[QUOTE=Zezibesh;51223054]the US would have undeniably won a nuclear war in the 60's though[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone wins in a nuclear war.
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;51223199]I don't think anyone wins in a nuclear war.[/QUOTE]
US won by nobody firing a shot, while USSR retreated their nukes off Cuba.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51221966]I wonder if obama thinks all trumps gripes are "whining"
Perhaps obama prefers a meek "going along with everything" president?
i dont even get how this is a zing tbh
name one politician that is happy and content about the current political situation... yea, they are all whiners.[/QUOTE]
There's a difference between "whining" about actual things that you want to change and whining because you know the voters are going to reject you about how the whole system is rigged because you can't possibly fathom that you're not gonna get elected
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51222012]No cold war, nuclear holocaust and no bickering superpowers playing with nation states like pawns in a game of chess?
Id sign for that.[/QUOTE]
Also no Eastern Europe, just a big old little number called NovoRossiya.
[QUOTE=MoralSupport;51222341][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ZjIKtuZ.png[/IMG]
This ride is almost over after 18 months.[/QUOTE]
It won't be over for another 4 years with either of them getting in the house. The Ride is only gonna get worse.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51222009]Obama is the President that keeps on giving.
I seriously want him to become a comedian after this; even if he just did the delivery, it'd be priceless.[/QUOTE]
He's such a good speaker, and imagine after his presidency hes like "yeah I'm gonna go become a comedian now, peace" and then he appears on Comedy Central and talks about the fucking dirtiest, raunchiest shit
[QUOTE=CroGamer002;51223211]US won by nobody firing a shot, while USSR retreated their nukes off Cuba.[/QUOTE]
...nobody won in 1962. Russia put in nukes in the first place because of our attempts to overthrow the Cuban revolution and our nukes in Turkey. That changed, nobody really gained much except an intact world
This also isn't the Cuban missile crisis. This is basically clinton et al challenging russia in its backyard and the integrity of the state itself. It's a nationalist bulwark to our globally - minded 21st century designs. That's why the hitler comparisons are ridiculous, appeasement came from allies weakened by ww1 whereas we have never been touched by world war, and we are completely on the offense since the 90s and actively shaping things whereas hitler wanted to take the offense and overthrow an entire international order.
But whatever. Liberal empires didn't learn from two world wars they couldn't make the world safe for democracy and, in fact, their designs for the world suck and have proven to be a zero sum game for non-western nations rather than a gain for everyone who desires peace and growth, which includes Vladimir 'common market from Lisbon to vladivostok' putin, former strongman for the pro-west Russian liberals and yeltsin. Maybe they'll learn when a non-republican hawk starts yet a other war in her career that brings us to ruin.
[QUOTE=CroGamer002;51223211]US won by nobody firing a shot, while USSR retreated their nukes off Cuba.[/QUOTE]
I mean like, figuratively no one would win in a full scale nuclear war. You could argue that whatever country would still be standing would be the victor, but even with only a few ICBM strikes, there would likely be massive damage to infrastructure, and definitely mass casualties, civilian or otherwise. It's like a headbutt. Someone kind of wins, but it hurts like a bitch for the winner.
"LOL who cares if your voters get denied to vote in a similar fashion to how Bernie voters were denied to vote during the primaries. Lol quit whining."
Nice one Obama, after how podesto responded to Assange, gloating on twitter about his meal, it really is telling how the elite are acting against their opposition.
Reagan was the asshole who was trying to bring us toward a confrontation with the Soviets and it was sheer fortune that Gorbachev wanted to keep improving relations.
If Hillary not backing down from Russia is 'being warhawkish' then jeez I wonder Reagan should be called.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51222009]Obama is the President that keeps on giving.
I seriously want him to become a comedian after this; even if he just did the delivery, it'd be priceless.[/QUOTE]
nah, the the truth is we all find what he says funny only because it's simply strange to hear the president of the united states say these things.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51224537]Reagan was the asshole who was trying to bring us toward a confrontation with the Soviets and it was sheer fortune that Gorbachev wanted to keep improving relations.
If Hillary not backing down from Russia is 'being warhawkish' then jeez I wonder Reagan should be called.[/QUOTE]
Double standard for someone that aligns with their views. Classic tactic for... Well, just a classic tactic for anyone, really, not even just for politics.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51224537]Reagan was the asshole who was trying to bring us toward a confrontation with the Soviets and it was sheer fortune that Gorbachev wanted to keep improving relations.
If Hillary not backing down from Russia is 'being warhawkish' then jeez I wonder Reagan should be called.[/QUOTE]
I think that this newly acquired Republican pacifism is pretty transparent.
Imagine if a Democrat nominee praised Putin, illegally did business in Cuba, or criticized NATO like Trump has.
[QUOTE=phaedon;51224699]I think that this newly acquired Republican pacifism is pretty transparent.
Imagine if a Democrat nominee praised Putin, illegally did business in Cuba, or criticized NATO like Trump has.[/QUOTE]
That's something both sides do, it's not a 'them' trait. If a Republican nominee was the secretary of state who oversaw what happened in Libya, violated security ethics and rules, along with the other scandals Clinton has racked up the left would be frothing at the mouth.
[QUOTE=Trixil;51224539]nah, the the truth is we all find what he says funny only because it's simply strange to hear the president of the united states say these things.[/QUOTE]
I think it's funny because he says what he wants to, while being funny and diplomatic, while ALSO maintaining the dignity of himself and others around him.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51224715]That's something both sides do, it's not a 'them' trait. If a Republican nominee was the secretary of state who oversaw what happened in Libya, violated security ethics and rules, along with the other scandals Clinton has racked up the left would be frothing at the mouth.[/QUOTE]
Everyone capitalizes on their opponents' scandals, but the Republicans forming a dovish position in order to defend Trump's relationship to Russia is pretty hypocritical and remarkable. "If you elect Obama WWIII will happen, we need to play along with Russia!" wasn't exactly a common Republican argument in the 2008 election, for example. Now they are acting like a bunch of pacifist hippies.
What's especially funny to me is that you can find traces of the more hawkish outlook Republicans historically had in the constant talk about projecting more strength aboard. All while talking about how Clinton will start a nuclear war with Russia.
[QUOTE=phaedon;51224759]Everyone capitalizes on their opponents' scandals, but the Republicans forming a dovish position in order to defend Trump's relationship to Russia is pretty hypocritical and remarkable. "If you elect Obama WWIII will happen, we need to play along with Russia!" wasn't exactly a common Republican argument in the 2008 election, for example. Now they are acting like a bunch of pacifist hippies.
What's especially funny to me is that you can find traces of the more hawkish outlook Republicans historically had in the constant talk about projecting more strength aboard. All while talking about how Clinton will start a nuclear war with Russia.[/QUOTE]
I don't think 2008 would be a good example since there was a planned 'relation reset' so that argument wouldn't hold much water, and you won't catch me defending their sudden change of heart on the GOP.
Keep in mind the platform of the party adapts to the platform of the nominee, if the Dems had nominated someone more pacifist the platform would reflect that. Here Trump is dangerously low to getting on his knees for Putin and now the GOP adopts that.
Actually, that hypothetical would be even more embarrassing for the GOP because if they accused such a nominee of worsening relations it would false because that nominee wants to smooth out relations as their platform.
[QUOTE=AnonymaPizza;51224531]"LOL who cares if your voters get denied to vote in a similar fashion to how Bernie voters were denied to vote during the primaries. Lol quit whining."
Nice one Obama, after how podesto responded to Assange, gloating on twitter about his meal, it really is telling how the elite are acting against their opposition.[/QUOTE]
It can't be in similar fashion to Bernie because she beat him with a biased DNC skewing it towards her.
The DNC controls their primary, they don't control the general.
So Trump is just whining, and it's because he's losing horribly.
If the democrats could just rig elections why haven't they done so in the past? Why now and only for the position of president instead of other important positions like Congress?
Trump supporters need to open their eyes and see he doesn't appeal to liberals and doesn't appeal to a sizable chunk of people IN HIS OWN PARTY
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51224794]Keep in mind the platform of the party adapts to the platform of the nominee, if the Dems had nominated someone more pacifist the platform would reflect that. Here Trump is dangerously low to getting on his knees for Putin and now the GOP adopts that.[/quote]
It's not so much the adoption of policies of his (he's no dove) as it is making up pacifist arguments in order to portray his ties to Russia as positive.
Obviously neither Trump nor the GOP are pacifists. The Democrats aren't either, but that's a whole different discussion.
[QUOTE=AnonymaPizza;51224531]"LOL who cares if your voters get denied to vote in a similar fashion to how Bernie voters were denied to vote during the primaries. Lol quit whining."
Nice one Obama, after how podesto responded to Assange, gloating on twitter about his meal, it really is telling how the elite are acting against their opposition.[/QUOTE]
The fuck are you talking about?!
Only Democrat voters are denied to vote in a few Republican controlled stated due to discriminatory ID laws.
Trump voters are NOT denied to vote anywhere. Meanwhile Trump encourages for his supporters to start intimidating non-white voters.
Also, did even read the article?!
you guys's thoughts on this?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs[/media]
[QUOTE=SoaringScout;51228208]you guys's thoughts on this?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs[/media][/QUOTE]
I think Helix Snake put it better than I can, so I'll just quote him.
[quote]This was mentioned in the last topic, but there's plenty of ways to get footage of someone "confessing" to something that they aren't actually confessing to. You can take sarcasm out of context. You can take their answer and juxtapose it with a different question to make the answer mean something completely different. You can take quotes out of context so they mean the literal opposite of their intent. You can talk about hypothetical scenarios and edit the context so that it looks like they're talking about something that actually happened. These are all techniques that he used in the video that got ACORN closed down which turned out to be complete bullshit. This same shit was used against Planned Parenthood and it was used against Shirley Sherrod (who was fired as a result). This shit all happened in the last 10 years, none of you have ANY excuse for ignoring it. [/quote]
If Keef's intent was just to expose corruption. He could [I]easily[/I] release the unedited footage. The fact that he hasn't, and that he has been caught deliberately manipulating people with edited footage in the past, tells me this footage isn't what it appears to be.
I mean, maybe it is. But if it is, why is it edited?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51228253]I think Helix Snake put it better than I can, so I'll just quote him.
If Keef's intent was just to expose corruption. He could [I]easily[/I] release the unedited footage. The fact that he hasn't, and that he has been caught deliberately manipulating people with edited footage in the past, tells me this footage isn't what it's edited to appear as.
I mean, maybe it is. But if it is, why is it edited?[/QUOTE]
I would imagine the unedited footage of all the discussions the journalists had with these people would be 10s of hours. It wouldn't spread as fast. The election is almost over and O'Keefe is probably more concerned about spreading his message in a timely manner so it can influence the election. 10s of hours of unedited footage is going to fly over a lot of people's heads. A very small amount of people are actually going to bother to watch all of that. And besides, the statements in these videos are damning enough. They admit to bussing people around and conspiring to commit voter fraud. In the previous video, they admit to sending agitators to incite violence however they can at Trump rallies. They blatantly admit to and describe their crimes, what could they possibly say that could justify their actions and somehow make it not voter fraud and not inciting violence for political gain? I don't see how any amount of extra footage could erase their crimes.
[QUOTE=SoaringScout;51228303]I would imagine the unedited footage of all the discussions the journalists had with these people would be 10s of hours. It wouldn't spread as fast. The election is almost over and O'Keefe is probably more concerned about spreading his message in a timely manner so it can influence the election. 10s of hours of unedited footage is going to fly over a lot of people's heads. A very small amount of people are actually going to bother to watch all of that. And besides, the statements in these videos are damning enough. They admit to bussing people around and conspiring to commit voter fraud. In the previous video, they admit to sending agitators to incite violence however they can at Trump rallies. They blatantly admit to and describe their crimes, what could they possibly say that could justify their actions and somehow make it not voter fraud and not inciting violence for political gain?[/QUOTE]
Why not release the edited video and the full footage as well so anyone who is suspicious can look over it?
[QUOTE=SoaringScout;51228303]I would imagine the unedited footage of all the discussions the journalists had with these people would be 10s of hours. It wouldn't spread as fast. The election is almost over and O'Keefe is probably more concerned about spreading his message in a timely manner so it can influence the election. 10s of hours of unedited footage is going to fly over a lot of people's heads. A very small amount of people are actually going to bother to watch all of that. And besides, the statements in these videos are damning enough. They admit to bussing people around and conspiring to commit voter fraud. In the previous video, they admit to sending agitators to incite violence however they can at Trump rallies. They blatantly admit to and describe their crimes, what could they possibly say that could justify their actions and somehow make it not voter fraud and not inciting violence for political gain? I don't see how any amount of extra footage could erase their crimes.[/QUOTE]
There is absolutely no reason he couldn't release both edited and unedited versions of the footage.
If he only released the footage that's spicy and spreads fast, and not the footage that actually proves that what he's saying is true, then what does that tell you about his intent?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51228401]There is absolutely no reason he couldn't release both edited and unedited versions of the footage.
If he only released the footage that's spicy and spreads fast, and not the footage that actually proves that what he's saying is true, then what does that tell you about his intent?[/QUOTE]
That's a good question and there might be something damning about O'Keefe himself in that video but what do you think these guys could say to somehow invalidate them admitting to influencing elections through highly illegal means? The fact of the matter is that they admitted to serious crimes and no amount of shady things O'Keefe did to weasel a confession out of these guys would change the fact that they committed mass voter fraud and incited riots at Trump rallies.
[QUOTE=SoaringScout;51228449]That's a good question and there might be something damning about O'Keefe himself in that video but what do you think these guys could say to somehow invalidate them admitting to influencing elections through highly illegal means?[/QUOTE]
I don't know, because I don't have the unedited footage. There are a thousand things he [I]could[/I] have done, as Helix Snake's post details.
What I do know is that he has deliberately edited footage before, and considering he hasn't even attempted to provide any evidence he hasn't this time, I think it's entirely reasonable to assume he's using the same tricks.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51228460]I don't know, because I don't have the unedited footage. There are a thousand things he [I]could[/I] have done, as Helix Snake's post details.
What I do know is that he has deliberately edited footage before, and considering he hasn't even attempted to provide any evidence he hasn't this time, I think it's entirely reasonable to assume he's using the same tricks.[/QUOTE]
Is a verbal confession not evidence?
[QUOTE=SoaringScout;51228499]Is a verbal confession not evidence?[/QUOTE]
not when it's edited by someone who has been caught deliberately manipulating footage to make people look like they've been admitting guilt when they actually weren't in the past
I mean hey if he ever drops the unedited tape and it turns out that nothing was misrepresented then by all means, have at them. But something tells me he isn't going to be releasing that tape.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51228517]not when it's edited by someone who has been caught deliberately manipulating footage to make people look like they've been admitting guilt when they actually weren't in the past
I mean hey if he ever drops the unedited tape and it turns out that nothing was misrepresented then by all means, have at them. But something tells me he isn't going to be releasing that tape.[/QUOTE]
But this isn't people explaining hypotheticals about how they would commit these crimes if they wanted to. These are blatant confessions. Just one quote from Foval: "We have mentally ill people that we pay to do shit, make no mistake." Another one: "We manipulated the vote with money and action, not with laws." He says it right there in his own words: we did it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.