Octopus Overlords

Bad enough they want to eat your brains but voter fraud and being illegally in this country as well is the last straw.

There isn't a rolling-eyes emoji large enough for people asserting that the Democratic Primary was "rigged".

Smutly wrote:

raydude wrote:

Smutly wrote: So, don't bother sending me all the debunking stories. I already know that you don't care even if these are true. If you're wondering, just like Hillary, why she isn't winning this thing in a landslide then wonder no more.

You seem to "know" an awful lot about the people here. Either you are working for the FBI or you are just spouting more closed-minded bs. Occam's Razor is telling me which one to believe.

The last time I made similar claims all I got from people was denial. To say that 'she's just not as good as other people as hiding her evilness' is stupid. You cannot get more corrupt than Hillary Clinton. Worried that Donald Trump didn't pay someone or used bankruptcy laws to his favor is NOTHING compared with this woman's behavior.

You say this as if you would entertain ANY facts or opinions which run contrary to the conclusion you've already come to. That's funny.

Fireball wrote:There isn't a rolling-eyes emoji large enough for people asserting that the Democratic Primary was "rigged".

Rigged by undead illegals, Fireball. Can't be too careful with our electoral process.

Well, Clinton's finally edged back north of 60% on 538, which is good (though possibly temporary) news for my sanity. Though Nate Silver keeps publishing buzzkill articles on Clinton's chances. Which are fair enough, although I also do wonder whether they are partially motivated by the fact that 538 is by far the most bullish on Trump's chances, so he may feel some need / pressure to justify that.

Looks like Clinton's deplorable comment may have hurt Trump more than it hurt her.

When Hillary Clinton said that half of Donald Trump's supporters belonged in a "basket of deplorables," Republicans thought they just might have found her campaign-crushing-blunder.

The gaffe, they hoped, was a way to cement an image as an out-of-touch snob, just as Democrats did four years ago to Mitt Romney after he said "47 percent" of voters backed President Barack Obama because they were "dependent on government."

But a new Associated Press-GfK poll finds that Clinton's stumble didn't have quite the impact that Trump and his supporters wanted. Instead, it's Trump who's viewed as most disconnected and disrespectful.

AP-GfK poll: 'Deplorables' comment sticks to him, not her

malchior wrote:

Smutly wrote:Worried that Donald Drumpf didn't pay someone or used bankruptcy laws to his favor is NOTHING compared with this woman's behavior.

This is an incredibly idiotic statement - Trump is ACTIVELY being sued for FRAUD. Right now.

Speaking of fraud. Looks like Obama used a pseudonym to communicate with Hillary Clinton on her private server. The one he didn't know anything about.

Skinypupy wrote:

Smutly wrote:

raydude wrote:

Smutly wrote: So, don't bother sending me all the debunking stories. I already know that you don't care even if these are true. If you're wondering, just like Hillary, why she isn't winning this thing in a landslide then wonder no more.

You seem to "know" an awful lot about the people here. Either you are working for the FBI or you are just spouting more closed-minded bs. Occam's Razor is telling me which one to believe.

The last time I made similar claims all I got from people was denial. To say that 'she's just not as good as other people as hiding her evilness' is stupid. You cannot get more corrupt than Hillary Clinton. Worried that Donald Trump didn't pay someone or used bankruptcy laws to his favor is NOTHING compared with this woman's behavior.

You say this as if you would entertain ANY facts or opinions which run contrary to the conclusion you've already come to. That's funny.

I've already shown on this forum that I admit when I'm wrong when people provide sources and new information. I can go back and flag some of them for you (but I'd rather not). If you have any information that discards all of these scandals, I'm all ears.

Smutly wrote:

malchior wrote:

Smutly wrote:Worried that Donald Drumpf didn't pay someone or used bankruptcy laws to his favor is NOTHING compared with this woman's behavior.

This is an incredibly idiotic statement - Trump is ACTIVELY being sued for FRAUD. Right now.

Speaking of fraud. Looks like Obama used a pseudonym to communicate with Hillary Clinton on her private server. The one he didn't know anything about.

I did some reading. Every definition of fraud seems to require a victim. Who exactly is the victim?

I'd agree that, if your statement is true, he lied. But that doesn't equal fraud. Which means that the two are not even remotely the same. And please don't try to tell me that you are a victim because he lied to you.

Edit: To clarify, the definitions that I saw distinctly require that the victim be harmed in some way.

TheMix wrote:

Smutly wrote:

malchior wrote:

Smutly wrote:Worried that Donald Drumpf didn't pay someone or used bankruptcy laws to his favor is NOTHING compared with this woman's behavior.

This is an incredibly idiotic statement - Trump is ACTIVELY being sued for FRAUD. Right now.

Speaking of fraud. Looks like Obama used a pseudonym to communicate with Hillary Clinton on her private server. The one he didn't know anything about.

I did some reading. Every definition of fraud seems to require a victim. Who exactly is the victim?

I'd agree that, if your statement is true, he lied. But that doesn't equal fraud. Which means that the two are not even remotely the same. And please don't try to tell me that you are a victim because he lied to you.

Edit: To clarify, the definitions that I saw distinctly require that the victim be harmed in some way.

Given those new facts, I retract the word "fraud" and submit "lies". Thanks!

I am shocked -- Shocked! -- that the president of the United States not only knew the unclassified email address of the Secretary of State, but that he used it to communicate with her.

The fact that he knew and used her email address does not in any way "prove" that he knew anything about her server.

Max Peck wrote:I am shocked -- Shocked! -- that the president of the United States not only knew the unclassified email address of the Secretary of State, but that he used it to communicate with her.

The fact that he knew and used her email address does not in any way "prove" that he knew anything about her server.

I agree. If he was just talking about yoga classes and Chelsea's wedding then it's of no significance. They won't release the e-mails until after the election though, so we'll just have to wait.

Could we please stop falling for the bullshit?

tjg_marantz wrote:Could we please stop falling for the bullshit?

Why so dismissive?

Smutly wrote:

Max Peck wrote:I am shocked -- Shocked! -- that the president of the United States not only knew the unclassified email address of the Secretary of State, but that he used it to communicate with her.

The fact that he knew and used her email address does not in any way "prove" that he knew anything about her server.

I agree. If he was just talking about yoga classes and Chelsea's wedding then it's of no significance. They won't release the e-mails until after the election though, so we'll just have to wait.

So what was your point regarding fraud lies? Oh, wait, you meant you were lying about the fraud/lying. Seems legit.

I wonder if he was T Dogging with her?

I'm curious about something else. How do you know that he knew where the emails were routing? When I send an email to someone, I am reasonably confident they will "get" it. However, I have no idea where that email is stored. Only where, maybe, they will view it. Likewise, I have no idea where the emails that I read are stored.

Pics of the Oval Orifice?

Max Peck wrote:

Smutly wrote:

Max Peck wrote:I am shocked -- Shocked! -- that the president of the United States not only knew the unclassified email address of the Secretary of State, but that he used it to communicate with her.

The fact that he knew and used her email address does not in any way "prove" that he knew anything about her server.

I agree. If he was just talking about yoga classes and Chelsea's wedding then it's of no significance. They won't release the e-mails until after the election though, so we'll just have to wait.

So what was your point regarding fraud lies? Oh, wait, you meant you were lying about the fraud/lying. Seems legit.

Are you in high school?

I obviously didn't hack Politico and post the story. The implication is that the POTUS knew HRC had a private server. While I think it's pretty good evidence that he knew he was sending HRC e-mail's to a non-secure e-mail address, I was willing to give those of you who are "sensitive to criticism" the benefit of the doubt. The implication is that the POTUS lied about it. Why would he lie? Probably because he knew it was wrong for Hillary to use it (and wrong of him to send e-mails to it) or possibly because he also send classified e-mails to her non-government e-mail address. I don't know that yet, because I haven't seen the e-mails which won't be released. NOTE: I presume he's innocent until proven guilty. However, like every other fucking scandal, usually when there's smoke there is fire.

If you can't understand the implication of the above, then don't reply. Otherwise, what is your fucking problem?

TheMix wrote:I'm curious about something else. How do you know that he knew where the emails were routing? When I send an email to someone, I am reasonably confident they will "get" it. However, I have no idea where that email is stored. Only where, maybe, they will view it. Likewise, I have no idea where the emails that I read are stored.

The domains were "clintonemail.com", "wjcoffice.com", and "presidentclinton.com" per Wikipedia. None of these are ".gov" domains and so the address should have been obvious to anyone with half a brain that the domain's listed were not government issued or secured. Are you going to argue that someone sending an email to an account would assume that it is protected by a State Department security protocols? The FBI already investigated. Have you read their findings? It's already been established that she managed to successfully insulate her official e-mails, categorically, from the FOIA both during her tenure at State and long after her departure from it -- make it a blatant circumvention of the FOIA by someone who unquestionably knows better.

Why does this information offend you so much?

What the hell are you talking about? Offend? I'm not offended. Not even remotely. You on the other hand seem to have a serious chip on your shoulder.

At most I'm confused. And your information only confused me more. Those emails domains seem like personal ones. I'd assume that President Obama knows what her official email is. I don't know what he sent to her personal emails. Do you? Your comment above implied that you didn't. One of us is making assumptions. Hint, it isn't me.

Isgrimnur wrote:Pics of the Oval Orifice?

TheMix wrote:What the hell are you talking about? Offend? I'm not offended. Not even remotely. You on the other hand seem to have a serious chip on your shoulder.

At most I'm confused. And your information only confused me more. Those emails domains seem like personal ones. I'd assume that President Obama knows what her official email is. I don't know what he sent to her personal emails. Do you? Your comment above implied that you didn't. One of us is making assumptions. Hint, it isn't me.

Sorry. I genuinely apologize. As stated I don't know. What I do know is that Obama said that he "knew nothing about them". I stated my assumptions already and that we will have to wait.

My issue (and it is my issue) is that I assume people see the same things that I do when presented data. I took your questions as challenges instead of just questions. Again, my mistake.

Smutly wrote:

Max Peck wrote:

Smutly wrote:

Max Peck wrote:I am shocked -- Shocked! -- that the president of the United States not only knew the unclassified email address of the Secretary of State, but that he used it to communicate with her.

The fact that he knew and used her email address does not in any way "prove" that he knew anything about her server.

I agree. If he was just talking about yoga classes and Chelsea's wedding then it's of no significance. They won't release the e-mails until after the election though, so we'll just have to wait.

So what was your point regarding fraud lies? Oh, wait, you meant you were lying about the fraud/lying. Seems legit.

Are you in high school?

I obviously didn't hack Politico and post the story. The implication is that the POTUS knew HRC had a private server. While I think it's pretty good evidence that he knew he was sending HRC e-mail's to a non-secure e-mail address, I was willing to give those of you who are "sensitive to criticism" the benefit of the doubt. The implication is that the POTUS lied about it. Why would he lie? Probably because he knew it was wrong for Hillary to use it (and wrong of him to send e-mails to it) or possibly because he also send classified e-mails to her non-government e-mail address. I don't know that yet, because I haven't seen the e-mails which won't be released. NOTE: I presume he's innocent until proven guilty. However, like every other fucking scandal, usually when there's smoke there is fire.

If you can't understand the implication of the above, then don't reply. Otherwise, what is your fucking problem?

Are you in a psychiatric ward?

The article doesn't imply that he knew anything about her server, just that he exchanged unclassified emails with her. He wouldn't have to know anything about the servers involved in order to use an email address.

If you don't know how email routing works, then don't reply. Otherwise, what is your fucking problem?

Smutly wrote: However, like every other fucking scandal, usually when there's smoke there is fire.

AH! Here's what we seem to be at such loggerheads. In the kind of partisan atmosphere we have now, I actually think that this is a very bad assumption to make (for both parties).

Today, I'd instead characterize it as, "Where's there's smoke, there's likely to be members of the opposition madly rubbing two sticks together and seeing if there's any kindling to catch fire."

Smutly wrote:The implication is that the POTUS knew HRC had a private server. While I think it's pretty good evidence that he knew he was sending HRC e-mail's to a non-secure e-mail address, I was willing to give those of you who are "sensitive to criticism" the benefit of the doubt. The implication is that the POTUS lied about it.

Those are not implications, but baseless wild ass assertions. But you so "graciously" will assume President Obama is innocent except there must be something wrong.

Smutly, your reasoning is atrocious and your spurious logic transparent.

I would say that the President has more important things to worry about than checking the email addresses. High level executives don't understand IT -- treating them like network administrators is just stupid.

Do you know where the OO server exists? I doubt it. You respond, and it works. All you need to know.

Does the President even send emails? I thought that's what all of his secretaries were for, to say nothing of the Secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury, and Education.

Defiant wrote:Does the President even send emails? I thought that's what all of his secretaries were for, to say nothing of the Secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury, and Education.

I would hope that he's handling Nigerian princes personally.

geezer wrote:
AH! Here's what we seem to be at such loggerheads. In the kind of partisan atmosphere we have now, I actually think that this is a very bad assumption to make (for both parties).

Today, I'd instead characterize it as, "Where's there's smoke, there's likely to be members of the opposition madly rubbing two sticks together and seeing if there's any kindling to catch fire."

Frankly, when you look at Breitbart and InfoWars, it's like an M1 Abrams just streaming smoke trails. When you simply make dozens of baseless accusations every day, some of them have to stick just because of the principle Smutly so ably demonstrated.

Just another non-newsworthy week in Hillary's America http://townhall.com/columnists/susansta ... a-n2220278 So glad that nothing is happening that might effect the polls, or at least nothing is being reported on.

We live in a country run by people who tell us that if a man puts on a dress and says he’s a woman we are supposed to take him at his word.


Well when you start like that. Another shit post from the usual shit poster.

tjg_marantz wrote:We live in a country run by people who tell us that if a man puts on a dress and says he’s a woman we are supposed to take him at his word.


Well when you start like that. Another shit post from the usual shit poster.

Why do they need to put on a dress, perhaps they prefer a nice pantsuit?

I've already warned one person to avoid dragging The Bea into this. Don't make me flag this post for the mods!

em2nought wrote:Just another non-newsworthy week in Hillary's America http://townhall.com/columnists/susansta ... a-n2220278 So glad that nothing is happening that might effect the polls, or at least nothing is being reported on.

You're glad. Let's make sure everyone is aware of how disgusting you are. You're glad when people get hurt or even die if it supports your agenda.

I thought the Republicans had more governors, congressmen and senators than the Dems did. Hillary isn't president, so she ain't running anything.

Seems to me that the GOP has their hands dirty with all of this, so, why don't you just own it?

em2nought wrote:Just another non-newsworthy week in Hillary's America http://townhall.com/columnists/susansta ... a-n2220278 So glad that nothing is happening that might effect the polls, or at least nothing is being reported on.

Dear God, there was a bombing in New York? Why didn't anyone report on that? Oh wait, everyone did report on that. It was all over the press.

Stronger Together reviews on Amazon, owned by Jeff Bezos who also owns the Washington Post. Mr. Bezos didn't like the over 2000 negative reviews so he reset them. It's now got about 600 reviews with approximately 80% negative and some of the funniest stuff you'll read today.

My favorite 5 star review by David B.:

"I was going to read this book … I really was. But just as I got started, I found myself under sniper fire, passed out, and fell and hit my head. After that I got double vision and had to wear glasses that were so damn thick I couldn’t even see to read. As if that wasn’t enough, I then had an allergic reaction to something and started coughing so hard I spit out what looked like a couple of lizard’s eyeballs, my limbs locked up, and I passed out and fell down again, waking up only to find out I had been diagnosed with pneumonia 2 days earlier. Somehow I managed to power through it all, but it’s a good thing I was able to make a small fortune on this random small trade in the commodities market (cattle futures or some such thing) and then, miracle of all miracles, a few banks offered me a few million to just talk to their employees for a few minutes – and all that really helped out because I swear I was dead broke and couldn’t figure out how I was gonna come up with the 6 bucks to pay for this book, let alone pay the $1,500 for my health insurance this month. I still want to read it, but, honestly, what difference at this point does it make? I hear it sucks anyway."

I like how only about 5% of the reviews on Amazon are from people who purchased it. Steam's review policy change looks a lot better, now.

Thanks for the ride on the trollercoaster. I'm sure that, coupled with huffing a few cans of rustoleum will sway me to vote for Trump.

Defiant wrote:I like how only about 5% of the reviews on Amazon are from people who purchased it. Steam's review policy change looks a lot better, now.

Some of the 'verified purchaser' reviews were not from people who actually purchased the book if you can believe what they write in their review.