Trump to win?

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

On this thread Woody you've been wrong every step of the way and unfortunately for you I have been here with an opposing point of view and in 24 hours, it will prove to be an historically correct opinion. Your disrespect for me was subtle in the beginning and amped up as your opinions continued to be incorrect. Then you joined the idiots in the crayon clan. That was a sad day. You were so disrespectful to jk, (who took your dumbfuckery seriously!), he finally put you on ignore. Then you started calling the November election for Trump. I couldn't help myself, you were being such a complete dumb ass I started making fun of your candidate. The eagle kicking Trumps ass is one of the most hilarious videos ever made. Oh my god, what a complete loser and you hate the US system so completely this is the little sad sack German you'll back. That is some sick stuff.

And now you're going full fascist, (there's a bad German theme here in case you missed it). Opposing opinions must be banned. "You're more trouble than this place can take". That is what your racist, mini-hand fascist leader Donald Trump says about the US. Look what you've become. At first you denied really backing him, then you went all out for him and now you've become him.

iTulip will be fine. There are several thoughtful people here and I'll be happy to get back to those discussions. You're welcome to join but try to be respectful.

As for your constant admonitions for others, look inside. It's you trying to burn down iTulip and it's you and your candidate trying to burn down the US. As I suspected early on in this election cycle, we will continue to build on the last eight years. We have a long way to go but I'm hopeful we've turned the corner.

It's still an outside chance but I'm hoping we'll get 50 Dems in the Senate so we can move the Supreme Court in a more progressive direction. As I said, we'll know tomorrow night.

Santa, I think you might be suffering from some sort of psychosis and appreciating that puts your bizarre behavior over the past several months in a bit of context. I don't think I'm equipped to help you. I hope JK can help you find what you need professionally and I urge you to seek out his or some other professional support.

You really seem to be suffering and even though you've been abominable to me and so many of us here, I don't want to see you hurt yourself or others when the actualities of life become too much for you to bear. Find someone you trust and talk out your fears and worries and trust that this state of fugue won't last forever.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Can anyone tell me if this is the real deal?

https://mobile.twitter.com/Scott_Foval

Claims to be DNC professional monkey wrencher and mud slinger.

If it's a fake account, it seems fairly well done.

If its real, it could be the biggest twitter political meltdown I've ever seen.

And he might want to up his life insurance before the underwriter actuaries find out.

Did you note how agitated and amped up he was in the Veritas video that nabbed him? In it he seemed kind of out of control and manic and this Twitter stream is consistent with that behavior. It might be a case of drunk/drugged Twittering or it's maybe a trap to snare and discredit the less discerning partisans.

Just damn.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

Can anyone tell me if this is the real deal?

https://mobile.twitter.com/Scott_Foval

Claims to be DNC professional monkey wrencher and mud slinger.

If it's a fake account, it seems fairly well done.

If its real, it could be the biggest twitter political meltdown I've ever seen.

And he might want to up his life insurance before the underwriter actuaries find out.

What always fascinates me is how a single account, out of how many hundreds of millions, comes to the surface.

To change the subject, did anyone here watch Rich Hall's Presidential Grudge Match http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0828lpl

Quite the best debate I have watched regarding the differences between both this years candidates and all the other POTUS holders over the years.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

.. then you went all out for him and now you've become him.

it was when i realized this was the case, that someone for whom i had great respect had "evolved" to the point that an insult was a substitute for a reply, that i put woody on ignore. i had hoped that by ignoring his insults i could eventually engage him in a real discussion, but it wasn't to be. that's when i realized that woody was no longer supporting trump as a strategic choice but that he had "become him."

i went and voted early this morning. my vote won't change anything in this very blue state where i live, but i've never felt so gung-ho about voting. i want to run up the popular total so that when/if hillary wins there won't be any doubt about the people's choice. i laughed out loud to think i was so gung-ho about someone i actually dislike, but so be it.

[DSpencer]

Re: Trump to win?

i went and voted early this morning. my vote won't change anything in this very blue state where i live, but i've never felt so gung-ho about voting. i want to run up the popular total so that when/if hillary wins there won't be any doubt about the people's choice. i laughed out loud to think i was so gung-ho about someone i actually dislike, but so be it.

Should we take this to mean that your signature is no longer meant to be ironic?

[DSpencer]

Re: Trump to win?

Speaking of confusing signature pictures, I have to ask. Woodsman: was your Trump signature originally intended as a comical jab at Trump and his supporters? I never questioned for a second that it could be sincere when I first saw it. Now I don't know what to make of it.

[DSpencer]

Re: Trump to win?

Try to settle your little self down cupcake. Your orange is the new white, reality show hero is unlikely to be a martyr any time soon. I know you'd like to make him, and yourself important...but neither of you matter. You're annoying, I'll give you that. But we're going to continue to move the country forward without your help. You and the clan can continue to create your own reality. What did you call the president the other day? Obummer? That was so creative.

Now the Stay Puft pumpkin may find he's in trouble for cheating people with his fake Trump University or grabbing a few women in ways that aren't OK but I want you to stay strong and continue to support the continued harassment of the first woman who is apparently strong enough to break into the good old boys club even though your racist, misogynist team has tried to destroy her for 30 years.

Now try to remember that I told you and your clan members that this latest FBI "investigation" was nonsense. Even Fox is reporting that there is no there, there. Your rather dumb fascist leader has apparently never heard of computers because he says, "You can't review 650,000 emails in 8 days.". I know his voters are either racists or really dumb but I didn't think they were all that dumb.

This may be difficult but think of the 650,000 "new" emails as a set to be compared against all of the emails reviewed previously. All we want to know is if any of these emails are new or just duplicates of emails reviewed previously. This is not 8 days work, not 8 hours or 8 minutes. Once the program is set-up, it's probably not 8 seconds unless there is an outlier. An actual email that is not a duplicate. Unfortunately for the clan, they were all duplicates and the FBI, like all of you, just looks foolish.

Again, for the 20th time, maybe more, the rag-tag alt right, (now that you've signed up, that includes you Woody), has been proven to be wrong in their allegations. And we all know you're not just wrong, you would lie about anything to throw the election the way of your reality show boy to destroy the 21st Century US, to Make American White Again.

I think if you come back in 6 months and look at what you've written in this thread you will be very embarrassed.

I mean look at this hilarious juxtaposition:

What did you call the president the other day? Obummer? That was so creative.

Now the Stay Puft pumpkin...

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. There's also no doubt you've stooped pretty low with mean spirited and racially based remarks.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

Should we take this to mean that your signature is no longer meant to be ironic?

we are faced with what to me is an ugly choice this year. my signature is indeed ironic, but i think there are or will be less risky ways to go forward than throwing the dice with trump. further, although hillary will do nothing to dismantle socialism for the rich, she is more likely to do things of which i'd approve at least in the realms of the environment and supreme court choices.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Trump to win?

gw, I'm not judging but you need a therapist.

I rate good punctuation slightly above the cliche` in literary feats of excellence.

[GRG55]

Re: Trump to win?

Politics in many nations seems to have fallen into such disrepute that it seemingly can attract only disreputable people.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Trump to win?

And now you're going full fascist, (there's a bad German theme here in case you missed it). Opposing opinions must be banned.

Being hypocritical jackass, you have certainly picked the party with the correct mascot. Since your memory seems a sieve, only fit to mine unrefined lumps of cliched b-ore , I'll help with your mineral deficiency.

I believe the last time we met was during my "screed". I provided source material for both Christianity, Judaism and Islam to prove they are not equal in their ideologies, or their idiosyncrasies. It was shortly after that you displayed your only truly remarkable quality , hypocrisy with dry ice and laser lights; you asked Fred to shut the thread down. That is of course because you know nothing about it like a man on a donkey during the battle of Kursk.

Do try to use the ignore feature properly in the future. 'Tiss best for all.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Trump to win?

we are faced with what to me is an ugly choice this year. my signature is indeed ironic, but i think there are or will be less risky ways to go forward than throwing the dice with trump. further, although hillary will do nothing to dismantle socialism for the rich, she is more likely to do things of which i'd approve at least in the realms of the environment and supreme court choices.

Nixon did far less that Clinton, and he was caught because he was surrounded by enemies. Trump will be sounded by enemies. Clinton will be in an air conditioned room in Death Valley once she is in the White House. Clinton does not believe in any issues. Its honey on barbed wire.
Any speech of hers on the environment is like a free meal for time share sales pitch.

[wayiwalk]

Re: Trump to win?

I'm a consultant who works in the hazardous waste site cleanup industry....not sure if that is the topic when we talk of environment. I don't think we qualify for the "environmental-industrial complex" label since the annual federal funds budgeted for EPA cleaning up the environment (I'm not talking about passing regulations by the gov't) is around $650 million per year....so I work in an industry where my company fights with other companies for scraps....that number really hits home when you do this work in the shadow of Wall Street where the top 10 hedge fund owners made more than $7 billion in 2015.

Unless the "environment" in HRC's case is some carbon trading/taxing scheme administered by Wall Street, I don't see her administration changing things much for the average person. Budgets for environmental cleanups will go up slightly, and nothing much will change. And, for what it's worth, I really hope she doesn't push any carbon trading/taxing scheme....but I wouldn't rule it out happening.

If environment means closing down coal fueled power plants, yes, that will continue through regulation-strangulation in her administration.

If Trump wins, just like when Bush won, the environmental cleanup budgets didn't change much. Polls show folks who vote for either party don't want dirty rivers or hazardous waste sites in their back yards....hence, this issue is all smoke and mirrors and hot button rather than real.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

Nixon did far less that Clinton...

i actually think nixon did more in the way of criminal activity, and more important crimes at that. but i suppose that is a value judgement, since you could argue they both misused the powers of their offices.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

Unless the "environment" in HRC's case is some carbon trading/taxing scheme administered by Wall Street, I don't see her administration changing things much for the average person. Budgets for environmental cleanups will go up slightly, and nothing much will change. And, for what it's worth, I really hope she doesn't push any carbon trading/taxing scheme....but I wouldn't rule it out happening.

If environment means closing down coal fueled power plants, yes, that will continue through regulation-strangulation in her administration.

i would support a revenue neutral carbon tax [i.e. recycle the money in some fashion to offset the burden on those who can least afford it]. i think climate change - whatever its cause- is a real threat to our well-being as a nation and, to a lesser degree, as a civilization. i also think we have to shut down coal-fired plants if we are going to get india and china to stop building new ones. [a necessary step, not a sufficient one.]