[Dr. Howard]

I do recall that someone had posted on the hillary survival thread that she may be the straw that breaks the camel's back and could push men's rights or a conservative blowback. I don't know if i agree but do like to read about it.

[RawGod]

(10-09-2014 07:58 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

I do recall that someone had posted on the hillary survival thread that she may be the straw that breaks the camel's back and could push men's rights or a conservative blowback. I don't know if i agree but do like to read about it.

Could happen but likely only after she gets one or two terms, the dead cat economy finally stops bouncing and a new era really starts with white men organising and secession in the air. Rand Paul might be in the picture then. Give it 10 years.

[Cattle Rustler]

(10-09-2014 06:05 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 05:09 PM)Mentavious Wrote:  

Republican candidates are garbage but the other alternative is Hilary Clinton...

What specifically do you consider "garbage" about Rand Paul?

Pretty much everything.

He's another democrat/republican, he exists to give the other two parties credibility.

Give people someone they can look up to and fantasize about. He's just another demorepub in "libertarian clothing". Remember Obama in 2008.

[slats7]

tired old hag

btw, Buffett is the Dems' favorite billionaire. he'd cut his balls off before predicting a GOP victory.

[Feisbook Control]

(10-09-2014 07:58 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

I do recall that someone had posted on the hillary survival thread that she may be the straw that breaks the camel's back and could push men's rights or a conservative blowback. I don't know if i agree but do like to read about it.

That might have been me. I wrote:

Quote:

Hillary would be an unmitigated nightmare, but that's precisely what is needed to wake the average American (male) up from the slumber he's been in for the past two generations. It's precisely because of the demographic issue that things need to get really bad right now, rather than in ten years when it will be too late. The frog is in the pot. There are two ways to stop it from boiling. One way -- the strategy that the so-called "right" has been trying for decades, and failing at -- is to turn the heat down or off. The other way is to actively encourage -- or at least not prevent -- the heat to be turned up as high as it will go right now, and thus, force the frog to jump out of the pot.

As terrible as she would be, it may be necessary to suffer her. On the off chance that a Republican gets into power, things won't exactly be brilliant -- there will be no conservative renaissance -- but a Republican would allow a whole section of America to basically live in a fantasy land that things were okay. It would also give the Democrats plenty of ammunition. No, liberals need to completely own the disaster that is current America so there can be no buck passing.

As for Buffett, he's obviously very good at investing (I have some shares in Berkshire Hathaway), and I like where he comes from in terms of his attitude towards investing and money in general. Yet whenever he weighs in on politics or other non-investing matters, the less I like him. In fact, more and more I just think he's a cunt, and I'm sure he's involved in insider trading of a sort through his connections. I think he tries to come across as some folksy all-American type, but I think that it's increasingly obvious that he's anything but that.

[IvanDrago]

(10-09-2014 08:15 PM)slats7 Wrote:  

tired old hag

Now imagine her after a presidency during a depression all hopped up on botox and amphetamines for 8 years.









However, if I was a betting man, my money would be on Elizabeth Warren as the one who gets the job.



Fun!

[la_mode]

Belief in "voting" is blue pill.

So many conspiracy theories are given credence nowadays, but the possibility of voting being rigged rarely, if ever, is.

Voting is simply political vaudeville.

[IvanDrago]

(10-09-2014 09:23 PM)la_mode Wrote:  

Belief in "voting" is blue pill.

So many conspiracy theories are given credence nowadays, but the possibility of voting being rigged rarely, if ever, is.

Voting is simply political vaudeville.

Realizing the truth about politics, religion and women. Those are three big red pills hard to swallow all at the same time.

[The Father]

(10-09-2014 02:00 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 01:53 PM)Sturmgeist Wrote:  

“Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.” - Winston Churchill

GOP needs some serious canidates this election. No more messing around.

Mitt Romney was good. Obviously the GOP cannot put a true red pill male up there, but Romney was a good enough choice. His economic experience and willingness to actually work with both sides made him a decent candidate.

I think Rand will be even better, if he can get it. If Bush gets it, the GOP has no chance at all and might as well just close up shop.

But TBH, after the 2012 election, I think it will be a while until the GOP has a chance again. Hillary will be damn tough to beat riding Bill's coat tails and having the main stream media carry her water for her.

I'm not sure Rand has the executive or financial experience Romney has. But there is a certain unique potential there, i'll give you that. He could be a disaster - or another Reagan. High risk, high reward.

[DChambers]

(10-09-2014 08:12 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 06:05 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 05:09 PM)Mentavious Wrote:  

Republican candidates are garbage but the other alternative is Hilary Clinton...

What specifically do you consider "garbage" about Rand Paul?

Pretty much everything.

He's another democrat/republican, he exists to give the other two parties credibility.

Give people someone they can look up to and fantasize about. He's just another demorepub in "libertarian clothing". Remember Obama in 2008.

His voting record is solid, he has done what he said he would do, he comes from a good family, and he speaks openly against the government. He is nothing like Obama in 2008.

[la_mode]

(10-09-2014 09:29 PM)IvanDrago Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 09:23 PM)la_mode Wrote:  

Belief in "voting" is blue pill.

So many conspiracy theories are given credence nowadays, but the possibility of voting being rigged rarely, if ever, is.

Voting is simply political vaudeville.

Realizing the truth about politics, religion and women. Those are three big red pills hard to swallow all at the same time.

In the US at least - most of the public truly believes their vote matters and make some huge difference. They have been conditioned to believe they're literally members of Congress by voting for a particular candidate or political party.

[R Smoov]

Someone please fuck her in the ass and make a huge scandal out of it.

Please!

No one wants a ho to run the country.

[It_is_my_time]

(10-09-2014 08:12 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 06:05 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 05:09 PM)Mentavious Wrote:  

Republican candidates are garbage but the other alternative is Hilary Clinton...

What specifically do you consider "garbage" about Rand Paul?

Pretty much everything.

He's another democrat/republican, he exists to give the other two parties credibility.

Give people someone they can look up to and fantasize about. He's just another demorepub in "libertarian clothing". Remember Obama in 2008.

Rand Paul is nothing like Obama in 2008. Obama in 2008 was running with the most liberal voting record of all candidates and a very murky past that his supporters did their best to ignore and pretend his campaign promises were what they were getting. People who voted for Obama in 2008 didn't do their research. People who voted for Obama in 2012 simply were not paying attention. So we have gotten what we deserved.

Paul has a long history of standing behind what he says.

Now, if Paul were to win, would the powers that be sit him down and tell him "this is how it will be or you and your family will die". Maybe so. But if so, then there is no chance for us to ever have a decent life again. And I refuse to completely give up and become a slave to this system. At least for right now, but I do know it may very well come to that.

[It_is_my_time]

(10-09-2014 09:38 PM)The Father Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 02:00 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 01:53 PM)Sturmgeist Wrote:  

“Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.” - Winston Churchill

GOP needs some serious canidates this election. No more messing around.

Mitt Romney was good. Obviously the GOP cannot put a true red pill male up there, but Romney was a good enough choice. His economic experience and willingness to actually work with both sides made him a decent candidate.

I think Rand will be even better, if he can get it. If Bush gets it, the GOP has no chance at all and might as well just close up shop.

But TBH, after the 2012 election, I think it will be a while until the GOP has a chance again. Hillary will be damn tough to beat riding Bill's coat tails and having the main stream media carry her water for her.

I'm not sure Rand has the executive or financial experience Romney has. But there is a certain unique potential there, i'll give you that. He could be a disaster - or another Reagan. High risk, high reward.

I think Romney would have made a good president. Red Pill? No. But he could have got the economy to recover, which means the red pill males can afford more vacations overseas and less time in the anti-male office.

I think Rand would do well economically simply because he would surround himself with people that understand how an economy works. As opposed to the former college professors running our economy into the ground right now.

[Sp5]

My favorite candidate would be former senator James Webb. A man of many dimensions.

If he doesn't run, so far the only non-warmonger candidate is Rand Paul.

I think most Americans are sick of the wars and want a way out of trying to control the entire world in detail. Rand Paul is the only one who talks skeptically about all these foreign adventures.

Hillary is a warmonger, too, but the problem is the Republicans except for Rand Paul are even worse warmongers.

[lskdfjldsf]

It's way too early to tell, but I believe Rand Paul would win if face-to-face against Hillary. He's in a unique position as a libertarian-leaning candidate (really, the first of his kind in the mainsteam), able to attract voters on both the left and right on everything from a non-interventionist foreign policy to social issues. And best of all, no serious baggage like the convoy following Hillary.

No homo, but I teared up after seeing his drone filibuster. It was like being taken back 300 years to an era when our politicians actually gave a shit.

[ElBorrachoInfamoso]

Do people here believe she'd be worse than Obama? Yeah, she's a cunt and she'd definitely be a shit president, but Obama has been the worst president, by a significant margin, of the last generation.

[It_is_my_time]

(10-10-2014 03:48 AM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  

Do people here believe she'd be worse than Obama? Yeah, she's a cunt and she'd definitely be a shit president, but Obama has been the worst president, by a significant margin, of the last generation.

She would be the same as Obama, except three important points...

#1) She will go even more over board in expressing how women are victims all the time. Which will make women even more entitled than they are now, which is hard to imagine.

#2) She is far more organized and political natured than Obama. So while she may have the same scandals and fraud Obama has had, she would do a better job of covering her tracks.

#3) We have already had 8 years of our economy being destroyed. So she would be starting in a very bad position and pushing even more anti-economic growth policies. How much worse can it get? Hillary will show us an even worse economy.

Hopefully if she does win and is a complete disaster the blue pill males will finally start to wake the hell up.

So more of the same failure we have had under Obama, but maybe it will finally be enough for men to wake up.

[Sp5]

(10-10-2014 03:48 AM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  

Do people here believe she'd be worse than Obama? Yeah, she's a cunt and she'd definitely be a shit president, but Obama has been the worst president, by a significant margin, of the last generation.

First, I disagree with you that Obama is the worst president of the last generation. GW Bush, by his disastrous decision to invade Iraq without a plan for post-invasion operations and putting Afghanistan on the back burner after invading Iraq, takes the cake on that one. Hundreds of thousands of lives lost and trillions of dollars wasted. Obama is still climbing out that that hole. I'm not even blaming Bush for failing to stop the 9/11 attacks. The other Bush debacle was his SEC sleeping while the mortgage securitization debacle was happening.

Obama is the second worst, but running to catch up by his stupid meddling in Syria and Ukraine, which have both caused major problems. Still, he's not primarily responsible for the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama also sucks because his DOJ did not prosecute the Wall Street fraudsters.

Second, Hillary will be worse than Obama. She will be so anxious to be a tough woman leader she will get the USA into needless wars. I've stated my theory that she will miscalculate in a crisis with China or Russia and end up launching the nukes out of wanting to look tough, post menopausal rage and wanting to nuke Bill, Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers once and for all.

[Dr. Howard]

(10-10-2014 03:22 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

It's way too early to tell, but I believe Rand Paul would win if face-to-face against Hillary. He's in a unique position as a libertarian-leaning candidate (really, the first of his kind in the mainsteam), able to attract voters on both the left and right on everything from a non-interventionist foreign policy to social issues. And best of all, no serious baggage like the convoy following Hillary.

No homo, but I teared up after seeing his drone filibuster. It was like being taken back 300 years to an era when our politicians actually gave a shit.

I have the same opinion about Trey Gowdy his speeches are OK but his questioning in hearings is awesome. He also seems to have a personal axe to grind with Hillary

[MdWanderer]

(10-09-2014 09:22 PM)IvanDrago Wrote:  

However, if I was a betting man, my money would be on Elizabeth Warren as the one who gets the job.



Fun!

So we'll go from the First Black President to the First Native American President?

[Libertas]

(10-09-2014 09:56 PM)la_mode Wrote:  

In the US at least - most of the public truly believes their vote matters and make some huge difference. They have been conditioned to believe they're literally members of Congress by voting for a particular candidate or political party.

It's not even a conspiracy or a condition. It's a simply a mathematical fact that for most people, your vote doesn't matter in presidential elections. Unless you live in a swing state, your vote doesn't matter.

Even in many congressional districts (such as mine) your vote is a mathematical irrelevancy. The two party, winner take all system guarantees that.

Hilary may very well be, as Sp5 says, prone to feminist overcompensation to present the mask of a "strong woman leader." Obama has been rather weak on ISIS. His "strategy" is half-assed. There is perhaps an understandable reason why that is, but Hilary has already indicated that she would present a stronger front, which could mean an escalation to ground operations (which I actually think is safer in the long run than this nonsense regarding the "moderate rebels").

It all depends on how big of a threat you think ISIS is. Just don't be surprised if Hilary thinks it's a bigger threat than Obama does.

[la_mode]

Swing state or not, those voting machines are computerized and who knows what really happens when they "tally" up the votes.

Certain patterns of course do need to be followed, for instance, is San Francisco & Seattle were going red, that would look obvious.

With all the technology in place nowadays, they can really make it look however they want, but has to be done in a way it looks legit at the same time to the unsuspecting public.

[Libertas]

Not all electronic voting machines are the ATM types though. The ones they have here in New York are scanners that leave a paper trail, which has been the favored method in most places since the debacle in 2000.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(10-10-2014 06:32 AM)MdWanderer Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 09:22 PM)IvanDrago Wrote:  

However, if I was a betting man, my money would be on Elizabeth Warren as the one who gets the job.



Fun!

So we'll go from the First Black President to the First Native American President?

Where do you see "Native American" on her? Is this some "my grand-grandma's blood makes me 1/32 Cherokee" bullshit?