The other thing is this: the polls only consider the "likely" voters, they don't consider the unlikely voters. A lot of people do not bother voting in primaries but do vote in the general election. Arnold schwartzenegger effect or Jesse Ventura effect as Samseau calls it, Trump could easily pull off a huge win in November, assuming he gets past all of the election fraud that Hillary will try, and assuming he actually gets the Republican nomination, neither of which is a lock by any means.

What I would give to be the federal agent that gets to put Hillary on handcuffs.

I do very occasionally mention in conversation that Hillary would be a disaster in the office of President. Certainly, Sanders, as a socialist, should never be allowed within a hundred miles of any position of power, but Hillary would somehow manage to be even worse.

And inevitably, the response is often that I don't think a woman should be the President. Sexism, waffle, whatever.

It's then that I shut that shit right down by saying that in my opinion, Margaret Thatcher was the greatest Prime Minister this country has ever seen, and as a nation the UK has missed her leadership, her pride in Britain, and her general socialist bashing.

Shitlibs can't process that. She's a woman so naturally she should be in charge, but...she was a conservative...

(04-02-2016 05:30 PM)Praetor Lupus Wrote:  I do very occasionally mention in conversation that Hillary would be a disaster in the office of President. Certainly, Sanders, as a socialist, should never be allowed within a hundred miles of any position of power, but Hillary would somehow manage to be even worse.

And inevitably, the response is often that I don't think a woman should be the President. Sexism, waffle, whatever.

It's then that I shut that shit right down by saying that in my opinion, Margaret Thatcher was the greatest Prime Minister this country has ever seen, and as a nation the UK has missed her leadership, her pride in Britain, and her general socialist bashing.

Shitlibs can't process that. She's a woman so naturally she should be in charge, but...she was a conservative...

Eh, I won't go so far as to say that *no* woman should be president. Hillary definitely should not.

Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria were solid monarchs for the brits. Hell, there was actually talk on this board that Ivanka could be a decent VP pick, and if Trump died in office, either of assassination or heart attack(he is looking like he is putting on some weight), we would have a female president that would actually be potentially good, honestly would you have a problem with Ivanka or someone of her caliber intellect(and the rest of her) in the oval office?

(04-02-2016 06:27 PM)eradicator Wrote:  

(04-02-2016 05:30 PM)Praetor Lupus Wrote:  I do very occasionally mention in conversation that Hillary would be a disaster in the office of President. Certainly, Sanders, as a socialist, should never be allowed within a hundred miles of any position of power, but Hillary would somehow manage to be even worse.

And inevitably, the response is often that I don't think a woman should be the President. Sexism, waffle, whatever.

It's then that I shut that shit right down by saying that in my opinion, Margaret Thatcher was the greatest Prime Minister this country has ever seen, and as a nation the UK has missed her leadership, her pride in Britain, and her general socialist bashing.

Shitlibs can't process that. She's a woman so naturally she should be in charge, but...she was a conservative...

Eh, I won't go so far as to say that *no* woman should be president. Hillary definitely should not.

Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria were solid monarchs for the brits. Hell, there was actually talk on this board that Ivanka could be a decent VP pick, and if Trump died in office, either of assassination or heart attack(he is looking like he is putting on some weight), we would have a female president that would actually be potentially good, honestly would you have a problem with Ivanka or someone of her caliber intellect(and the rest of her) in the oval office?

Ivanka may be an intelligent woman of high leadership caliber, but I still do not want a woman president. As I've said before, we need to start getting ALL women out of political office of any kind.

(04-02-2016 06:27 PM)eradicator Wrote:  

(04-02-2016 05:30 PM)Praetor Lupus Wrote:  I do very occasionally mention in conversation that Hillary would be a disaster in the office of President. Certainly, Sanders, as a socialist, should never be allowed within a hundred miles of any position of power, but Hillary would somehow manage to be even worse.

And inevitably, the response is often that I don't think a woman should be the President. Sexism, waffle, whatever.

It's then that I shut that shit right down by saying that in my opinion, Margaret Thatcher was the greatest Prime Minister this country has ever seen, and as a nation the UK has missed her leadership, her pride in Britain, and her general socialist bashing.

Shitlibs can't process that. She's a woman so naturally she should be in charge, but...she was a conservative...

Eh, I won't go so far as to say that *no* woman should be president. Hillary definitely should not.

Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria were solid monarchs for the brits. Hell, there was actually talk on this board that Ivanka could be a decent VP pick, and if Trump died in office, either of assassination or heart attack(he is looking like he is putting on some weight), we would have a female president that would actually be potentially good, honestly would you have a problem with Ivanka or someone of her caliber intellect(and the rest of her) in the oval office?

Bear in mind that by the time Victoria and Elizabeth (2) came along, constitutional monarchy was pretty firmly in place and if anyone was solid for England, it was the (male - bar one) Prime Ministers of England who kept the boat sailing on well. Some of the most notable English PMs took office during Victoria's reign: Benjamin Disraeli, Robert Peel, William Gladstone, Lord Melbourne, to name three. And Victoria herself was pretty shit at politics: early in her reign she was jeered at as "Mrs. Melbourne". She also set off a change in government because she wouldn't change her womenservants over. Per Wiki:

Quote:In 1839, Melbourne resigned after Radicals and Tories (both of whom Victoria detested) voted against a bill to suspend the constitution of Jamaica. The bill removed political power from plantation owners who were resisting measures associated with the abolition of slavery. The Queen commissioned a Tory, Sir Robert Peel, to form a new ministry. At the time, it was customary for the prime minister to appoint members of the Royal Household, who were usually his political allies and their spouses. Many of the Queen's ladies of the bedchamber were wives of Whigs, and Peel expected to replace them with wives of Tories. In what became known as the bedchamber crisis, Victoria, advised by Melbourne, objected to their removal. Peel refused to govern under the restrictions imposed by the Queen, and consequently resigned his commission, allowing Melbourne to return to office.

After that, she mostly stayed out of Parliamentary affairs, content to fuck Bertie.

Elizabeth I was certainly a stronger influence because government was perforce limited in the era she ruled, but her refusal to get knocked up with an heir left England unstable because they had to hand over to James VI of Scotland, who was a Catholic.

Elizabeth II has never played a hand in Parliamentary politics.

"Hillary Clinton Supporter Yawns In Wisconsin"





WB!

(04-03-2016 05:25 PM)TheOllam Wrote:  "Hillary Clinton Supporter Yawns In Wisconsin"





WB!

Is because this people do not want to be there, this happened during Obama, the managers of the candidates would look at the crowds and start picking people based on what would help the candidate, is not coincidence the people behind her are mostly women, is to create the illusion of acceptance, "this people stand behind me" message, she is being attacked for being hostile toward women, so they put women behind her, however, the people put there are told all the time to clap and cheer, while STANDING for over a hour.

Trash talk shows like Mauri would send production to pick up people on the street and offer them 40 dollars for sitting in the audience. Is not so different to this.

I have not doubt Clinton and Abedin have a lesbian relationship going on. Everything fit, old hag thirsty for power, relative younger female subordinated.
'Our eyes connected and I thought "Wow"': Hillary Clinton's top aide Huma Abedin gushes about presidential hopeful and describes the moment they first met


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z44sJQKpqa

^ (lesbian relationship + hillary clinton) =

"gushes"
Yup, that's suspect.

Low energy recognized:

(04-03-2016 09:05 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Elizabeth I was certainly a stronger influence because government was perforce limited in the era she ruled, but her refusal to get knocked up with an heir left England unstable because they had to hand over to James VI of Scotland, who was a Catholic.

Elizabeth II has never played a hand in Parliamentary politics.

Yes, I was talking about Elizabeth I. Margaret Thatcher was PM and didn't cause the end of the world, popular with some, unpopular with others, though the brits sang "ding dong the witch is dead" when she died.

But what on earth is going on with the Democratic presidential primary? It is really looking like Bernie will win the delegate battle but lose because of the superdelegates that will vote for Hillary? Or if he really gets the majority of the delegates, will some of the superdelegates recognize that he is the people's choice and not support Hillary, and thus give Bernie the nomination? The remaining states are very white(like New york, California, the northeast, Oregon) and likely very pro Bernie.

This election season will be VERY interesting, I think Bernie gets more delegates, but gets screwed at the convention and loses the nomination because of the super delegates, and I think Trump gets enough delegates for a nomination, but gets screwed at the convention by some back room deal and we see someone like Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan become the nominee and Trump runs 3rd party. Then what happens? Chaos?

(04-07-2016 07:00 PM)eradicator Wrote:  

(04-03-2016 09:05 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Elizabeth I was certainly a stronger influence because government was perforce limited in the era she ruled, but her refusal to get knocked up with an heir left England unstable because they had to hand over to James VI of Scotland, who was a Catholic.

Elizabeth II has never played a hand in Parliamentary politics.

Yes, I was talking about Elizabeth I. Margaret Thatcher was PM and didn't cause the end of the world, popular with some, unpopular with others, though the brits sang "ding dong the witch is dead" when she died.

But what on earth is going on with the Democratic presidential primary? It is really looking like Bernie will win the delegate battle but lose because of the superdelegates that will vote for Hillary? Or if he really gets the majority of the delegates, will some of the superdelegates recognize that he is the people's choice and not support Hillary, and thus give Bernie the nomination? The remaining states are very white(like New york, California, the northeast, Oregon) and likely very pro Bernie.

This election season will be VERY interesting, I think Bernie gets more delegates, but gets screwed at the convention and loses the nomination because of the super delegates, and I think Trump gets enough delegates for a nomination, but gets screwed at the convention by some back room deal and we see someone like Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan become the nominee and Trump runs 3rd party. Then what happens? Chaos?

No. The Democrats will toe the line when Clinton wins because they're not at the stage of having the housefire and outright split in the party that the Republicans are currently experiencing. Most likely, Clinton goes against either Trump or a hack. Trump hopefully wins. If it's Clinton against Romney or Ryan she'll wipe the floor with them and the US's decline will be sharply accelerated.

What happens if the GOP tries to steal the nomination from Trump well it is already happening preemptively:

On CNN Newsroom, Trump Campaign Official Defends Roger Stone's Plan To Target Delegates At Their Hotel Rooms

Jeff DeWit: "That Is Not A Threat Of Violence At All To Say 'Hey, By The Way We'll Make Sure We Know How To Get Ahold Of These People And Everyone Can Go Talk To These People'"

http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/04/07...nds/209803

Roger Stone is a virtual Tar and Feathers Shitlord par excellence.

This is what happens when a lizardperson tries to act human:



Reddit still has the occasional gem though:
"That's more head than bill got in the Oval office."

If the reward were a certain Trump victory in November, would you bang Hillary Clinton?

(04-08-2016 06:52 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  If the reward were a certain Trump victory in November, would you bang Hillary Clinton?

Is Huma licking my balls at the same time?

(04-08-2016 06:52 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  If the reward were a certain Trump victory in November, would you bang Hillary Clinton?

Ass or vagina?

Why are you guys establishing all these preconditions? The fate of the world is at stake

Hillary makes a play for the undoubtedly large tin-foil hat vote:

Clinton campaign chair: 'The American people can handle the truth' on UFOs

Hillary says she will do her best to have as much 'documentation' declassified as possible!

Also on the front page of CNN today:

Nuns growing weed!
and
Bernie Sanders Invited to the Vatican.

(04-08-2016 06:12 AM)Space Cowboy Wrote:  This is what happens when a lizardperson tries to act human:



Reddit still has the occasional gem though:
"That's more head than bill got in the Oval office."

This is the problem with upper class politicians whom try play being one of the common people, Trump is smart, he does not pretend to be a working class guy, he is rich and have money and he does shows he has money, he arrive on his private jet, but he can do it because his money is from private sector, politicians can't do the same when the money come from corruption in the public sector.

Can you imagine Hillary displaying her wealth in the same?

Speaking of Bill:

Bill Clinton Brain Damage — Attacks Obama Again

By J.R. Taylor
Posted on Apr 8, 2016 @ 11:35AM

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/b...to/154470/

Bill Clinton was finally allowed back on the campaign trail for Hillary Clinton after a series of embarrassing appearances — and promptly created more scandal as talk swirled of brain damage. Now his horrified wife is scrambling to do damage control after Bill alienated black activists and even ridiculed President Obama!

Fact is men who undergoe major bypass surgery often suffer significant loss of cognition - Yeah right - like Bill wants this malignant spouse of his to run the White House and put him on a short fist Momma Drama Baby Daddy leash.

Billy Clint! Back in the Saddle Again!





http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...es-matter/

BLACKLASH: Social Media Users At War with Bill Clinton Over Clash with Black Lives Matter

A look at comments from both high profile white media liberals and black activists shows that Bill Clinton has crossed an unwritten line in Democratic politics, having the audacity to disagree with loud, angry people who would rather lecture than listen. Clinton, who said several times that he “loves protesters,” was attempting to defend his wife against a month-long barrage of accusations criticizing her for calling violent black sociopaths “super – predators” in the early 1990s.

The comments on Twitter hint this is about the left’s obsessive need to control and shape opinion by shutting down and shaming people who say things that are politically incorrect, even, in this case, when spoken by a Democrat icon.

This is how Black Lives Matter members have become super-predators against free speech.

Multimedia journalist Donovan X. Ramsey, who has written for MSNBC, Ebony, and TheGrio, called the ex-president’s comments “gross” and expressed the view that many black liberals tolerated the Clintons because they viewed them as “good white folks.” Ramsey even went as far as using scare quotes to attempt to ridicule the idea that there is any such thing as black on black crime.

As Breitbart News has detailed, the mass incarceration movement is a Trojan horse whose real goal is to fulfill the Black Panther Party’s 50-year-old call to release every single black person from jail or prison. Radical black liberation activist all believe that all black people are “political prisoners.”

The irony is that Clinton and his wife Hillary helped enable this new generation of black activists. Bill and Hillary Clinton are 1960s radicals who followed the Saul Alinsky strategy of cleaning up and working inside the system in order to deliver political change. Now, the radical left is rising up against the Clintons as “incrementalists” and demanding the same revolutionary change that the Clintons themselves wanted five decades ago.

For his sin of speaking truth to black people, Bill Clinton needs to be sent back to the reeducation camps… and when he gets there, he’s going to see a lot of familiar faces.



This might be the best thing Clinton has done in 20 years, he's the only one one the left with the balls to stand up to these BLKKK assholes. Keep speaking the truth Slick Willie, and hopefully he can kill 2 birds with one stone (Hillary's campaign and this BLM BS)

More Clinton CGI Crime Cartel escapades:

http://observer.com/2016/04/panama-paper...mp/.Truth/

Panama Papers Reveal Clinton’s Kremlin Connection

John and Tony Podesta aren’t fooling anyone

By John R. Schindler • 04/07/16 1:00pm