Trump & Hillary
- Thread starter chick_bleeds_carolina_blue
- Start date
Very good! Let's start a religion based on that!
What a beautiful song too..... Oh how I wish I had a piano again.... sighhhhhhhhh
xo
I wonder who the D's will have speak to match Scott Baio? Chachi is a regular sage... wah-wah-wah.
Bernie wasn't going to win the nomination even if the DNC had behaved impartially, as it was obligated to do.....which just makes the actual conduct of the DNC people even more reprehensible. The only thing worse than cheating is getting caught cheating, and the only thing worse than that is getting caught cheating when you didn't have to cheat.
After the convention, Trump now has a 5% lead over Hillary in polls that include a "top 4" of Trump, Clinton, Stein, and Johnson. And a 4% lead in just head to head polls against Clinton. This from a CNN poll mind you (so you can keep your "Faux News!!!11!!1!" comments to yourselves).
Wow that was quick. Trump already a favorite over Hillary and it's only July - many thought it would come to November before a switch in favorite to win happened (if it ever did). Why would the DNC rig their nomination in favor of someone who would lose to Trump? I think Bernie would stand a better chance the way these numbers are going. Props to @UNC71-00 as well - he has even money bets for what is now a favorite.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/polit...-clinton-poll/?iid=ob_lockedrail_topeditorial
Wow that was quick. Trump already a favorite over Hillary and it's only July - many thought it would come to November before a switch in favorite to win happened (if it ever did). Why would the DNC rig their nomination in favor of someone who would lose to Trump? I think Bernie would stand a better chance the way these numbers are going. Props to @UNC71-00 as well - he has even money bets for what is now a favorite.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/polit...-clinton-poll/?iid=ob_lockedrail_topeditorial
Someone is crazy enough to bet on this election???? I hope he didn't bet on Trump winning lol.
I have a nice bet on Trump as a dog too. Gonna wait for Hillary to bottom out and then hedge.
Guess what Chickie- I will allow you to make a bet with me too. I bet that Trump will win. You can bet that he won't. Even money. Name your stakes.
Yes, plenty of people bet on the election. And anyone who bet on Trump now has the favorite in the race. I got a token $20 in on Trump at +350 just for action (way back in February), but I wish I had poured in more now. The email scandals (both the Benghazi related one... and this new DNC one that shows the party rigged for her) have crushed Clinton it looks like. I don't think Trump has really moved the needle up much on his own, it's more that the Clinton chances are withering away in front of our eyes.
That's the professional play. Hedge it out so you win no matter which clown they put in there.
I disagree that Trump didn't move the needle, but it doesn't matter one way or the other as long as I am purveyor of Yadkin Valley General Store.
No, actually Shill's issue with young voters who came out in droves for Obama - but, will NOT turnout for Shill - is YUUUGE!
All the Clinton skeletons are going to be reintroduced to voters - many of whom have little or no idea about prior Clinton scandals - at just the right time during this campaign. How delicious!
Comey has been in the Clintons' hip pocket for decades. Comey was the Deputy Special Counsel for the Whitewater Investigation in which several peripheral figures went to jail, but those actually responsible - Bubba and Shillary - skated prosecution. That fix was in then as well...
Remember the 16 Puerto Rican terrorists who were pardoned by Bubba as his staff was stealing all the 'W's on all the computers in the White House? Remember Marc Rich? You know, the billionaire Bubba pardoned in what everyone knew reeked of impropriety after learning that Rich's wife donated $450K to Bubba's Library? Again, Comey oversaw investigations into the those pardon matters as well. And - shocker - he didn't recommend further investigation or charges. Like I said, Comey has been in the Clinton hip pocket for decades. The only real question is when and how will it come out as to exactly what the Clintons have on Comey that has kept him there all these years... All will be revealed in time.
Last edited:
Let me light a candle and consult with my psycho/psychic abilities first LMAO. You know, I don't think I've ever been wrong before on who would win a presidential election so I might do it lol
The Weekly Standard notes that somehow, the staff at CBS News doesn’t have a nose for news. The hottest breaking story – the Wikileaks posting of DNC e-mails proving they were tilted toward Mrs. Clinton and plotting to damage the Sanders campaign – got left on the cutting room floor Sunday night.
Does anyone believe that CBS News isn't capable of realizing this e-mail portion of Scott Pelley's interview was the hottest, and editing it in instead of out? It almost makes one wonder if CBS felt they had to clear it with the DNC or the Hillary campaign before including it. This exchange was all over the news today.
In a video posted under the banner of 60 Minutes Overtime and touted as an "unaired" clip from the interview, Pelley asked Clinton and Kaine about the leak. Clinton's answers—or, more accurately, her non-answers—on what she knew about DNC interference in the primary were…curious. Among them was Clinton's unwillingness to say any such intervention by the party committee to favor one candidate would be "improper."
Pelley read to Mrs. Clinton a quote from the DNC’s Brad Marshall plotting to have someone ask Bernie Sanders in Kentucky or West Virginia about his religious views – Jewish? Atheist? – to help sink him with his “peeps” in those redder states.
SCOTT PELLEY: Did you know anything about any of that? .
HILLARY CLINTON: No, I didn't know anything about it, and I haven't read any of those, but I am adamantly opposed to anyone bringing religion into our political process. I mean, the Constitution says no religious test. So that is just absolutely wrong and unacceptable.
PELLEY: But maybe the point is, Madame Secretary, you have people in the Democratic National Committee who are supposed to be, if you will, agnostic about who the nominee is going to be, and they seem to have their thumb on the scale for you. They seem to be working against Bernie Sanders, their fellow Democrat."
CLINTON: Again, I don't know anything, I don't know anything about, uh, about these emails. I haven't followed it, but I’m very proud of the campaign that I ran. I’m very proud of the campaign Senator Sanders ran.
PELLEY: In your view, any effort in the DNC to favor one candidate or another would have been improper?" Pelley asked.
CLINTON: Again, I don't have any information about this, and so I can't answer specifically.
She demurred by saying “I can’t speak to what people who were not working for me, who were saying whatever they were saying, I can’t speak to that, I can only speak to my campaign.” Pelley didn’t press again – that these e-mails suggest the DNC acted just like an arm of her campaign. He didn't try to suggest that Mrs. Clinton's Sgt. Schultzish "I know nothing" answers begin to suggest to voters that she's not very detail-oriented...or that she, ahem, has a liar's tendency to deny, deny, deny.
Pelley just turned to Senator Kaine to offer his dismissive two cents. "You're not going to find anybody at the DNC or the RNC or any political organization who is a complete agnostic, who doesn't have an opinion about a candidate," Kaine said. "But there's a difference...between that and trying to alter the outcome."
Just based on this segment, there's an obvious difference between Mrs. Clinton's ability to speak in long sentences without interruption that viewers didn't see in Lesley Stahl's feisty Trump interview a week ago.
Does anyone believe that CBS News isn't capable of realizing this e-mail portion of Scott Pelley's interview was the hottest, and editing it in instead of out? It almost makes one wonder if CBS felt they had to clear it with the DNC or the Hillary campaign before including it. This exchange was all over the news today.
In a video posted under the banner of 60 Minutes Overtime and touted as an "unaired" clip from the interview, Pelley asked Clinton and Kaine about the leak. Clinton's answers—or, more accurately, her non-answers—on what she knew about DNC interference in the primary were…curious. Among them was Clinton's unwillingness to say any such intervention by the party committee to favor one candidate would be "improper."
Pelley read to Mrs. Clinton a quote from the DNC’s Brad Marshall plotting to have someone ask Bernie Sanders in Kentucky or West Virginia about his religious views – Jewish? Atheist? – to help sink him with his “peeps” in those redder states.
SCOTT PELLEY: Did you know anything about any of that? .
HILLARY CLINTON: No, I didn't know anything about it, and I haven't read any of those, but I am adamantly opposed to anyone bringing religion into our political process. I mean, the Constitution says no religious test. So that is just absolutely wrong and unacceptable.
PELLEY: But maybe the point is, Madame Secretary, you have people in the Democratic National Committee who are supposed to be, if you will, agnostic about who the nominee is going to be, and they seem to have their thumb on the scale for you. They seem to be working against Bernie Sanders, their fellow Democrat."
CLINTON: Again, I don't know anything, I don't know anything about, uh, about these emails. I haven't followed it, but I’m very proud of the campaign that I ran. I’m very proud of the campaign Senator Sanders ran.
PELLEY: In your view, any effort in the DNC to favor one candidate or another would have been improper?" Pelley asked.
CLINTON: Again, I don't have any information about this, and so I can't answer specifically.
She demurred by saying “I can’t speak to what people who were not working for me, who were saying whatever they were saying, I can’t speak to that, I can only speak to my campaign.” Pelley didn’t press again – that these e-mails suggest the DNC acted just like an arm of her campaign. He didn't try to suggest that Mrs. Clinton's Sgt. Schultzish "I know nothing" answers begin to suggest to voters that she's not very detail-oriented...or that she, ahem, has a liar's tendency to deny, deny, deny.
Pelley just turned to Senator Kaine to offer his dismissive two cents. "You're not going to find anybody at the DNC or the RNC or any political organization who is a complete agnostic, who doesn't have an opinion about a candidate," Kaine said. "But there's a difference...between that and trying to alter the outcome."
Just based on this segment, there's an obvious difference between Mrs. Clinton's ability to speak in long sentences without interruption that viewers didn't see in Lesley Stahl's feisty Trump interview a week ago.
It was really just a jab that I couldn't resist. I genuinely did not want to derail this thread in this direction.
But to be completely honest everything you said sounds like complete nonsense. Do you even realize that you didn't even remotely come close to addressing whether or not you can actually prove god exists? Y
God is our intuition? See no... our intuitions are actually just instincts that we acquired over the course of thousands of years of evolution. Calling those instincts "god" is just silly. Same thing applies with the idea of the "soul." Your "soul" is just an insanely complex system of synapses in your pre-frontal cortex that store all of your memories. The emotional aspect of us wants to convince us that we're more special than that. And of course that we can survive after our bodies die. We're the only animals capable of imagining and foreseeing our own deaths so naturally we invented a way to get around that and live forever in our minds. Its the byproduct of wish thinking and human solipsism.
What you feel and what you know are two different things. You can feel "god's love inside of you," but that doesn't change the fact that you are really just suffering from a delusion that in some cases borders on being schizotypal. The fact that you cannot actually verify the existence of the entity who's love you can feel inside you should probably make you a little nervous.
Also, people usually let the Jesus thing slide by because most people just assume he was an awesome moral guy regardless of the religion thing. But to be clear, if the stories are true, then he basically wandered around the middle east convincing people to abandon all of their possessions, their families if necessary and ONLY follow him. Take no thought for the morrow, no thrift, no responsibility. There is nothing even remotely moral about that. But then again if you take the accounts of Jesus's life at their word then there isn't much help for you anyways. Even if you could find the original texts, they were written a few hundred years after they died. There's zero chance that they were ever accurate to begin with.
If people stopped invented fictional characters to worship/fear, and instead practiced humanism and lived their lives like they only get one of them, we'd be doing a lot better.
Julian Assange has more, and he's promising its enough to guarantee an indictment. I doubt that's actually the case, but if he would say that then it's probably at least going to be a good enough headline to put a serious dent in her chances in the general. I know people have mixed feelings about whistleblowers, but its time like these they show us just how valuable they are. Its pretty obvious our election process is being rigged, but will people wake up and stop voting for the two major parties?
My belief comes from more than me just thinking this stuff up. I have had an undeniable experience and I am absolutely certain of my beliefs. Your beliefs work for you I'm sure and I don't see anything wrong with that at all. We each have our own unique experiences. What I believe I KNOW is what is right for me and I wish for all to have the peace and love that is right for them.
I intend to vote Johnson in November. Neither of these clowns put forth by the two STATE RUN parties are worth a damn, IMHO.
Donna Brazile, the longtime strategist tapped to take over the Democratic National Committee, may have her own set of problems as she scrambles to unite the party following the explosive email scandal that led to Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s resignation as chairwoman.
Just two months ago, on May 22, Brazile fired a message to DNC communications director Luis Miranda after Sanders endorsed Wasserman Schultz’ primary opponent, and Miranda forwarded Brazile the text of Wasserman Schultz’ statement.
“I saw it this am. How stupid. Don't know how to respond to Bernie anymore,” Brazile wrote.
In another email released by WikiLeaks, Brazile declined a Washington Post interview request two months ago because she was worried what she might say about Sanders’ campaign.
“I have no intentions of touching this,” Brazile wrote to several DNC operatives on May 13. “Why? Because I will cuss out the Sanders camp!”
Just two months ago, on May 22, Brazile fired a message to DNC communications director Luis Miranda after Sanders endorsed Wasserman Schultz’ primary opponent, and Miranda forwarded Brazile the text of Wasserman Schultz’ statement.
“I saw it this am. How stupid. Don't know how to respond to Bernie anymore,” Brazile wrote.
In another email released by WikiLeaks, Brazile declined a Washington Post interview request two months ago because she was worried what she might say about Sanders’ campaign.
“I have no intentions of touching this,” Brazile wrote to several DNC operatives on May 13. “Why? Because I will cuss out the Sanders camp!”
Not sure if this has been mentioned but Hillary already hired Debbie Wasserman Schultz (who we all know is actually Jar Jar Binks in poorly done make up) to be part of her campaign. You cannot make this stuff up.
From a DailyMail article dated 10/15/15:
The Democratic National Committee is 'clearing a path' for Hillary Clinton to be its presidential nominee because its upper power echelons are populated with women, according to a female committee member who was in Las Vegas for Tuesday's primary debate.
Speaking on the condition that she isn't identified, she told Daily Mail Online that the party is in the tank for Clinton, and the women who run the organization decided it 'early on.'
The committeewoman is supporting one of Hillary's rivals for the Democratic nomination, and said she spoke freely because she believes the former Secretary of State is benefiting from unfair favoritism inside the party.
Clinton aims to be the first female to occupy the Oval Office, and 'the party's female leaders really want to make a woman the next president,' the committeewoman said, rattling off a list of the women who she said are the 'real power' in the organization.
'I haven't heard anyone say we should make Hillary undergo a trial by fire,' she added. 'To the contrary, the women in charge seem eager, more and more, to have her skate into the general [election].'
'I have nothing against women in politics,' she underscored. 'But it's not healthy for the party if we get behind a woman because she's a woman, and risk having her implode after she's nominated because she isn't tested enough now.'
The Democratic National Committee is 'clearing a path' for Hillary Clinton to be its presidential nominee because its upper power echelons are populated with women, according to a female committee member who was in Las Vegas for Tuesday's primary debate.
Speaking on the condition that she isn't identified, she told Daily Mail Online that the party is in the tank for Clinton, and the women who run the organization decided it 'early on.'
The committeewoman is supporting one of Hillary's rivals for the Democratic nomination, and said she spoke freely because she believes the former Secretary of State is benefiting from unfair favoritism inside the party.
Clinton aims to be the first female to occupy the Oval Office, and 'the party's female leaders really want to make a woman the next president,' the committeewoman said, rattling off a list of the women who she said are the 'real power' in the organization.
'I haven't heard anyone say we should make Hillary undergo a trial by fire,' she added. 'To the contrary, the women in charge seem eager, more and more, to have her skate into the general [election].'
'I have nothing against women in politics,' she underscored. 'But it's not healthy for the party if we get behind a woman because she's a woman, and risk having her implode after she's nominated because she isn't tested enough now.'
This doesn't surprise me. they want to keep her close so they can keep her mouth shut.Not sure if this has been mentioned but Hillary already hired Debbie Wasserman Schultz (who we all know is actually Jar Jar Binks in poorly done make up) to be part of her campaign. You cannot make this stuff up.
Interesting that Russian hackers have been credited for hacking deep into the DNC servers in order to get these emails. Even more interesting that HRC and her gang of thugs insist there is no way foreign adversaries hacked her unauthorized, non-secure, home-brew email server... Just, no way...
It is up to you what you are willing to believe but I really enjoy those that tell me to prove God exists. Prove love exists, I believe it does, prove that it does? Science, if you care to delve in to it deeply enough does more to prove the existence of an external influence that would be God like. But I am not here to try to prove or disprove anything for you, if you can not accept on faith anything then that is on you. But please, do yourself and those around you a favor and do not tell any one from now on that you love them because you can not prove that love exists, if you can not believe a thing exists without absolute tangible proof then you can't pick and chose what to and what not to believe in.
You're absolutely correct. Love is not anything you can see with your eyes, you cannot pick it up in a little ball and hold it and look at it but you know it is real because you feel it. Just like our souls, they are not this body we are residing in, they are part of the love we have. You cannot see our souls but you feel them, you sense them. Whenever you take a deep breath and think about one person you truly love, you feel it deep to your soul, TRUE LOVE.
I think many who choose not to believe do it because they don't want to become what they see in other people that for whatever reason turns them off to God and religion, and I certainly can understand that by watching how some behave but it is a shame that they would allow the behavior of others to take away that peace from them.
@uncboy10 I don't agree with a lot of people on things of the religious nature but I would never allow that to steal my joy and my peace or my relationship with God that resides within my soul right now. I deserve it, just as everyone else does and there is no way they are taking that from me. If you do actually feel love and peace and times, then maybe you just haven't recognized the source of it. It's not some big man in the sky hovering over us with threats that if we don't do this or do that we are gonna get it. Man created that stuff. Unconditional love is just that... unconditional. I hope you at least recognize the love, peace and hope we all have within us. I suspect you do, only you may not call it what I call it and that is okay too. It's there for you anyway. Love is real. Love is you.
It's unfortunate, that churches have put this distance between God and the children of God.
Can we stop trying to convince uncboy to accept religion? It's never gonna happen.
Let's get back to shitting on Hillary and laughing about how she's going to lose a rigged election to Donald Trump. Lol, I can't believe Trump passed her this early on in the process without even needing to air any of his own commercials yet.
Let's get back to shitting on Hillary and laughing about how she's going to lose a rigged election to Donald Trump. Lol, I can't believe Trump passed her this early on in the process without even needing to air any of his own commercials yet.
I have never made a REAL bet before, mister! LOL... I'd prefer betting something else besides money... money, we all have that... let's make it interesting. Like I will STOP being a butthole to you for six months IF Trump wins and If Hillary wins (which sucks too!) you have to be nice to me for six whole months on here!
I am not trying to convince him to believe in religion, crap, I have a hard time with religion myself. I just wanted to extend my little bit of sunshine to him about having peace and love and not letting those religious people take away something beautiful from him because they are too religious and nutty at times. I just was trying to be sweet. hehe (for real though)
It is kind of amazing in that we take so many things in our lives on absolute faith and yet when it comes to God it is so hard for some to take the existence of God on faith. For example, if some one put a loaded gun to your head and their hand is on the trigger then I am going to take on faith that I could die at any moment, I don't need nor do I want proof of that, I'm taking it on total faith. You can't prove that person is about to pull the trigger and if you get the absolute proof so many seem to need that proof will not do you much good.
Even the simple act of turning on a light switch, you don't have to be an electrical engineer to believe that light will come on when you throw the switch, you trust in faith that it will, you accept that it will, you actually accept that it will with 100% certainty.. We actually live the majority of our lives based on faith, we have faith that we can get to work in the morning and not die on the way to work. But it seems the bar of faith is much harder to achieve when it comes to the question of God and not sure I understand why?
Fear mostly, I believe. It also doesn't help when you get crazy groups, for one bad example the Westboro group, and they turn people completely off to even wanting to know about God, others, it doesn't make sense to them at all and I don't think they really understand faith at all.
I think eventually we all have to face something in our lives and we are forced to look at it face to face and a lot of times that is when the light switch comes on for them. All we can do is pray and love them anyway.
I m not trying to sell anyone on God either, just noticed someone had some questions and I thought maybe I could assist with the best answers I have.
If Trump is elected, losing a100 bucks to you will be the least of my problems. You just let me know when you want to become "purveyor of yadkin Valley General Store", I've been wanting to retire for years...
Last edited:
I don't have 100% certainty of those things at all. Bulbs burn out from time to time, and there's a non-zero chance of kicking the bucket every time we get behind the wheel. Or do just about anything else for that matter.
I get your point - that many have a harder time taking God on faith than they do any number of things in day-to-day life. But I'd argue (mostly for argument's sake) that it's more a matter of acceptance that there is no 100% guarantee of those things working, or not dying on the way to work, rather than 100% faith.
Ya know, the greatest trick Satan uses is his ability to seem God like, his ability to deceive those that want to believe and unfortunately that tricks works far to often. The real test is WWJD, if it does not pass that test then it may be the deceiver doing his thing.
I have never made a REAL bet before, mister! LOL... I'd prefer betting something else besides money... money, we all have that... let's make it interesting. Like I will STOP being a butthole to you for six months IF Trump wins and If Hillary wins (which sucks too!) you have to be nice to me for six whole months on here!
Here's the deal, Hillary wins @UNC71-00 uses a pic of her as his avatar until inauguration day. Trump wins then you use a pic of him.
Similar threads
