CrimsonWeltall

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 18, 2016 -> 06:39 PM) I get upset at all the Hillary love on the board with people indicating she is special in some way and deserving of the office. From which posters?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 18, 2016 -> 05:33 PM) But then what about la? More spread out city/territory, causing less confrontation/competition for area? I don't know.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 18, 2016 -> 04:38 PM) Here's the guy you're defending. https://twitter.com/lyz_estrada/status/788202618312990720 In a conversation about how you're appealing to bad sources, you link to a photoshopped tweet. Cmon. Btw, I didn't actually defend him, but don't let facts get in your way. I was skeptical of your accusation that people were paid to be violent, which you said you didn't have time to support last night, but still haven't today. Edit: typo

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 18, 2016 -> 05:28 PM) So what is the cause that exists in Chicago, versus not in Indianapolis? Stronger gangs?

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 18, 2016 -> 06:59 AM) Scott Foval, the man I quoted from the video and the man a few here defended, was fired by Americans United for Change tonight. The day the video released. I guess it didn't end up mattering that I didn't check the source of a video of an indetifiable man admitting guilt of a crime. Being fired for bad PR isn't the same as admitting guilt of a crime. You still haven't quoted any criminal activity.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 17, 2016 -> 11:34 PM) I don't know anything about O'Keefe but there's full clips of multiple officials speaking on their routine practice of criminality and paying for violence. I don't care if Hitler released the video from his grave, the officials are identifiable and on tape/audio. Amazing how anyone who doesn't agree with Clinton isn't reputable. O'Keefe is famous for making undercover videos, and then editing the videos to look like something they're not. Can you point to the portion of the video where they pay for violence? I only got a few minutes in and all I saw was that they said they would send people to troll the Trump supporters, knowing THEY would get violent.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 17, 2016 -> 10:05 PM) Clinton's campaign caught on video/audio talking about purposely inciting violence at Trump rallies. A key Clinton operative is on camera saying, “It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherf***er." The Field Director for Citizens United, Scott Foval said on camera, "If you're here and you're protesting and you do these actions, you will be attacked at Trump rallies. That's what we want." He kept running his mouth too, "The campaign pays the DNC, DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays the Foval Group, the Foval Group goes and executes the s*** on the ground." MSM has yet to acknowledge this and Fox News cancelled the scheduled appearance of the writer who heads up the site that put forth this video/audio. No word on whether Putin and the Russians put this together so we're not sure if it's credible yet. I can't imagine why the media might be skeptical about a James O'Keefe video with frequent jump-cuts...

QUOTE (Brian @ Oct 17, 2016 -> 02:37 PM) I never understood getting pissed at someone who makes bank at giving speeches. How is that crooked? The idea is that the money isn't really for the speech; it's for favors down the road. Which seems plausible. I wouldn't go to a Hillary Clinton speech for free.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 17, 2016 -> 01:33 PM) The fascism and racism are sooo September. The sexism is what the cool kids are talking about now. He keeps it fresh. A new scandal every week!

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 16, 2016 -> 07:01 PM) It's sad that educated people are telling us the election will be rigged. The only people telling us the election will be rigged are Trump supporters who are already sore losers.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 14, 2016 -> 04:29 PM) That said, how do you have proof of a negative? That puzzled me. Same way you have proof of Obama being a Kenyan Muslim.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 14, 2016 -> 02:59 PM) Not exactly shocking that the moral majority turns out to be morally bankrupt tbh They have morals; they're just morals that are awful for women, gay people, etc. Homosexuality => impure Pre-marital sex => impure Threesome => impure Sexual assault of women => not very nice, but it's not full-fledged rape damaging the woman's purity Marital rape => not very nice, bug at least it's sex in marriage so no purity violation

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 14, 2016 -> 01:58 AM) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix...x-talk-scandal/ Some people don't understand harm-based sexual ethics.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 13, 2016 -> 11:54 PM) Trump is creepy and unqualified and probably a pervert, but I really think the comments to the really young girls were in jest. Just some guy pushing 50 who wanted the world to know he would be dating 18 year olds. There is plenty of other info to rip him to shreds. I really don't think these particular events were a big deal. I don't think he's a pedophile, but it's another disturbing piece of evidence that he views females primarily as sexual objects, either currently or with future potential.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 13, 2016 -> 09:24 PM) Although I know Curt Schilling is ultra conservative and has been in headlines a few times in the past year or so, I honestly never paid much attention to him. For whatever reason, I went ahead and checked out the video in this article and holy crap that guy is something else. He essentially is trying to defend Trump's comment about a 10 year old girl and it's terribly painful to watch. lol Those young teenage boys are gorgeous!

Trump to NYT: You're trying to ruin my reputation. I'm gonna sue you. NYT to Trump: You already ruined your reputation. Bring it, b****. http://www.nytco.com/the-new-york-timess-r...raction-letter/

Trump says he obviously didn't sexually assault Natasha Stroynoff because "look at her". Molest a woman who isn't hot? Gross! Reminds me of the people who think the worst part of the Biblical story where Sodomites try to engage in gay rape of angels is the gay part, and not the rape part.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 13, 2016 -> 05:38 PM) Lou Dobbs tweeted out the personal contact information of one of Trump's accusers. https://twitter.com/polly/status/7865998201...src=twsrc%5Etfw Gee, it sure is a mystery why women are hesitant to come forward. I hope that woman has a safe place to stay and gets rid of that phone number immediately.

Donald Trump: I kiss and grope women without their consent. Women: Donald Trump kissed and groped out without our consent. Trump Supporters: IT'S JUST WORDS

QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 13, 2016 -> 03:11 PM) 1) Majority does not make right 2) Lots of news coming out about the corruption of...the news. 1) Having a sound methodology and past history of accuracy makes is very likely to be right. 2) Pollsters have every motivation to be as accurate as possible. If they're inaccurate, they become irrelevant. 2b) If the news can't be trusted, then how can you trust this news about the news not being trustworthy???

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 13, 2016 -> 02:39 PM) If you're a Trump TV surrogate, how do you get up every day knowing that you're going to have to go on national TV and defend the latest Trump scandal(s) for that day with the most absurd arguments and attempts at deflection while having seemingly zero centralized coordination on what the message should even be? It has to be exhausting. Paycheck

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Oct 13, 2016 -> 02:30 PM) That's... not what "render unto Caesar" means. Of course, he knows that... Does he?

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 12, 2016 -> 02:31 AM) It wasn't when Obama won. I was talking about nominations. This year, there were 376 nominees. Basically any government official or humanities professor can nominate someone.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 12, 2016 -> 02:23 AM) Wikileaks has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in six consecutive years You know that's meaningless, right?

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 12, 2016 -> 03:19 AM) I am not sure why you have to stoop to conspiracy theories instead of addressing the facts of the matter. What conspiracy theories? He addressed the issue directly. The email is about the phrase "everyday Americans". Hillary hates that phrase, but these guys think they should use the phrase in the speech. You're deliberately misreading the email just because Podesta left out quotation marks. I don't even know how you can parse the email under your interpretation. What is the "it" he refers to twice?