I'm saving these quotes for when mert ventures into criminal law. "Guys, my client O.J. definitely didn't do this. He alpha. ALPHA. Ron's just a cuck."
I'm saving these quotes for when mert ventures into criminal law. "Guys, my client O.J. definitely didn't do this. He alpha. ALPHA. Ron's just a cuck."
Surely he didn't do it because he's a cuck?
I love thisOriginally Posted by Mert
If you're going down, go down swinging.
I want to see Trump utter a sentence which contains the word "locker room", but does not contain the word "ISIS".
It's clear that someone on his team said that he should try and divert any discussions about the video to a different topic - specifically ISIS - and he has decided to do it in the most immediate, abrupt and unsubtle way possible. And I can't even imagine that it plays that well for him, since it seemed from his references to Assad that the entirety of his knowledge on the topic is "ISIS = BAD".
All of those athletes Twiterring that they have never spoken like that in the 'locker room' was embarrassing. Presumably next time one of their colleagues is up for sexual assault or wife beating they will make him get changed on the concourse.
We get it. You hate anyone who takes any kind of moralistic stance.
Nobody's spotless if you draw that bow long enough. Doesn't mean you can't call a spade an asshole.
It's not about being whiter-than-white. But people just make themselves look stupid falling over themselves to signal how virtuous they are, seemingly without taking a breath to consider what they are saying. So you've never heard another athlete talk about a woman like she was shit? Really, mate? Never? I would love to hear how footballers rate the prostitutes they recommend to each other without doing so.
'Wayne, was her degree in Women's Studies or Gender Studies?'
Then nobody gets to say that what Trump said makes him an asshole? Except it does, and it should be said, no matter what (assumed) history is in play.
You denounce any moralistic stance in any situation as virtue-signalling. It's like tiresome clockwork.
They can say it all they want. To claim they've never heard such speech before is just pathetic and a downright lie.
This man has just endorsed Hilary Clinton, I don't even know what's going on anymore
The angle of that photo makes it look like someone on the bottom right has the most impressive longbald ever.
These days it doesn't matter if it's a lie or not, as long as you look moral.
Yeah. That.
Boogles my mind you can't see the difference between men being generally misogynistic and saying "I grab them by the pussy and they like it."
I'm sure every professional locker room draws the line at mocking women drivers.
I can't say I've ever heard anyone advocate sexual assualt as a pickup technique, perhaps I'm in the wrong 'locker rooms'. Either that or I must be lying.
No, he didn't. He's voting for the Constiution Party.This man has just endorsed Hilary Clinton, I don't even know what's going on anymore
To be fair, there is a particularly unnecessary slant of people coming out to virtue signal.
It's just the way it is these days.
It should really just be enough to call him a dickhead (which he is) without having to maintain this narrative that he represents the end of civilisation (something which has partly emerged because it is easier than actually selling 'Hillary' on her own merits), because people only end up falling over themselves doing so.
I reckon you're lying. Liar.
He's going HAM on twitter. Kellyanne has given him the phone back. He's quoting online polls and telling Paul Ryan that he will grab him by the pussy. These next six weeks are going to be some top, top stuff.
I've been well and truly caught out here chaps.
Of course I could still be lying...
You play rugby don't you? Sexual assault is basically the day job.
I've never heard anything about grabbing pussy in a 'locker room', but I've heard a lot of absolutely horrendous references to women from otherwise quite reasonable people.
Has anyone on here grabbed a woman by the pussy? (when not fornicating)
I once heard a man in his sixties say of a woman who'd walked past 'I'd use her shit as toothpaste and her pish for a gargle.' Not quite a threat of sexual assault, but it's comfortably the most disgusting thing I've ever heard.
Only on the pitch.
You have to say, fair play to Trump on his scorched earth policy. He's clearly decided that if he's going to lose, it's everybody else's fault and he'll take down as many of them as he can.
It's like last days of the Reich.
The next tape has leaked.
The boys and girls at the LA Times tracking poll are either going to be incredibly smug or very, very embarrassed in a month.
Trump is unloading at the GOP.
We'll never see another election quite like this, however it pans out from here.
Ouch. Trump is tumbling (or should it be the opposite) in the odds.
Out from 11/4 to a hefty 4/1.
Clinton in from 4/11 to 1/5.
Mike Pense in at 60/1
I saw the 1/5 figure, and this is the first time in the election cycle that I'm starting to believe the numbers. I think Trump needs an October-surprise style story to break in order for him to get over the line. Every day that doesn't happen is a problem for him. This is why even a drawn debate (and I don't think the last one was even that - I think he was shaded in the final wash) doesn't really help him.
He needs something big to happen, and while it's not impossible that it might, he needs it soon.
He's helped by the fact the media has largely ignored the Wikileaks stuff thus far.
That's because the truth is there's nothing actually incriminating in there.
Maybe if Trump gave them a couple of empty news cycles, they'd pick through the "not incriminating but unwise" stuff, but there's never time because that's a more subtle story, and then Trump just hands them a headline by saying he wants to throw kittens at hurricanes or something.
Yeah we heard you the first time mate.
I really liked the WaPo-article about the Podesta-leaks.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.8af5c38781b9
tl;dr THERE'S NOTHING THERE, VEEP IS A DOCUMENTARYThough the words “Clinton emails” are sure to cause quickening pulses, the latest emails to come to light — these ones hacked from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s account — contain nothing scandalous, no doubt to the chagrin of most Republicans.
They do, however, provide a valuable reminder of something important about Washington. It’s this: conspiracies are seldom true, and even the savviest operatives often aren’t sure what they’re doing....
Some of the interest in these emails will be just gossipy — Chelsea Clinton and a guy from the Clinton Foundation were backstabbing each other! — but what do they actually reveal? Well, there’s a lot of back-and-forth between Clinton’s political advisers on how different issues should be handled. For instance, when she decided to come out against the Keystone XL pipeline, how should it be done? Should she write an op-ed? Just leak it to one reporter? Something else? Everyone has an opinion but nobody knows for sure.
It takes a mighty effort to turn this into something sinister. But some are trying, though....
What’s most revealing is how their indecision and uncertainty about matters like these shows that when it comes to politics, even supposedly shrewd professionals are often just casting about in the dark. These are some of the most experienced operatives in American politics, and they don’t seem to know more than anybody else....
But most of the time, everybody’s improvising, and even the smartest and most experienced operatives screw up. The best email in this batch is one from an experienced admaker, who goes on a stream-of-consciousness riff suggesting themes for Clinton’s upcoming campaign (all typos in original):
Have you ever looked at your hand — I mean really looked at your hand?Neither change nor continuity.but The different way. The new way. HRC declares the old way of building partisanships flying the special interest flags. Is the root cause of America becoming the Status Quo. Nation where we as a nation are weak and a victim of change. No when we are our best. We are a nation of doers and dreamers. Builders and architects of the future we do not predict or fall victim of the future. We create the future. She champions with clear vision and grit. We will build not the partisans ships. But rather the Ship of State flying the American Dream flag
The irony is that if there’s anything that sort of resembles a conspiracy at work at the moment — and we don’t know if there is or not — it’s not from Clinton’s side, and it’s a bumbling one. Russia (possibly) hacks the emails, passes them on to Wikileaks, who publishes them to Republicans’ glee, but when nothing really damaging is there, Donald Trump is left to spend time at rallies quoting from altered versions of one email, falsely attributing lines from a Newsweek article to the sinister Sidney Blumenthal — a misconception he apparently got from either a Russian propaganda site called Sputnik News, or perhaps some alt-right chatroom denizen. Very few Americans know or care who Sidney Blumenthal is, but Trump’s ardent supporters do, and know to boo and hiss at the mention of his name as though he were Haman in the Purim story. This will not, I can boldly predict, transform the presidential race. And again, we don’t know whether this is happening, and even if it is, it seems more haphazard than conspiratorial.
Just to be clear, I’m not arguing that Podesta’s emails aren’t newsworthy. It’s always interesting to know what people are saying behind the scenes. The same is true of what we learned from Podesta’s emails about Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street firms — which, again, were somewhat interesting though not nearly as scandalous as Republicans, and even some on the left, had hoped. But whenever someone tells you that there’s a complex and wide-reaching conspiracy at work, one with multiple moving parts synchronizing to manipulate events while keeping itself hidden from public view, you should be very skeptical.
The only thing the Clinton emails reveal is that she's boringly competent and thoroughly managed. If either of those things are news to you...
Fixed it.
Buddy. You are delusional.That's because the truth is there's nothing actually incriminating in there.
Do you have enough self-awareness to get that? When Clinton says that she has two policy positions, one public one private, that is damaging. When Clinton says that Wall Street only needs to be held accountable for political reasons, that is damaging. When Clinton says she is in favor of open markets and open borders (after claiming she was against TPP), that is damaging. When Clinton is said to hate the average American, that is damaging. When there is shown to be wide-spread collusion between Clinton and the mainstream media, that is damaging.
Should I continue?
Nope.
A lawyer should probably know what 'incriminating' means.
I'm 20 with one summer's work experience and Republicans could dredge up far more damaging emails on me already. Facebook too. That shit's dangerous.
Saying that someone hates the phrase 'everyday American' = saying she hates everyday Americans.
These are the straws you feel the need to clutch at. As a liberal, Clintons a bad choice for multiple reasons, y'all just made an even dumber one on your side and so she'll win. Tough titties. Where is your God Emperor now?
The fact that these revelations, which in the past would have evoked wide spread outrage, condemnation and resulted in significant damage to a candidates reputation, are just brushed off as irrelevant or meaningless just underlines the open hypocrisy, irrationality and tribalism of the Left.
Oh a candidate says she lies to the public about her preferred policies in private to special interest groups (who are funding her campaign) and then follows up this statement by openly providing examples of those lies? No big deal she has a D next to her name so who cares.
Learn to read dickhead.
This is going to be fantastic to watch. Sebo on speed.
I'm on the right and would be a natural 'old school Republican' voter. This isn't 'open hypocrisy etc. etc.' from the left - it's just a bit of a non-story. Perhaps if she was running against someone like Eisenhower or Reagan, it would be a story - largely because the opposition candidate is competent, well-respected and has a strong track record - this would make it 'damaging' for her chances of overcoming them, but only in the context of a race where she was probably going to lose anyway.
But in the context of 'the Donald' having a public meltdown, it's really quite irrelevant.
Next time choose a half-decent candidate and it'll matter. Even little Marco would probably have managed to beat her on the back of this stuff or at least made it a fight. Instead you chose a tax dodging, racist, misogynist who's never held public office and has absolutely zero idea how to run a campaign, only hiring absolute yes men/women and a guy who runs a racist conspiracy news network. Tough. Titties.
As I mentioned before, the Republicans had an open goal here. Clinton is the worst Democratic candidate since Mondale in 1984. If the Republicans had run a competent conservative against her, they'd be about six points ahead simply because of Clinton's unfavorables. They'd have secured the Supreme Court (and thus the potential to overturn Roe v Wade) and helped significantly in the downward races with a united party machine and gerrymandered boundaries in house races.
Instead the base have pissed it all away with this self-indulgent vanity exercise, and they're only going to have themselves to blame. The ideal scenario now is a Clinton win, the Democrats taking the Senate and the lol-worthy blocking exercise by the Republican leadership bursting into flames as Clinton nominates and the Democratic senate majority confirms someone infinitely more liberal than Garland - some pro-choice, anti-second amendment, pro-equality, atheist, pro-immigration, pro-gay rights, anti-business, pro-tax lesbian with Mexican heritage.
I was going to say Mondale but then I remembered John Kerry. What a boring, boring man.
edit: I couldn't remember who Kerry ran against and christ was it a poor field.
I'll never forget that story of John Edwards getting lost on a hill only to be secretly banging his mistress.In the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries, John Kerry defeated several Democratic rivals, including Sen. John Edwards (D-North Carolina.), former Vermont Governor Howard Dean and retired Army General Wesley Clark.
Reply With Quote
