Another day

[Octavian W. Lagrange]

Another day, another 15,000 Hillary emails discovered.

[Snit]

On 8/22/16, 1:04 PM, in article hjgsuaf9...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.

Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:

> Another day, another 15,000 Hillary emails discovered.
>

I have (no surprise) a rather lengthy write-up on my view of Comey's
testimony. The short version: I see no reason to think he is anything other
than a decent and moral person. While he did not recommend indictment DID
show Clinton is not in any way a good candidate for president.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg for her. The DNC has been absurd in
selecting her. She is Trump's best chance to get to the White House.


--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[Octavian W. Lagrange]

Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/22/16, 1:04 PM, in article hjgsuaf9...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
> Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Another day, another 15,000 Hillary emails discovered.
>>
> I have (no surprise) a rather lengthy write-up on my view of Comey's
> testimony. The short version: I see no reason to think he is anything other
> than a decent and moral person. While he did not recommend indictment DID
> show Clinton is not in any way a good candidate for president.
>
> And that is just the tip of the iceberg for her. The DNC has been absurd in
> selecting her. She is Trump's best chance to get to the White House.
>

But you will vote for her anyway, or at least take an action that favors
her victory, such as abstaining, or voting for someone with no chance of
winning, right?

[Snit]

On 8/22/16, 1:47 PM, in article fhjviu...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.

Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:

> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 8/22/16, 1:04 PM, in article hjgsuaf9...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
>> Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Another day, another 15,000 Hillary emails discovered.
>>>
>> I have (no surprise) a rather lengthy write-up on my view of Comey's
>> testimony. The short version: I see no reason to think he is anything other
>> than a decent and moral person. While he did not recommend indictment DID
>> show Clinton is not in any way a good candidate for president.
>>
>> And that is just the tip of the iceberg for her. The DNC has been absurd in
>> selecting her. She is Trump's best chance to get to the White House.
>
> But you will vote for her anyway, or at least take an action that favors
> her victory, such as abstaining, or voting for someone with no chance of
> winning, right?

How does NOT voting for her in any way favor her victory? I hear the same
thing from her supporters saying if I do not vote for her I am favoring
Trump.

Not voting for either is not favoring either. Trump is a horror show, but
even he is not so bad as to lead to me supporting the election fraud that
has gotten Clinton to where she is.

[Octavian W. Lagrange]

Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/22/16, 1:47 PM, in article fhjviu...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
> Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/22/16, 1:04 PM, in article hjgsuaf9...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
>>> Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Another day, another 15,000 Hillary emails discovered.
>>>>
>>> I have (no surprise) a rather lengthy write-up on my view of Comey's
>>> testimony. The short version: I see no reason to think he is anything other
>>> than a decent and moral person. While he did not recommend indictment DID
>>> show Clinton is not in any way a good candidate for president.
>>>
>>> And that is just the tip of the iceberg for her. The DNC has been absurd in
>>> selecting her. She is Trump's best chance to get to the White House.
>>
>> But you will vote for her anyway, or at least take an action that favors
>> her victory, such as abstaining, or voting for someone with no chance of
>> winning, right?
>
> How does NOT voting for her in any way favor her victory? I hear the same
> thing from her supporters saying if I do not vote for her I am favoring
> Trump.
>
> Not voting for either is not favoring either. Trump is a horror show, but
> even he is not so bad as to lead to me supporting the election fraud that
> has gotten Clinton to where she is.
>

Since the election is so close, any action other than a vote for Trump is
a vote for Hillary. Likewise, any action other than a vote for Hillary
is a vote for Trump. The only votes that will count are votes for one of
those two. Abstainers of course don't get counted. Votes for "other"
candidates are votes that could have been added to the tally for Trump
or Hillary and might have tipped the scale, but instead they just get
tossed in the bin.

I guess some people just can't make a choice no matter how small the
number of choices.

[Snit]

On 8/22/16, 2:07 PM, in article fhjgue...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.

By your "logic" a vote for neither indicates support for both. Which, of
course, is completely absurd.

> The only votes that will count are votes for one of those two.

Incorrect. Other people will be on the ballots, and write-ins are counted in
many places.

> Abstainers of course don't get counted. Votes for "other" candidates are
> votes that could have been added to the tally for Trump or Hillary and might
> have tipped the scale, but instead they just get tossed in the bin.

And votes for Trump or Clinton could have been votes for Johnson or Stein or
someone else.

> I guess some people just can't make a choice no matter how small the number of
> choices.

You show you do not even understand what the choices are... nor what they
mean.

Hint: NOT supporting someone is NOT a sign of support for any of their
opponents.

[Octavian W. Lagrange]

Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/22/16, 2:07 PM, in article fhjgue...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
> Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Since the election is so close, any action other than a vote for Trump is
>> a vote for Hillary. Likewise, any action other than a vote for Hillary
>> is a vote for Trump.
>
> By your "logic" a vote for neither indicates support for both. Which, of
> course, is completely absurd.
>

No, it means that you had a chance to have your vote count for something
at the ballot box, but chose not to.

>> The only votes that will count are votes for one of those two.
>
> Incorrect. Other people will be on the ballots, and write-ins are counted in
> many places.

But none of those candidates will win, so such a vote is wasted, when
it could have been used to sway the election.

>
>> Abstainers of course don't get counted. Votes for "other" candidates are
>> votes that could have been added to the tally for Trump or Hillary and might
>> have tipped the scale, but instead they just get tossed in the bin.
>
> And votes for Trump or Clinton could have been votes for Johnson or Stein or
> someone else.
>

Yes, Trump or Clinton voters could have wasted their votes that way.
In this election it is 100% guaranteed that either Clinton or Trump
will be the next president. Your vote for either can help determine
that outcome. Any other action is a wasted vote.

>> I guess some people just can't make a choice no matter how small the number of
>> choices.
>
> You show you do not even understand what the choices are... nor what they
> mean.
>
> Hint: NOT supporting someone is NOT a sign of support for any of their
> opponents.
>

You don't understand what the choices are. Only one of Hillary or Trump
is going to win this election. Guaranteed. 100%. No one else has
the slightest chance in hell of winning. So you have the option of
helping tip the election one way or another with your vote.

All conservatives have a duty to vote Trump, and all libtards have a
satanic duty to vote Clinton. That is, unless you see her for the
criminal that she is. Then you have a duty to vote Trump, even if
you're a libtard. Because, face it. Trump is not a criminal, and he
is as much Democrat as he is Republican. So even if you're a Democrat,
it won't hurt anything if you vote Trump at the top of the ticket and
the rest Democrat on the down ballot.

[Snit]

On 8/22/16, 2:32 PM, in article ghjvia...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.

Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:

> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 8/22/16, 2:07 PM, in article fhjgue...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
>> Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Since the election is so close, any action other than a vote for Trump is
>>> a vote for Hillary. Likewise, any action other than a vote for Hillary
>>> is a vote for Trump.
>>
>> By your "logic" a vote for neither indicates support for both. Which, of
>> course, is completely absurd.
>
> No, it means that you had a chance to have your vote count for something
> at the ballot box, but chose not to.

Incorrect.

>>> The only votes that will count are votes for one of those two.
>>
>> Incorrect. Other people will be on the ballots, and write-ins are counted in
>> many places.
>
> But none of those candidates will win, so such a vote is wasted, when
> it could have been used to sway the election.

By this "logic" you should try to figure out who is going to win and then
vote for them no matter what they say. If it turns out Clinton is far ahead
in the polls come voting day will you vote for her or "waste" your vote on
Trump, knowing he is unlikely to win?

>>> Abstainers of course don't get counted. Votes for "other" candidates are
>>> votes that could have been added to the tally for Trump or Hillary and might
>>> have tipped the scale, but instead they just get tossed in the bin.
>>
>> And votes for Trump or Clinton could have been votes for Johnson or Stein or
>> someone else.
>
> Yes, Trump or Clinton voters could have wasted their votes that way.

What do you mean by a "wasted vote"?

> In this election it is 100% guaranteed that either Clinton or Trump
> will be the next president.

Incorrect (though not by much).

> Your vote for either can help determine
> that outcome. Any other action is a wasted vote.

By your logic if it looks like Clinton is a sure thing then a vote for Trump
is "wasted"?

>>> I guess some people just can't make a choice no matter how small the number
>>> of choices.
>>>
>> You show you do not even understand what the choices are... nor what they
>> mean.
>>
>> Hint: NOT supporting someone is NOT a sign of support for any of their
>> opponents.
>
> You don't understand what the choices are.

Well, I do not know all choices in all jurisdictions!

> Only one of Hillary or Trump is going to win this election. Guaranteed.

Very likely but NOT guaranteed.

> 100%. No one else has the slightest chance in hell of winning. So you have
> the option of helping tip the election one way or another with your vote.

Or to not back either... which if they are both unacceptable to me is a
perfectly valid choice.

But you say not voting for either shows support for Clinton... others tell
me it shows support for Trump. Both claims are absurd.

> All conservatives have a duty to vote Trump, and all libtards have a satanic
> duty to vote Clinton.

False.

> That is, unless you see her for the criminal that she is. Then you have a
> duty to vote Trump, even if you're a libtard.

It is quite telling when you feel the need to resort to name calling. You
show deep insecurity.

> Because, face it. Trump is not a criminal, and he is as much Democrat as he
> is Republican. So even if you're a Democrat, it won't hurt anything if you
> vote Trump at the top of the ticket and the rest Democrat on the down ballot.

I will not be voting for Trump given how he has NO qualifications. Even his
claim of being a good businessman is utterly absurd. I see NO reason at all
to back him.

[Octavian W. Lagrange]

Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/22/16, 2:32 PM, in article ghjvia...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
> Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/22/16, 2:07 PM, in article fhjgue...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
>>> Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since the election is so close, any action other than a vote for Trump is
>>>> a vote for Hillary. Likewise, any action other than a vote for Hillary
>>>> is a vote for Trump.
>>>
>>> By your "logic" a vote for neither indicates support for both. Which, of
>>> course, is completely absurd.
>>
>> No, it means that you had a chance to have your vote count for something
>> at the ballot box, but chose not to.
>
> Incorrect.
>

You are wrong.

>>>> The only votes that will count are votes for one of those two.
>>>
>>> Incorrect. Other people will be on the ballots, and write-ins are counted in
>>> many places.
>>
>> But none of those candidates will win, so such a vote is wasted, when
>> it could have been used to sway the election.
>
> By this "logic" you should try to figure out who is going to win and then
> vote for them no matter what they say. If it turns out Clinton is far ahead
> in the polls come voting day will you vote for her or "waste" your vote on
> Trump, knowing he is unlikely to win?
>

Polls don't count. Votes count. The only way one wins over the other
is if that person's vote count is higher. A vote for another candidate
besides one of those two is wasted.

>>>> Abstainers of course don't get counted. Votes for "other" candidates are
>>>> votes that could have been added to the tally for Trump or Hillary and might
>>>> have tipped the scale, but instead they just get tossed in the bin.
>>>
>>> And votes for Trump or Clinton could have been votes for Johnson or Stein or
>>> someone else.
>>
>> Yes, Trump or Clinton voters could have wasted their votes that way.
>
> What do you mean by a "wasted vote"?
>

By voting for someone who cannot possibly win.

>> In this election it is 100% guaranteed that either Clinton or Trump
>> will be the next president.
>
> Incorrect (though not by much).
>

Odds against are about that of the earth reversing its spin.

>> Your vote for either can help determine
>> that outcome. Any other action is a wasted vote.
>
> By your logic if it looks like Clinton is a sure thing then a vote for Trump
> is "wasted"?
>

A choice for one of the only two candidates who will possibly win is not
wasted on either of those candidates, because it is those very votes
that will determine who wins. On the other hand, a vote for candidate
C, in an election where it is guaranteed that only A or B will win, is
a wasted vote.

>>>> I guess some people just can't make a choice no matter how small the number
>>>> of choices.
>>>>
>>> You show you do not even understand what the choices are... nor what they
>>> mean.
>>>
>>> Hint: NOT supporting someone is NOT a sign of support for any of their
>>> opponents.
>>
>> You don't understand what the choices are.
>
> Well, I do not know all choices in all jurisdictions!
>
>> Only one of Hillary or Trump is going to win this election. Guaranteed.
>
> Very likely but NOT guaranteed.
>

LOL who else do you think has a chance?

>> 100%. No one else has the slightest chance in hell of winning. So you have
>> the option of helping tip the election one way or another with your vote.
>
> Or to not back either... which if they are both unacceptable to me is a
> perfectly valid choice.
>

Which means a wasted vote. A chance to tip the scale one way or the
other that was neglected because you could not man up and make a decision.

> But you say not voting for either shows support for Clinton... others tell
> me it shows support for Trump. Both claims are absurd.
>

I'm saying that you have the chance to vote for a decent human being
who has this nation's best interest at heart (Trump), or a vote for
a criminal serial liar (Hillary, spawn of Satan) who will sell us
out to the highest bidder and probably get us into a world war.

>> All conservatives have a duty to vote Trump, and all libtards have a satanic
>> duty to vote Clinton.
>
> False.
>

You are wrong.

>> That is, unless you see her for the criminal that she is. Then you have a
>> duty to vote Trump, even if you're a libtard.
>
> It is quite telling when you feel the need to resort to name calling. You
> show deep insecurity.
>

Are you or are you not a libtard?

>> Because, face it. Trump is not a criminal, and he is as much Democrat as he
>> is Republican. So even if you're a Democrat, it won't hurt anything if you
>> vote Trump at the top of the ticket and the rest Democrat on the down ballot.
>
> I will not be voting for Trump given how he has NO qualifications. Even his
> claim of being a good businessman is utterly absurd. I see NO reason at all
> to back him.
>

In that case, Hillary Clinton thanks you for your support. And you will
share responsibility for what she does to this country if she wins.

[Snit]

On 8/22/16, 3:04 PM, in article ghjdsu...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.

Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:

> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 8/22/16, 2:32 PM, in article ghjvia...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
>> Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> On 8/22/16, 2:07 PM, in article fhjgue...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
>>>> Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the election is so close, any action other than a vote for Trump is
>>>>> a vote for Hillary. Likewise, any action other than a vote for Hillary
>>>>> is a vote for Trump.
>>>>
>>>> By your "logic" a vote for neither indicates support for both. Which, of
>>>> course, is completely absurd.
>>>
>>> No, it means that you had a chance to have your vote count for something
>>> at the ballot box, but chose not to.
>>
>> Incorrect.
>
> You are wrong.

I welcome support for how a vote for someone can become a lack of vote for
someone.

>>>>> The only votes that will count are votes for one of those two.
>>>>
>>>> Incorrect. Other people will be on the ballots, and write-ins are counted
>>>> in
>>>> many places.
>>>
>>> But none of those candidates will win, so such a vote is wasted, when
>>> it could have been used to sway the election.
>>
>> By this "logic" you should try to figure out who is going to win and then
>> vote for them no matter what they say. If it turns out Clinton is far ahead
>> in the polls come voting day will you vote for her or "waste" your vote on
>> Trump, knowing he is unlikely to win?
>
> Polls don't count. Votes count.

So what makes you think others cannot win?

> The only way one wins over the other is if that person's vote count is higher.

Which may or may not be the actual vote! Sigh... Clinton.

> A vote for another candidate besides one of those two is wasted.

You keep saying this but offer no support... nor explain why a vote for
Trump is not "wasted" given how he is unlikely to win.

>>>>> Abstainers of course don't get counted. Votes for "other" candidates are
>>>>> votes that could have been added to the tally for Trump or Hillary and
>>>>> might have tipped the scale, but instead they just get tossed in the bin.
>>>>>
>>>> And votes for Trump or Clinton could have been votes for Johnson or Stein
>>>> or someone else.
>>>>
>>> Yes, Trump or Clinton voters could have wasted their votes that way.
>>>
>> What do you mean by a "wasted vote"?
>
> By voting for someone who cannot possibly win.

As judged by...???

>>> In this election it is 100% guaranteed that either Clinton or Trump
>>> will be the next president.
>>
>> Incorrect (though not by much).
>
> Odds against are about that of the earth reversing its spin.

Support?

>>> Your vote for either can help determine
>>> that outcome. Any other action is a wasted vote.
>>
>> By your logic if it looks like Clinton is a sure thing then a vote for Trump
>> is "wasted"?
>
> A choice for one of the only two candidates who will possibly win is not
> wasted on either of those candidates, because it is those very votes
> that will determine who wins.

Well, given the election fraud that is happening not even that is true, but
above you discount polls... so what makes you think only those two have a
chance?

> On the other hand, a vote for candidate C, in an election where it is
> guaranteed that only A or B will win, is a wasted vote.

What do you base this on? And why can only A or B win?

>>>>> I guess some people just can't make a choice no matter how small the
>>>>> number of choices.
>>>>>
>>>> You show you do not even understand what the choices are... nor what they
>>>> mean.
>>>>
>>>> Hint: NOT supporting someone is NOT a sign of support for any of their
>>>> opponents.
>>>>
>>> You don't understand what the choices are.
>>>
>> Well, I do not know all choices in all jurisdictions!
>>
>>> Only one of Hillary or Trump is going to win this election. Guaranteed.
>>>
>> Very likely but NOT guaranteed.
>
> LOL who else do you think has a chance?

Nobody else has a significant chance at this time.

>>> 100%. No one else has the slightest chance in hell of winning. So you
>>> have the option of helping tip the election one way or another with your
>>> vote.
>>>
>> Or to not back either... which if they are both unacceptable to me is a
>> perfectly valid choice.
>
> Which means a wasted vote.

So you keep saying but never support... and it is contrary to your original
claim that it WAS support for one of the two main candidates.

> A chance to tip the scale one way or the
> other that was neglected because you could not man up and make a decision.

You assume if I do not make a decision YOU approve of I did not make a
decision. That is faulty thinking on your part.

>> But you say not voting for either shows support for Clinton... others tell
>> me it shows support for Trump. Both claims are absurd.
>
> I'm saying that you have the chance to vote for a decent human being
> who has this nation's best interest at heart (Trump), or a vote for
> a criminal serial liar (Hillary, spawn of Satan) who will sell us
> out to the highest bidder and probably get us into a world war.

Your assessment of each is absurd.

>>> All conservatives have a duty to vote Trump, and all libtards have a satanic
>>> duty to vote Clinton.
>>
>> False.
>
> You are wrong.

But in a way you cannot show.

>>> That is, unless you see her for the criminal that she is. Then you have a
>>> duty to vote Trump, even if you're a libtard.
>>
>> It is quite telling when you feel the need to resort to name calling. You
>> show deep insecurity.
>
> Are you or are you not a libtard?

I do not even know what you mean by the term, though it is clearly a
reference to liberals with ties to derogatory terms of people with mental
handicaps. More of your bigotry showing through.

>>> Because, face it. Trump is not a criminal, and he is as much Democrat as he
>>> is Republican. So even if you're a Democrat, it won't hurt anything if you
>>> vote Trump at the top of the ticket and the rest Democrat on the down
>>> ballot.
>>
>> I will not be voting for Trump given how he has NO qualifications. Even his
>> claim of being a good businessman is utterly absurd. I see NO reason at all
>> to back him.
>
> In that case, Hillary Clinton thanks you for your support. And you will
> share responsibility for what she does to this country if she wins.

I do not support her either. The concept of not supporting either simply
goes over your head.

[Octavian W. Lagrange]

Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/22/16, 3:04 PM, in article ghjdsu...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
> Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/22/16, 2:32 PM, in article ghjvia...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
>>> Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 8/22/16, 2:07 PM, in article fhjgue...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
>>>>> Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since the election is so close, any action other than a vote for Trump is
>>>>>> a vote for Hillary. Likewise, any action other than a vote for Hillary
>>>>>> is a vote for Trump.
>>>>>
>>>>> By your "logic" a vote for neither indicates support for both. Which, of
>>>>> course, is completely absurd.
>>>>
>>>> No, it means that you had a chance to have your vote count for something
>>>> at the ballot box, but chose not to.
>>>
>>> Incorrect.
>>
>> You are wrong.
>
> I welcome support for how a vote for someone can become a lack of vote for
> someone.
>

A vote outside the group of possible winners is a wasted vote.

>>>>>> The only votes that will count are votes for one of those two.
>>>>>
>>>>> Incorrect. Other people will be on the ballots, and write-ins are counted
>>>>> in
>>>>> many places.
>>>>
>>>> But none of those candidates will win, so such a vote is wasted, when
>>>> it could have been used to sway the election.
>>>
>>> By this "logic" you should try to figure out who is going to win and then
>>> vote for them no matter what they say. If it turns out Clinton is far ahead
>>> in the polls come voting day will you vote for her or "waste" your vote on
>>> Trump, knowing he is unlikely to win?
>>
>> Polls don't count. Votes count.
>
> So what makes you think others cannot win?
>

History and common sense. The fact that the potential third party
candidates will not be on all ballots.

>> The only way one wins over the other is if that person's vote count is higher.
>
> Which may or may not be the actual vote! Sigh... Clinton.
>

True dat.

>> A vote for another candidate besides one of those two is wasted.
>
> You keep saying this but offer no support... nor explain why a vote for
> Trump is not "wasted" given how he is unlikely to win.
>

You say he is unlikely to win. I say he is likely to win in a landslide.
There is a legitimate question there, between Hillary and Trump. Both
of them have an actual chance. No one else does though, so a vote for
someone else is wasted.

>>>>>> Abstainers of course don't get counted. Votes for "other" candidates are
>>>>>> votes that could have been added to the tally for Trump or Hillary and
>>>>>> might have tipped the scale, but instead they just get tossed in the bin.
>>>>>>
>>>>> And votes for Trump or Clinton could have been votes for Johnson or Stein
>>>>> or someone else.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, Trump or Clinton voters could have wasted their votes that way.
>>>>
>>> What do you mean by a "wasted vote"?
>>
>> By voting for someone who cannot possibly win.
>
> As judged by...???
>

History and common sense. Ralph Nader was not even on the ballot
in my state. No way that fucker could win. But he siphoned off
enough votes to tip the scale electorally for Bush in one state
in the northeast. I forget which.

>>>> In this election it is 100% guaranteed that either Clinton or Trump
>>>> will be the next president.
>>>
>>> Incorrect (though not by much).
>>
>> Odds against are about that of the earth reversing its spin.
>
> Support?
>

Yes, I support that.

>>>> Your vote for either can help determine
>>>> that outcome. Any other action is a wasted vote.
>>>
>>> By your logic if it looks like Clinton is a sure thing then a vote for Trump
>>> is "wasted"?
>>
>> A choice for one of the only two candidates who will possibly win is not
>> wasted on either of those candidates, because it is those very votes
>> that will determine who wins.
>
> Well, given the election fraud that is happening not even that is true, but
> above you discount polls... so what makes you think only those two have a
> chance?
>

Because election fraud is not going to put a third party candidate
in office, and even if it results in a House selection of the Pres.,
they will choose one of Hillary or Trump.

>> On the other hand, a vote for candidate C, in an election where it is
>> guaranteed that only A or B will win, is a wasted vote.
>
> What do you base this on? And why can only A or B win?
>

Because only A or B has the money, popularity, party machinery, etc.,
to win.

>>>>>> I guess some people just can't make a choice no matter how small the
>>>>>> number of choices.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You show you do not even understand what the choices are... nor what they
>>>>> mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hint: NOT supporting someone is NOT a sign of support for any of their
>>>>> opponents.
>>>>>
>>>> You don't understand what the choices are.
>>>>
>>> Well, I do not know all choices in all jurisdictions!
>>>
>>>> Only one of Hillary or Trump is going to win this election. Guaranteed.
>>>>
>>> Very likely but NOT guaranteed.
>>
>> LOL who else do you think has a chance?
>
> Nobody else has a significant chance at this time.
>

Nobody else has a significant chance period.

>>>> 100%. No one else has the slightest chance in hell of winning. So you
>>>> have the option of helping tip the election one way or another with your
>>>> vote.
>>>>
>>> Or to not back either... which if they are both unacceptable to me is a
>>> perfectly valid choice.
>>
>> Which means a wasted vote.
>
> So you keep saying but never support... and it is contrary to your original
> claim that it WAS support for one of the two main candidates.
>

Nope.

Anything other than a vote for Hillary is a vote for Trump, because
you *could* have voted for Hillary but didn't, thereby depriving
her of a vote.

Anything other than a vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary, because
you *could* have voted for Trump, but didn't, thereby depriving him
of a vote

>> A chance to tip the scale one way or the
>> other that was neglected because you could not man up and make a decision.
>
> You assume if I do not make a decision YOU approve of I did not make a
> decision. That is faulty thinking on your part.
>
>>> But you say not voting for either shows support for Clinton... others tell
>>> me it shows support for Trump. Both claims are absurd.
>>
>> I'm saying that you have the chance to vote for a decent human being
>> who has this nation's best interest at heart (Trump), or a vote for
>> a criminal serial liar (Hillary, spawn of Satan) who will sell us
>> out to the highest bidder and probably get us into a world war.
>
> Your assessment of each is absurd.
>

LOL. What would you know about it. You're brainwashed.

>>>> All conservatives have a duty to vote Trump, and all libtards have a satanic
>>>> duty to vote Clinton.
>>>
>>> False.
>>
>> You are wrong.
>
> But in a way you cannot show.
>

Nope. Your inability to see it does not translate to me not showing it.

>>>> That is, unless you see her for the criminal that she is. Then you have a
>>>> duty to vote Trump, even if you're a libtard.
>>>
>>> It is quite telling when you feel the need to resort to name calling. You
>>> show deep insecurity.
>>
>> Are you or are you not a libtard?
>
> I do not even know what you mean by the term, though it is clearly a
> reference to liberals with ties to derogatory terms of people with mental
> handicaps. More of your bigotry showing through.
>

There you are calling me hurtful names. Nice self-nuke.

>>>> Because, face it. Trump is not a criminal, and he is as much Democrat as he
>>>> is Republican. So even if you're a Democrat, it won't hurt anything if you
>>>> vote Trump at the top of the ticket and the rest Democrat on the down
>>>> ballot.
>>>
>>> I will not be voting for Trump given how he has NO qualifications. Even his
>>> claim of being a good businessman is utterly absurd. I see NO reason at all
>>> to back him.
>>
>> In that case, Hillary Clinton thanks you for your support. And you will
>> share responsibility for what she does to this country if she wins.
>
> I do not support her either. The concept of not supporting either simply
> goes over your head.
>

What goes over your head is simple math. Your friends are right. If you
are someone who would ordinarily vote Democrat but are now voting some
other way because the Democrat is Hillary, then you are netting Trump
a vote that he would not ordinarily have. Same for Republicans who
don't vote for Trump. They are netting Hillary a vote she would not
otherwise have.

[Snit]

On 8/22/16, 4:00 PM, in article fhoo9a...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:

...

>>> You are wrong.
>>
>> I welcome support for how a vote for someone can become a lack of vote for
>> someone.
>
> A vote outside the group of possible winners is a wasted vote.

That is your opinion... as is who is a "possible winner." At this point it
seems unlikely Trump will win. Do you consider a vote for him to be
"wasted"?

...

>>> Polls don't count. Votes count.
>>
>> So what makes you think others cannot win?
>
> History and common sense. The fact that the potential third party
> candidates will not be on all ballots.

But it is possible one of both candidates will, for whatever reason, have to
drop out or become unable to run.

>>> The only way one wins over the other is if that person's vote count is
>>> higher.
>>
>> Which may or may not be the actual vote! Sigh... Clinton.
>
> True dat.

Unlike you I do not feel obligated to support ANYONE, Democrat or
Republican. I back people if they are decent candidates. Right now Stein is
likely the best but she is NOT a leader... and has made comments about
vaccinations which are a bit silly (pandering perhaps)?

>>> A vote for another candidate besides one of those two is wasted.
>>
>> You keep saying this but offer no support... nor explain why a vote for
>> Trump is not "wasted" given how he is unlikely to win.
>
> You say he is unlikely to win. I say he is likely to win in a landslide.
> There is a legitimate question there, between Hillary and Trump. Both
> of them have an actual chance. No one else does though, so a vote for
> someone else is wasted.

So there is a question as to whom can win... or is likely to. Thus no vote
is "wasted."


...

>>> A choice for one of the only two candidates who will possibly win is not
>>> wasted on either of those candidates, because it is those very votes
>>> that will determine who wins.
>>
>> Well, given the election fraud that is happening not even that is true, but
>> above you discount polls... so what makes you think only those two have a
>> chance?
>>
>
> Because election fraud is not going to put a third party candidate
> in office, and even if it results in a House selection of the Pres.,
> they will choose one of Hillary or Trump.
>
>>> On the other hand, a vote for candidate C, in an election where it is
>>> guaranteed that only A or B will win, is a wasted vote.
>>
>> What do you base this on? And why can only A or B win?
>
> Because only A or B has the money, popularity, party machinery, etc.,
> to win.

How do you know they have popularity? Heck, who else has a LOWER rating than
the two of them on trustworthiness and likability?

...

>> So you keep saying but never support... and it is contrary to your original
>> claim that it WAS support for one of the two main candidates.
>>
>
> Nope.
>
> Anything other than a vote for Hillary is a vote for Trump, because
> you *could* have voted for Hillary but didn't, thereby depriving
> her of a vote.

A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. A vote for Clinton is a vote for
Clinton. Other votes are not votes for EITHER.

It is like saying if you pick Linux then you are backing Windows and Mac.
Utter nonsense.

> Anything other than a vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary, because
> you *could* have voted for Trump, but didn't, thereby depriving him
> of a vote

So a vote for neither is a vote for both by your twisted logic.

>>> A chance to tip the scale one way or the
>>> other that was neglected because you could not man up and make a decision.
>>
>> You assume if I do not make a decision YOU approve of I did not make a
>> decision. That is faulty thinking on your part.
>>
>>>> But you say not voting for either shows support for Clinton... others tell
>>>> me it shows support for Trump. Both claims are absurd.
>>>
>>> I'm saying that you have the chance to vote for a decent human being
>>> who has this nation's best interest at heart (Trump), or a vote for
>>> a criminal serial liar (Hillary, spawn of Satan) who will sell us
>>> out to the highest bidder and probably get us into a world war.
>>
>> Your assessment of each is absurd.
>
> LOL. What would you know about it. You're brainwashed.

The idea that either has the nation's best interest at heart is silly... and
the "spawn of Satan" comment is hyperbole.

...

>>> Are you or are you not a libtard?
>>
>> I do not even know what you mean by the term, though it is clearly a
>> reference to liberals with ties to derogatory terms of people with mental
>> handicaps. More of your bigotry showing through.
>
> There you are calling me hurtful names. Nice self-nuke.

I called you no names. I noted your use of bigotry. And now I will note your
lack of defining your own term.

...

>>> In that case, Hillary Clinton thanks you for your support. And you will
>>> share responsibility for what she does to this country if she wins.
>>
>> I do not support her either. The concept of not supporting either simply
>> goes over your head.
>
> What goes over your head is simple math. Your friends are right. If you
> are someone who would ordinarily vote Democrat but are now voting some
> other way because the Democrat is Hillary, then you are netting Trump
> a vote that he would not ordinarily have. Same for Republicans who
> don't vote for Trump. They are netting Hillary a vote she would not
> otherwise have.

This is not complex:

* A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump
* A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton.
* A vote for nether is a vote for neither.
* A vote does not imply it is a counted vote, sadly.

Candidates have to EARN votes.

[Octavian W. Lagrange]

Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/22/16, 4:00 PM, in article fhoo9a...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
> Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>
> ...

>>

>> What goes over your head is simple math. Your friends are right. If you
>> are someone who would ordinarily vote Democrat but are now voting some
>> other way because the Democrat is Hillary, then you are netting Trump
>> a vote that he would not ordinarily have. Same for Republicans who
>> don't vote for Trump. They are netting Hillary a vote she would not
>> otherwise have.
>
> This is not complex:
>
> * A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump
> * A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton.
> * A vote for nether is a vote for neither.
> * A vote does not imply it is a counted vote, sadly.
>

What does it tell you that I, a Trump supporter, encourage you, a liberal,
to either abstain from voting or vote for Stein?

Why do you think the Romtards are trying to get this loser on the ballots:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/08/evan-mcmullin-republican-donald-trump-utah

This is why:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_splitting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_nomination

[Snit]

On 8/23/16, 9:00 AM, in article ghjdue9...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.

Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:

> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 8/22/16, 4:00 PM, in article fhoo9a...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
>> Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>
>>>
>>> What goes over your head is simple math. Your friends are right. If you
>>> are someone who would ordinarily vote Democrat but are now voting some
>>> other way because the Democrat is Hillary, then you are netting Trump
>>> a vote that he would not ordinarily have. Same for Republicans who
>>> don't vote for Trump. They are netting Hillary a vote she would not
>>> otherwise have.
>>
>> This is not complex:
>>
>> * A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump
>> * A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton.
>> * A vote for nether is a vote for neither.
>> * A vote does not imply it is a counted vote, sadly.
>>
>
> What does it tell you that I, a Trump supporter, encourage you, a liberal,
> to either abstain from voting or vote for Stein?

You are not. You are pushing me to vote for one of the two least trusted,
least liked politicians on the national scene.

> Why do you think the Romtards are trying to get this loser on the ballots:

I have no idea who you are even referring to.

> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/08/evan-mcmullin-republican-donal

> d-trump-utah
>
> This is why:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_splitting
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_nomination

[Octavian W. Lagrange]

Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/23/16, 9:00 AM, in article ghjdue9...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
> Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/22/16, 4:00 PM, in article fhoo9a...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
>>> Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>
>>>>
>>>> What goes over your head is simple math. Your friends are right. If you
>>>> are someone who would ordinarily vote Democrat but are now voting some
>>>> other way because the Democrat is Hillary, then you are netting Trump
>>>> a vote that he would not ordinarily have. Same for Republicans who
>>>> don't vote for Trump. They are netting Hillary a vote she would not
>>>> otherwise have.
>>>
>>> This is not complex:
>>>
>>> * A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump
>>> * A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton.
>>> * A vote for nether is a vote for neither.
>>> * A vote does not imply it is a counted vote, sadly.
>>>
>>
>> What does it tell you that I, a Trump supporter, encourage you, a liberal,
>> to either abstain from voting or vote for Stein?
>
> You are not. You are pushing me to vote for one of the two least trusted,
> least liked politicians on the national scene.
>

Nope. Clearly you would never vote for Trump, so I won't bother
trying to get you to vote Trump. As a libtard, you are would
be likely to vote for the Democrat, but you have shown that
you might have difficulty pulling the lever for Hillary.
I say that's great. Don't vote for Hillary. Vote for anybody
but Hillary (since she is the only one other than Trump who
chance to win). A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump, so
I encourage you to vote early and often.

>> Why do you think the Romtards are trying to get this loser on the ballots:
>
> I have no idea who you are even referring to.
>

Of course you don't. *pats it on the head*

[Snit]

On 8/23/16, 9:22 AM, in article fhjgie...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:

...

>>>> This is not complex:
>>>>
>>>> * A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump
>>>> * A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton.
>>>> * A vote for nether is a vote for neither.
>>>> * A vote does not imply it is a counted vote, sadly.
>>>
>>> What does it tell you that I, a Trump supporter, encourage you, a liberal,
>>> to either abstain from voting or vote for Stein?
>>
>> You are not. You are pushing me to vote for one of the two least trusted,
>> least liked politicians on the national scene.
>>
>
> Nope. Clearly you would never vote for Trump, so I won't bother
> trying to get you to vote Trump.

I will not vote for him or Clinton. Both are horrid choices and I will not
be responsible in any way for either of them.

...

> A vote for Stein is
> a vote for Trump, so I encourage you to vote early and often.

This is not complex, but sadly over your head:

* A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump
* A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton.
* A vote for nether is a vote for neither.
* A vote does not imply it is a counted vote, sadly.

You whine when I repeat things but you show no understanding. Remember, only
a vote for Trump is a vote for Trump.

Oh, and Trump has essentially no chance of winning. Sadly Clinton does.

But you have said to NOT vote for someone who does not have much chance of
winning, so if you are true to yourself you will not vote for Trump.
...

[Octavian W. Lagrange]

Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/23/16, 9:22 AM, in article fhjgie...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
> Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>>> This is not complex:
>>>>>
>>>>> * A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump
>>>>> * A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton.
>>>>> * A vote for nether is a vote for neither.
>>>>> * A vote does not imply it is a counted vote, sadly.
>>>>
>>>> What does it tell you that I, a Trump supporter, encourage you, a liberal,
>>>> to either abstain from voting or vote for Stein?
>>>
>>> You are not. You are pushing me to vote for one of the two least trusted,
>>> least liked politicians on the national scene.
>>>
>>
>> Nope. Clearly you would never vote for Trump, so I won't bother
>> trying to get you to vote Trump.
>
> I will not vote for him or Clinton. Both are horrid choices and I will not
> be responsible in any way for either of them.
>

Fantastic! Vote for Stein. Tell all your liberal friends
to vote for Stein. Hell, write in Bernie. LOL! Go Trump!

> ...
>> A vote for Stein is
>> a vote for Trump, so I encourage you to vote early and often.
>
> This is not complex, but sadly over your head:
>
> * A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump
> * A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton.
> * A vote for nether is a vote for neither.
> * A vote does not imply it is a counted vote, sadly.
>
> You whine when I repeat things but you show no understanding. Remember, only
> a vote for Trump is a vote for Trump.
>

Keep telling yourself that. Remember now, be sure to vote for Stein.
LOL. Just like I told you earlier. This election is going to be a
Trump landslide.

> Oh, and Trump has essentially no chance of winning. Sadly Clinton does.
>

You must not have heard me. Trump landslide.

> But you have said to NOT vote for someone who does not have much chance of
> winning,

Not unless you're a liberal. Then vote for anybody but Hillary. Or
stay home. Either action works out great for Trump.

Now you'll notice that I take the opposite tack with DFS. Since
he is a Republican who is having a hard time pulling the lever
for Trump, I do my best to convince him that that is wrong, that
he should just hold his nose and vote for Trump. Can't let Hillary
win because of a split vote on the right.

[Snit]

On 8/23/16, 9:54 AM, in article hjgdua9...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.

Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:

> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 8/23/16, 9:22 AM, in article fhjgie...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
>> Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>>>> This is not complex:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump
>>>>>> * A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton.
>>>>>> * A vote for nether is a vote for neither.
>>>>>> * A vote does not imply it is a counted vote, sadly.
>>>>>
>>>>> What does it tell you that I, a Trump supporter, encourage you, a liberal,
>>>>> to either abstain from voting or vote for Stein?
>>>>
>>>> You are not. You are pushing me to vote for one of the two least trusted,
>>>> least liked politicians on the national scene.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope. Clearly you would never vote for Trump, so I won't bother
>>> trying to get you to vote Trump.
>>
>> I will not vote for him or Clinton. Both are horrid choices and I will not
>> be responsible in any way for either of them.
>
> Fantastic! Vote for Stein. Tell all your liberal friends
> to vote for Stein. Hell, write in Bernie. LOL! Go Trump!

Wait: if you are going to be consistent, given how Trump is not likely to
win, you should not vote for him either.

I am not a big fan of Stein, either. She is not a leader and her comments on
things like Wi-Fi and vaccinations are a bit whacky.

>> ...
>>> A vote for Stein is
>>> a vote for Trump, so I encourage you to vote early and often.
>>
>> This is not complex, but sadly over your head:
>>
>> * A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump
>> * A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton.
>> * A vote for nether is a vote for neither.
>> * A vote does not imply it is a counted vote, sadly.
>>
>> You whine when I repeat things but you show no understanding. Remember, only
>> a vote for Trump is a vote for Trump.
>
> Keep telling yourself that. Remember now, be sure to vote for Stein.
> LOL. Just like I told you earlier. This election is going to be a
> Trump landslide.

And you base this on??? His only chance is that he is running against
Clinton. Her only chance is she is running against him.

>> Oh, and Trump has essentially no chance of winning. Sadly Clinton does.
>
> You must not have heard me. Trump landslide.

I heard... but I reject your claims you show no support for and go with
evidence and reason instead.

>> But you have said to NOT vote for someone who does not have much chance of
>> winning,
>
> Not unless you're a liberal. Then vote for anybody but Hillary. Or
> stay home. Either action works out great for Trump.

I have no more problem with him winning than with Clinton. Both are
disasters.

> Now you'll notice that I take the opposite tack with DFS. Since
> he is a Republican who is having a hard time pulling the lever
> for Trump, I do my best to convince him that that is wrong, that
> he should just hold his nose and vote for Trump. Can't let Hillary
> win because of a split vote on the right.

I frankly do not care which of the disasters is elected... and hoping for a
miracle to give us another option.

[Octavian W. Lagrange]

Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/23/16, 9:54 AM, in article hjgdua9...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
> Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/23/16, 9:22 AM, in article fhjgie...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
>>> Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>>>> This is not complex:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump
>>>>>>> * A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton.
>>>>>>> * A vote for nether is a vote for neither.
>>>>>>> * A vote does not imply it is a counted vote, sadly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does it tell you that I, a Trump supporter, encourage you, a liberal,
>>>>>> to either abstain from voting or vote for Stein?
>>>>>
>>>>> You are not. You are pushing me to vote for one of the two least trusted,
>>>>> least liked politicians on the national scene.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Clearly you would never vote for Trump, so I won't bother
>>>> trying to get you to vote Trump.
>>>
>>> I will not vote for him or Clinton. Both are horrid choices and I will not
>>> be responsible in any way for either of them.
>>
>> Fantastic! Vote for Stein. Tell all your liberal friends
>> to vote for Stein. Hell, write in Bernie. LOL! Go Trump!
>
> Wait: if you are going to be consistent, given how Trump is not likely to
> win, you should not vote for him either.
>

I'm consistent. Trump has a chance. Hillary has a chance. No one else
has a chance. A vote for Trump is not wasted.

> I am not a big fan of Stein, either. She is not a leader and her comments on
> things like Wi-Fi and vaccinations are a bit whacky.
>

I don't care what she does or says. Just vote for her. :)

[Snit]

On 8/23/16, 10:21 AM, in article hjgua99...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.

Trump has a slim chance... so why vote for him?

>> I am not a big fan of Stein, either. She is not a leader and her comments on
>> things like Wi-Fi and vaccinations are a bit whacky.
>
> I don't care what she does or says. Just vote for her. :)

I might... though I would have to hold my nose to do so. There are truly no
decent options.

[Octavian W. Lagrange]

He has far more than a slim chance. Wait. Forget I said that.
You probably don't even need to vote at all, since Hillary's
got it in the bag.

>>> I am not a big fan of Stein, either. She is not a leader and her comments on
>>> things like Wi-Fi and vaccinations are a bit whacky.
>>
>> I don't care what she does or says. Just vote for her. :)
>
> I might... though I would have to hold my nose to do so. There are truly no
> decent options.
>

No! You need to vote your conscience. Stein is the best match.
Plus, whether it's Trump or Hillary who wins, you will not be responsible.
Win-Win!

[GreyCloud]

On 08/22/16 14:35, Snit wrote:
> On 8/22/16, 1:04 PM, in article hjgsuaf9...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
> Lagrange"<olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Another day, another 15,000 Hillary emails discovered.
>>
> I have (no surprise) a rather lengthy write-up on my view of Comey's
> testimony. The short version: I see no reason to think he is anything other
> than a decent and moral person. While he did not recommend indictment DID
> show Clinton is not in any way a good candidate for president.
>
> And that is just the tip of the iceberg for her. The DNC has been absurd in
> selecting her. She is Trump's best chance to get to the White House.
>
>

I agree on this point.
Hillary has serious health issues tho. A Dr. said that anyone on
Cuomadin (blood thinner) is only supposed to be on it for a short time.
She is one this stuff now since 2013 when she had that nasty fall.
No real press conferences for over 240 days now.

[GreyCloud]

On 08/22/16 14:51, Snit wrote:
> On 8/22/16, 1:47 PM, in article fhjviu...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
> Lagrange"<olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Snit<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/22/16, 1:04 PM, in article hjgsuaf9...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
>>> Lagrange"<olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Another day, another 15,000 Hillary emails discovered.
>>>>
>>> I have (no surprise) a rather lengthy write-up on my view of Comey's
>>> testimony. The short version: I see no reason to think he is anything other
>>> than a decent and moral person. While he did not recommend indictment DID
>>> show Clinton is not in any way a good candidate for president.
>>>
>>> And that is just the tip of the iceberg for her. The DNC has been absurd in
>>> selecting her. She is Trump's best chance to get to the White House.
>>
>> But you will vote for her anyway, or at least take an action that favors
>> her victory, such as abstaining, or voting for someone with no chance of
>> winning, right?
>
> How does NOT voting for her in any way favor her victory? I hear the same
> thing from her supporters saying if I do not vote for her I am favoring
> Trump.
>
> Not voting for either is not favoring either. Trump is a horror show, but
> even he is not so bad as to lead to me supporting the election fraud that
> has gotten Clinton to where she is.
>

Trump isn't a horror show. He gives great promise of putting back the
balance to government, where it started with the Chimp, in scoffing the
law and doing whatever he wants to anyway. Even Obama said he can do
anything he wanted to do now.

[Snit]

On 8/23/16, 10:43 AM, in article hjau0...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:

...

>>>> Wait: if you are going to be consistent, given how Trump is not likely to
>>>> win, you should not vote for him either.
>>>
>>> I'm consistent. Trump has a chance. Hillary has a chance. No one else
>>> has a chance. A vote for Trump is not wasted.
>>
>> Trump has a slim chance... so why vote for him?
>
> He has far more than a slim chance. Wait. Forget I said that.
> You probably don't even need to vote at all, since Hillary's
> got it in the bag.

You act like I prefer Clinton over him. Why?

As far as his chances: he has literally NO qualifications. Clinton at least
has some... but she is grossly corrupt. But with him there is literally NO
reason to back him. He has no decent policy ideas, no experience, poor
success in business... what does he have going for him?

>>>> I am not a big fan of Stein, either. She is not a leader and her comments
>>>> on
>>>> things like Wi-Fi and vaccinations are a bit whacky.
>>>
>>> I don't care what she does or says. Just vote for her. :)
>>
>> I might... though I would have to hold my nose to do so. There are truly no
>> decent options.
>
> No! You need to vote your conscience. Stein is the best match.

Maybe. She is not great either.

> Plus, whether it's Trump or Hillary who wins, you will not be responsible.
> Win-Win!

Pretty much. I will not be responsible for either of them.

[Snit]

On 8/23/16, 11:00 AM, in article npi30l$a7o$5...@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud"

He has no plans and no qualifications, and has not been successful in his
businesses. He *is* a good troll, able to play the media. But what else does
he have?

His ever changing yet always unrealistic wall? That is a non-starter. His
xenophobic fear mongering which will split the country and lead to wars? Not
a fan. Really... what does he offer?

> He gives great promise of putting back the balance to government, where it
> started with the Chimp, in scoffing the law and doing whatever he wants to
> anyway.

I truly have no idea what you are even talking about? Bedtime for Bonzo?
Undoing what Reagan did? Balance with???

> Even Obama said he can do anything he wanted to do now.

Obama is very much against Trump.

[Snit]

On 8/23/16, 10:59 AM, in article npi2tk$a7o$4...@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud"

I have heard those rumors as well... could be true. She has done interviews
and opened pickle jars (?!?!). Not sure what that proves.

But she is likely backing off the public lime light because she, like Trump,
is unable to be honest... but she is a more clever liar.

[GreyCloud]

Who says that Trump has no qualifications? He has one... he's a mason.
And the masons are the ones that created the U.S. Constitution. He has
plenty of help across the country.
Funny thing, it is the media that is ragging on trump but not one bad
word about hillary.

>
> His ever changing yet always unrealistic wall? That is a non-starter. His
> xenophobic fear mongering which will split the country and lead to wars? Not
> a fan. Really... what does he offer?
>

Peace and back to the real law of the land... not sharia law that
hillary is promoting.

>> He gives great promise of putting back the balance to government, where it
>> started with the Chimp, in scoffing the law and doing whatever he wants to
>> anyway.
>
> I truly have no idea what you are even talking about? Bedtime for Bonzo?
> Undoing what Reagan did? Balance with???

You know, George Bush, aka the chimp.

>
>> Even Obama said he can do anything he wanted to do now.
>
> Obama is very much against Trump.
>
>

I don't doubt it, but Obama is a very weak president. He plays way too
much golf while rome is burning.

[GreyCloud]

On 08/23/16 12:16, Snit wrote:
> On 8/23/16, 10:59 AM, in article npi2tk$a7o$4...@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud"
> <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08/22/16 14:35, Snit wrote:
>>> On 8/22/16, 1:04 PM, in article hjgsuaf9...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
>>> Lagrange"<olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Another day, another 15,000 Hillary emails discovered.
>>>>
>>> I have (no surprise) a rather lengthy write-up on my view of Comey's
>>> testimony. The short version: I see no reason to think he is anything other
>>> than a decent and moral person. While he did not recommend indictment DID
>>> show Clinton is not in any way a good candidate for president.
>>>
>>> And that is just the tip of the iceberg for her. The DNC has been absurd in
>>> selecting her. She is Trump's best chance to get to the White House.
>>>
>> I agree on this point.
>> Hillary has serious health issues tho. A Dr. said that anyone on
>> Cuomadin (blood thinner) is only supposed to be on it for a short time.
>> She is one this stuff now since 2013 when she had that nasty fall.
>> No real press conferences for over 240 days now.
>
> I have heard those rumors as well... could be true. She has done interviews
> and opened pickle jars (?!?!). Not sure what that proves.

Hehe... maybe she tried to stick her head in the pickle jar.

>
> But she is likely backing off the public lime light because she, like Trump,
> is unable to be honest... but she is a more clever liar.
>

I find Trump mostly honest. I don't know what lies he's told yet.

[Octavian W. Lagrange]

GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
> On 08/23/16 12:16, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> I have heard those rumors as well... could be true. She has done interviews
>> and opened pickle jars (?!?!). Not sure what that proves.
>
> Hehe... maybe she tried to stick her head in the pickle jar.
>

They should have had her try to keep her hand out of a cookie jar.

[Snit]

On 8/23/16, 2:59 PM, in article npigvd$tkm$4...@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud"

<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:

> On 08/23/16 12:16, Snit wrote:
>> On 8/23/16, 10:59 AM, in article npi2tk$a7o$4...@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud"
>> <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/22/16 14:35, Snit wrote:
>>>> On 8/22/16, 1:04 PM, in article hjgsuaf9...@perch.invalid, "Octavian
>>>> W.
>>>> Lagrange"<olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Another day, another 15,000 Hillary emails discovered.
>>>>>
>>>> I have (no surprise) a rather lengthy write-up on my view of Comey's
>>>> testimony. The short version: I see no reason to think he is anything other
>>>> than a decent and moral person. While he did not recommend indictment DID
>>>> show Clinton is not in any way a good candidate for president.
>>>>
>>>> And that is just the tip of the iceberg for her. The DNC has been absurd in
>>>> selecting her. She is Trump's best chance to get to the White House.
>>>>
>>> I agree on this point.
>>> Hillary has serious health issues tho. A Dr. said that anyone on
>>> Cuomadin (blood thinner) is only supposed to be on it for a short time.
>>> She is one this stuff now since 2013 when she had that nasty fall.
>>> No real press conferences for over 240 days now.
>>
>> I have heard those rumors as well... could be true. She has done interviews
>> and opened pickle jars (?!?!). Not sure what that proves.
>
> Hehe... maybe she tried to stick her head in the pickle jar.

:)

>> But she is likely backing off the public lime light because she, like Trump,
>> is unable to be honest... but she is a more clever liar.
>
> I find Trump mostly honest. I don't know what lies he's told yet.

<http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/>

I am NOT going to say such a report is as telling as some. Heck, if you take
that without context you can "prove" Clinton is honest (which is utter BS)
but they list a LOT of lies by him. Some they list as such I will disagree
with -- such as when they say him noting the fact the election is "rigged"
is a "pants on fire" lie. Of course it is rigged... we have the evidence to
prove it. But many are flat out lies on his part.

[Snit]

On 8/23/16, 2:57 PM, in article npigt3$tkm$3...@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud"
<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:

...

>>> Trump isn't a horror show.
>>
>> He has no plans and no qualifications, and has not been successful in his
>> businesses. He *is* a good troll, able to play the media. But what else does
>> he have?
>
> Who says that Trump has no qualifications? He has one... he's a mason.

How is that a qualification?

> And the masons are the ones that created the U.S. Constitution. He has
> plenty of help across the country.
> Funny thing, it is the media that is ragging on trump but not one bad
> word about hillary.

He is in an organization. That is not a qualification.

>> His ever changing yet always unrealistic wall? That is a non-starter. His
>> xenophobic fear mongering which will split the country and lead to wars? Not
>> a fan. Really... what does he offer?
>
> Peace and back to the real law of the land... not sharia law that
> hillary is promoting.

She is not promoting that. Nor is she pushing fear mongering bigotry as much
as he does.

>>> He gives great promise of putting back the balance to government, where it
>>> started with the Chimp, in scoffing the law and doing whatever he wants to
>>> anyway.
>>
>> I truly have no idea what you are even talking about? Bedtime for Bonzo?
>> Undoing what Reagan did? Balance with???
>
> You know, George Bush, aka the chimp.

I think Trump is in the same IQ / capability range... though more
charismatic and a better troll.

>>> Even Obama said he can do anything he wanted to do now.
>>
>> Obama is very much against Trump.
>
> I don't doubt it, but Obama is a very weak president. He plays way too
> much golf while rome is burning.

He is far too moderate and not willing to stand up to corporations.

[Snit]

On 8/23/16, 3:13 PM, in article h11....@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.

Well played. :)

[Octavian W. Lagrange]

Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/23/16, 2:57 PM, in article npigt3$tkm$3...@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud"
> <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>> Trump isn't a horror show.
>>>
>>> He has no plans and no qualifications, and has not been successful in his
>>> businesses. He *is* a good troll, able to play the media. But what else does
>>> he have?
>>
>> Who says that Trump has no qualifications? He has one... he's a mason.
>
> How is that a qualification?
>

The Constitution says 35 yrs old, natural born citizen, living here
at least 14 yrs. That it for the requisite qualifications.

>> And the masons are the ones that created the U.S. Constitution. He has
>> plenty of help across the country.
>> Funny thing, it is the media that is ragging on trump but not one bad
>> word about hillary.
>
> He is in an organization. That is not a qualification.
>

The Founders were all Masons.

>>> His ever changing yet always unrealistic wall? That is a non-starter. His
>>> xenophobic fear mongering which will split the country and lead to wars? Not
>>> a fan. Really... what does he offer?
>>
>> Peace and back to the real law of the land... not sharia law that
>> hillary is promoting.
>
> She is not promoting that. Nor is she pushing fear mongering bigotry as much
> as he does.
>

She is pushing anti-Russia fear mongering. Russia is not our enemy.
The Dems want to make them the enemy and would rather cozy up with the
true enemy.

>>>> He gives great promise of putting back the balance to government, where it
>>>> started with the Chimp, in scoffing the law and doing whatever he wants to
>>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> I truly have no idea what you are even talking about? Bedtime for Bonzo?
>>> Undoing what Reagan did? Balance with???
>>
>> You know, George Bush, aka the chimp.
>
> I think Trump is in the same IQ / capability range... though more
> charismatic and a better troll.
>

As an former Mensan, I don't give a shit about either their IQs.
I don't expect a Nobel Prize out of the president.

[Snit]

On 8/23/16, 3:31 PM, in article ahjfd...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.

Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:

> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 8/23/16, 2:57 PM, in article npigt3$tkm$3...@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud"
>> <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>>> Trump isn't a horror show.
>>>>
>>>> He has no plans and no qualifications, and has not been successful in his
>>>> businesses. He *is* a good troll, able to play the media. But what else
>>>> does
>>>> he have?
>>>
>>> Who says that Trump has no qualifications? He has one... he's a mason.
>>
>> How is that a qualification?
>
> The Constitution says 35 yrs old, natural born citizen, living here
> at least 14 yrs. That it for the requisite qualifications.

LOL! OK, he has that. So do I. So what?

>>> And the masons are the ones that created the U.S. Constitution. He has
>>> plenty of help across the country.
>>> Funny thing, it is the media that is ragging on trump but not one bad
>>> word about hillary.
>>
>> He is in an organization. That is not a qualification.
>
> The Founders were all Masons.

And male and rich and slave owners. By this "logic" we should only elect
rich, male, slave owning masons.

Insane.

>>>> His ever changing yet always unrealistic wall? That is a non-starter. His
>>>> xenophobic fear mongering which will split the country and lead to wars?
>>>> Not
>>>> a fan. Really... what does he offer?
>>>
>>> Peace and back to the real law of the land... not sharia law that
>>> hillary is promoting.
>>
>> She is not promoting that. Nor is she pushing fear mongering bigotry as much
>> as he does.
>
> She is pushing anti-Russia fear mongering. Russia is not our enemy.
> The Dems want to make them the enemy and would rather cozy up with the
> true enemy.

Go on.

>>>>> He gives great promise of putting back the balance to government, where it
>>>>> started with the Chimp, in scoffing the law and doing whatever he wants to
>>>>> anyway.
>>>>
>>>> I truly have no idea what you are even talking about? Bedtime for Bonzo?
>>>> Undoing what Reagan did? Balance with???
>>>
>>> You know, George Bush, aka the chimp.
>>
>> I think Trump is in the same IQ / capability range... though more
>> charismatic and a better troll.
>
> As an former Mensan, I don't give a shit about either their IQs.
> I don't expect a Nobel Prize out of the president.

I want them to be reasonably intelligent.

As far as Mensa... I am the only one I know who has found errors on their
tests. My 8th grade math teacher was big on Mensa and gave us some of their
tests... and they were flawed. Have a lot of friends in Mensa... do not see
the value other than to brag.

[Octavian W. Lagrange]

Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/23/16, 3:31 PM, in article ahjfd...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
> Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/23/16, 2:57 PM, in article npigt3$tkm$3...@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud"
>>> <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>>> Trump isn't a horror show.
>>>>>
>>>>> He has no plans and no qualifications, and has not been successful in his
>>>>> businesses. He *is* a good troll, able to play the media. But what else
>>>>> does
>>>>> he have?
>>>>
>>>> Who says that Trump has no qualifications? He has one... he's a mason.
>>>
>>> How is that a qualification?
>>
>> The Constitution says 35 yrs old, natural born citizen, living here
>> at least 14 yrs. That it for the requisite qualifications.
>
> LOL! OK, he has that. So do I. So what?
>

Then you're qualified to run. You should go for it.

>>>> And the masons are the ones that created the U.S. Constitution. He has
>>>> plenty of help across the country.
>>>> Funny thing, it is the media that is ragging on trump but not one bad
>>>> word about hillary.
>>>
>>> He is in an organization. That is not a qualification.
>>
>> The Founders were all Masons.
>
> And male and rich and slave owners. By this "logic" we should only elect
> rich, male, slave owning masons.
>

America. Love it or leave it.

> Insane.
>

So you think the Founders were insane. Typical liberal.

>>>>> His ever changing yet always unrealistic wall? That is a non-starter. His
>>>>> xenophobic fear mongering which will split the country and lead to wars?
>>>>> Not
>>>>> a fan. Really... what does he offer?
>>>>
>>>> Peace and back to the real law of the land... not sharia law that
>>>> hillary is promoting.
>>>
>>> She is not promoting that. Nor is she pushing fear mongering bigotry as much
>>> as he does.
>>
>> She is pushing anti-Russia fear mongering. Russia is not our enemy.
>> The Dems want to make them the enemy and would rather cozy up with the
>> true enemy.
>
> Go on.
>

?

>>>>>> He gives great promise of putting back the balance to government, where it
>>>>>> started with the Chimp, in scoffing the law and doing whatever he wants to
>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> I truly have no idea what you are even talking about? Bedtime for Bonzo?
>>>>> Undoing what Reagan did? Balance with???
>>>>
>>>> You know, George Bush, aka the chimp.
>>>
>>> I think Trump is in the same IQ / capability range... though more
>>> charismatic and a better troll.
>>
>> As an former Mensan, I don't give a shit about either their IQs.
>> I don't expect a Nobel Prize out of the president.
>
> I want them to be reasonably intelligent.
>

I want them to have vision, leadership, and personality.
That spells Trump.

> As far as Mensa... I am the only one I know who has found errors on their
> tests. My 8th grade math teacher was big on Mensa and gave us some of their
> tests... and they were flawed. Have a lot of friends in Mensa... do not see
> the value other than to brag.
>

Nothing to brag about. One in fifty is hardly stratospheric.

[Snit]

On 8/23/16, 4:00 PM, in article hjgad...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:

...

>>>> How is that a qualification?
>>>
>>> The Constitution says 35 yrs old, natural born citizen, living here
>>> at least 14 yrs. That it for the requisite qualifications.
>>
>> LOL! OK, he has that. So do I. So what?
>
> Then you're qualified to run. You should go for it.

And you think I would be as good as any president... because I am just as
qualified. Cool!

Of course, your reasoning is absurd, but there it is. :)

>
>>>>> And the masons are the ones that created the U.S. Constitution. He has
>>>>> plenty of help across the country.
>>>>> Funny thing, it is the media that is ragging on trump but not one bad
>>>>> word about hillary.
>>>>
>>>> He is in an organization. That is not a qualification.
>>>
>>> The Founders were all Masons.
>>
>> And male and rich and slave owners. By this "logic" we should only elect
>> rich, male, slave owning masons.
>
> America. Love it or leave it.

Or stay and help make it better.

>> Insane.
>
> So you think the Founders were insane. Typical liberal.

At this point you HAVE to be trolling.

>
>>>>>> His ever changing yet always unrealistic wall? That is a non-starter. His
>>>>>> xenophobic fear mongering which will split the country and lead to wars?
>>>>>> Not a fan. Really... what does he offer?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Peace and back to the real law of the land... not sharia law that hillary
>>>>> is promoting.
>>>>>
>>>> She is not promoting that. Nor is she pushing fear mongering bigotry as
>>>> much as he does.
>>>>
>>> She is pushing anti-Russia fear mongering. Russia is not our enemy. The
>>> Dems want to make them the enemy and would rather cozy up with the true
>>> enemy.
>>>
>> Go on.
>
> ?

You are making a claim. Go on. Support. Reasoning. Evidence. Logic. You
know... ANYTHING of value. :)

>>>>>>> He gives great promise of putting back the balance to government, where
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> started with the Chimp, in scoffing the law and doing whatever he wants
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I truly have no idea what you are even talking about? Bedtime for Bonzo?
>>>>>> Undoing what Reagan did? Balance with???
>>>>>
>>>>> You know, George Bush, aka the chimp.
>>>>
>>>> I think Trump is in the same IQ / capability range... though more
>>>> charismatic and a better troll.
>>>
>>> As an former Mensan, I don't give a shit about either their IQs.
>>> I don't expect a Nobel Prize out of the president.
>>
>> I want them to be reasonably intelligent.
>
> I want them to have vision, leadership, and personality.
> That spells Trump.

How so? What vision does he have? Heck, even his well keeps changing sizes
and costs. He is completely lost. And what type leadership?

>> As far as Mensa... I am the only one I know who has found errors on their
>> tests. My 8th grade math teacher was big on Mensa and gave us some of their
>> tests... and they were flawed. Have a lot of friends in Mensa... do not see
>> the value other than to brag.
>
> Nothing to brag about. One in fifty is hardly stratospheric.

Fair enough.

[DFS]

On 8/23/2016 6:31 PM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:

> As an former Mensan,

heh!

[DFS]

On 8/23/2016 5:57 PM, GreyCloud wrote:


> Funny thing, it is the media that is ragging on trump but not one bad
> word about hillary.

Ridiculous lie.

An hour ago on CNN she was being hammered by Trump surrogates for
supposed crossover/access between the Clinton Foundation and the State Dept.

And the CNN hostess asked some pointed questions about it, too, such as
"Why is Clinton promising to refuse foreign donations to the Foundation
now, as opposed to a year ago?"

[DFS]

On 8/23/2016 5:59 PM, GreyCloud wrote:

> I find Trump mostly honest. I don't know what lies he's told yet.

They're not "lies". They're flip-flops.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-donald-trump-s-rapidly-changing-policy-positions-n547801


He lied - hugely - when he claimed he was worth $10 billion.

He lied when he claimed "No one knows the system better than me, which
is why I alone can fix it".

He lied when he claimed he didn't know the disabled reporter he cruelly
mocked was disabled.

He lied when he said Obama was the founder of ISIS, and Clinton the
co-founder.

He lied when he says he saw video of the $400M ransom/leverage payment
made to Iran recently.

He lied when he said Clinton and the Democrats are rigging the debates.

He lied when he said Hillary Clinton laundered money to Bill Clinton.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/



He's ridiculous, and the Dem platform is a horrorshow of liberalism.

[Octavian W. Lagrange]

Boy, shut the hell up. If I need your opinion, I'll beat
it out of you.

[Octavian W. Lagrange]

Did they push her on the fact that CHAI will continue to accept
foreign donates?

[Octavian W. Lagrange]

DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 8/23/2016 5:59 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>
>> I find Trump mostly honest. I don't know what lies he's told yet.
>
>
> They're not "lies". They're flip-flops.
>
> http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-donald-trump-s-rapidly-changing-policy-positions-n547801
>
>
> He lied - hugely - when he claimed he was worth $10 billion.
>

He didn't claim that. Some magazine like Forbes or something put it at
that. Prior to his entry in the election, I heard number between 4 and 7.

> He lied when he claimed "No one knows the system better than me, which
> is why I alone can fix it".
>

He's talking about the big donor system. I'm sure he's well versed
in that system.

> He lied when he claimed he didn't know the disabled reporter he cruelly
> mocked was disabled.
>

The spaz attacked Trump first. Disability not a shield.

> He lied when he said Obama was the founder of ISIS, and Clinton the
> co-founder.
>

Their actions led to ISIS forming. He's mainly saying that
to piss her off. Obviously it's working.

> He lied when he says he saw video of the $400M ransom/leverage payment
> made to Iran recently.
>

An Iranian propaganda video showing the pallet of money is online.
I've seen it. (It's not the one with the plane).

>
> He lied when he said Clinton and the Democrats are rigging the debates.
>

Clinton does not want anybody watching her get slaughtered
by Donald J. Trump on national TV. She'll probably back out.
She knows that if she pulls that bathroom stunt with him he'll
start making fun of her. He might even whip out one of those
flashy things like they had in MIB and fuck with damaged brain.
That head will start bobbing.

> He lied when he said Hillary Clinton laundered money to Bill Clinton.
>
> http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/
>

http://www.politifactbias.com/p/about-politifact-bias.html

>
>
> He's ridiculous, and the Dem platform is a horrorshow of liberalism.
>

Hold your nose and pull the lever for Trump. You know it's the right
thing to do. Think of the Supreme Court if nothing else.

[GreyCloud]

On 08/23/16 16:16, Snit wrote:
> On 8/23/16, 2:57 PM, in article npigt3$tkm$3...@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud"
> <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>> Trump isn't a horror show.
>>>
>>> He has no plans and no qualifications, and has not been successful in his
>>> businesses. He *is* a good troll, able to play the media. But what else does
>>> he have?
>>
>> Who says that Trump has no qualifications? He has one... he's a mason.
>
> How is that a qualification?
>
>> And the masons are the ones that created the U.S. Constitution. He has
>> plenty of help across the country.
>> Funny thing, it is the media that is ragging on trump but not one bad
>> word about hillary.
>
> He is in an organization. That is not a qualification.

How do you know that this is not a qualification?

>
>>> His ever changing yet always unrealistic wall? That is a non-starter. His
>>> xenophobic fear mongering which will split the country and lead to wars? Not
>>> a fan. Really... what does he offer?
>>
>> Peace and back to the real law of the land... not sharia law that
>> hillary is promoting.
>
> She is not promoting that. Nor is she pushing fear mongering bigotry as much
> as he does.

By allowing muslims into the U.S. they are pushing for and saying that
Sharia law trumps the U.S. Constitution.
OTW, she lies.

>
>>>> He gives great promise of putting back the balance to government, where it
>>>> started with the Chimp, in scoffing the law and doing whatever he wants to
>>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> I truly have no idea what you are even talking about? Bedtime for Bonzo?
>>> Undoing what Reagan did? Balance with???
>>
>> You know, George Bush, aka the chimp.
>
> I think Trump is in the same IQ / capability range... though more
> charismatic and a better troll.

Trump is far smarter than the chimp. He knows how to get rich and knows
how to cut a deal that benefits both parties. Obama is neither of
these, and Hillary is neither of these.
Both want to sit on the wealth of a nation and just spend it.

>
>>>> Even Obama said he can do anything he wanted to do now.
>>>
>>> Obama is very much against Trump.
>>
>> I don't doubt it, but Obama is a very weak president. He plays way too
>> much golf while rome is burning.
>
> He is far too moderate and not willing to stand up to corporations.
>

And also Putin makes him look like monkey.

[GreyCloud]

Get real. Thomas Jefferson saw the problem too, but wanted to send them
back to africa.
Britain had white slaves as well during that time... that's how this
slavery stuff got started.
Masons wrote the U.S. Constitution. Naysaying the best document in the
world is what is insane.

>>>>> His ever changing yet always unrealistic wall? That is a non-starter. His
>>>>> xenophobic fear mongering which will split the country and lead to wars?
>>>>> Not
>>>>> a fan. Really... what does he offer?
>>>>
>>>> Peace and back to the real law of the land... not sharia law that
>>>> hillary is promoting.
>>>
>>> She is not promoting that. Nor is she pushing fear mongering bigotry as much
>>> as he does.
>>
>> She is pushing anti-Russia fear mongering. Russia is not our enemy.
>> The Dems want to make them the enemy and would rather cozy up with the
>> true enemy.
>
> Go on.
>
>>>>>> He gives great promise of putting back the balance to government, where it
>>>>>> started with the Chimp, in scoffing the law and doing whatever he wants to
>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> I truly have no idea what you are even talking about? Bedtime for Bonzo?
>>>>> Undoing what Reagan did? Balance with???
>>>>
>>>> You know, George Bush, aka the chimp.
>>>
>>> I think Trump is in the same IQ / capability range... though more
>>> charismatic and a better troll.
>>
>> As an former Mensan, I don't give a shit about either their IQs.
>> I don't expect a Nobel Prize out of the president.
>
> I want them to be reasonably intelligent.

Trump is very intelligent. People just don't like his style and style
has nothing to do with it. For the most part, todays people are nothing
more than a bunch of wusses. Always wanting everthing on a silver
plater without working for it.

>
> As far as Mensa... I am the only one I know who has found errors on their
> tests. My 8th grade math teacher was big on Mensa and gave us some of their
> tests... and they were flawed. Have a lot of friends in Mensa... do not see
> the value other than to brag.
>
>
>

I wouldn't want to be a member of any organization that would have me.
It boils down to good old fashioned common sense... and trump has plenty
of that. Obama just keeps putting this country deeper in debt. But if
trump makes it into the WH, all he has to do is repudiate that debt and
tell the central banks to take a hike.

[GreyCloud]

On 08/23/16 17:07, Snit wrote:
> On 8/23/16, 4:00 PM, in article hjgad...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
> Lagrange"<olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>>> How is that a qualification?
>>>>
>>>> The Constitution says 35 yrs old, natural born citizen, living here
>>>> at least 14 yrs. That it for the requisite qualifications.
>>>
>>> LOL! OK, he has that. So do I. So what?
>>
>> Then you're qualified to run. You should go for it.
>
> And you think I would be as good as any president... because I am just as
> qualified. Cool!
>
> Of course, your reasoning is absurd, but there it is. :)
>

How do you know your reasoning is absurd?
Look at the herd known as COLA.
They have 7 as their president.

Make up your campaign slogan. Everybody else has that ran.

SNIT FOR PRESIDENT!!!

Now you'll have to keep looking over your shoulder and fend off all of
Hillarys' lies about you.
It will be hard to stay alive with her around.

[GreyCloud]

On 08/23/16 18:08, DFS wrote:
> On 8/23/2016 5:57 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>
>
>> Funny thing, it is the media that is ragging on trump but not one bad
>> word about hillary.
>
>
> Ridiculous lie.
>

No, even trump made that point. She lies like a dog.

> An hour ago on CNN she was being hammered by Trump surrogates for
> supposed crossover/access between the Clinton Foundation and the State
> Dept.
>
> And the CNN hostess asked some pointed questions about it, too, such as
> "Why is Clinton promising to refuse foreign donations to the Foundation
> now, as opposed to a year ago?"
>
>

You watch... if Hillary ever gets to the debate... he'll cream the
stupid bitch into seizures and they'll just have to give her more diazepam.

[GreyCloud]

Too much temptation for her. Put 100 dollar bills in a cookie jar, and
you won't even see her hand move, but the jar empty.

[GreyCloud]

I looked at the politfact site. Unfortunately, they are taking a lot of
things out of context making his statements look false... hence the free
ride hillary is getting.
And as far as the voting machines are concerned... they're rigged to
favor whoever they want to win. The votes can be skewed enough for a
win. However, landslide elections are very tough for them to commit
fraud without getting caught and thrown in jail.

[Snit]

On 8/23/16, 9:16 PM, in article npj73v$npa$1...@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud"

<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:

> On 08/23/16 16:16, Snit wrote:
>> On 8/23/16, 2:57 PM, in article npigt3$tkm$3...@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud"
>> <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>>> Trump isn't a horror show.
>>>>
>>>> He has no plans and no qualifications, and has not been successful in his
>>>> businesses. He *is* a good troll, able to play the media. But what else
>>>> does
>>>> he have?
>>>
>>> Who says that Trump has no qualifications? He has one... he's a mason.
>>
>> How is that a qualification?
>>
>>> And the masons are the ones that created the U.S. Constitution. He has
>>> plenty of help across the country.
>>> Funny thing, it is the media that is ragging on trump but not one bad
>>> word about hillary.
>>
>> He is in an organization. That is not a qualification.
>
> How do you know that this is not a qualification?

I do not see how being a member of any organization could be... esp. one
where you get in based on gender, the "old boy's" network, and requirement
to say you are not an atheist(!). That is just not something which is at all
reasonable to me.

>>>> His ever changing yet always unrealistic wall? That is a non-starter. His
>>>> xenophobic fear mongering which will split the country and lead to wars?
>>>> Not a fan. Really... what does he offer?
>>>>
>>> Peace and back to the real law of the land... not sharia law that hillary is
>>> promoting.
>>>
>> She is not promoting that. Nor is she pushing fear mongering bigotry as much
>> as he does.
>>
> By allowing muslims into the U.S. they are pushing for and saying that Sharia
> law trumps the U.S. Constitution. OTW, she lies.

That is like saying if you allow Christians into the country they will say
biblical law trumps the Constitution. Some do, but you can be religious and
still respect the law!

Heck, you count as a qualification membership to a group that has religious
ties... helping to push religious law.

>>>>> He gives great promise of putting back the balance to government, where it
>>>>> started with the Chimp, in scoffing the law and doing whatever he wants to
>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>
>>>> I truly have no idea what you are even talking about? Bedtime for Bonzo?
>>>> Undoing what Reagan did? Balance with???
>>>>
>>> You know, George Bush, aka the chimp.
>>>
>> I think Trump is in the same IQ / capability range... though more charismatic
>> and a better troll.
>
> Trump is far smarter than the chimp. He knows how to get rich and knows
> how to cut a deal that benefits both parties.

What would make you think this? I see NO evidence of it.

> Obama is neither of these, and Hillary is neither of these. Both want to sit
> on the wealth of a nation and just spend it.

Obama has done a decent job, though he has catered to the wealthy too much
and is too conservative. I wish we could get a liberal into the White House.

>>>>> Even Obama said he can do anything he wanted to do now.
>>>>
>>>> Obama is very much against Trump.
>>>
>>> I don't doubt it, but Obama is a very weak president. He plays way too
>>> much golf while rome is burning.
>>
>> He is far too moderate and not willing to stand up to corporations.
>
> And also Putin makes him look like monkey.

The right tries to push that claim.

[Snit]

On 8/23/16, 9:22 PM, in article npj7ej$oi8$1...@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud"
<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:

...

>>>>> And the masons are the ones that created the U.S. Constitution. He has
>>>>> plenty of help across the country. Funny thing, it is the media that is
>>>>> ragging on trump but not one bad word about hillary.
>>>>>
>>>> He is in an organization. That is not a qualification.
>>>>
>>> The Founders were all Masons.
>>>
>> And male and rich and slave owners. By this "logic" we should only elect
>> rich, male, slave owning masons.
>>
>> Insane.
>
> Get real. Thomas Jefferson saw the problem too, but wanted to send them
> back to africa.

I do not deny any of the founding fathers were racists / bigots... as noted
they all had slaves.

> Britain had white slaves as well during that time... that's how this
> slavery stuff got started.
> Masons wrote the U.S. Constitution. Naysaying the best document in the
> world is what is insane.

Who is naysaying it? At the same time I do not worship it... we should
follow it but also accept that we improve over time. That is what amendments
are for. At the time of the founding only rich, white men could vote (or
were guaranteed to be able to). Since then we have moved FAR forward in
equal rights. The level of improvement in that area is amazing... and has
continued even over the last few years at a pace I never expected to see.

...

>>> As an former Mensan, I don't give a shit about either their IQs.
>>> I don't expect a Nobel Prize out of the president.
>>
>> I want them to be reasonably intelligent.
>
> Trump is very intelligent.

Evidence? I think a lot of people confuse wealth (which he inherited) with
value as a person

> People just don't like his style and style has nothing to do with it. For the
> most part, todays people are nothing more than a bunch of wusses. Always
> wanting everthing on a silver plater without working for it.

I dislike his style and his substance. He has NO qualifications to be
president. No leadership skills, no plans on how to improve the country, no
plans on helping our foreign policy. He is just lost.

>> As far as Mensa... I am the only one I know who has found errors on their
>> tests. My 8th grade math teacher was big on Mensa and gave us some of their
>> tests... and they were flawed. Have a lot of friends in Mensa... do not see
>> the value other than to brag.
>>
> I wouldn't want to be a member of any organization that would have me.
> It boils down to good old fashioned common sense... and trump has plenty
> of that.

If so he hides it well!

> Obama just keeps putting this country deeper in debt.

What makes you think that?

<https://goo.gl/EQa0AK>

> But if trump makes it into the WH, all he has to do is repudiate that debt and
> tell the central banks to take a hike.

He would be in so far over his head we would be in BIG trouble... but
thankfully his chance of getting to the White House is slim. Sadly Clinton's
chances are high, and she is no better.

[Snit]

On 8/23/16, 9:25 PM, in article npj7kk$oi8$2...@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud"

:)

[GreyCloud]

On 08/23/16 18:47, DFS wrote:
> On 8/23/2016 5:59 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>
>> I find Trump mostly honest. I don't know what lies he's told yet.
>
>
> They're not "lies". They're flip-flops.
>
> http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-donald-trump-s-rapidly-changing-policy-positions-n547801
>

As if the liars can ever tell the truth, once they are paid in full.
The only flip flops is the cabal panicing over this.

>
>
> He lied - hugely - when he claimed he was worth $10 billion.

Nope. That dude has actually access to more money that wall street has
stolen so far. Mostly in the masons accounts. He is backed by them.
You take the presses insinuations too far.

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2006.htm

>
> He lied when he claimed "No one knows the system better than me, which
> is why I alone can fix it".
>

Ain't no lie, he knows where the bear is shitting in the woods. And he
knows who is in the banking cabal too.

> He lied when he claimed he didn't know the disabled reporter he cruelly
> mocked was disabled.

What reporter had that happened. Oh, yeah, when CNN told one of the
biggest whoppers on air. Yeah, like that is the truth ... NOT!!!!

>
> He lied when he said Obama was the founder of ISIS, and Clinton the
> co-founder.
>

Ain't no lie, fool. Obama is a muslim if you haven't figured that out
yet. Why is the Muslim Brotherhood in the white house?

> He lied when he says he saw video of the $400M ransom/leverage payment
> made to Iran recently.

He didn't lie... it was made public and he watched... very simple.

>
> He lied when he said Clinton and the Democrats are rigging the debates.
>

They did rig them with stupid bitches asking stupid questions that has
nothing to do with this country.

> He lied when he said Hillary Clinton laundered money to Bill Clinton.
>

Guffaw!!! She sure did launder money. What do you think the Clinton
foundation is for? Money laundering.
A very small percentage, more like a pittance, goes to charity. It has
already been proven it is a pay-for-play scheme to gain access.

> http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/
>

Politifact is a communist organization.
Look it up.

>
>
> He's ridiculous, and the Dem platform is a horrorshow of liberalism.
>
>

Trump is the smartest president since JFK. The rest were lusers.
This is the end of the democratic party as we know it. You can now call
it the Communist party of the U.S.

[GreyCloud]

What does it take to wake DFS up to the real truth?

[Octavian W. Lagrange]

He must have a new girlfriend and he's trying to be all "sensitive" and
"intellectual" or something. Either that or he's listening to too much
Glenn Beck or Mark Levin. I used to like Mark, but became a NeverTrump
kook with a whole lot of Lyin Ted butthurt.

[DFS]

On 8/23/2016 12:54 PM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:


> This election is going to be a Trump landslide.


You're delusional.

[DFS]

On 8/24/2016 12:46 AM, GreyCloud wrote:
> On 08/23/16 18:47, DFS wrote:
>> On 8/23/2016 5:59 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>
>>> I find Trump mostly honest. I don't know what lies he's told yet.
>>
>>
>> They're not "lies". They're flip-flops.
>>
>> http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-donald-trump-s-rapidly-changing-policy-positions-n547801
>>
>>
>
> As if the liars can ever tell the truth, once they are paid in full.
> The only flip flops is the cabal panicing over this.

The ONLY flip-flops are Trump saying something different week after week.

Latest flip-flop? A "softening" of the hard-line immigration stance
which was one of the earliest and most-repeated of his candidacy.

"There certainly can be a softening because we're not looking to hurt
people..."

Soon there will be a "softening" of the border wall, then of his
position on trade treaties, etc.

He can't be trusted because he makes it up as he goes along.

>> He lied - hugely - when he claimed he was worth $10 billion.
>
> Nope.

Yes. He is NOT worth $10 billion.

> That dude has actually access to more money that wall street has
> stolen so far. Mostly in the masons accounts. He is backed by them.
> You take the presses insinuations too far.
>
> http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2006.htm

The 'mason' accounts? LMFAO!

No such thing.

>> He lied when he claimed "No one knows the system better than me, which
>> is why I alone can fix it".
>>
>
> Ain't no lie, he knows where the bear is shitting in the woods. And he
> knows who is in the banking cabal too.

It's a big lie. There are many politically connected wealthy insiders
besides him, and he alone can fix nothing.

It's actually pathetic that he claims to "know the system" so well -
that means he used it to his and his company's advantage for many years.
But all of a sudden it needs fixing?

>> He lied when he claimed he didn't know the disabled reporter he cruelly
>> mocked was disabled.
>
> What reporter had that happened. Oh, yeah, when CNN told one of the
> biggest whoppers on air. Yeah, like that is the truth ... NOT!!!!

You seem to be uninformed - that's your fault. Serge Kovaleski.

>> He lied when he said Obama was the founder of ISIS, and Clinton the
>> co-founder.
>>
>
> Ain't no lie, fool. Obama is a muslim if you haven't figured that out
> yet. Why is the Muslim Brotherhood in the white house?

heh!

You're starting to sound like a true, blithering idiot.

>> He lied when he says he saw video of the $400M ransom/leverage payment
>> made to Iran recently.
>
> He didn't lie... it was made public and he watched... very simple.

There was no such video at the time he made that claim. He lied.

>> He lied when he said Clinton and the Democrats are rigging the debates.
>>
>
> They did rig them with stupid bitches asking stupid questions that has
> nothing to do with this country.

I mean the upcoming debates.

>> He lied when he said Hillary Clinton laundered money to Bill Clinton.
>>
>
> Guffaw!!! She sure did launder money. What do you think the Clinton
> foundation is for? Money laundering.
> A very small percentage, more like a pittance, goes to charity. It has
> already been proven it is a pay-for-play scheme to gain access.

88% is a very LARGE percentage.

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

Get your act together, GC. You're simply ignorant and uninformed.

>> http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/
>>
>
> Politifact is a communist organization.
> Look it up.

blah blah blah bull.shit

It's a fact-checking organization. Even if it were Communist in origin
or intent, Trump's lies are still lies.

>> He's ridiculous, and the Dem platform is a horrorshow of liberalism.
>>
>>
> Trump is the smartest president since JFK. The rest were lusers.

Bill Clinton was the smartest President since JFK, and soon Hillary
Clinton will - unfortunately - be the smartest President since Bill Clinton.

Too bad she's not a conservative - I would welcome a woman President.

> This is the end of the democratic party as we know it. You can now call
> it the Communist party of the U.S.

Idiot. You clearly don't know what communism is.

[DFS]

On 8/23/2016 9:02 PM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 8/23/2016 6:31 PM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>>
>>> As an former Mensan,
>>
>> heh!
>
> Boy, shut the hell up.

This self-nuke ranks right up there with turdv's classic "I'm so much
smarter than you that's we are barely the same species." and Gohde's
classic "I'm a gensius."

shitv, GodHesDumb and Octavian together? Now that's an exclusive club.

> If I need your opinion, I'll beat it out of you.

You Mensans... you're real wankers... I mean badasses... you're real
badasses. That's it! And don't you forget it.

[DFS]

On 8/24/2016 12:28 AM, GreyCloud wrote:
> On 08/23/16 18:08, DFS wrote:
>> On 8/23/2016 5:57 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Funny thing, it is the media that is ragging on trump but not one bad
>>> word about hillary.
>>
>>
>> Ridiculous lie.
>>
>
> No, even trump made that point. She lies like a dog.

Trump lies 10x as much. In 1/2 hour he spews so much idiocy and
half-truths and unfulfillable promises that I can only sit there and gape.

The other night Trump said "I will be your agent of change." The last
politician I heard say that? Bill Clinton.

>> An hour ago on CNN she was being hammered by Trump surrogates for
>> supposed crossover/access between the Clinton Foundation and the State
>> Dept.
>>
>> And the CNN hostess asked some pointed questions about it, too, such as
>> "Why is Clinton promising to refuse foreign donations to the Foundation
>> now, as opposed to a year ago?"
>>
>>
> You watch... if Hillary ever gets to the debate... he'll cream the
> stupid bitch into seizures and they'll just have to give her more diazepam.

She'll get to the debates - it's Trump that will hem and haw and set as
many conditions as he can. Guarantee it.

And then you'll see who's stupid and unprepared and unfit. Trump will
resort to his shouting, idiocy, lowlife bullying and bringing up
non-issues. Clinton will simply, calmly annihilate him.

I agree with a good many of his positions (those he hasn't backed down
from yet), but he doesn't nearly have the temperament, judgement or
experience to be President of the US. Other than a year of campaigning
and lying and insulting everyone, he has no political experience
whatsoever. To me, he just sounds lost on most topics.

He'll get a solid percent of the votes, because he's an anomaly: a
blunt-talking, non-politician, successful businessman with a good slogan
("Make America great again"). That doesn't mean he's worth voting for,
or that he can deliver on his claims and promises.

[Octavian W. Lagrange]

Hillary is not Obama. Hillary can't get anybody to the polls.
The Bernie people hate her. The blacks don't care about her.
Trump's people are more fired-up than the Berntards. We will
be out in record numbers. Trump landslide.

http://ow.ly/DFO6303xA1D

[DFS]

On 8/23/2016 9:24 PM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:


> Hold your nose and pull the lever for Trump. You know it's the right
> thing to do.

I know voting for Trump - or Clinton - is the /wrong/ thing to do for
the United States.

> Think of the Supreme Court if nothing else.

arrggghhh... it's so frustrating. I can't stand either of them: Trump
for his trainwreck buffoonery, Clinton for her liberal, politician
mentality.

I'm gonna have to write-in a Republican. Maybe vote Libertarian.

[Octavian W. Lagrange]

Damn, that ate at you all night. lol.
You and Ted Cruz. Peas in a pod.

[Octavian W. Lagrange]

DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 8/24/2016 12:46 AM, GreyCloud wrote:
>> On 08/23/16 18:47, DFS wrote:
>>> On 8/23/2016 5:59 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>
>>>> I find Trump mostly honest. I don't know what lies he's told yet.
>>>
>>>
>>> They're not "lies". They're flip-flops.
>>>
>>> http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-donald-trump-s-rapidly-changing-policy-positions-n547801
>>>
>>>
>>
>> As if the liars can ever tell the truth, once they are paid in full.
>> The only flip flops is the cabal panicing over this.
>
>
> The ONLY flip-flops are Trump saying something different week after week.
>

http://ow.ly/DFO6303xA1D
Get used to it.

[Octavian W. Lagrange]

Split the Republican vote. That's a path to success. Not.
Hillary thanks you for your support.

Just think, win she wins and stacks the Court with three or four
liberal Justices, you'll be able to say, "I stood with Glenn Beck
in 2016." At least you'll have that.

[Snit]

On 8/23/16, 9:33 PM, in article npj82q$pvs$1...@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud"

She is a better liar... lying by innuendo and omission. She is a trained
lawyer and it shows. But both are grossly dishonest.

An example I use for Clinton fans is to watch her NY debate with Sanders.
Try to find ANY question she answers directly. I have yet to have anyone
point one out (I have not re-watched looking specifically for this, but if
there are any they are rare).

> And as far as the voting machines are concerned... they're rigged to
> favor whoever they want to win. The votes can be skewed enough for a
> win. However, landslide elections are very tough for them to commit
> fraud without getting caught and thrown in jail.

For Bush II and Clinton the evidence shows fraud when using older machines
and no paper trail.

[DFS]

On 8/24/2016 10:25 AM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 8/23/2016 9:02 PM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>>> DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>> On 8/23/2016 6:31 PM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As an former Mensan,
>>>>
>>>> heh!
>>>
>>> Boy, shut the hell up.
>>
>>
>> This self-nuke ranks right up there with turdv's classic "I'm so much
>> smarter than you that's we are barely the same species." and Gohde's
>> classic "I'm a gensius."
>>
>> shitv, GodHesDumb and Octavian together? Now that's an exclusive club.

One curses badly, one smells badly, and one votes badly.

>>> If I need your opinion, I'll beat it out of you.
>>
>> You Mensans... you're real wankers... I mean badasses... you're real
>> badasses. That's it! And don't you forget it.
>>
>
> Damn, that ate at you all night. lol.
> You and Ted Cruz. Peas in a pod.

Peas in an pod.

[DFS]

On 8/24/2016 10:34 AM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 8/23/2016 9:24 PM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hold your nose and pull the lever for Trump. You know it's the right
>>> thing to do.
>>
>> I know voting for Trump - or Clinton - is the /wrong/ thing to do for
>> the United States.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Think of the Supreme Court if nothing else.
>>
>> arrggghhh... it's so frustrating. I can't stand either of them: Trump
>> for his trainwreck buffoonery, Clinton for her liberal, politician
>> mentality.
>>
>> I'm gonna have to write-in a Republican. Maybe vote Libertarian.
>>
>
> Split the Republican vote. That's a path to success. Not.
> Hillary thanks you for your support.

It would be cool if my vote is the deciding one that keeps Trump out!

> Just think, win she wins

?

Just thinking about voting for Trump has softened your brain.

> and stacks the Court with three or four
> liberal Justices, you'll be able to say, "I stood with Glenn Beck
> in 2016." At least you'll have that.

When your Walmart shopping sprees cost 50% more because of tariffs,
you'll have Trump to thank.

[Octavian W. Lagrange]

Just think, if nobody in America had a job, everything would be free!

[Octavian W. Lagrange]

Good catch.

[Snit]

On 8/24/16, 7:28 AM, in article fhjavi9...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.

He has almost no chance of winning. By your own standards you should not
vote for him.

[Snit]

On 8/24/16, 7:24 AM, in article npkaol$33i$2...@dont-email.me, "DFS"

<nos...@dfs.com> wrote:

> On 8/23/2016 9:24 PM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>
>
>> Hold your nose and pull the lever for Trump. You know it's the right
>> thing to do.
>
> I know voting for Trump - or Clinton - is the /wrong/ thing to do for
> the United States.

You and I do not often agree on politics, but on this we do agree. Both are
disasters. Trump is horrific... but I do not back election fraud even to
block him. He is, at least, a mostly legitimate candidate. She is not.

>> Think of the Supreme Court if nothing else.
>
> arrggghhh... it's so frustrating. I can't stand either of them: Trump
> for his trainwreck buffoonery, Clinton for her liberal, politician
> mentality.

Liberal? She is a Republican... or what the Republicans used to be.
Completely pro-wealthy and anti-general citizen. Republicans should be
flocking to her. Heck, she even had the same "luck" as Bush II to have
jurisdictions with more hackable voting machines and no paper trails lean
toward her in ways that is so statistically unlikely as to be unbelievable.

The Democrats have become the Republicans and the Republicans have become a
cartoon... a really bad one.

> I'm gonna have to write-in a Republican. Maybe vote Libertarian.

If the Libertarians were not so inconsistent and caught up in a fantasy
world I might back them... but sadly neither they nor Stein with the Green
party are really viable options either.

We have no even decent options this time around.

[Snit]

On 8/24/16, 7:12 AM, in article npka0h$v8o$2...@dont-email.me, "DFS"

<nos...@dfs.com> wrote:

> On 8/24/2016 12:28 AM, GreyCloud wrote:
>> On 08/23/16 18:08, DFS wrote:
>>> On 8/23/2016 5:57 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Funny thing, it is the media that is ragging on trump but not one bad
>>>> word about hillary.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ridiculous lie.
>>>
>>
>> No, even trump made that point. She lies like a dog.
>
> Trump lies 10x as much. In 1/2 hour he spews so much idiocy and
> half-truths and unfulfillable promises that I can only sit there and gape.
>
> The other night Trump said "I will be your agent of change." The last
> politician I heard say that? Bill Clinton.

I am not sure Trump lies more but he lies more directly. Clinton is a
trained lawyer and is very good at lying by innuendo, using deception,
changing the topic, etc. Politifact percentages "show" her to be relatively
honest but they do not account for such things (and based on their
methodology it is not clear they should).

>>> An hour ago on CNN she was being hammered by Trump surrogates for
>>> supposed crossover/access between the Clinton Foundation and the State
>>> Dept.
>>>
>>> And the CNN hostess asked some pointed questions about it, too, such as
>>> "Why is Clinton promising to refuse foreign donations to the Foundation
>>> now, as opposed to a year ago?"
>>>
>> You watch... if Hillary ever gets to the debate... he'll cream the
>> stupid bitch into seizures and they'll just have to give her more diazepam.
>
> She'll get to the debates - it's Trump that will hem and haw and set as
> many conditions as he can. Guarantee it.

Both of them ran from debates with Sanders. They are scared to debate...
but, yes, Trump will be more scared.

Really comes down to Trump is Clinton's only chance... and Clinton is
Trump's only chance... and even then his chances are slim.

> And then you'll see who's stupid and unprepared and unfit. Trump will
> resort to his shouting, idiocy, lowlife bullying and bringing up
> non-issues.

That is the mentality of his supporters.

> Clinton will simply, calmly annihilate him.

She will dodge and change topics. Watch the NY debate with Sanders. Try to
find ANY question she answered. She will do the same thing in other debates
(even if not to the extent... with Trump she is facing a completely
unacceptable opponent, with Sanders she knew she was out-classed).

> I agree with a good many of his positions (those he hasn't backed down
> from yet), but he doesn't nearly have the temperament, judgement or
> experience to be President of the US.

He does not even really have positions. Nor does she.

> Other than a year of campaigning and lying and insulting everyone, he has no
> political experience whatsoever. To me, he just sounds lost on most topics.

Yup.

> He'll get a solid percent of the votes, because he's an anomaly: a
> blunt-talking, non-politician, successful businessman with a good slogan
> ("Make America great again").

What on Earth makes you or anyone else think he is a good business man? I
keep hearing that but see no evidence. He is a decent entertainer with his
over-the-top nonsense but that is not the same thing. He is excellent at
trolling the media. But what else?

> That doesn't mean he's worth voting for,
> or that he can deliver on his claims and promises.

Agreed.

[Snit]

On 8/24/16, 7:17 AM, in article hgjds0...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.

Trump has almost no chance of winning. His only chance is that he is running
against the ONLY other person on the national stage with an almost equal
level of lack of trust and dislike.

The two parties picked the worst candidates they could... though the
Republicans really had no good choices. Somehow they managed to make Jeb
Bush look decent... an amazing feat!

[Steve Carroll]

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 9:58:16 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> On 8/24/16, 7:24 AM, in article npkaol$33i$2...@dont-email.me, "DFS"
> <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>
> > On 8/23/2016 9:24 PM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Hold your nose and pull the lever for Trump. You know it's the right
> >> thing to do.
> >
> > I know voting for Trump - or Clinton - is the /wrong/ thing to do for
> > the United States.
>
> You and I do not often agree on politics, but on this we do agree. Both are
> disasters. Trump is horrific... but I do not back election fraud even to
> block him. He is, at least, a mostly legitimate candidate. She is not.
>
> >> Think of the Supreme Court if nothing else.
> >
> > arrggghhh... it's so frustrating. I can't stand either of them: Trump
> > for his trainwreck buffoonery, Clinton for her liberal, politician
> > mentality.
>
> Liberal? She is a Republican...

Fired up the crack pipe early today, Snit?

> or what the Republicans used to be.
> Completely pro-wealthy and anti-general citizen. Republicans should be
> flocking to her. Heck, she even had the same "luck" as Bush II to have
> jurisdictions with more hackable voting machines and no paper trails lean
> toward her in ways that is so statistically unlikely as to be unbelievable.

Do you think he bought it? Not being 16, I'd say he has enough experience to know a delusion when he sees one. Then there is her voting record...

[GreyCloud]

Hehe... how come Hillary had to pay people to attend her conventions
then just to fill up the hall?

[GreyCloud]

On 08/24/16 10:05, Snit wrote:
> On 8/24/16, 7:17 AM, in article hgjds0...@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
> Lagrange"<olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>
>> DFS<nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/23/2016 12:54 PM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> This election is going to be a Trump landslide.
>>>
>>>
>>> You're delusional.
>>>
>>
>> Hillary is not Obama. Hillary can't get anybody to the polls.
>> The Bernie people hate her. The blacks don't care about her.
>> Trump's people are more fired-up than the Berntards. We will
>> be out in record numbers. Trump landslide.
>>
>> http://ow.ly/DFO6303xA1D
>>
> Trump has almost no chance of winning. His only chance is that he is running
> against the ONLY other person on the national stage with an almost equal
> level of lack of trust and dislike.
>
> The two parties picked the worst candidates they could... though the
> Republicans really had no good choices. Somehow they managed to make Jeb
> Bush look decent... an amazing feat!
>
>

https://www.sbstatesman.com/2016/02/23/political-science-professor-forecasts-trump-as-general-election-winner/

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/24/political-science-professor-odds-of-president-trump-range-between-97-and-99/

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/02/26/professor-if-trump-gets-the-nomination-hell-win-in-november/21319450/

Seems like these people say otherwise.

[GreyCloud]

On 08/23/16 22:39, Snit wrote:
> On 8/23/16, 9:22 PM, in article npj7ej$oi8$1...@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud"
> <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>>>> And the masons are the ones that created the U.S. Constitution. He has
>>>>>> plenty of help across the country. Funny thing, it is the media that is

>>>>>> ragging on trump but not one bad word about hillary.
>>>>>>

>>>>> He is in an organization. That is not a qualification.
>>>>>
>>>> The Founders were all Masons.
>>>>
>>> And male and rich and slave owners. By this "logic" we should only elect
>>> rich, male, slave owning masons.
>>>
>>> Insane.
>>
>> Get real. Thomas Jefferson saw the problem too, but wanted to send them
>> back to africa.
>
> I do not deny any of the founding fathers were racists / bigots... as noted
> they all had slaves.
>
>> Britain had white slaves as well during that time... that's how this
>> slavery stuff got started.
>> Masons wrote the U.S. Constitution. Naysaying the best document in the
>> world is what is insane.
>
> Who is naysaying it?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/05/hillary-clinton-plan-abolish-second-amendment/

http://freedomoutpost.com/obama-admin-seeks-to-repeal-second-amendment-apart-from-congress-via-executive-order/#!

> At the same time I do not worship it... we should
> follow it but also accept that we improve over time. That is what amendments
> are for. At the time of the founding only rich, white men could vote (or
> were guaranteed to be able to). Since then we have moved FAR forward in
> equal rights. The level of improvement in that area is amazing... and has
> continued even over the last few years at a pace I never expected to see.
>
> ...
>>>> As an former Mensan, I don't give a shit about either their IQs.
>>>> I don't expect a Nobel Prize out of the president.
>>>
>>> I want them to be reasonably intelligent.
>>
>> Trump is very intelligent.
>
> Evidence? I think a lot of people confuse wealth (which he inherited) with
> value as a person.

Who says he inherited it?

>
>> People just don't like his style and style has nothing to do with it. For the
>> most part, todays people are nothing more than a bunch of wusses. Always
>> wanting everthing on a silver plater without working for it.
>
> I dislike his style and his substance. He has NO qualifications to be
> president. No leadership skills, no plans on how to improve the country, no
> plans on helping our foreign policy. He is just lost.
>

How so?

>>> As far as Mensa... I am the only one I know who has found errors on their
>>> tests. My 8th grade math teacher was big on Mensa and gave us some of their
>>> tests... and they were flawed. Have a lot of friends in Mensa... do not see
>>> the value other than to brag.
>>>
>> I wouldn't want to be a member of any organization that would have me.
>> It boils down to good old fashioned common sense... and trump has plenty
>> of that.
>
> If so he hides it well!
>

How so?

>> Obama just keeps putting this country deeper in debt.
>
> What makes you think that?

The latest $2trillion debt increase.

>
> <https://goo.gl/EQa0AK>
>
>> But if trump makes it into the WH, all he has to do is repudiate that debt and
>> tell the central banks to take a hike.
>
> He would be in so far over his head we would be in BIG trouble... but
> thankfully his chance of getting to the White House is slim. Sadly Clinton's
> chances are high, and she is no better.

Only because the banking cabal is already out for his blood. They are
very afraid of him. Going back to the gold standard would eliminate the
banking cabal for good. I remember that my grandfather around 1900 got
a $4,000 home loan from the Bank of Congress with no interest at all,
just a $30 filing fee. Paid it back in 5 years. Now that sounds more
sane than what the bankers want from you.

Besides, did you know that the banking system, the Federal Reserve, is
an offshore foreign bank?

[Snit]

On 8/24/16, 10:51 AM, in article npkmro$ec6$2...@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud"

What "these people"? They all point back to one person... and here is his
professional page at the university they claim he represents:

<http://www.stonybrook.edu/commcms/polisci/professors/norpoth.html>

With that said, Trump did better in the primaries than I expected... but he
gamed the system well, trolling the media and working the fact he was
different from a mass of others who did not differentiate themselves well.

Now it is a different game: one-to-one. And on that front how much do you
think the media, who heavily backs Clinton, is going to allow Trump to troll
them? To some extent, sure... they love the ratings his antics bring the but
they are FUNDING Clinton. The same games will not work.

[DFS]

Bullshit. You're just full of lies and idiocy and off-the-wall bullshit.


Regardless, a lying trainwreck like Trump is more entertaining than Clinton.

[GreyCloud]

On 08/23/16 22:34, Snit wrote:

>>> He is in an organization. That is not a qualification.
>>

>> How do you know that this is not a qualification?
>
> I do not see how being a member of any organization could be... esp. one
> where you get in based on gender, the "old boy's" network, and requirement
> to say you are not an atheist(!). That is just not something which is at all
> reasonable to me.
>

A lot of people, the vast majority, misunderstand the masons core
beliefs. That all seeing eye on top of a pyramid represents the God of
the entire universe, not the Illuminati. They are a good people that
also helps a lot of people. They are good organizers and get things
done properly and have for a very long time. Example: Benjamin
Franklin created the U.S. Postal Service that was made international.
Back then it was a very good idea that served well for the entire world.

>>>>> His ever changing yet always unrealistic wall? That is a non-starter. His
>>>>> xenophobic fear mongering which will split the country and lead to wars?
>>>>> Not a fan. Really... what does he offer?
>>>>>
>>>> Peace and back to the real law of the land... not sharia law that hillary is
>>>> promoting.
>>>>
>>> She is not promoting that. Nor is she pushing fear mongering bigotry as much
>>> as he does.
>>>
>> By allowing muslims into the U.S. they are pushing for and saying that Sharia
>> law trumps the U.S. Constitution. OTW, she lies.
>
> That is like saying if you allow Christians into the country they will say
> biblical law trumps the Constitution.

But they don't. That's the difference.

> Some do, but you can be religious and
> still respect the law!
>

The jihadists don't respect our laws. That's the problem.

> Heck, you count as a qualification membership to a group that has religious
> ties... helping to push religious law.

That is what the jihadists are tying to do... promote their sharia law
and toss out the Constitution. Their claim is they be guaranteed
justice, which in our current view is violence beyond reason and is just
insane.

>
>>>>>> He gives great promise of putting back the balance to government, where it
>>>>>> started with the Chimp, in scoffing the law and doing whatever he wants to
>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I truly have no idea what you are even talking about? Bedtime for Bonzo?
>>>>> Undoing what Reagan did? Balance with???
>>>>>
>>>> You know, George Bush, aka the chimp.
>>>>
>>> I think Trump is in the same IQ / capability range... though more charismatic
>>> and a better troll.
>>
>> Trump is far smarter than the chimp. He knows how to get rich and knows
>> how to cut a deal that benefits both parties.
>
> What would make you think this? I see NO evidence of it.
>

A lot of Bushs' business deals were disasters. Some of Trumps business
deals failed, but most are successes.

>> Obama is neither of these, and Hillary is neither of these. Both want to sit
>> on the wealth of a nation and just spend it.
>
> Obama has done a decent job, though he has catered to the wealthy too much
> and is too conservative. I wish we could get a liberal into the White House.
>

Obama has done a terrible job. It was Hillary who first came out the
health care act when Bill was in the white house. The Obama Care Act
was just an extension to her proposals. All it did was make the Health
Insurance industry into an oligarchy where you have to pay big time for
a lot of things you don't need.
As one professor put it, "Communism only works on top of a big pile of
wealth". Once the wealth is gone you become like other communist
countries... poor. No one left to pay for their insane policies.
Look at Venezula... people are fighting down there for something to eat.

>>>>>> Even Obama said he can do anything he wanted to do now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obama is very much against Trump.
>>>>
>>>> I don't doubt it, but Obama is a very weak president. He plays way too
>>>> much golf while rome is burning.
>>>
>>> He is far too moderate and not willing to stand up to corporations.
>>
>> And also Putin makes him look like monkey.
>
> The right tries to push that claim.
>

And it also has been proven correct by many other countries. It is the
MSM that makes the counter claims.

[GreyCloud]

On 08/24/16 08:12, DFS wrote:
> On 8/24/2016 12:28 AM, GreyCloud wrote:
>> On 08/23/16 18:08, DFS wrote:
>>> On 8/23/2016 5:57 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Funny thing, it is the media that is ragging on trump but not one bad
>>>> word about hillary.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ridiculous lie.
>>>
>>
>> No, even trump made that point. She lies like a dog.
>
>
> Trump lies 10x as much. In 1/2 hour he spews so much idiocy and
> half-truths and unfulfillable promises that I can only sit there and gape.
>

Oh, bullshit. Even the masses know that she lies.

> The other night Trump said "I will be your agent of change." The last
> politician I heard say that? Bill Clinton.
>

Guffaw!!! He was just getting under her skin to irritate the bitch is all.

>
>
>>> An hour ago on CNN she was being hammered by Trump surrogates for
>>> supposed crossover/access between the Clinton Foundation and the State
>>> Dept.
>>>
>>> And the CNN hostess asked some pointed questions about it, too, such as
>>> "Why is Clinton promising to refuse foreign donations to the Foundation
>>> now, as opposed to a year ago?"
>>>
>>>
>> You watch... if Hillary ever gets to the debate... he'll cream the
>> stupid bitch into seizures and they'll just have to give her more
>> diazepam.
>
>
> She'll get to the debates - it's Trump that will hem and haw and set as
> many conditions as he can. Guarantee it.
>

HAH!!! She doesn't even know how to debate well, and also doesn't do
very good at all on stage.

> And then you'll see who's stupid and unprepared and unfit. Trump will
> resort to his shouting, idiocy, lowlife bullying and bringing up
> non-issues. Clinton will simply, calmly annihilate him.
>

Guffaw!!! I highly doubt it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXXy4bvCHFE

What the hell do you call this then?

> I agree with a good many of his positions (those he hasn't backed down
> from yet), but he doesn't nearly have the temperament, judgement or
> experience to be President of the US. Other than a year of campaigning
> and lying and insulting everyone, he has no political experience
> whatsoever. To me, he just sounds lost on most topics.
>
> He'll get a solid percent of the votes, because he's an anomaly: a
> blunt-talking, non-politician, successful businessman with a good slogan
> ("Make America great again"). That doesn't mean he's worth voting for,
> or that he can deliver on his claims and promises.
>

Of course it does. The bitch lies out her ass all the time. How can
you tell? When she opens her mouth of course.

[GreyCloud]

On 08/24/16 10:03, Snit wrote:
> On 8/24/16, 7:12 AM, in article npka0h$v8o$2...@dont-email.me, "DFS"
> <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/24/2016 12:28 AM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>> On 08/23/16 18:08, DFS wrote:
>>>> On 8/23/2016 5:57 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Funny thing, it is the media that is ragging on trump but not one bad
>>>>> word about hillary.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ridiculous lie.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, even trump made that point. She lies like a dog.
>>
>> Trump lies 10x as much. In 1/2 hour he spews so much idiocy and
>> half-truths and unfulfillable promises that I can only sit there and gape.
>>
>> The other night Trump said "I will be your agent of change." The last
>> politician I heard say that? Bill Clinton.
>
> I am not sure Trump lies more but he lies more directly. Clinton is a
> trained lawyer and is very good at lying by innuendo, using deception,
> changing the topic, etc. Politifact percentages "show" her to be relatively
> honest but they do not account for such things (and based on their
> methodology it is not clear they should).

Trained lawyer? LOL!!!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/barexam.asp

[GreyCloud]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/barexam.asp

I don't think she is a good lawyer, but an expert liar.

>
> An example I use for Clinton fans is to watch her NY debate with Sanders.
> Try to find ANY question she answers directly. I have yet to have anyone
> point one out (I have not re-watched looking specifically for this, but if
> there are any they are rare).
>
>> And as far as the voting machines are concerned... they're rigged to
>> favor whoever they want to win. The votes can be skewed enough for a
>> win. However, landslide elections are very tough for them to commit
>> fraud without getting caught and thrown in jail.
>
> For Bush II and Clinton the evidence shows fraud when using older machines
> and no paper trail.
>
>

Imagine if when you go to vote that you get a copy of your vote with a
unique serial number to check after the vote. It's been tried here and
the precinct committee officer was kicked out for cheating. Too many
people wanted to see if this type of system worked... oh did it work well.

[GreyCloud]

On 08/23/16 23:06, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> GreyCloud<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:

>> On 08/23/16 19:24, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>>> DFS<nos...@dfs.com> wrote:

>>>> On 8/23/2016 5:59 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> I find Trump mostly honest. I don't know what lies he's told yet.
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> They're not "lies". They're flip-flops.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-donald-trump-s-rapidly-changing-policy-positions-n547801
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> He lied - hugely - when he claimed he was worth $10 billion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He didn't claim that. Some magazine like Forbes or something put it at
>>> that. Prior to his entry in the election, I heard number between 4 and 7.
>>>
>>>> He lied when he claimed "No one knows the system better than me, which
>>>> is why I alone can fix it".
>>>>
>>>
>>> He's talking about the big donor system. I'm sure he's well versed
>>> in that system.
>>>
>>>> He lied when he claimed he didn't know the disabled reporter he cruelly
>>>> mocked was disabled.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The spaz attacked Trump first. Disability not a shield.
>>>
>>>> He lied when he said Obama was the founder of ISIS, and Clinton the
>>>> co-founder.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Their actions led to ISIS forming. He's mainly saying that
>>> to piss her off. Obviously it's working.
>>>
>>>
>>>> He lied when he says he saw video of the $400M ransom/leverage payment
>>>> made to Iran recently.
>>>>
>>>
>>> An Iranian propaganda video showing the pallet of money is online.
>>> I've seen it. (It's not the one with the plane).
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> He lied when he said Clinton and the Democrats are rigging the debates.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Clinton does not want anybody watching her get slaughtered
>>> by Donald J. Trump on national TV. She'll probably back out.
>>> She knows that if she pulls that bathroom stunt with him he'll
>>> start making fun of her. He might even whip out one of those
>>> flashy things like they had in MIB and fuck with damaged brain.
>>> That head will start bobbing.
>>>
>>>
>>>> He lied when he said Hillary Clinton laundered money to Bill Clinton.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/
>>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.politifactbias.com/p/about-politifact-bias.html
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He's ridiculous, and the Dem platform is a horrorshow of liberalism.

>>>>
>>>
>>> Hold your nose and pull the lever for Trump. You know it's the right

>>> thing to do. Think of the Supreme Court if nothing else.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> What does it take to wake DFS up to the real truth?
>>
>
> He must have a new girlfriend and he's trying to be all "sensitive" and
> "intellectual" or something. Either that or he's listening to too much
> Glenn Beck or Mark Levin. I used to like Mark, but became a NeverTrump
> kook with a whole lot of Lyin Ted butthurt.
>
I heard that one as well. Our local radio station kicked him off the
air and put Hannity in that time slot. Hannity is really ticked off at
the press lately.

DFS is pretty smart in figuring things out tho, but still can't figure
it out as to why he hasn't caught on to alternative media lately. All
of the alternatives are telling the same truth about what is going on.

whatdoesitmean.com has always been the first to report the bad news of
what is going on, but from the Russian viewpoint. But they've always
been correct for the last few years, so I have vetted that news source
to be very accurate.

[Octavian W. Lagrange]

Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/24/16, 10:51 AM, in article npkmro$ec6$2...@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud"
> <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>

...

>
> Now it is a different game: one-to-one. And on that front how much do you
> think the media, who heavily backs Clinton, is going to allow Trump to troll
> them? To some extent, sure... they love the ratings his antics bring the but
> they are FUNDING Clinton. The same games will not work.
>

Trump is going to destroy her in the first debate. He will not
hold back on her like Bernie did. He will bring up every one of her
scandals and failures. It won't matter what question is asked. He will
use every speaking opportunity to hammer her into a quivering pulp.
They'll have to scoop her up off the floor before the first commercial
break. Remember what he did to Tired Jeb, Little Marco, and Lyin Ted.
Democrats will be in tears before it's over. It will be heartbreaking
for them to watch her lose her mind and dignity on stage.

If it was me, I'd go after her right out of the gate:

"Hillary, why are you yelling? We can hear you. Holy crap." (hand to ear).

Or:

"Hillary, I like what you're wearing tonight. What is that, a pantsuit?"

Treat her with the absolute disrespect that she has earned. Take control
of the stage and put her on defense, making her address things outside
the scripted narrative. Disrespect the moderators too if necessary.
Play to the people for entertainment value. These moments will then
be replayed on tv for weeks. It will be golden.

[GreyCloud]

Look at it this way. Say you have some vermin in your house that you
can't get rid of, so you hire an expert that knows how to do the job.
You don't care what color he is, what clothes he wears, how he talks or
cusses, just as long as he gets the job done correctly.
I don't like Trumps demeanor, but he is the right man for the job.

[GreyCloud]

YEAH!! Where's my free car, my free computer, my free iPhone?

LOL!!!

Who's going to pay for it?
Not those without any moeny... and all the rich will have left the U.S.
by that time.

[GreyCloud]

How is trump horrific?

[GreyCloud]

Something that both DFS and snit have forgotten about.

[Snit]

On 8/24/16, 10:59 AM, in article npkn9e$gpq$1...@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud"

One: we might as well look at the Onion for information. Those sites are not
news sites.

Two: both sites are click-bait sites. They have so much movement and other
nonsense as to be unusable and unreadable.

Three: they make claim they do not even try to back... using logic which is
absurd. Background checks, for example, are not even close to the topic of
repealing the second amendment. It is just nonsense.

Four: They have been making this absurd claim since Clinton 1. It is absurd
beyond believe. Fear mongering nonsense.

>> At the same time I do not worship it... we should
>> follow it but also accept that we improve over time. That is what amendments
>> are for. At the time of the founding only rich, white men could vote (or
>> were guaranteed to be able to). Since then we have moved FAR forward in
>> equal rights. The level of improvement in that area is amazing... and has
>> continued even over the last few years at a pace I never expected to see.
>>
>> ...
>>>>> As an former Mensan, I don't give a shit about either their IQs.
>>>>> I don't expect a Nobel Prize out of the president.
>>>>
>>>> I want them to be reasonably intelligent.
>>>
>>> Trump is very intelligent.
>>
>> Evidence? I think a lot of people confuse wealth (which he inherited) with
>> value as a person.
>
> Who says he inherited it?

Inheritance or gift from his dad... either way, though, he was given
everything and then did less well than he would have had he just put the
money into the stock market.

So where is the evidence of his great business skills?

>>> People just don't like his style and style has nothing to do with it. For
>>> the
>>> most part, todays people are nothing more than a bunch of wusses. Always
>>> wanting everthing on a silver plater without working for it.
>>
>> I dislike his style and his substance. He has NO qualifications to be
>> president. No leadership skills, no plans on how to improve the country, no
>> plans on helping our foreign policy. He is just lost.
>
> How so?

His lack of plans. He has none. When he tries to talk about them he changes
from one telling to the next. Look at his wall -- how tall does he want it
to be and how much will it cost? Just look at what HE says.

He has no clue.

>>>> As far as Mensa... I am the only one I know who has found errors on their
>>>> tests. My 8th grade math teacher was big on Mensa and gave us some of their
>>>> tests... and they were flawed. Have a lot of friends in Mensa... do not see
>>>> the value other than to brag.
>>>>
>>> I wouldn't want to be a member of any organization that would have me.
>>> It boils down to good old fashioned common sense... and trump has plenty
>>> of that.
>>
>> If so he hides it well!
>
> How so?

Where does he show ANY common sense? On what issue?

>>> Obama just keeps putting this country deeper in debt.
>>
>> What makes you think that?
>
> The latest $2trillion debt increase.

Did you see the image at the link?

>> <https://goo.gl/EQa0AK>
>>
>>> But if trump makes it into the WH, all he has to do is repudiate that debt
>>> and
>>> tell the central banks to take a hike.
>>
>> He would be in so far over his head we would be in BIG trouble... but
>> thankfully his chance of getting to the White House is slim. Sadly Clinton's
>> chances are high, and she is no better.
>
> Only because the banking cabal is already out for his blood. They are
> very afraid of him. Going back to the gold standard would eliminate the
> banking cabal for good. I remember that my grandfather around 1900 got
> a $4,000 home loan from the Bank of Congress with no interest at all,
> just a $30 filing fee. Paid it back in 5 years. Now that sounds more
> sane than what the bankers want from you.

The banks are not the ones voting... but, sure, they will fund Clinton. And
she will benefit from fraud if needed.

> Besides, did you know that the banking system, the Federal Reserve, is
> an offshore foreign bank?

I know the system is absurd.

[Snit]

On 8/24/16, 11:20 AM, in article npkoic$l8v$2...@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud"

Yes, trained lawyer. As the link you provided shows.

[Snit]

On 8/24/16, 11:23 AM, in article npkoms$l8v$3...@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud"
<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:

...

>>> I looked at the politfact site. Unfortunately, they are taking a lot of
>>> things out of context making his statements look false... hence the free
>>> ride hillary is getting.
>>
>> She is a better liar... lying by innuendo and omission. She is a trained
>> lawyer and it shows. But both are grossly dishonest.
>
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/barexam.asp
>
> I don't think she is a good lawyer, but an expert liar.

Oh, I never said she was a good lawyer... but she is trained as a lawyer.
And an expert liar. Sure.

>> An example I use for Clinton fans is to watch her NY debate with Sanders.
>> Try to find ANY question she answers directly. I have yet to have anyone
>> point one out (I have not re-watched looking specifically for this, but if
>> there are any they are rare).
>>
>>> And as far as the voting machines are concerned... they're rigged to
>>> favor whoever they want to win. The votes can be skewed enough for a
>>> win. However, landslide elections are very tough for them to commit
>>> fraud without getting caught and thrown in jail.
>>
>> For Bush II and Clinton the evidence shows fraud when using older machines
>> and no paper trail.
>
> Imagine if when you go to vote that you get a copy of your vote with a
> unique serial number to check after the vote. It's been tried here and
> the precinct committee officer was kicked out for cheating. Too many
> people wanted to see if this type of system worked... oh did it work well.

I would love to see it. I do see where there is a risk it could lead to
people buying votes.

[GreyCloud]

On 08/24/16 07:58, DFS wrote:
> On 8/24/2016 12:46 AM, GreyCloud wrote:

>> On 08/23/16 18:47, DFS wrote:
>>> On 8/23/2016 5:59 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>
>>>> I find Trump mostly honest. I don't know what lies he's told yet.
>>>
>>>
>>> They're not "lies". They're flip-flops.
>>>
>>> http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-donald-trump-s-rapidly-changing-policy-positions-n547801
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

>> As if the liars can ever tell the truth, once they are paid in full.
>> The only flip flops is the cabal panicing over this.
>
>
> The ONLY flip-flops are Trump saying something different week after week.
>

> Latest flip-flop? A "softening" of the hard-line immigration stance
> which was one of the earliest and most-repeated of his candidacy.
>
> "There certainly can be a softening because we're not looking to hurt
> people..."
>
> Soon there will be a "softening" of the border wall, then of his
> position on trade treaties, etc.
>
> He can't be trusted because he makes it up as he goes along.

>
>
>
>
>>> He lied - hugely - when he claimed he was worth $10 billion.
>>

>> Nope.
>
> Yes. He is NOT worth $10 billion.
>
>
>
>> That dude has actually access to more money that wall street has
>> stolen so far. Mostly in the masons accounts. He is backed by them.
>> You take the presses insinuations too far.
>>
>> http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2006.htm
>
>
> The 'mason' accounts? LMFAO!
>
> No such thing.

>
>
>
>
>>> He lied when he claimed "No one knows the system better than me, which
>>> is why I alone can fix it".
>>>
>>

>> Ain't no lie, he knows where the bear is shitting in the woods. And he
>> knows who is in the banking cabal too.
>
>
> It's a big lie. There are many politically connected wealthy insiders
> besides him, and he alone can fix nothing.
>
> It's actually pathetic that he claims to "know the system" so well -
> that means he used it to his and his company's advantage for many years.
> But all of a sudden it needs fixing?

>
>
>
>>> He lied when he claimed he didn't know the disabled reporter he cruelly
>>> mocked was disabled.
>>

>> What reporter had that happened. Oh, yeah, when CNN told one of the
>> biggest whoppers on air. Yeah, like that is the truth ... NOT!!!!
>
> You seem to be uninformed - that's your fault. Serge Kovaleski.

>
>
>
>>> He lied when he said Obama was the founder of ISIS, and Clinton the
>>> co-founder.
>>>
>>

>> Ain't no lie, fool. Obama is a muslim if you haven't figured that out
>> yet. Why is the Muslim Brotherhood in the white house?
>
> heh!
>
> You're starting to sound like a true, blithering idiot.

>
>
>
>>> He lied when he says he saw video of the $400M ransom/leverage payment
>>> made to Iran recently.
>>

>> He didn't lie... it was made public and he watched... very simple.
>
> There was no such video at the time he made that claim. He lied.

>
>
>
>>> He lied when he said Clinton and the Democrats are rigging the debates.
>>>
>>

>> They did rig them with stupid bitches asking stupid questions that has
>> nothing to do with this country.
>
> I mean the upcoming debates.

>
>
>
>>> He lied when he said Hillary Clinton laundered money to Bill Clinton.
>>>
>>

>> Guffaw!!! She sure did launder money. What do you think the Clinton
>> foundation is for? Money laundering.
>> A very small percentage, more like a pittance, goes to charity. It has
>> already been proven it is a pay-for-play scheme to gain access.
>
>
> 88% is a very LARGE percentage.

LOL!!! Another fabrication. Most of these organizations have already
did the pay-for-play fees to Hillary.
Look into it.

Even Judge Jeanine says that the Clinton foundation is nothing more than
a money laundering scheme.
That's how she got rich.

Also, and this is the big one, why does she get all of her campaign
donations from countries like Saudi Arabia that has the most horrible
human rights record?

Why did her opening DNC event show only Communist flags and not one U.S.
Flag?

>
> https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
>
>
> Get your act together, GC. You're simply ignorant and uninformed.

Way more informed than most people.
I get my source of info from friends on the inside.
And most of it ain't pretty good news.

Suggest you stop reading the crooked cabals writings. It is them that
is in panic mode right now. They know that if Trump gets into the white
house, it is the end for them and they know it.

>
>
>
>
>>> http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/
>>>
>>
>> Politifact is a communist organization.
>> Look it up.
>
> blah blah blah bull.shit

Yeah, blah, blah, blah. Who's paying them?
You do the research and you'll see that they also have done the
pay-for-play hillary ponzi scheme.

>
> It's a fact-checking organization. Even if it were Communist in origin
> or intent, Trump's lies are still lies.
>

It's a fabrication organization. No facts are needed for them.
They just get paid by hillary to lie.

>
>
>>> He's ridiculous, and the Dem platform is a horrorshow of liberalism.
>>>
>>>

>> Trump is the smartest president since JFK. The rest were lusers.
>
> Bill Clinton was the smartest President since JFK, and soon Hillary
> Clinton will - unfortunately - be the smartest President since Bill
> Clinton.

Horse shit. That sleazy bastard sold most of our military secrets to
the Chinese. That trump noted this in his convention speeches says
volumes... now look at the Chinese military today. Before Clinton they
didn't have their new hardware to use.

Even worse, and something that isn't in the news is Japan.
Do you know what the Nippon Kaegi is?

They were the WWII cult that ruled Japan during WWII.
Now they are in power and are already changing their constitution for
the purpose of acquiring somewhere else places to live other than Japan.
Why? Fukishima is still in china-syndrome mode and can't be stopped.
Tokyo has a high incidence of thyroid cancers and other mutations in
birth defects. War is on the horizon now.

>
> Too bad she's not a conservative - I would welcome a woman President.
>

Blea... she's a fucking communist. Even Bill later on said that he
american people will get used to communism.

>
>
>> This is the end of the democratic party as we know it. You can now call
>> it the Communist party of the U.S.
>
> Idiot. You clearly don't know what communism is.
>

Guffaw!!! You've never seen how communism works or what it is like to
live in a communist regime. I have experience in that field.

Most americans are too stupid and believe the MSM and think that they
are THE authority on all news. They are not. Through away what you
believe to be authority and start over again and work your way up.

[GreyCloud]

On 08/24/16 08:28, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:

> DFS<nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 8/24/2016 12:46 AM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>> On 08/23/16 18:47, DFS wrote:
>>>> On 8/23/2016 5:59 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I find Trump mostly honest. I don't know what lies he's told yet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They're not "lies". They're flip-flops.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-donald-trump-s-rapidly-changing-policy-positions-n547801
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> As if the liars can ever tell the truth, once they are paid in full.
>>> The only flip flops is the cabal panicing over this.
>>
>>
>> The ONLY flip-flops are Trump saying something different week after week.
>>
>

> http://ow.ly/DFO6303xA1D
> Get used to it.
>

ROFLMAO!!!

Glen Beck is such a putz.

[Snit]

On 8/24/16, 11:27 AM, in article fhvxc....@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.

Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:

> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 8/24/16, 10:51 AM, in article npkmro$ec6$2...@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud"
>> <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>
> ...
>
>>
>> Now it is a different game: one-to-one. And on that front how much do you
>> think the media, who heavily backs Clinton, is going to allow Trump to troll
>> them? To some extent, sure... they love the ratings his antics bring the but
>> they are FUNDING Clinton. The same games will not work.
>
> Trump is going to destroy her in the first debate. He will not
> hold back on her like Bernie did.

Many of his fans think his grade school antics are "winning" a debate...
where I look at reason and logic. So it depends on what you mean by
"winning."

> He will bring up every one of her scandals and failures. It won't matter what
> question is asked. He will use every speaking opportunity to hammer her into
> a quivering pulp. They'll have to scoop her up off the floor before the first
> commercial break. Remember what he did to Tired Jeb, Little Marco, and Lyin
> Ted. Democrats will be in tears before it's over. It will be heartbreaking
> for them to watch her lose her mind and dignity on stage.

This might work if he was not just as bad. He is, however, better at that
type of attack... and he does not care one whit about how honest the attacks
are.

> If it was me, I'd go after her right out of the gate:
>
> "Hillary, why are you yelling? We can hear you. Holy crap." (hand to ear).
>
> Or:
>
> "Hillary, I like what you're wearing tonight. What is that, a pantsuit?"
>
> Treat her with the absolute disrespect that she has earned.

Both of those would be immediate loses to anyone looking for reason and
policies and not just grade school antics. But sure, many in America will
look at the debate like a grade school putdown contest. To them Trump will
win.

> Take control of the stage and put her on defense, making her address things
> outside the scripted narrative. Disrespect the moderators too if necessary.
> Play to the people for entertainment value. These moments will then be
> replayed on tv for weeks. It will be golden.

Troll the media. He does it well.

[Snit]

On 8/24/16, 11:30 AM, in article npkp4p$msu$4...@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud"

He has no real plans, he is grossly bigoted, he cares only about himself, he
has gotten where he is by trolling the media, he has repeatedly failed in
business leading to multiple bankruptcies and suffering of people, he spews
literally insane things like the Obama birther nonsense, he shows no
self-restraint... etc. :)

[Octavian W. Lagrange]

GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
> On 08/24/16 07:58, DFS wrote:

>>
>>
>>
>>>> He lied when he said Hillary Clinton laundered money to Bill Clinton.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Guffaw!!! She sure did launder money. What do you think the Clinton
>>> foundation is for? Money laundering.
>>> A very small percentage, more like a pittance, goes to charity. It has
>>> already been proven it is a pay-for-play scheme to gain access.
>>
>>
>> 88% is a very LARGE percentage.
>
> LOL!!! Another fabrication. Most of these organizations have already
> did the pay-for-play fees to Hillary.
> Look into it.
>
> Even Judge Jeanine says that the Clinton foundation is nothing more than
> a money laundering scheme.
> That's how she got rich.
>

57 percent of Clinton Foundation money went to CHAI. What is CHAI?
Clinton Health Access Initiative. Hmm... Wonder if that's the same
Clinton? Probably just a coincidence. CHAI has not yet decided whether
they will continue to accept foreign donations if Hillary is president.

[Steve Carroll]

DFS knows Clinton is a liberal. Strangely, given his age, Snit apparently has no historical perspective (or is simply unwilling to apply it).

By the way, how's that Yellowstone issue going?

[Steve Carroll]

What 'special powers' does that confer upon her in your mind? Do you think it enables her to pull crap like this...

<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624>

... while believing that people are as stupid as she needs them to be?

A "trained lawyer" with a working brain doesn't underestimate *everyone*.

[GreyCloud]

Snit wrote:

> On 8/24/16, 7:28 AM, in article fhjavi9...@perch.invalid, "Octavian

> W. Lagrange" <olag...@perch.invalid> wrote:
>
>> DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:

>>> On 8/24/2016 12:46 AM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>> On 08/23/16 18:47, DFS wrote:
>>>>> On 8/23/2016 5:59 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I find Trump mostly honest. I don't know what lies he's told yet.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They're not "lies". They're flip-flops.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-donald-trump-
s-rapi
>>>>> dly-changing-policy-positions-n547801
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As if the liars can ever tell the truth, once they are paid in full.
>>>> The only flip flops is the cabal panicing over this.
>>>
>>>
>>> The ONLY flip-flops are Trump saying something different week after
>>> week.
>>>
>>
>> http://ow.ly/DFO6303xA1D
>> Get used to it.
>>

> He has almost no chance of winning. By your own standards you should not
> vote for him.
>

Says who?


--
My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.

[GreyCloud]

Hehe... the perfect candidate. But how is he grossly bigoted?