+- Southperry.net (https://www.southperry.net)
+-- Forum: Social (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Current Events (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=55)
+--- Thread: Crooked Hillary! (/showthread.php?tid=76008)
Crooked Hillary! - Satellite - 2016-11-20
For the record, I'm not saying Obama and Hillary are much better, they're just less open about it. Manning has been tortured to the point where she tried to commit suicide and is sitting in jail right now. Assange is locked up in an embassy and Snowden hiding somewhere in Russia. If only Wikileaks would've leaked the DNC emails a bit earlier, maybe Bernie would've had a chance... I'm just struggling to see how Trump is "anti-entablishment" with the picks he's making right now.
Crooked Hillary! - Marksman Bryan - 2016-11-20
Another thing that's been bothering me -
Why did the blue-collar working class think Trump, a billionaire real-estate mogul, spoke for them? How on earth would he have even a remote chance of understanding their struggles?
I could understand if both candidates didn't resonate with them. But to be so dead-set on thinking Trump understands them better? There's zero logic there.
Crooked Hillary! - Satellite - 2016-11-20
Marksman Bryan Wrote:Another thing that's been bothering me -This is just a guess but every time GOP/democrats/mainstream media spoke against Trump, he ended up getting better numbers. Enemy of your enemy is your friend and "politician" is a curseword for those living at rural areas.
Why did the blue-collar working class think Trump, a billionaire real-estate mogul, spoke for them? How on earth would he have even a remote chance of understanding their struggles?
I could understand if both candidates didn't resonate with them. But to be so dead-set on thinking Trump understands them better? There's zero logic there.
Crooked Hillary! - Flonne - 2016-11-20
Marksman Bryan Wrote:Another thing that's been bothering me -
Why did the blue-collar working class think Trump, a billionaire real-estate mogul, spoke for them? How on earth would he have even a remote chance of understanding their struggles?
I could understand if both candidates didn't resonate with them. But to be so dead-set on thinking Trump understands them better? There's zero logic there.
There is a marked difference between being rich and being "elite". For (the best) example, the raw, monetary net worth of the Rothschild family is nowhere near what their true worth is; when you own the federal banks and more importantly the prints themselves, you in reality have an infinite amount of money and can never run out...HOWEVER, the claims that they have $500 Trillion or even $5-10 Trillion are silly; they would never want that amount because it would devalue the money that they control. In reality having that much money would be a detriment to them, they could easily HAVE that much if they wanted but it would be worth less than the amount they have now in practical application, not to mention much harder to keep tabs on and control. They would put bullets in their own heads if they woke up tomorrow morning with as little power as Trump does.
Trump isn't really an elite family like "Clinton" or "Bush" are. His family hasn't been steeped in politics for decades, in fact he's been pretty politically incorrect for most of his life. Politics ruins absolutely. It will eventually ruin Trump too, now, there is no traditional defense against it when you have to either play by the book and become a corrupt piece of pomegranate or get eaten alive. Trump doesn't understand day-to-day struggles, no, but he does understand the general issues facing our country right now and is willing to fix them because he is not yet wearing the tinted glasses of a politician that makes negatives into positives. Hopefully he will have fixed everything he needs to before that becomes an issue.
Crooked Hillary! - KhainiWest - 2016-11-20
Marksman Bryan Wrote:Another thing that's been bothering me -
Why did the blue-collar working class think Trump, a billionaire real-estate mogul, spoke for them? How on earth would he have even a remote chance of understanding their struggles?
I could understand if both candidates didn't resonate with them. But to be so dead-set on thinking Trump understands them better? There's zero logic there.
Middle class is hurting hard, they wanted someone to take over that was outside of government, believed in State level power, and Hillary was the poster child of the opposite 'wants'. You want another reason, go look at the current media claiming the reason Trump won was because 50m+ people are racist/sexist/bigotted. Here's a really good video ont he whole thing in my opinion;
https://web.archive.org/Morning_Joe/status/796696626366533632
edit:
Also for clarity, I voted for Hillary because frankly when it came down to it she was more pro science than him, I believe true progression is based on science, not on belief systems. I stood firm on that.
Crooked Hillary! - cronnoponno - 2016-11-25
I'm not very smart when it comes to politics, all my friends and people I talk to irl, all the comments I read and a lot of the stuff I hear on the radio have all been the same though. I know the pool of information I get from a few hundred of people when ten of millions voted and have their own reasons of voting is very small, but I primarily hear things relating to the same old SJW stuff that has been all over the internet. A lot of people I know irl voted for Trump mainly because they felt Hillary and the idea of voting for her enforced the idea that they're basically scumbags unless they vote for her, and while I'm sure many many many people voted for reasons completely unrelated to things like fear of the crippling political correctness we have in society today it seems to have been a huge influence for just about anyone I know, on both sides. It just really seems that very few people SERIOUSLY cared about the nitty-gritty of what they were campaigning for, and were just using Trump and Hillary as a means of spiting the other group of people.
I didn't vote because I don't feel I'm smart enough in politics to realistically point who I believe should run the US, and I know my sphere of people I talk to is small in comparison to the millions that actually did vote...but I can't help but feel all of the accusations or racism, sexism, blahblahblahism have been a huge influence in actually helping Trump get elected, and that they just voted for Trump as a means of standing up against it without actually caring about what he wants to do(and that is not to say the same didn't happen with Hillary). Having someone sell me the idea that I'm a horrible person and that some kind of revival of the K.K.K is going to happen and that I have life easier than everyone else because my skin is a certain color, and that I am a pseudo-rapist or something else because I do not completely believe in the things I am being told is a hard drink to swallow and it wouldn't really surprise me if a huge part of that helped Trump get elected....then again, I am very bad at politics so I'm sure there is a bigger picture here.
Crooked Hillary! - Flonne - 2016-11-27
https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/802628319422320640
>gets a ton of money from retards to do a recount
>they fund it because she thinks she is trying to help Hillary
>NOPE, she's in it 100% for her federal funding she would get from 5% of votes
>shits on Hillary even more as a closer
This is probably the best ruse I've seen in a long time. The shitstorm it caused when she announced she was going to hold a big fundraiser for a recount in 3 states was pretty big; conservatives got butthurt and liberals grabbed on to it with a deathgrip because they saw it as their last chance, assuming that, because another woman was the one asking for it, it was automatically going to be held under "favorable" circumstances for them. I don't see why they were surprised by this, she has been harder on Hillary than Trump by far for the entire election. Hopefully they will finally move on to the acceptance stage, the electoral college turnaround is 100% not happening, only 3-5 of them are saying they will vote against majority with any certainty, they rest just aren't willing to lose their jobs to earn good boy points with an old woman who doesn't give a pomegranate about them, lol.
Crooked Hillary! - Satellite - 2016-11-27
Flonne Wrote:https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/802628319422320640Jill Stein? Ahh... the "green" candidate that wants the world to cut down emissions and slow down climate change, while at the same time wanting to get rid of one of the most efficient, clean and safest forms of energy because "nuclear plants are weapons of mass destruction waiting to be detonated". Then it came into public eye that she had huge investments in big oil, so she probably would've replaced nuclear plants with coal.
>gets a ton of money from retards to do a recount
>they fund it because she thinks she is trying to help Hillary
>NOPE, she's in it 100% for her federal funding she would get from 5% of votes
>pomegranates on Hillary even more as a closer
This is probably the best ruse I've seen in a long time. The pomegranatestorm it caused when she announced she was going to hold a big fundraiser for a recount in 3 states was pretty big; conservatives got butthurt and liberals grabbed on to it with a deathgrip because they saw it as their last chance, assuming that, because another woman was the one asking for it, it was automatically going to be held under "favorable" circumstances for them. I don't see why they were surprised by this, she has been harder on Hillary than Trump by far for the entire election. Hopefully they will finally move on to the acceptance stage, the electoral college turnaround is 100% not happening, only 3-5 of them are saying they will vote against majority with any certainty, they rest just aren't willing to lose their jobs to earn good boy points with an old woman who doesn't give a pomegranate about them, lol.
Crooked Hillary! - KhainiWest - 2016-11-28
Memba the cold war
Crooked Hillary! - xparasite9 - 2016-11-28
KhainiWest Wrote:Memba the cold war
no, of course not! Castro was a good boy he didn't do nothin!
Crooked Hillary! - xparasite9 - 2016-12-18
xparasite9 Wrote:Oh, I'm not forgetting the electoral college. The anti-democracy pomegranate that happened, both successfully and unsuccessfully, in the primaries is still fresh in my mind.
I will worry about that when it comes time to, but right now there are more immediate concerns.
And like I predicted, in a resurgence of the "Free the Delegates" movement in the primaries, we have "free the electors".
Complete with faithless electors like (((Chris Suprun)) [that's not me putting those echoes on his name, he did it himself], and a silly petition with nearly 5 million signatures
But honestly? I never would have expected the mainstream media to treat this as something brave and noble. I never would have expected my hometown newspaper to treat this perfidious, stolen-valor spoilsport with all the attention and positive coverage they have. I never would have expected, even despite all of the cheerleading for Hillary, that SNL would actually go this far into the game and justify it on their show.
[video=youtube;IAhF8tPqafQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAhF8tPqafQ[/video]
Crooked Hillary! - Flonne - 2016-12-19
In fact, some of them are actually going so far as to say that they are being faithless to their country by NOT voting against public opinion, that they are only being faithful to the values of the country by undermining the values of the country. Mainly huffpost tier absolute garbage sites, but still, the pomegranate is really happening. This is what they perceive to be their last chance to "win", they are going to go all out tomorrow.
Also, have the funniest pomegranate I've seen all month.
![[Image: Ld4iovM.png]](http://i.imgur.com/Ld4iovM.png)
In an attempt to garner sympathy, he is essentially saying that 4-5 Trump supporters beat up OVER 20 PROTESTORS handily. BAREHANDED. So, this is one of three things, a false flag, a legitimate group of disgruntled Trump supporters, or entirely fabricated. In the first situation, some protestors injured themselves to post on twitter how violent Trump supporters are, not realizing how fucking weak and pathetic it makes them look, in the second, some legitimate Trump supporters actually beat the pomegranate out of some protestors and the protestors post it on twitter, AGAIN making themselves look weak and pathetic, and in the third and most likely case, they simply make themselves look weak and pathetic for a perceived gain that does not actually exist.
In all three situations, it proves my point that if there is a civil war these pansies aren't going to last a day, if a couple of unarmed guys are able to win a group fight outnumbered 4-5 on 1 when their main strength in a fight isn't even unarmed combat, it is their far superior training with firearms; it just means that even if they are cornered they can take down these hipsters easily. I'm not gonna say I hope they vote against Trump tomorrow, we can't afford a civil war right now when the world is so unstable, but...if the world were in a better place overall, I think I would have a different opinion. It's hard to not just get tired of their constant guilt tripping dogshit, their constant pushing of regressive laws/ideologies, it's so hard at this point to not just say pineapple it and start doing the exact opposite of what they ask just to trigger them and force them to have to deal with the real world at least for a few instants before their hugbox surrounds them and tells them everything is OK. It's been getting MUCH worse over the past month since the election, the guilt tripping, the self righteous "how could you do this you -insert ridiculous term they consider an insult-?", the "apologize to me right now for shitting on my hopes and dreams" bullshit.
The big claims are that they have anywhere from 7 to 35 electors that are going to vote against the public, but then, they also said Hillary had a 98%+ chance of winning the election, too, so hopefully this is all just going to blow over; there will be more riots for a while, but ironically they are usually destroying their own communities and making their own quality of life even worse. Most of the blocking of highways and pomegranate has stopped now that people have just started running them down like they should have done to begin with, and the "better" areas of town are much more policed than the lower end parts of town where most of this is happening and they know it, when it starts spreading into better neighborhoods the response will probably be very bad and I hope it fizzles out before it reaches that point.
Crooked Hillary! - VerrKol - 2016-12-19
[MENTION=5658]xparasite9[/MENTION]; Say what you will about the media, I thought that skit was hilarious.
This delegate flipping is an undemocratic pipedream that undermines the whole system.
Crooked Hillary! - Eos - 2016-12-19
Flonne Wrote:In an attempt to garner sympathy, he is essentially saying that 4-5 Trump supporters beat up OVER 20 PROTESTORS handily. BAREHANDED. So, this is one of three things, a false flag, a legitimate group of disgruntled Trump supporters, or entirely fabricated. In the first situation, some protestors injured themselves to post on twitter how violent Trump supporters are, not realizing how fucking weak and pathetic it makes them look, in the second, some legitimate Trump supporters actually beat the pomegranate out of some protestors and the protestors post it on twitter, AGAIN making themselves look weak and pathetic, and in the third and most likely case, they simply make themselves look weak and pathetic for a perceived gain that does not actually exist.
You have more apophenia than actual logic in your ranting. When you're in the middle of a group of people how long does it take you to realize you're under attack from a sneak attack?
Could you walk into a distracted crowd and hit 4 people before the rest of them figured out what was going on?
Is it "weak" to be surprised by an unprovoked sneak attack? Most people aren't trained to recognize they're under attack and need to go on the defensive, or even to know what the defensive is. Does that somehow invalidate their victimization?
That aside, according to the post, which itself is tiny and somewhat vague, 3-4 of them took serious injury, out of 20. You're making weird logistical leaps that all 20 of them were hurt, although that is quite possible if the rest of those 20 were trying to pull the 4-5 guys off the ones they they were targeting, which would be consistent with the few of them more severely hurt.
I am concerned with your view of the world when your entire focus here is on how "weak" people look when they're victimized and how readily you're looking for excuses as to why something like this didn't or couldn't happen and blaming the victims on the off chance it did than actually trying to ascertain if it did.
Could it be a hoax? Yes. But why would they be doing it to advocate love and peace if it were? Unprovoked attacks are the sort of thing one manufactures as a call to war, not as an example of why peace and tolerance are needed on both sides. I'm sure your irrational need for everything to be a conspiracy sees the love and peace as a red herring so they can look innocent and sweet while other liberals wave them as an example of reason to crusade.
Crooked Hillary! - Flonne - 2016-12-19
Eos Wrote:I am concerned with your view of the world when your entire focus here is on how "weak" people look when they're victimized and how readily you're looking for excuses as to why something like this didn't or couldn't happen and blaming the victims on the off chance it did than actually trying to ascertain if it did.
Obama has proven that having very weak frontmen does NOT work with dictators; they see compromise as weakness, and they see weakness as an opportunity to exploit; there is no compromise, only dominate or be dominated. Weak people will elect similarly weak people, which will allow Russia and China and the Middle East and even a country as irrelevant as North Korea to walk all over the US. You know the saying, hard times create strong people, strong people create good times, good times create weak people? We are in the process of shifting to hard times again, and weak people do not do well in hard times; they may survive, but generally not very well. I'm not advocating attacking protestors, I'm using it as an example of how screwed they are in actual conflict; you ask how long it should take to recognize you are under attack? For someone with any military or combat training, the correct answer is "immediately or you are dead", not making excuses about how unfair it is that they surprise attacked you. So, yes, it is unequivocably weak to allow 4-5 people with no weapons to thrash 20+ people.
Love and peace is generally an empty statement, by the way; that is one of their many causes under which they do whatever they want, generally not even remotely following the meaning of the words themselves. Doublespeak and doublethink are the token attributes of SJWs, above all others; they will lie to your face and become indignant when you point out that they are lying, calling you a xenophobe or racist or whatever the buzzword of the day is.
Again, the main point is, if the atmosphere of this country breeds such weakness, that will leak out at all levels of the country itself, our leaders will begin pandering to said weakness as Obama has proven, and the countries that breed what are essentially the modern-day version of conquerors will tear off as much of us as they can as soon as they see that weakness, much like a predatory animal that sees wounded prey. Is it right that some Trump supporters may have attacked some protestors? No. But the outcome proves an important point.
Crooked Hillary! - VerrKol - 2016-12-19
[MENTION=2088]Flonne[/MENTION]; You've conflated so many different issues in that post that I barely know where to begin.
A group of Trump supporters unexpectedly attacking a group of protesters is not a microcosm for international politics. Full stop.
You think it's weak that civilians are unable to defend themselves when attacked? I'd call it success. In a modern, well developed society, not every person should be required to defend themselves because it is rarely required. Violent crime and armed conflict are at low enough rates that not every citizen is required know self defense. That's why we have police officers and military. While I might advocate a modicum of basic self defense training for everyone, you seem to advocate that every citizen defend themselves as a soldier should. This is both unnecessary and counterproductive in an age when 1 missile can take out an entire city.
I don't believe there was ever a time when a small group of determined attackers couldn't surprise and significantly injure a larger group of average citizens. Stop idealizing a past full of "strong people" that never existed.
Crooked Hillary! - xparasite9 - 2016-12-19
They failed so hard with their pleading that they made more people change their vote away from hillary than away from trump
Crooked Hillary! - Eos - 2016-12-19
xparasite9 Wrote:They failed so hard with their pleading that they made more people change their vote away from hillary than away from trump
That was actually entirely intentional. Hillary had no chance of winning; They were trying to stack the deck with other options for a 3rd because the senate can only pick from the top 3 electoral college recipients if neither candidate had the required majority, and Trump and Hillary were already in slots #1 and #2, so some of them tried to push for other options as an upset to give the Republican controlled Senate better options than going Trump anyway just to avoid Hillary. Not a bad gambit had more Trump people actually defected, since they were unlikely to all pick the same candidate, and nothing lost on the democrats side regardless.
Crooked Hillary! - Flonne - 2016-12-19
VerrKol Wrote:Flonne; You've conflated so many different issues in that post that I barely know where to begin.
A group of Trump supporters unexpectedly attacking a group of protesters is not a microcosm for international politics. Full stop.
The attack itself is not. The outcome, however, is.
VerrKol Wrote:You think it's weak that civilians are unable to defend themselves when attacked? I'd call it success. In a modern, well developed society, not every person should be required to defend themselves because it is rarely required. Violent crime and armed conflict are at low enough rates that not every citizen is required know self defense. That's why we have police officers and military. While I might advocate a modicum of basic self defense training for everyone, you seem to advocate that every citizen defend themselves as a soldier should. This is both unnecessary and counterproductive in an age when 1 missile can take out an entire city.
The police are actually only effective as a preemptive deterrent, they are much more effective as a psychological suppressant than they are as a physical one. This is why riots get so out of control so quickly, when people see that others in their direct vicinity are no longer being punished by the perceived deterrent, if they are also upset enough they will join in instead of considering the ramifications, thus validating their new thought process of "it doesn't matter if I do this pomegranate, they can't stop me" and undermining the entire point of the law enforcement structure. I respect the police and think they have a very hard and very important job, but they rely on that psychological suppressant factor to protect their lives more than any bulletproof armor ever could.
VerrKol Wrote:I don't believe there was ever a time when a small group of determined attackers couldn't surprise and significantly injure a larger group of average citizens. Stop idealizing a past full of "strong people" that never existed.
I incorrectly worded that, rather, I didn't get my meaning across; no, people were not stronger in the past, they were MORE RESILIENT. People have fake panic attacks when they hear a certain harmless word or action in today's society, can you imagine if that happened even a thousand years ago? Ten thousand? They had actual real pomegranate to worry about, like getting eaten by a pineappleing bear or killed by a rival clan. That does not make them stronger people, but it does definitely make them more resilient, more able to deal with hardship, more equipped to overcome obstacles that are thrown in their path. Rome fell because they became a bunch of hedonistic sacks of pomegranate just like what is happening right now around the world; they became fat, and lazy, and stupid, and even ENCOURAGED THESE TRAITS, because their success eventually bred too many consecutive generations in the ruling class who would much rather have sex with little boys and party year-round than actually manage their holdings.
The biggest problem is this; as an empire or country becomes more successful, they are able to more easily "defeat" Darwin's law, through safety/protection of citizenry from outside forces, healthcare, economic stability, and ability to provide food and water. These are all positive things, but humans are flawed in such a way that there will never be a lasting period of peace in this world because when you make life better you are in the long run actually making it worse, by creating masses of people who technically should have died to starvation or disease or murder in their youth because they were not resilient or cunning enough to make it. This actually touches on one of the key gripes I have with god if one happens to exist (which I believe should be the case due to the complexity of biological life, but it could be that nature is just legitimately good at building complex cell structures from nothing, hey), but that has nothing to do with this discussion; humans are currently irredeemably flawed, and even if you try to fix those flaws through scientific advancements to improve quality of life, they will self-"correct"(negatively) within a few generations and place us right back before the starting point, on many levels. I feel that the most important advancements science should be focusing on right now are in the field of genetics, in order to permanently cull many of those very harmful flaws from the DNA of all future generations; that is the only way I can see us as a species making real progress toward the future. Yes, that sounds like eugenics, and maybe at it's core it is, but I can see only positives to doing these things (under circumstances in which they are deemed to be both safe and MUCH more importantly used in a controlled environment with no private influence, the latter is where the historical precedent to eugenics went so far off the rails); we as a species have to at least be given a chance to reach the starting point toward reaching our potential, and we never will while those massive flaws in our nature still exist.
Most anthropologists would at least acknowledge that the majority of the systems of behavior that current humans have inherited from our tribal ancestors are heavily negative, mainly on an emotional/psychological level. The first thing the behavioral therapist I am seeing for my chronic anxiety said to me was to watch as little of the news as possible, which is hard for me but I am definitely cutting back on it; the reason for this is that, based on remnants of our previous system of behaviors, there was no way or even desire to hear information outside of the tribe of ~100 people, so every negative piece of news that you see is perceived on a psychological level as a direct assault on you or your family. When you hear someone is shot and killed, beneath the portion of your psyche that has been desensitized by decades of hearing such reports, one of your family members was just shot and killed in the back of your mind. Now imagine having dozens of your family members in harms way or even killed every single day, when the norm for our ancestors was for events like that to be once every couple months as a worst case scenario; the adrenaline our body is constantly pouring out while stressed is in high doses basically poisonous to the development of our brains. This is a huge tangent at this point so pineapple it, I'll just leave it at that, but the point is that our natures are not going to autocorrect themselves, they have to be forcibly fixed using scientific advancement or we will never make it as a species, the behaviors of our past are dragging us down.
This, however, is definitely relevant, and is the closing chapter on this entire political debacle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#List_of_faithless_electors
They spent a month trying to get conservative state electoral college members to vote against Trump, and ended up pissing off the others so much that double the number of electors ended up voting against Hillary than people that voted against Trump. Assange's statement that the mainstream media is becoming increasingly irrelevant becomes truer every day.
Crooked Hillary! - VerrKol - 2016-12-20
[MENTION=2088]Flonne[/MENTION]; Did you really just advocate a combination of Eugenics and Darwinism to return us to caveman levels of survival of the fittest?
![[Image: Knf7yT0.gif]](http://i.imgur.com/Knf7yT0.gif)
PS. You do realize that under this standard you shouldn't be allowed to live either?