Trump for US President?

infoslob said:
Why, because of some bullshit story?

To paraphrase what I've read a few times over the last couple of days: Billionaire has been surrounded by beautiful women for 40 years with zero charges of sexual assault until October 2011. Sounds legit.

And this is not to mention that the NY Times article is shoddy, within 24 hours it began falling apart - and without internet sleuths it would stand unchallenged.

Evidence Grows the New York Times Hit Piece On Trump Is A Hoax - Hidden Americans

https://i.sli.mg/yt6cmL.jpg

Yesterday there was a swift change to Trump's message - I think he's been tipped for something big by Wikileaks.

m4on7h.jpg


The news stations (and this 100% includes Fox News, which is actively anti-Trump and losing viewers) are on Trump-as-serial-predator 24/7 - when, in light of everything else, it isn't much of a story at all.

Meanwhile Wikileaks is proving Trump's new and very clear message to be true - that corporate media is about advocacy, not journalism.

All of it makes me go back to what Assange said at the outset - that he has the goods on Clinton that will not only cost her the White House, but put her in a jail cell. A lot of things changed over the past 48 hours, I don't think it's coincidental.
Click to expand...

If wikileaks really has something that will put her in a jail cell, then I completely agree with you that Trump can win this. But right now, Trump is fending off women coming out accusing him of sexually harassing them. You can dismiss them as opportunists looking for fame, but unless there is some real big dirt against Clinton like you say there will be, it's going to be a very rough campaign for Trump.
 


bluechinagroup said:
. But right now, Trump is fending off women coming out accusing him of sexually harassing them.
Click to expand...
These women are being discredited almost as fast as they're thrown at Trump.

I love the one who said he grabbed her ass backstage at a concert that actually never happened. She just saw a picture of Ray Charles and Trump in Miami in the early 90s and said there was a concert - of course the august NY Times did not bother to fact check.

Within 24 hours she "fled" the US fearing for her life. L-O-L.
 
BabyGotBacklink said:
You would argue that biology has no hold on humans because we have evolved into self aware beings? That we are not influenced by nature now? Guess who else thinks that? Feminists. With their "gender is a social construct" nonsense and their fight to invalidate biology. They maintain that the reason that most men are attracted to young women with shiny hair, white teeth, a healthy weight and good hip to waist ratio is because that is what men are taught by society. But that is bullshit, those preferences come from the male's instinct to mate with females that have the best chance of conceiving and carrying healthy offspring. And how well is feminism working out for white birth rates? Not great. You can't game nature. Attraction is there or it's not. We are free to fake attraction sure, let's all mate with people we aren't attracted to, you first.

Also, plenty of species of animals have sex for pleasure outside of their breeding season, have oral sex or other non conceptive sex and there are many species of animals where homosexual sex has been well documented. Just FYI, we are not entirely unique in that.


Finally, people from other races are still homo sapiens. This is tantamount to breeding two different colors of rabbits together. And it's a good thing to mix it up, it keeps us from suffering the effects of inbreeding.
Click to expand...
No, but before I go into this some funny things are going on here. I visited WF now and to my surprise I was logged in as user charlie.simm LOL. Nice... :xmas-smiley-016: Additionally my latest replay to baby disappeared, anyway...

YXLfpWT.jpg


I can't argue about that because your statement isn't right IMO, or precise enough. We haven't evolved into "self aware beings" as you said, not yet for sure (and it shows all over the place...). We do what our genes are telling us to do, that's right, but fortunately we have control over our genes and we can shape them as we wish, so we get outcome that ensures our preservation. Of course, we are influenced by nature, all the time (who thinks we are not must be just stupid), and that's my point. We can survive only by following nature laws, nature laws that were shaped/developed during 600 millions of years (or maybe more). But, we don't do this anymore unfortunately, we are violating nature's laws all the time. That's the real problem we have.

I know it's cool to think about ourselves that we can do this and that, because we've done soo much "cool" things during those "few" decades (as we like to perceive it, don't we?). But hey, we are just fucking stupid piece of shit when it comes to the nature. I will always take 600 millions years of experience in doing something (and quiet successfully), over 1200 years. I don't know, but it feels just a bit more comfortable to me, not to mention logic.

And again, as my last post disappeared. The last question from undecided voter told us ALL about both candidates (or it should).
 
ummer Zervos, the former Apprentice star who alleges she was sexually assaulted by Donald Trump, sent an email to Trump’s assistant in April praising the GOP nominee. The email and a statement by Zervos’ cousin were released by the Trump campaign Friday afternoon.


“I am completely shocked and bewildered by my cousin, Summer Zervos, and her press conference today. Ever since she was on The Apprentice she has had nothing but glowing things to say about Mr. Trump,” John Barry, Zervos’ first cousin, said in the statement. He went on to say, “That was until Summer invited Mr. Trump to her restaurant during the primary and he said no. I think Summer wishes she could still be on reality TV, and in an effort to get that back she’s saying all of these negative things about Mr. Trump.” In 2006, Zervos said in an interview that she left the Apprentice “admiring Donald Trump a lot more than when I arrived.”
Click to expand...




unnamed-620x390.png
 
andrewkar said:
I can't argue about that because your statement isn't right IMO, or precise enough. We haven't evolved into "self aware beings" as you said, not yet for sure (and it shows all over the place...).
Click to expand...

Please reread my post. It's like you are debating your own last post.

We do what our genes are telling us to do, that's right, but fortunately we have control over our genes and we can shape them as we wish, so we get outcome that ensures our preservation. Of course, we are influenced by nature, all the time (who thinks we are not must be just stupid), and that's my point. We can survive only by following nature laws, nature laws that were shaped/developed during 600 millions of years (or maybe more). But, we don't do this anymore unfortunately, we are violating nature's laws all the time. That's the real problem we have.
Click to expand...

Roughly half of the time I have no idea what you are trying to say, and that's not me being an asshole, I think anyone reading our conversation might agree that your arguments are all over the place.

Like above, you are talking about nature's laws, I think you are trying to say the laws of nature would tell us not to mix races(?) Yet again you are not addressing the fact that nature rewards adding variety to the gene pool of a population and punishes a lack of variety. So it would seem natural law does not agree with you or else why would reproduction become more difficult in populations with declining genetic variety? Why would the offspring of inbreeding have higher frequency of birth defects and often be more susceptible to disease?

If there is a lot of variety in genes that are mixing in a population then that means there are more traits for natural selection to work on, improving us as a species as it has since the very beginning.

I know it's cool to think about ourselves that we can do this and that, because we've done soo much "cool" things during those "few" decades (as we like to perceive it, don't we?). But hey, we are just fucking stupid piece of shit when it comes to the nature. I will always take 600 millions years of experience in doing something (and quiet successfully), over 1200 years. I don't know, but it feels just a bit more comfortable to me, not to mention logic.
Click to expand...

Except what you think nature has done and what nature has actually done are 2 totally different things. You act like people are willfully going against their nature by mating with someone from a different race. lol it's like you never met a human. People mostly fuck because they like each other, because they are attracted to each other and not as some sort of conspiracy to change the average complexion of America by a few tones over the next century.
 
andrewkar said:
I can't argue about that because your statement isn't right IMO, or precise enough. We haven't evolved into "self aware beings" as you said, not yet for sure (and it shows all over the place...).
Click to expand...

Please reread my post. It's like you are debating your own last post.

We do what our genes are telling us to do, that's right, but fortunately we have control over our genes and we can shape them as we wish, so we get outcome that ensures our preservation. Of course, we are influenced by nature, all the time (who thinks we are not must be just stupid), and that's my point. We can survive only by following nature laws, nature laws that were shaped/developed during 600 millions of years (or maybe more). But, we don't do this anymore unfortunately, we are violating nature's laws all the time. That's the real problem we have.
Click to expand...

Roughly half of the time I have no idea what you are trying to say, and that's not me being an asshole, I think anyone reading our conversation might agree that your arguments are all over the place.

Like above, you are talking about nature's laws, I think you are trying to say the laws of nature would tell us not to mix races(?) Yet again you are not addressing the fact that nature rewards adding variety to the gene pool of a population and punishes a lack of variety. So it would seem natural law does not agree with you or else why would reproduction become more difficult in populations with declining genetic variety? Why would the offspring of inbreeding have higher frequency of birth defects and often be more susceptible to disease?

If there is a lot of variety in genes that are mixing in a population then that means there are more traits for natural selection to work on, improving us as a species as it has since the very beginning.

I know it's cool to think about ourselves that we can do this and that, because we've done soo much "cool" things during those "few" decades (as we like to perceive it, don't we?). But hey, we are just fucking stupid piece of shit when it comes to the nature. I will always take 600 millions years of experience in doing something (and quiet successfully), over 1200 years. I don't know, but it feels just a bit more comfortable to me, not to mention logic.
Click to expand...

Except what you think nature has done and what nature has actually done are 2 totally different things. You act like people are willfully going against their nature by mating with someone from a different race. lol it's like you never met a human. People mostly fuck because they like each other, because they are attracted to each other and not as some sort of conspiracy to change the average complexion of America by a few tones over the next century.
 
BabyGotBacklink said:
Please reread my post. It's like you are debating your own last post.



Roughly half of the time I have no idea what you are trying to say, and that's not me being an asshole, I think anyone reading our conversation might agree that your arguments are all over the place.

Like above, you are talking about nature's laws, I think you are trying to say the laws of nature would tell us not to mix races(?) Yet again you are not addressing the fact that nature rewards adding variety to the gene pool of a population and punishes a lack of variety. So it would seem natural law does not agree with you or else why would reproduction become more difficult in populations with declining genetic variety? Why would the offspring of inbreeding have higher frequency of birth defects and often be more susceptible to disease?

If there is a lot of variety in genes that are mixing in a population then that means there are more traits for natural selection to work on, improving us as a species as it has since the very beginning.



Except what you think nature has done and what nature has actually done are 2 totally different things. You act like people are willfully going against their nature by mating with someone from a different race. lol it's like you never met a human. People mostly fuck because they like each other, because they are attracted to each other and not as some sort of conspiracy to change the average complexion of America by a few tones over the next century.
Click to expand...
We would have a very long way to go through to maybe make some agreements on the subject, or to try understand each other just a bit better (if that's possible at all...). Still, it's quite interesting discussion, and thank you for it, but that's not the right thread for this as I'm sure you will agree.

Anyways, in my latest post, in general, I've expressed my total disagreement with your view regarding what you've called earlier "interior genes" (and all things that comes with it, in your opinion). Also, I'm not sure what you mean by saying that we (humans) mostly like to fuck each other because that's how we are made (if I understand you correctly?). Fucking just for the sake of fucking is not my goal for sure, and that's not the goal of many other people either. But, yes you are right that most people behaves like this, but it doesn't mean it's a correct and thus beneficial behaviour. Fortunately we have brains too, and we can make some usage of them too.

Also I tell you this, I love the way black, brown, yellow or whatever girls look like. They are great, beautiful! But, it's not what turns me really on, and that's not just me ;) White girls for me please.

If you want we can move this to a separate thread, and when/if time allow us we can talk more about this. Cheers!
 
andrewkar you're an idiot that doesn't make any sense.

You really are a tool from the 19th century. News flash: People have sex for pleasure. Can you explain what is wrong with that and why it is not a beneficial behavior? It's a strong base instinct to ensure that the human species survives.

Genetic diversity is a good thing as it reduces the risk of genetic diseases as well as deformities, and humans who are attracted to humans of another race is perfectly natural response. That might not be your cup of tea, but it is perfectly natural.

Also despite there being different races, we are all human and part of the same species. The racial differences between white, black, brown, and yellow people are extremely superficial from a genetic standpoint to the point of being practically meaningless aside from cosmetic differences. I realize this is a tough concept to grasp for baboons such as andrewkar who think they're intellectuals, but it's true. Culture and religion on the other hand........

Back on topic: So what did you guys think of the Trump debate?
 
"Blue Gynaa Group"

[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5fUOggY-_E[/ame]

edit: did not trade Jan Trump shares on predictit yet
 
Trump is a fucking idiot.

He cant even talk right. He says words that's not even in the fucking dictionary.

Bankrupt over 3 times.

Womanizer, pathetic, beyond sad.

ps.

his a racist.

Fuck this hombre.
 
andrewkar said:
We would have a very long way to go through to maybe make some agreements on the subject, or to try understand each other just a bit better (if that's possible at all...). Still, it's quite interesting discussion, and thank you for it, but that's not the right thread for this as I'm sure you will agree.

Anyways, in my latest post, in general, I've expressed my total disagreement with your view regarding what you've called earlier "interior genes" (and all things that comes with it, in your opinion). Also, I'm not sure what you mean by saying that we (humans) mostly like to fuck each other because that's how we are made (if I understand you correctly?). Fucking just for the sake of fucking is not my goal for sure, and that's not the goal of many other people either. But, yes you are right that most people behaves like this, but it doesn't mean it's a correct and thus beneficial behaviour. Fortunately we have brains too, and we can make some usage of them too.

Also I tell you this, I love the way black, brown, yellow or whatever girls look like. They are great, beautiful! But, it's not what turns me really on, and that's not just me ;) White girls for me please.

If you want we can move this to a separate thread, and when/if time allow us we can talk more about this. Cheers!
Click to expand...

Though has been an interesting discussion I do not think we are going to get anywhere by opening a new thread because you are an idealist and I'm a realist. And that's not me putting you down, I respect idealism. It just means that we have very different philosophies on life and the world. You deal in what things should be (in your opinion) and I deal in what things are in actuality (that also can be subjective at times.) I am a realist in all areas of my life, if you are an idealist across the board then you and I are unlikely to agree on much, no matter what the topic may be.
 
Veritas said:
Trump is a fucking idiot.

He cant even talk right. He says words that's not even in the fucking dictionary.
Click to expand...

Remember how CharlesMartel kept repeating "Derp Derp Can't Stump The Trump!!"?

He's eating his words now. Trump has been owned by Hillary, and she's a really weak candidate who is a criminal that only looks good because Trump really sucks this bad when forced to actually debate someone rather than just shoot his mouth off.

Trump's narcissism is pretty mind blowing and completely unhelpful too.

Even if more damning evidence comes out regarding Hillary, I doubt the voting public will care. Deleting emails after a subpoena is a concept that is way too abstract for the average voter. On the other hand, grabbing women by the pussy without their consent is something people with a double digit IQ can grasp and will vote accordingly.

The reality is that Trump is finished, but Trump's die hard supporters will probably delude themselves until the November 8th election. Even after the election I suspect there will be a ton of butt hurt about rigged elections, however presidential elections are completely decentralized and overseen by each U.S. state making it very difficult to rig such an election in a coordinated manner. Overseeing a presidential election is a bipartisan affair. Even Republicans think Trump's claim of rigging the presidential election is ludicrous.

Is the US election really rigged? - BBC News

I?m a Republican election lawyer. Here's why the election can?t be rigged. - Vox

Besides when Trump is looking this bad, there's no point in spending resources to rig an election.
 
Merrill is clearly seen typing something into his phone before he presents it to Mitchell. Merrill then waits for Mitchell to acknowledge that she understood the message.

Moments later, Mitchell delivers a softball question, asking Hillary, “How did you feel when he [Trump] said, you know, ‘Nasty woman, nasty woman,’ and ‘You’re a puppet,’ and … the issue of Vladimir Putin?”
Click to expand...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqYQ2OtggPw[/ame]


Emails shared by Wikileaks exposed how Brazile quietly forwarded Hillary Clinton a debate question which was word for word identical to one asked during a CNN/TV One town hall debate with Bernie Sanders back in March.
Click to expand...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qVtNudSZLo[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpLAzAZXi2A[/ame]
 
If Hillary wins (which I feel is more likely due to media bias and voter fraud), I see war with Russia coming...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf2PCYSCogk[/ame]

I hope I am wrong
 
Come on bro, seriously an Info Wars video?

Hillary doesn't need to rig the election. Her campaign helped Trump win the GOP nomination so she'd have a weak incompetent soft target that will be easy to take down. This was effectively proven in the debates and no amount of "can't stump the trump" rhetoric changes that.

Evidence of voter fraud in past presidential elections have been minuscule. It's not easy to rig a decentralized election, where individual US states have both Republicans and Democrats monitoring the electoral results to ensure a fair election.

If US elections are so rigged, why do Republicans regularly dominate the legislature and thus cause gridlock? Why do Republicans sometimes win the presidency? Why on earth would the Clinton campaign blow so much money on rigging the current election when scientific polls are suggesting Trump is way behind Hillary?

The reality is that Trump alienates people. He's not going to win. Crying that the election is rigged before the election even happens is the hallmark of a sore loser. It's also going to encourage a lot of Trump voters to stay home. It's just a really bad play.

I do have to agree that there's media bias against Trump though, but Trump's erratic behavior doesn't do Trump any favors. Trump in many ways is his own worst enemy who plays right into the media's hands.
 
bluechinagroup said:
Come on bro, seriously an Info Wars video?

Hillary doesn't need to rig the election. Her campaign helped Trump win the GOP nomination so she'd have a weak incompetent soft target that will be easy to take down. This was effectively proven in the debates and no amount of "can't stump the trump" rhetoric changes that.

Evidence of voter fraud in past presidential elections have been minuscule. It's not easy to rig a decentralized election, where individual US states have both Republicans and Democrats monitoring the electoral results to ensure a fair election.

If US elections are so rigged, why do Republicans regularly dominate the legislature and thus cause gridlock? Why do Republicans sometimes win the presidency? Why on earth would the Clinton campaign blow so much money on rigging the current election when scientific polls are suggesting Trump is way behind Hillary?

The reality is that Trump alienates people. He's not going to win. Crying that the election is rigged before the election even happens is the hallmark of a sore loser. It's also going to encourage a lot of Trump voters to stay home. It's just a really bad play.

I do have to agree that there's media bias against Trump though, but Trump's erratic behavior doesn't do Trump any favors. Trump in many ways is his own worst enemy who plays right into the media's hands.
Click to expand...

Hillary can overcome her being outpaced by Trump in:

Daily Tracking Polls
Rally Participation
Internet Traffic
Small Donors
Enthusiasm
Independents
Focus Groups

Once that happens, her actual support will match her D+11 sampled polling and she will not have to manipulate the vote in order to win.

IT'S A LOCK!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom