I Hate Hillary, but I hate Trump more.

[AnthonyParticipant 2281]

WeakMan wrote:

The last thing I want from this group is for another set of people to define what it means to be a man(not tuna).

You can vote for whoever you want to, but if you vote for Hitlary C~~~on, you might as well be a tuna. That’s the point the other guys on this thread were making.

Once you have a Fleshlight real vaginas become worthless.

[AnthonyParticipant 2281]

If you’re a man and vote for Hitlary C~~~on, you might as well give her your ball sack because you officially castrated yourself.

Once you have a Fleshlight real vaginas become worthless.

[IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant 2572]

I go with this quote by PJ O’Rourke:
“She’s wrong about absolutely everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters.”

Stand FOR something. If you believe Trump is going to be your savior, and save America, and do all by some magical unknown power, that is fine. Yes, he will use angry tweets and the words “trust me” to make magic happen. You can believe this and take on all the attributes of a cult member no longer grounded in reality. That is your choice. As I see it, and I will speak bluntly and don’t give a rip here, but Trump is likely the same universe as the Phillip K Dick Ubik universe. Trump happens to be the substance in the spray can of that universe. The problem is, we don’t live in that universe. Here is a blasted reality: Just because you can see problems, and speak on them, doesn’t mean you are qualified to be able to deal with them.

I personally am NOT voting the lesser of two evils. I am not voting any evil. And my saying this here will then go with the following:
* I will say, “My vote doesn’t statistically matter anyhow. I might as well vote whomever is closest to what I stand for, even if that is third party. So, at least I let my voice be heard”.
* With this will then come the old chestnut about times the vote came down to one vote. Of course this is so rare, but the implication is this: That I am supposed to think my vote is that important and am supposed to be run around with fear that somehow I have to make a difference with my vote. Of course, those one vote situations are so rare, they almost never happen. The last time in a presidential election (and I speak about statistically irrelevant in context of this) was close, it was in 2008 with Gore and Bush. Gore won the popular vote count, but Bush won in a really close election in Florida. I don’t live in a place where it will be close at all.
* But then, the line is pressed further, and harping and guilt baiting is done to get me to be THAT opposed to Hillary and run and be scared of that. To that end, to drive home the point how my vote doesn’t matter, I will ask this: For those who think it DOES matter than much and is the difference between salvation and damnation, how much will you pay me, or give me for my vote? I can freely ask this, because I can bargain. The reality is you won’t offer jack, and that should clearly show you one of the following: * You really don’t care enough to make what you have happen.
* You really don’t believe you can make a difference, so you are venting.
* You really believe my vote really isn’t relevant anyhow.

In all these cases, you don’t have anything to add here, and are just passing gas on the Internet. For myself, I am going stand that candidates have to make a case for themselves, and not just be about tearing down an opponent and going, “Trust me” and also waving cash they have around as if it means something in the election. Trump has done nothing to show he is fit to get elected, as far as I am concerned, and that is speaking positive here. I do have other choices if I don’t like Hillary. I am not buying this B.S about being scared. But, feel free to. It is got to blame everything but yourself for the mess you are in and look to someone who will act as a savior for you.

That is my take. You can do whatever you want, including slacktivism believing it will somehow change the world. I have other things more important to do with my time.

"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.

[IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant 2572]

Anthony wrote:

If you’re a man and vote for Hitlary C~~~on, you might as well give her your ball sack because you officially castrated yourself.

Anthony wrote:

WeakMan wrote:

The last thing I want from this group is for another set of people to define what it means to be a man(not tuna).

You can vote for whoever you want to, but if you vote for Hitlary C~~~on, you might as well be a tuna. That’s the point the other guys on this thread were making.

You flat out sound like a cult member, who is based the masculinity of men on the basis of whether or not they support your cult leader. Stuff like this is why MGTOW gets labelled as a cult. I am speaking here what you wrote above here. The rest of you may be fine, but cult members talk like this.

I will flat out say, if you don’t know any other candidates running besides Trump or Hillary for president, you really aren’t trying enough.

"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.

[IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant 2572]

Anonymous wrote:

<

This basically sums up why I am a Libertarian. Call me crazy, but I believe that the more gasoline you give the arsonist, the more fires one will see.

This entire post is MGTOW gold.

You win MGTOW MG-Tower. I will never say otherwise.

I tip my hat to you. I am surprised more men going MGTOW don’t go Libertarian. I am personally trying to go anarchist myself, and tend to my own life. There is a whole, “But if I vote Libertarian, Hillary will get elected!” I personally think that is hubris and things would be a lot better off if more voted third-party. The two major parties have themselves to blame by people not being part of them.

"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.

[AnthonyParticipant 2281]

IGMOW (I Go My Own Way) wrote:

Stuff like this is why MGTOW gets labelled as a cult.

If MGTOW is a cult, then we have the most badass robes around.

I simply couldn’t give a f~~~ what gynocentric f~~~wads label MGTOW as. I don’t give a f~~~ what their view of me is.

IGMOW (I Go My Own Way) wrote:

You flat out sound like a cult member, who is based the masculinity of men on the basis of whether or not they support your cult leader

So saying you can do whatever you want is cult like? I said the OP can vote for whomever he like. But, if he votes for Hitlary C~~~on, he might as well be a tuna. And that’s a fact.

Only manginas, white knights, and women, vote for Hitlary C~~~on.

Personally, I couldn’t give a f~~~ who’s running for president. I don’t vote either way.

Once you have a Fleshlight real vaginas become worthless.

[Big BossParticipant 4496]

WeakMan wrote:

PS: It really irks me that already some fellow MGTOW members have called me tuna. I thought MGTOW was about going our own way. The last thing I want from this group is for another set of people to define what it means to be a man(not tuna). I have had plenty of other women in my life who have in the past tried to tell me what it means to be a man. I am a man, I am my own man, I will be damned if I let anyone else tell me how to act or behave, I am going my own way.

Oh it has nothing to do with going your own way. It has to do with something else that smells fishy. I smell it, but I admit it could be vagina or mangina. I hate to delve into why I smell it, in the event it is vagina.

Edit: Oh and FYI on the whole clinton thing, you are supporting a likely suspect of treason (regarding the Special Access Program) and at the very least breaking RICO laws through the Clinton Foundation.

[IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant 2572]

Anthony wrote:

IGMOW (I Go My Own Way) wrote:

Stuff like this is why MGTOW gets labelled as a cult.

If MGTOW is a cult, then we have the most badass robes around.

I simply couldn’t give a f~~~ what gynocentric f~~~wads label MGTOW as. I don’t give a f~~~ what their view of me is.

IGMOW (I Go My Own Way) wrote:

You flat out sound like a cult member, who is based the masculinity of men on the basis of whether or not they support your cult leader

So saying you can do whatever you want is cult like? I said the OP can vote for whomever he like. But, if he votes for Hitlary C~~~on, he might as well be a tuna. And that’s a fact.

Only manginas, white knights, and women, vote for Hitlary C~~~on.

Personally, I couldn’t give a f~~~ who’s running for president. I don’t vote either way.

Ok, I stand corrected then here. Usually, the normal pattern is “vote for Trump, because Hillary is evil!” I would rather vote for someone, as opposed to someone else.

Hillary is the safe Blue Pill choice at this time. The reaction I get for voting for Hillary is driven by similar to voting for Trump. It is because other candidate is evil.

"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.

[UintatheriumParticipant 1861]

I think that Trump might be slightly better than Hillary but even he has some big problems.

The main problem with Trump is his Xenophobia. He’s many as f~~~ … but he doesn’t seem to realize that there is a ton of manly badassery in Mexico and the Middle East.

I believe that we should be working towards a global MGTOW movement. Ignoring the manly achievements of foreigners is not the best solution.

I’ve noticed that veil hysteria is common among Trump supporters. We won’t get anywhere by claiming that the veil is oppressive to women. It isn’t even slightly oppressive. If we start saying that all Muslims are bad then we will start lashing out at Muslims even when they do something right. This inevitably leads to pseudo-feminist white knighting.

MGTOW: because you can (and should) say anything about a woman as long as she isn't within earshot

[EtrangereParticipant 706]

I’m in the NRA and carry a gun. In this day and age of terrorism , and mental illness untreated I would NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton. I personally believe that your right to carry a gun doesn’t come from anyone but God almighty , but with the very prospect of the next president being able to influence the future of the Supreme Court(and hence , YOUR rights) , don’t think those freedoms can’t be lost. My guns will stay with me regardless of who wins and what happens. I’ll just be considered a criminal(but one who built his own AR 15)….sort of like the IRS keeps taxing me for not participating in the Obamacare insurance scam at 300$ a month. F~~~ em all

[NewgroundsParticipant 558]

There are a lot of Buzzwords in your post OP, you need to relax on the name calling you wouldn’t want to be labeled intolerant now would you? The tolerant left is always tolerant.

|Right Wing Death Squad| Swallowed both Red Pills /pol/MGTOW

[Big BossParticipant 4496]

Uintatherium wrote:

The main problem with Trump is his Xenophobia.

As opposed to neocon foreign policy?

See it isn’t phobia, it is recognition of “blowback” for interventionism that keeps biting us in the ass. Hillary essentially supported ISIS as detailed below:

NEW IRAN AND SYRIA 2.DOC

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498
Date: 11/30/2015 RELEASE IN FULL

The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.

Negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear program will not solve Israel’s security dilemma. Nor will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program — the capability to enrich uranium. At best, the talks between the world’s major powers and Iran that began in Istanbul this April and will continue in Baghdad in May will enable Israel to postpone by a few months a decision whether to launch an attack on Iran that could provoke a major Mideast war.

Iran’s nuclear program and Syria’s civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about — but cannot talk about — is losing their nuclear monopoly. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today. If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself.

Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel’s security — not through a direct attack, which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel’s leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests. Speaking on CNN’s Amanpour show last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that “the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran…. It’s the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world…and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza.”

Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted. Right now, it is the combination of Iran’s strategic alliance with Syria and the steady progress in Iran’s nuclear enrichment program that has led Israeli leaders to contemplate a surprise attack — if necessary over the objections of Washington. With Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its, proxies, it is possible that the United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran’s program has crossed an unacceptable threshold. In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.

The rebellion in Syria has now lasted more than a year. The opposition is not going away, nor is the regime going to accept a diplomatic solution from the outside. With his life and his family at risk, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s mind.

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498
Date: 11/30/2015

The Obama administration has been understandably wary of engaging in an air operation in Syria like the one conducted in Libya for three main reasons. Unlike the Libyan opposition forces, the Syrian rebels are not unified and do not hold territory. The Arab League has not called for outside military intervention as it did in Libya. And the Russians are opposed.

Libya was an easier case. But other than the laudable purpose of saving Libyan civilians from likely attacks by Qaddafi’s regime, the Libyan operation had no long-lasting consequences for the region. Syria is harder. But success in Syria would be a transformative event for the Middle East. Not only would another ruthless dictator succumb to mass opposition on the streets, but the region would be changed for the better as Iran would no longer have a foothold in the Middle East from which to threaten Israel and undermine stability in the region. Unlike in Libya, a successful intervention in Syria would require substantial diplomatic and military leadership from the United States. Washington should start by expressing its willingness to work with regional allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to organize, train and arm Syrian rebel forces. The announcement of such a decision would, by itself, likely cause substantial defections from the Syrian military. Then, using territory in Turkey and possibly Jordan, U.S. diplomats and Pentagon officials can start strengthening the opposition. It will take time. But the rebellion is going to go on for a long time, with or without U.S. involvement.

The second step is to develop international support for a coalition air operation. Russia will never support such a mission, so there is no point operating through the UN Security Council. Some argue that U.S. involvement risks a wider war with Russia. But the Kosovo example shows otherwise. In that case, Russia had genuine ethnic and political ties to the Serbs, which don’t exist between Russia and Syria, and even then Russia did little more than complain. Russian officials have already acknowledged they won’t stand in the way if intervention comes.

Arming the Syrian rebels and using western air power to ground Syrian helicopters and airplanes is a low-cost high payoff approach. As long as Washington’s political leaders stay firm that no U.S. ground troops will be deployed, as they did in both Kosovo and Libya, the costs to the United States will be limited. Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend, not an enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes. For Israel, the rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be eased. And a new Syrian regime might well be open to early action on the frozen peace talks with Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance and missiles. All these strategic benefits and the prospect of saving thousands of civilians from murder at the hands of the Assad regime (10,000 have already been killed in this first year of civil war).

With the veil of fear lifted from the Syrian people, they seem determine to fight for their freedom. America can and should help them — and by doing so help Israel and help reduce the risk of a wider war.

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

[narwhalParticipant]

Given that I’m in Texas, which is going to go Trump, I think my vote will be best used to vote Libertarian or just anything other then the two primary candidates. I most definitely prefer Trump over Clinton.

No matter who we get, I think we’ll get another 4 years of garbage. Neither is going to get anything done through congress as the opposite party is going to trash everything they try and do. Trump will try and do more things that I support, but he won’t even get the full support of his own party, not to mention the democrats and the media.

Ok. Then do it.

[NewgroundsParticipant 558]

Big Boss wrote:

Uintatherium wrote:

The main problem with Trump is his Xenophobia.

As opposed to neocon foreign policy?

See it isn’t phobia, it is recognition of “blowback” for interventionism that keeps biting us in the ass. Hillary essentially supported ISIS as detailed below:

NEW IRAN AND SYRIA 2.DOC

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498
Date: 11/30/2015 RELEASE IN FULL

The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.

Negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear program will not solve Israel’s security dilemma. Nor will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program — the capability to enrich uranium. At best, the talks between the world’s major powers and Iran that began in Istanbul this April and will continue in Baghdad in May will enable Israel to postpone by a few months a decision whether to launch an attack on Iran that could provoke a major Mideast war.

Iran’s nuclear program and Syria’s civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about — but cannot talk about — is losing their nuclear monopoly. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today. If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself.

Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel’s security — not through a direct attack, which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel’s leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests. Speaking on CNN’s Amanpour show last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that “the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran…. It’s the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world…and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza.”

Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted. Right now, it is the combination of Iran’s strategic alliance with Syria and the steady progress in Iran’s nuclear enrichment program that has led Israeli leaders to contemplate a surprise attack — if necessary over the objections of Washington. With Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its, proxies, it is possible that the United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran’s program has crossed an unacceptable threshold. In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.

The rebellion in Syria has now lasted more than a year. The opposition is not going away, nor is the regime going to accept a diplomatic solution from the outside. With his life and his family at risk, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s mind.

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498
Date: 11/30/2015

The Obama administration has been understandably wary of engaging in an air operation in Syria like the one conducted in Libya for three main reasons. Unlike the Libyan opposition forces, the Syrian rebels are not unified and do not hold territory. The Arab League has not called for outside military intervention as it did in Libya. And the Russians are opposed.

Libya was an easier case. But other than the laudable purpose of saving Libyan civilians from likely attacks by Qaddafi’s regime, the Libyan operation had no long-lasting consequences for the region. Syria is harder. But success in Syria would be a transformative event for the Middle East. Not only would another ruthless dictator succumb to mass opposition on the streets, but the region would be changed for the better as Iran would no longer have a foothold in the Middle East from which to threaten Israel and undermine stability in the region. Unlike in Libya, a successful intervention in Syria would require substantial diplomatic and military leadership from the United States. Washington should start by expressing its willingness to work with regional allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to organize, train and arm Syrian rebel forces. The announcement of such a decision would, by itself, likely cause substantial defections from the Syrian military. Then, using territory in Turkey and possibly Jordan, U.S. diplomats and Pentagon officials can start strengthening the opposition. It will take time. But the rebellion is going to go on for a long time, with or without U.S. involvement.

The second step is to develop international support for a coalition air operation. Russia will never support such a mission, so there is no point operating through the UN Security Council. Some argue that U.S. involvement risks a wider war with Russia. But the Kosovo example shows otherwise. In that case, Russia had genuine ethnic and political ties to the Serbs, which don’t exist between Russia and Syria, and even then Russia did little more than complain. Russian officials have already acknowledged they won’t stand in the way if intervention comes.

Arming the Syrian rebels and using western air power to ground Syrian helicopters and airplanes is a low-cost high payoff approach. As long as Washington’s political leaders stay firm that no U.S. ground troops will be deployed, as they did in both Kosovo and Libya, the costs to the United States will be limited. Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend, not an enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes. For Israel, the rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be eased. And a new Syrian regime might well be open to early action on the frozen peace talks with Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance and missiles. All these strategic benefits and the prospect of saving thousands of civilians from murder at the hands of the Assad regime (10,000 have already been killed in this first year of civil war).

With the veil of fear lifted from the Syrian people, they seem determine to fight for their freedom. America can and should help them — and by doing so help Israel and help reduce the risk of a wider war.

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

You nailed it, I’m tired of buzzwords Xenophobe, misogyny, racist,sexist,bigot,homophobe have lost all real impact and meaning due to the rampant abuse of the words by the regressive left. The power of those labels are waning and now more and more people are willing to stand up and voice their opinions without fear.

|Right Wing Death Squad| Swallowed both Red Pills /pol/MGTOW

[UintatheriumParticipant 1861]

I guess Trump is a non-interventionist in some ways. That’s good. He also said that he would kill the family members of the terrorists.

I agree that ISIS/DAESH is largely a byproduct of American imperialism, globalization and Neo-Zionism. Trump may be a bit of a non-interventionist … but he rarely talks about the real origin of DAESH. He seems to imply that DAESH is just a natural byproduct of Islam.

What he and his supporters say about Islam is politically incorrect … but that doesn’t automatically make it true. I, personally, consider Trump to be a false prophet. We have no representative in this election.

Additionally, he fails to realize that Mexican immigration is largely a byproduct of American military f~~~-ups in Latin America. If he is a non-interventionist, he doesn’t take it far enough and he doesn’t take advantage of the implications of his own position. This is probably because Trump isn’t that smart.

I’m not trying to insult the soldiers in the US military. They are brave, noble men who believe that they are fighting for a noble cause. The real bad guys here are the multinational megacorporate overlords who create wars to increase their own wealth and don’t care about the suffering of everyone else.

MGTOW: because you can (and should) say anything about a woman as long as she isn't within earshot

[Big BossParticipant 4496]

Uintatherium wrote:

I agree that ISIS/DAESH is largely a byproduct of-

Trump may be a bit of a non-interventionist … but he rarely talks about the real origin of DAESH-

What he and his supporters say about Islam is politically incorrect … but-

We have no representative in this election.

Do you even listen to Trump somewhat fully without cut clips by the media or are you basing all your opinions on what the entire mainstream media apparatus is telling you? In either event you need to look up videos from Sam Harris. He’s the one Bill Maher brought on to help educate his liberal audience about Islam and Ben “Aflac” went on a sperg tantrum.

My initial candidate was Ron Paul and later his son Rand Paul. When Rand weeded himself out of the election, I at least took the time to listen to Trump before I blew him off. I ended up at least pleasantly surprised which is better than I can say for Hillary. And we have no “media approved” representative in the election. See for yourself:

Uintatherium wrote:

Additionally, he fails to realize that Mexican immigration is largely a byproduct of American-
If he is a non-interventionist, he doesn’t take it far enough-
This is probably because Trump isn’t that smart.

The real bad guys here are the multinational megacorporate overlords who create wars to increase their own wealth and –

Don’t preach to me about American policies on South America. I live on the southern most boarder county. I know more than most Americans.

Trump had nothing to do with the American interventionist policies in Latin America. You are actually blaming him for Latin America’s state? I would have assumed that using basic logic and reason that you would naturally blame hillary first being a secretary of state and senator far before Trump. Megacorporate overlords are in cahoots with Hillary and even have “pay for play”.

Emails reveal Hillary’s shocking pay-for-play scheme

http://nypost.com/2016/08/09/emails-reveal-hillarys-shocking-pay-for-play-scheme/

“Can we set up a time for a very brief call to go over our process for handling donations from donors who have given us pay to play letters? Want to make sure we have a robust process in place to make sure that donations that come in from those donors, in any form, get put into the operating account.

Let me know when would be a good time for you all.

Thanks, Jackie”

Yes, that’s perfect. Thanks

Sent from my iPhone

Is This the Smoking Gun? Wikileaks Email Shows DNC Clinton Campaign Accepting ‘Pay for Play’ Cash

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/20280

F~~~ing shame on some of you. Utter shame.

I have to admit I’m losing respect for a lot of people I would assume have basic reasoning skills with Trump and Hillary. I don’t even know how the hell I got in the position of defending Trump. It isn’t that I think he’s gravy or the bees knees, its the fact that all of you are so blue pilled on what is actually going on I’m actually blown away that I have to bother to redpill you on how massive this clusterf~~~ is.

You all are hung up on Trump’s character like it f~~~ing means anything and simply skirting your foolishness by saying “well its not that I like Hillary”.

I DON’T CARE IF YOU LIKE HILLARY C~~~S. You can want to tap that old ass because its a fetish or you like dumb hoes. Or have a fetish for f~~~ing former presidential first wives. That isn’t the f~~~ing issue.

It is the fact that you even BOTHERING to criticize Trump instead of actually demanding Hillary get locked up and set up for conjugal visits because you obviously are already giving her the biggest pussy pass after in American f~~~ing history for LITERAL high treason.

[MadmanParticipant 772]

No matter who you vote for you are voting for the agenda.
Heres an introduction to our rigged reality.

[UintatheriumParticipant 1861]

A Freemasonry conspiracy vid? Spare me.

The world isn’t run by Freemasons. It’s run by people who follow nothing but their own greed.

The Freemasonry is just a harmless men’s club. They also don’t allow women, which is pretty neat.

MGTOW: because you can (and should) say anything about a woman as long as she isn't within earshot

[Capn_BooyyaaParticipant 2]

Never judge someone by what their enemies say about them, and right now 95% of the media hate Trump.

The Democrat and Republican establishment have proven to govern the same. And both want Hillary elected (so that they can continue business as usual).

Do not look at this election as a racist vs a liar, this is the narrative you have been trained to respond to. You need to plug into the alternative right, and into foreign news sources to start getting the real picture. Read Wikileaks and the other (pure) sources of information and use your brain to figure out witch way is up.

How should you view this election? As the most important in the history of the USA. Why?

#1 The President’s real powers are enforcement of laws, and the veto pen, their speeches and politics has very little to do with how the country operates (unless they are illegally NOT enforcing laws, i.e Obama)

#2 The next President will be able to stack the Supreme Court with majority judges that agree with them. This is FAR more dangerous than what any president can do with a veto pen.

So ask yourself this question, if the courts go 6-3 or 7-2 liberal, what do you think will happen to this country? Guns will be outlawed, and every large city will turn into a Ferguson. Free speech will be banned unless you agree with liberals. Men will basically be slaves by fiat. This is a scenario if Hillary wins.

What if Trump wins? and loads the courts with a 6-3 to 7-2 origanalist court? The rule of law will finally be restored after 100 years of failure. Jurisprudence would change and possibly reverse many findings, this is the USA’s only real hope.

please do not vote unless well versed in our politics, the education system has done a terrible job with gen y,x,z. Read Alexis de’Tocqueville, Locke, and Montesquieu. Then read the federalists / anti-federalist papers. then you will see the current system has already been subverted.

A vote for Hillary, is a vote to subvert the system more. Its Cultural Marxism, we have to reject it!

[Jim01Participant 6678]

this election has Brexit written all over it. The liberal media had scare stories and lies every day, exploited the death of a politician, called people voting Brexit racist and xenophobes etc

the liberal media at their best and there EVERY poll put Remain as the clear winner..Well guess what happened? On the day of the referendum Brexiters turned up en masse and voted to leave the EU and shocked all of the establishment

Trump will do the same this year I am sure

[Author]

Posts