Mother at Trump rally: “Trump NEVER kicked me or my child out” - What a surprise
162 replies, posted
Seems like nobody [I]really[/I] gave a shit about media storytwisting until it started threatneing Donald Dipshit's Presidential campaign. Not just here, even like on my Facebook, this kind of shit has been going on for forever but no one said anything more than, "oh yeah they do that."
Regardless of what a Trump actually did, he was a verbal asshole and that alone is what's consistently bringing his numbers down. Not the media lol. At least not any more than he's already digging his hole for himself.
The media is shitty but when you're busting out Illuminati theories I think you should take a break for a while.
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;50834606]and was cleared of all charges
don't even bring up benghazi[/QUOTE]
Being cleared of [I]all[/I] charges makes things seem even more shady if you ask me.
[QUOTE=joshuadim;50834992]You see us as hateful because what we say directly contradicts your asinine, insane beliefs?[/QUOTE]
No. I'm not referring to this thread. You don't need to spin my words for that post, they're literal.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50834971]trump acted like a fucking cunt on video
no amount of people saying "no he wasn't a cunt" changes the fact that he was clearly being a fucking cunt[/QUOTE]
I dunno if I saw a different video but it didn't really seem rude what he said but I can't imagine you're blowing it out proportion that much, guess I just saw something else? In the video I saw he just said "That baby is fine/Okay, just kiddin' get that baby outta here" kind of jokingly but maybe there's more.
there are people with a lot of money, and thus power, who could easily use that power to exert an influence on how people think in order to retain that power. there's been lotlt of research into advertising on how to exploit processes in the brain in order to get people to think a certain way and buy a certain product. i do not find it far fetched to suggest that people who have power are using that same research to get people to think certain ways about other things of more consequence than just "buy our product". fuck, if i were in their situation i may do the same as a way to retain and grow my own power.
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;50834999]Being cleared of [I]all[/I] charges makes things seem even more shady if you ask me.[/QUOTE]
What should she have been charged with?
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;50835004]there are people with a lot of money, and thus power, who could easily use that power to exert an influence on how people think in order to retain that power. there's been lotlt of research into advertising on how to exploit processes in the brain in order to get people to think a certain way and buy a certain product. i do not find it far fetched to suggest that people who have power are using that same research to get people to think certain ways about other things of more consequence than just "buy our product". fuck, if i were in their situation i may do the same as a way to retain and grow my own power.[/QUOTE]
Yeah when you got all these tools lying around, someone's gonna put them to use. All I'm sayin'.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50835012]What should she have been charged with?[/QUOTE]
Not a lot of people can rack up this list of charges:
[quote]18USC§201 Bribery
18USC§208 Acts Effecting A Personal Financial Interest (Includes Recommendations)
18USC§371 Conspiracy
18USC§1001 False Statements
18USC§1341 Frauds And Swindles (Mail Fraud)
18USC§1343 Fraud By Wire
18USC§1349 Attempt And Conspiracy (To Commit Fraud)
18USC§1505 Obstruction Of Justice
18USC§1519 Destruction (Alteration Or Falsification) Of Records In Federal Investigation
18USC§1621 Perjury (Including Documents Signed Under Penalties Of Perjury)
18USC§1905 Disclosure Of Confidential Information
18USC§1924 Unauthorized Removal And Retention Of Classified Documents Or Material
18USC§2071 Concealment (Removal Or Mutilation) Of Government Records
18USC§7201 Attempt To Evade Or Defeat A Tax (Use Of Clinton Foundation Funds For Personal Or Political Purposes)
18USC§7212 Attempts To Interfere With Administration Of Internal Revenue Laws (Call To IRS On Behalf Of UBS Not Turning Over Accounts To IRS)[/quote]
and get away scot free
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;50834917]I said Hillary could be funded by the Illuminati if there is one, plus I doubt she's the "head" of the illuminati so it's not like she controls anyone rather someone controlls her. Realistically, I think money would talk louder than Rupert Murdoch anyway but I'm not super serious about the whole thing so I won't go into it.[/QUOTE]
This is such a non-statement. "If this entity that doesn't exist existed, it's possible that that entity would perform actions." Yeah, and?
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;50834929]No that's exactly it. Powerful people with influence and money. The only difference here is that I don't think you'd know their names if there were such shadowforces at play, so no Popes or Zuckerbergs.[/QUOTE]
Technically, they would fall under the category of "Illuminati"
Zuckerberg has a shit load of money he [I]could[/I] start lobbying for certain groups any given minute. Even with the ability to do it from the shadows, I'm sure. I'm not saying he does, but still. As for Hillary, we are quite well informed of what she's done in her life and political career. I'm sure she does even more that we don't know of, her personal life for example. Boring details and normal stuff that take their time off her days. She also needs sleep. Now where does the media controlling comes in? When she had a lunch with some newspaper people, or went inside a news station? Alright, that's an Illuminatus in action for you. I wouldn't find it hard to believe that she's talked to some news station or some news people, to gain control (not necessarily full control) over them.
By your definition, a lot of people are part of the Illuminati, and most majority of them wouldn't even have anything to do with each other, other than being rich and influential. Of course some do, like Hillary Clinton and whoever rich and influential enough that happens to be an accomplice to Hillary Clinton. Right?
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;50835049]This is such a non-statement. "If this entity that doesn't exist existed, it's possible that that entity would perform actions." Yeah, and?[/QUOTE]
And nothing because there's no proof if there is or is not an "entity" in action here. It's just something to consider.
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;50835064]And nothing because there's no proof if there is or is not an "entity" in action here. It's just something to consider.[/QUOTE]
there's also no proof if there is or is not a Christian God either.
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;50835064]And nothing because there's no proof if there is or is not an "entity" in action here. It's just something to consider.[/QUOTE]
How far does "it's something to consider" go? Is it "something to consider" that the US government might have done 9/11 as a false flag to start a war in the middle east? is it "something to consider" that the government might be seeding the air with chemtrails? Is it "something to consider" that the government is hosting false flag shootings to disarm the populace? Or is it only "something to consider" because Crooked Hillary™ is involved?
"Trump didn't do this [B]one[/B] terrible thing, so let's forget about all the other terrible things he [B]did[/B] do!~"
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;50835052]
By your definition, a lot of people are part of the Illuminati, and most majority of them wouldn't even have anything to do with each other, other than being rich and influential. Of course some do, like Hillary Clinton, and whoever rich and influential enough that happens to be an accomplice to Hillary Clinton. Woopdi-fucking-doo.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that's such a woopdi-fuckin-do thing though. If you acknowledge Their existence then the possibilities are stupidly, to an asinine extent, limitless in what ways They could influence an election. So, if you think there are powerful men acting upon their desires to have someone else extend a hand from the shadows with a fist-full of dollars and a letter then Hillary having slight shadowy connections is very serious!
But that's if you're willing to humor the idea in the first place.
[editline]5th August 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;50835078]How far does "it's something to consider" go? Is it "something to consider" that the US government might have done 9/11 as a false flag to start a war in the middle east? is it "something to consider" that the government might be seeding the air with chemtrails? Is it "something to consider" that the government is hosting false flag shootings to disarm the populace? Or is it only "something to consider" because Crooked Hillary™ is involved?[/QUOTE]
You're talking specific conspiracies. Secret moneymen is hardly specific. Acknowledge their possible existence like you might aliens, but maybe with a bit more seriousness.
It's something to consider that Trump can control media as well.
Let's not ignore that if a news site/channel talked about the emails and didn't dismiss them, it's most likely not Lizard controlled propaganda news
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;50835093]It's something to consider that Trump can control media as well.
Let's not ignore that if a news site/channel talked about the emails and didn't dismiss them, it's most likely not Lizard controlled propaganda news[/QUOTE]
It's true. I just hear the perspective that he's a rogue element to their plan because he's got his own capital, which is not the most absurd thing to consider among absurd plots. Trump vs the Illuminati you see <o>
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;50835052]Technically, they would fall under the category of "Illuminati"
Zuckerberg has a shit load of money he [I]could[/I] start lobbying for certain groups any given minute. Even with the ability to do it from the shadows, I'm sure. I'm not saying he does, but still. As for Hillary, we are quite well informed of what she's done in her life and political career. I'm sure she does even more that we don't know of, her personal life for example. Boring details and normal stuff that take their time off her days. She also needs sleep. Now where does the media controlling comes in? When she had a lunch with some newspaper people, or went inside a news station? Alright, that's an Illuminatus in action for you. (Illuminatus may actually be the correct singular of Illuminati.) I wouldn't find it hard to believe that she's talked to some news station or some news people, to gain control (not necessarily full control) over them.
By your definition, a lot of people are part of the Illuminati, and most majority of them wouldn't even have anything to do with each other, other than being rich and influential. Of course some do, like Hillary Clinton and whoever rich and influential enough that happens to be an accomplice to Hillary Clinton. Right?[/QUOTE]
i mean zuckerberg has already been caught on tape talking to merkel about censoring anti immigration posts
[URL="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/30/angela-merkel-caught-on-hot-mic-confronting-mark-z/"]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/30/angela-merkel-caught-on-hot-mic-confronting-mark-z/[/URL]
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;50835064]And nothing because there's no proof if there is or is not an "entity" in action here. It's just something to consider.[/QUOTE]
I disagree, I don't think it's worth considering things like this when there's no proof.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;50835113]I disagree, I don't think it's worth considering things like this when there's no proof.[/QUOTE]
Nice, I respect that.
i just think that the idea that "hey, maybe there are some people using their money to influence information the general populace receives" isn't that extreme of an idea. we see it all the time from fossil fuel companies regarding climate change, is it really that crazy to apply that same logic elsewhere?
I'm not saying it's crazy that the media can be bought, I'm saying it's crazy to think the media is to blame for Trump's stupidity and his supporters.
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;50835136]I'm not saying it's crazy that the media can be bought, I'm saying it's crazy to think the media is to blame for Trump's stupidity and his supporters.[/QUOTE]
You may not be talking about me specifically, but I'd like to say that in case this was confused in the crazy ride we just went though, I don't think all of Trumps controversy was manufactured either.
SETTING IT STRAIGHT FOR ONCE.
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;50835136]I'm not saying it's crazy that the media can be bought, I'm saying it's crazy to think the media is to blame for Trump's stupidity and his supporters.[/QUOTE]
MAybe the media is controlling shit, I wouldn't doubt it at some level, such as you can see the lack of coverage of the TPP.
But the media has had no play in Trump putting his whole fucking fist, foot, anus, and hair in his mouth on a regular basis.
[QUOTE=DeadCow;50834563]Jesus you guys are more extreme left than I thought.[/QUOTE]
Opposing Trump isn't an extreme left position. Even senior GOP figures have done so.
I assume that Opal is trying to fuck with people now that his actual defense has been shot down, which seems to be more and more apparent with political discourse nowadays. Don't have a real argument? Just make your opposition look stupid.
[QUOTE=DeadCow;50834563]Jesus you guys are more extreme left than I thought.
Not trying to start a shitstorm here, calm the fuck down[/QUOTE]
Communism is extreme left. Social Anarchism is extreme left. If anything, the Democratic Party is center-right.
[QUOTE=Phycosymo;50835211]I assume that Opal is trying to fuck with people now that his actual defense has been shot down, which seems to be more and more apparent with political discourse nowadays. Don't have a real argument? Just make your opposition look stupid.
Communism is extreme left. Social Anarchism is extreme left. If anything, the Democratic Party is center-right.[/QUOTE]
Hey, don't shitpost in my direction please. I said nothing bad about you yet.
I'd tell you that your assumption is incorrect, but then that'd leave me vulnerable for a fucking doozy of a rebuttal post to solidify your position as internet forum cool guy. The sickest of the shitposters.
I just want to understand the email problem more and possibly clear up misconceptions.
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;50835048]Not a lot of people can rack up this list of charges:
and get away scot free[/QUOTE]
[b]18USC§201 Bribery[/b] Where?
[b]18USC§208 Acts Effecting A Personal Financial Interest (Includes Recommendations)[/b] When?
[b]18USC§371 Conspiracy[/b] For what?
[b]18USC§1001 False Statements:[/b] There is a difference between lying, and being wrong. I think a lot of people mix the two up.
[b]18USC§1341 Frauds And Swindles (Mail Fraud)[/b] Where?
[b]18USC§1343 Fraud By Wire[/b] Where?
[b]18USC§1349 Attempt And Conspiracy (To Commit Fraud)[/b] Where?
[b]18USC§1505 Obstruction Of Justice[/b] She was fully complicit in the investigation unless you have proof otherwise. You claim it, so prove it.
[b]18USC§1519 Destruction (Alteration Or Falsification) Of Records In Federal Investigation[/b] [url=https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system]"I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."[/url]
[b]18USC§1621 Perjury (Including Documents Signed Under Penalties Of Perjury):[/b] When? Related 18USC§1001
[b]18USC§1905 Disclosure Of Confidential Information[/b] Only 2,000 of the ~30,000 emails were confidential, and only four of them were disclosed without classification, however three of them were improperly marked with a "C" for confidential.
[b]18USC§1924 Unauthorized Removal And Retention Of Classified Documents Or Material[/b] This one is true, however the FBI have no precedent of prosecuting this, and rather issue a security review and possible dismissal. See below.
[b]18USC§2071 Concealment (Removal Or Mutilation) Of Government Records:[/b] See 18USC§1519
[b]18USC§7201 Attempt To Evade Or Defeat A Tax (Use Of Clinton Foundation Funds For Personal Or Political Purposes)[/b] Where?
[b]18USC§7212 Attempts To Interfere With Administration Of Internal Revenue Laws (Call To IRS On Behalf Of UBS Not Turning Over Accounts To IRS)[/b] Where?
[quote]All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.[/quote]
[url=https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system]Source[/url]
[quote]Similarly, the IG report found that Clinton violated department policies that were in place at the time. That report cited the case of Jonathan Scott Gration, a former ambassador to Kenya, who ignored instructions in July 2011 not to use commercial email for government business and resigned in mid-2012 when the department initiated disciplinary action against him. “[T]he Department’s response to his actions demonstrates how such usage is normally handled when Department cybersecurity officials become aware of it,” the report said.[/quote]
[url=http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/a-guide-to-clintons-emails/]Source[/url]
In short, the charges that could be used are not strong enough to make a case.
[editline].[/editline]
This probably isn't the right thread for this, but I don't know where else to post this.
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;50835089]I don't think that's such a woopdi-fuckin-do thing though. If you acknowledge Their existence then the possibilities are stupidly, to an asinine extent, limitless in what ways They could influence an election. So, if you think there are powerful men reaching extending their desires to have someone else extend a hand from the shadows with a fist-full of dollars and a letter then Hillary having slight shadowy connections is very serious!
But that's if you're willing to humor the idea in the first place.[/QUOTE]
I am willing.
I believe Hilary Clinton does everything in her power to win the election. There are a lot of newspapers, some supporting some less supporting. I don't think Hillary's resources are limitless, nor that all the powerful and rich men in the world are all that organized, even inside America.
I'm sure Hillary's got rich friends and powerful connections, I can't really deny something like that. Who would? She's Hilary Clinton. Anyone in their positions should have rich friends and connections by some point in their careers, that's the game they're playing, and they don't all slither around either.
I can't even speak on behalf of the U.S. business and the parts of the government or the level of corruption you're suggesting, but seriously I think you may be overlooking something about these people, and the "powerful shadowy men extending a case full of cash" are just rich as fuck people who keep their successful companies running, and probably do various types of investments for personal interest mostly and like I said, you gotta consider that people still need sleep, and have even something resembling that of a personal life.
Where do they all find the time to organize or otherwise plan some very high-profile criminal conspiracies (rigging the elections would be one heck of a criminal conspiracy, and I'm not using the word 'conspiracy' ironically there, it's a word used in the criminal law) when they too are just humans in the end, with varying degrees of power, wealth, influence and organizational/co-operational level between them, from none to full.
You guys should read or watch Clinton Cash.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.