Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
So... is there any reason to vote Trump other than Clinton losing? Does the man even have a platform that resonates with you?
Trump Talk™
Trump Talk™
If Satan was running as a third candidate I would tell you to vote for him!
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Trumps a fraudster, that's probably worse than Clinton's Machiavellian approach to politics. But really, both are pretty bad choices.
Clinton is 1000x worse than trump. If you can reason that simply be the mear fact that it takes the entire media propping her up to make her a terrible candidate while in organized unison trying to tear down her opponent then you're intentionally covering your eyes.
/waits patiently
Lakshmi.Flavin said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Trumps a fraudster, that's probably worse than Clinton's Machiavellian approach to politics. But really, both are pretty bad choices.
Clinton is 1000x worse than trump. If you can reason that simply be the mear fact that it takes the entire media propping her up to make her a terrible candidate while in organized unison trying to tear down her opponent then you're intentionally covering your eyes.
/waits patiently
No commentary, just HILARY VS HILARY - Judge for yourself
YouTube Video Placeholder
[+]
Lakshmi.Flavin said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Trumps a fraudster, that's probably worse than Clinton's Machiavellian approach to politics. But really, both are pretty bad choices.
Clinton is 1000x worse than trump. If you can reason that simply be the mear fact that it takes the entire media propping her up to make her a terrible candidate while in organized unison trying to tear down her opponent then you're intentionally covering your eyes.
/waits patiently
(About $22.60, if you're curious.)
Blazed1979 said: »
If Satan was running as a third candidate I would tell you to vote for him!
Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Darrel Castle.
Libertarians, Greens and Constitution respectively.
Valefor.Sehachan said: »
Blazed1979 said: »
If Satan was running as a third candidate I would tell you to vote for him!
Sanders was one of the most popular democratic candidates in US history and they still dispossed of him.
Also, Anyonymous's documentary on Hilary:
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Constitution
[+]
Anna Ruthven said: »
Lakshmi.Flavin said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Trumps a fraudster, that's probably worse than Clinton's Machiavellian approach to politics. But really, both are pretty bad choices.
Clinton is 1000x worse than trump. If you can reason that simply be the mear fact that it takes the entire media propping her up to make her a terrible candidate while in organized unison trying to tear down her opponent then you're intentionally covering your eyes.
/waits patiently
(About $22.60, if you're curious.)
[+]
The Constitution party is essentially Tea Party style governance.
Jassik said: »
Asura.Vyre said: »
Jassik said: »
Odin.Slore said: »
Jassik said: »
Odin.Slore said: »
Jassik said: »
Odin.Slore said: »
Anna Ruthven said: »
Odin.Slore said: »
Anna Ruthven said: »
Odin.Slore said: »
hillary is a slug and the fact that she breaks all the rules, lies, cheats, manipulates everything and liberals have no problem with that is disgusting.
Trump back steps something that he has a change on and liberals implode, but hillary does it and its ok. The logic is amazing.
Trump back steps something that he has a change on and liberals implode, but hillary does it and its ok. The logic is amazing.
Why then did they slam General Petraeus so hard? He did less and liberals called for more punishment.
The government has wasted a bunch of money, trying to pin Benghazi on Hillary, now they are investigating her on the email thing and in my honest opinion, that investigation isn't a waste but unless they truly find something bad, persuing legal action on her would cost more than it's worth.
He wasn't running for president I agree with you there and she is. Which means to me she should be held to a higher standard
Hillary should be held to a higher standard because she's been in government longer? Why not hold them both to a single standard and admit they are both crooks and would make terrible presidents?
We were talking about hillary and Gen. Petraeus. He got demoted and forced to retire with threats of jail time for doing far less than her.
Less, more... The thing is, those words are meaningless. He committed a crime. Several congressional inquiries and an FBI investigation haven't provided any indication Hillary did. Are you saying that we should ignore whether someone actually broke the law when determining their fate?
She did break the law plain and clear. Only difference is Gen P didnt have obama and ag lynch watching his back.
Which law?
I'm pretty confident Hillary is not an sysadmin capable of deleting mailboxes from a server. She claimed the server failed and the data was lost. In order for it to be a crime, she would have to knowingly destroy classified information without notifying the state department. She didn't destroy in intentionally and she did notify the state department.
Is there another law your think she broke?
To answer your question though, yes there are. Multiple counts of perjury and obstruction of justice. Will she ever be proven guilty? No, I don't believe so. She's been getting away with criminal activity for decades, alongside her husband.
[+]
Lakshmi.Flavin said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Trumps a fraudster, that's probably worse than Clinton's Machiavellian approach to politics. But really, both are pretty bad choices.
Clinton is 1000x worse than trump. If you can reason that simply be the mear fact that it takes the entire media propping her up to make her a terrible candidate while in organized unison trying to tear down her opponent then you're intentionally covering your eyes.
/waits patiently
You can't change the minds of the emotionally invested. One of the first rules of sales.
Blazed1979 said: »
Also, Anyonymous's documentary on Hilary:
Lakshmi.Flavin said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Trumps a fraudster, that's probably worse than Clinton's Machiavellian approach to politics. But really, both are pretty bad choices.
Clinton is 1000x worse than trump. If you can reason that simply be the mear fact that it takes the entire media propping her up to make her a terrible candidate while in organized unison trying to tear down her opponent then you're intentionally covering your eyes.
/waits patiently
Don't expect anything.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Lakshmi.Flavin said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Trumps a fraudster, that's probably worse than Clinton's Machiavellian approach to politics. But really, both are pretty bad choices.
Clinton is 1000x worse than trump. If you can reason that simply be the mear fact that it takes the entire media propping her up to make her a terrible candidate while in organized unison trying to tear down her opponent then you're intentionally covering your eyes.
/waits patiently
You can't change the minds of the emotionally invested. One of the first rules of sales.
[+]
Asura.Vyre said: »
Jassik said: »
Asura.Vyre said: »
Jassik said: »
Odin.Slore said: »
Jassik said: »
Odin.Slore said: »
Jassik said: »
Odin.Slore said: »
Anna Ruthven said: »
Odin.Slore said: »
Anna Ruthven said: »
Odin.Slore said: »
hillary is a slug and the fact that she breaks all the rules, lies, cheats, manipulates everything and liberals have no problem with that is disgusting.
Trump back steps something that he has a change on and liberals implode, but hillary does it and its ok. The logic is amazing.
Trump back steps something that he has a change on and liberals implode, but hillary does it and its ok. The logic is amazing.
Why then did they slam General Petraeus so hard? He did less and liberals called for more punishment.
The government has wasted a bunch of money, trying to pin Benghazi on Hillary, now they are investigating her on the email thing and in my honest opinion, that investigation isn't a waste but unless they truly find something bad, persuing legal action on her would cost more than it's worth.
He wasn't running for president I agree with you there and she is. Which means to me she should be held to a higher standard
Hillary should be held to a higher standard because she's been in government longer? Why not hold them both to a single standard and admit they are both crooks and would make terrible presidents?
We were talking about hillary and Gen. Petraeus. He got demoted and forced to retire with threats of jail time for doing far less than her.
Less, more... The thing is, those words are meaningless. He committed a crime. Several congressional inquiries and an FBI investigation haven't provided any indication Hillary did. Are you saying that we should ignore whether someone actually broke the law when determining their fate?
She did break the law plain and clear. Only difference is Gen P didnt have obama and ag lynch watching his back.
Which law?
I'm pretty confident Hillary is not an sysadmin capable of deleting mailboxes from a server. She claimed the server failed and the data was lost. In order for it to be a crime, she would have to knowingly destroy classified information without notifying the state department. She didn't destroy in intentionally and she did notify the state department.
Is there another law your think she broke?
To answer your question though, yes there are. Multiple counts of perjury and obstruction of justice. Will she ever be proven guilty? No, I don't believe so. She's been getting away with criminal activity for decades, alongside her husband.
The real rub is that you must be proven guilty of a crime to be considered a criminal or punished. That's a good thing, and people seem to forget that wasn't the case for most of human history and is one of the things about America that most nations have emulated for the better of humanity.
You can say any manner of terrible thing about Hillary and it would probably be true, but she hadn't been convicted of a crime, so she isn't a criminal.
Emotionally invested, lol.
I wretch at the idea of Clinton being my main 'choice' this November. The idea of political dynasties is repulsive and that the Dems could only field her as their nominee and it took an Independent in Bernie Sanders to avoid a coronation shows the core weakness of the Democratic Party.
Not that they're a superior party but that things are so *** bad in the Republican party right now that they're the 'better' party. The sane choice unless you're an angry old man yelling at cloud.
Sanders coming from relative obscurity managed to give Clinton a big fight with none of the decades of setup Clinton had. That's a pretty big *** deal, to quote Joe Biden.
I wretch at the idea of Clinton being my main 'choice' this November. The idea of political dynasties is repulsive and that the Dems could only field her as their nominee and it took an Independent in Bernie Sanders to avoid a coronation shows the core weakness of the Democratic Party.
Not that they're a superior party but that things are so *** bad in the Republican party right now that they're the 'better' party. The sane choice unless you're an angry old man yelling at cloud.
Sanders coming from relative obscurity managed to give Clinton a big fight with none of the decades of setup Clinton had. That's a pretty big *** deal, to quote Joe Biden.
[+]
Easy on the quote train guys, cut a bit!
[+]
Lakshmi.Flavin said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Lakshmi.Flavin said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Trumps a fraudster, that's probably worse than Clinton's Machiavellian approach to politics. But really, both are pretty bad choices.
Clinton is 1000x worse than trump. If you can reason that simply be the mear fact that it takes the entire media propping her up to make her a terrible candidate while in organized unison trying to tear down her opponent then you're intentionally covering your eyes.
/waits patiently
You can't change the minds of the emotionally invested. One of the first rules of sales.
Because the only way to cockblock Hilary is to put Trump in office. Its that simple. Take the lesser of two evils. Do you want a numb shoulder or a kick in the nuts? pick your evil.
Naw, I prefer not to put fraudsters with no actual platform into office, no matter how much I dislike the Hillary train.
To me it's much worse to elect someone who doesn't even have actual plans for anything.
[+]
Jassik said: »
Asura.Vyre said: »
Jassik said: »
Asura.Vyre said: »
Jassik said: »
Odin.Slore said: »
Jassik said: »
Odin.Slore said: »
Jassik said: »
Odin.Slore said: »
Anna Ruthven said: »
Odin.Slore said: »
Anna Ruthven said: »
Odin.Slore said: »
hillary is a slug and the fact that she breaks all the rules, lies, cheats, manipulates everything and liberals have no problem with that is disgusting.
Trump back steps something that he has a change on and liberals implode, but hillary does it and its ok. The logic is amazing.
Trump back steps something that he has a change on and liberals implode, but hillary does it and its ok. The logic is amazing.
Why then did they slam General Petraeus so hard? He did less and liberals called for more punishment.
The government has wasted a bunch of money, trying to pin Benghazi on Hillary, now they are investigating her on the email thing and in my honest opinion, that investigation isn't a waste but unless they truly find something bad, persuing legal action on her would cost more than it's worth.
He wasn't running for president I agree with you there and she is. Which means to me she should be held to a higher standard
Hillary should be held to a higher standard because she's been in government longer? Why not hold them both to a single standard and admit they are both crooks and would make terrible presidents?
We were talking about hillary and Gen. Petraeus. He got demoted and forced to retire with threats of jail time for doing far less than her.
Less, more... The thing is, those words are meaningless. He committed a crime. Several congressional inquiries and an FBI investigation haven't provided any indication Hillary did. Are you saying that we should ignore whether someone actually broke the law when determining their fate?
She did break the law plain and clear. Only difference is Gen P didnt have obama and ag lynch watching his back.
Which law?
I'm pretty confident Hillary is not an sysadmin capable of deleting mailboxes from a server. She claimed the server failed and the data was lost. In order for it to be a crime, she would have to knowingly destroy classified information without notifying the state department. She didn't destroy in intentionally and she did notify the state department.
Is there another law your think she broke?
To answer your question though, yes there are. Multiple counts of perjury and obstruction of justice. Will she ever be proven guilty? No, I don't believe so. She's been getting away with criminal activity for decades, alongside her husband.
The real rub is that you must be proven guilty of a crime to be considered a criminal or punished. That's a good thing, and people seem to forget that wasn't the case for most of human history and is one of the things about America that most nations have emulated for the better of humanity.
You can say any manner of terrible thing about Hillary and it would probably be true, but she hadn't been convicted of a crime, so she isn't a criminal.
Blazed1979 said: »
Lakshmi.Flavin said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Lakshmi.Flavin said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Trumps a fraudster, that's probably worse than Clinton's Machiavellian approach to politics. But really, both are pretty bad choices.
Clinton is 1000x worse than trump. If you can reason that simply be the mear fact that it takes the entire media propping her up to make her a terrible candidate while in organized unison trying to tear down her opponent then you're intentionally covering your eyes.
/waits patiently
You can't change the minds of the emotionally invested. One of the first rules of sales.
Because the only way to cockblock Hilary is to put Trump in office. Its that simple. Take the lesser of two evils. Do you want a numb shoulder or a kick in the nuts? pick your evil.
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Naw, I prefer not to put fraudsters with no actual platform into office, no matter how much I dislike the Hillary train.
-"I don't support gay marriage"
-"I've always supported gay marriage. Stop trying to make it sound like I didn't"
Valefor.Sehachan said: »
To me it's much worse to elect someone who doesn't even have actual plans for anything.
Valefor.Sehachan said: »
Easy on the quote train guys, cut a bit!
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.