness.
Sixth, I am legitimately bothered at the money she receives from private prisons.
EDIT: Seventh, I feel like she leans on generals a bit too much. I know that sounds weird, but our country has a huge hero worship thing going on with our Military-Industrial Complex. If we were worried about drone oversight before, I think we'll have to be really worried with her as president. It depresses me to think of all those "Enemy Combatants" that get written down and dismissed each day thanks to technicalities.
Well Skoll's son, I'd probably have to do something about it...
Okay, and just as a reminder, I am voting for Hillary Clinton and wish her the best of luck. I'm worried, but I do hope that she'll see where the country is hopefully going and decide to slide to the left.
I am worried about where the rage of Trump's supporters is going to go when he loses, though.
Kobold, can you provide links/more information about the private prisons? (I assume said prisons are located in the state of New York, but feel free to correct me on that.)
I suppose that's why it's a crackpot theory? XD
Among other things yes Rednal.
But I am trying to lighten the mood. So far FAIL...
I am worried about where the rage of Trump's supporters is going to go when he loses, though.
Hopefully they'll just occupy landfills and bird sanctuaries.
Sure, Hitdice. It's been a while since I looked it up, and Google is being as helpful as usual. Time to dig through pro-Sanders Huffington Post articles in search of an original source!
Alright, here you go. "Clinton's Ready for Hillary PAC received $133,246 from lobbying firms linked to GEO and CCA."
So, I mean, it's not optimal. Clinton is one of only three candidates who appears to have gotten donations, alongside Rubio and Jeb.
As a general reminder, don't forget that it's often hard to convey tone on the internet. ^^ People may not be expecting a joke, and could interpret you as being serious when you're really not. Miscommunication happens!
So, uh, try to be obvious about it. XD Like ending the post with "/Jokes" or something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
eventually the sun will explode and become a black hole
OH GOD IS THIS FOR REAL D:
As a general reminder, don't forget that it's often hard to convey tone on the internet. ^^ People may not be expecting a joke, and could interpret you as being serious when you're really not. Miscommunication happens!
So, uh, try to be obvious about it. XD Like ending the post with "/Jokes" or something.
Yes but I'm afraid if I start posting images of funny clowns people will start thinking I'm like Jared Leto or Heath Ledger or something...
*hint* *JOKE!*
K-Cleaver,
Only if get the right parts and enough fissionable material. ;)
*see above* *joke*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, as far as black hole suns go...
I approve! :)
As a general reminder, don't forget that it's often hard to convey tone on the internet. ^^ People may not be expecting a joke, and could interpret you as being serious when you're really not. Miscommunication happens!
So, uh, try to be obvious about it. XD Like ending the post with "/Jokes" or something.
I don't know what you're talking about. No one has ever misinterpreted a joking and/or sarcastic post as being serious.
Draconic Sarcasm,
You haven't seen that much of the internet then....
Sure, Hitdice. It's been a while since I looked it up, and Google is being as helpful as usual. Time to dig through pro-Sanders Huffington Post articles in search of an original source!
Alright, here you go. "Clinton's Ready for Hillary PAC received $133,246 from lobbying firms linked to GEO and CCA."
So, I mean, it's not optimal. Clinton is one of only three candidates who appears to have gotten donations, alongside Rubio and Jeb.
Thanks for the speedy reply; I feel like (remember what I said about verified sources vs, like, feelings, man? /wink) $133,246 is not a large enough fraction of her campaign contribution fund to influence her vote one way or the other. I don't think she's sold her soul to private prisons, I think she cashed their checks 'cause it was safer, politically speaking, than returning them.
No, but it's concerning to me that they're supporting her. I don't really see campaign donations as necessarily influencing votes, but they are indicative of what those companies expect to see. They regard Hillary as a safe bet. Kind of tells you how likely they think she is to pursue tighter prison standards as president.
When you can't trust a politician's words, trust a corporation's greed. To put it one way, if homeopathy actually worked, health insurance providers would have jumped on it by now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, but it's concerning to me that they're supporting her. I don't really see campaign donations as necessarily influencing votes, but they are indicative of what those companies expect to see. They regard Hillary as a safe bet. Kind of tells you how likely they think she is to pursue tighter prison standards as president.
When you can't trust a politician's words, trust a corporation's greed. To put it one way, if homeopathy actually worked, health insurance providers would have jumped on it by now.
But my practioner told me my reiki sessions would be covered any day now! And the crystals are totally medically required durable goods!
I will be voting for hillary mostly so i don't have to take back every bad thing i ever said about the electoral college if she wins the electoral college but not the presidency.
The revenge of al gore!
The only thing I trust from health insurance providers is death rates.
I am voting for Doctor Doom. Or maybe Lex Luthor. ~thinks~ One of those two will do.
Glad that the ballot will have more than two choices besides the write-in blank. :)
I have heard that some poor soul by the name of Alucard is wanting to run in the 2016 election. I doubt that he is bloodthirsty enough to make it in politics.
I did that in the Primary. Sadly, he didn't win. v.v I suppose my vote for President will have to go to a human.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok... so Trump says he was talking about the 'organizational strength' of the 'second ammendment people' when he said they could stop Hillary appointed judges from 'repealing the 2nd ammendment'.
Except... how can their organizational strength and/or voting help after Hillary has already been elected and appointed the judges? He had clearly just said that after the judges were appointed it would be too late to do anything... except for the 'second ammendment people'... who have some kind of ability to stop the judges from being appointed... after they have already been appointed... because of how 'organized' they are...
OMG!
The NRA has a time machine!
Further developments: The scandal that may take down Clinton? or Vince Foster 2.0?
Julian Assange claims that murdered DNC staffer was his Wikileaks source.
Further developments: The scandal that may take down Clinton? or Vince Foster 2.0?
Julian Assange claims that murdered DNC staffer was his Wikileaks source.
I agree the murder sounds shady, but honestly, it's just a regular day in D.C. which has a ridiculous amount of murders every year.
I will be curious if they find someone, but i doubt it, sounds like more grandstanding, honestly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure Assange has publicly stated his opposition to Clinton. I... would not be surprised if he were lying, or at least exaggerating, in order to try and rock the boat for her.
Yup, pretty much.
At what point does Hillary pull a season 7 game of thrones cersie and just embrace the fact that she's going to be called a supervillianess anyway..
I'm pretty sure Assange has publicly stated his opposition to Clinton. I... would not be surprised if he were lying, or at least exaggerating, in order to try and rock the boat for her.
Considering that Clinton has vigorously pushed for his arrest and imprisonment, I can't say that I blame him for making it personal.
At what point does Hillary pull a season 7 game of thrones cersie and just embrace the fact that she's going to be called a supervillianess anyway..
Because that maneuver only works if you're a man.