Time to get on the TRUMP train

[ToasterOven]

The seizure stuff is from InfoWars?

If you guys keep getting your news from those sites, you're always going to be ignorant. I've helped you as much as I can, but you've got to do some self editing of your web habits.

Yea lets all get our news from gawker, media matters, salon.com (where they have a self admitted pedophile blogging), politico, and any other "credible" sites. You know "credible"..... you condescending faggot. Just because you had daddy issues and can't stand the patriarch doesn't mean we're all effeminate fuck boys who can't stand an alpha male who has self confidence in himself and is a real man, not like the milquetoast faggot libtard that you are

Here is the problem. Seriously, though, it's not your fault. You listed some blogs that occasionally break a story, but generally are opinion writers. Do you even know how to get news?

Get your news from the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC News etc. Republicans have been lying to you for decades and now you are totally ignorant. But you don't know it because you keep going back to the right wing bubble for your news. Stop doing that and you'll be much more knowledgeable.

[Mintjewlips]

Debates

Wiki leaks, leaks more emails

Terror attack

Trump wins landslide victory.


In that motherfucking order.


/thread

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016...others-mexico/

An ISIS operative arrested and criminally charged in Ohio this month has confirmed that the terrorist group has cells in Mexico, according to federal authorities. Judicial Watch has reported this for years, documenting it in a series of articles as part of an ongoing investigation on the connection between drug cartels, corruption and terrorism on the southern border. In fact, last spring Judicial Watch broke a story about an ISIS camp just a few miles from El Paso, Texas in an area known as “Anapra” situated just west of Ciudad Juárez in the Mexican state of Chihuahua.

Though a number of high-level law enforcement, intelligence and military sources on both sides of the border have provided Judicial Watch with evidence that Islamic terrorist cells are operating in Mexico, the Obama administration has publicly denied it, both to Judicial Watch and in mainstream media outlets. Now we have a terrorism suspect in custody proudly affirming it. His name is Erick Jamal Hendricks and the U.S. has charged him with conspiring to provide ISIS and ISIL material support. Hendricks created a sleeper cell with at least ten members, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ), and claims that some of his jihadist “brothers” are just south of the U.S. border in Mexico. The 35-year-old lived for a short time in Charlotte, North Carolina and was arrested and charged in Ohio last week. Hendricks tried to “recruit people to train together and conduct terrorist attacks in the United States,” according to the government’s criminalcomplaint.

Hendricks contacted another ISIS operative, referred to as “CW-1”, who was arrested last summer, about working with him and several other terrorists to carry out attacks. “Hendricks allegedly told CW-1 that he ‘needed people’ and wanted to meet in person; that there were several ‘brothers’ located in Texas and Mexico; that he was attempting to ‘get brothers to meet face to face;’ and that he wanted ‘to get brothers to train together,’” according to a DOJ announcement. Hendricks and his sleeper cell targeted U.S. military members and a woman who organized a “Draw Muhammad” cartoon contest in Garland, Texas last May. Two men in body armor with assault rifles tried to carry out an attack in the Dallas suburb building where the event took place but were shot dead by police. The FBI says Hendricks was connected with the terrorism-related shooting. Federal prosecutors reveal that Hendricks vetted CW-1 by testing his religious knowledge and commitment to jihad, to die as a martyr and his desire to enter Jannah (paradise), the feds say.

Yea enjoy the killary lead for now.

[MumblesBadly]

It's not their fault

[Mintjewlips]

Yea lets all get our news from gawker, media matters, salon.com (where they have a self admitted pedophile blogging), politico, and any other "credible" sites. You know "credible"..... you condescending faggot. Just because you had daddy issues and can't stand the patriarch doesn't mean we're all effeminate fuck boys who can't stand an alpha male who has self confidence in himself and is a real man, not like the milquetoast faggot libtard that you are

Here is the problem. Seriously, though, it's not your fault. You listed some blogs that occasionally break a story, but generally are opinion writers. Do you even know how to get news?

Get your news from the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC News etc. Republicans have been lying to you for decades and now you are totally ignorant. But you don't know it because you keep going back to the right wing bubble for your news. Stop doing that and you'll be much more knowledgeable.

Lol the same Washington Post that is owned by a technocratic ideologue who has publicly disapproved of Donald Trump, and is publicly dedicating 25 journalist to stopping trump?! Lol god you delusional lemming.

[sonatine]

Here is the problem. Seriously, though, it's not your fault. You listed some blogs that occasionally break a story, but generally are opinion writers. Do you even know how to get news?

Get your news from the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC News etc. Republicans have been lying to you for decades and now you are totally ignorant. But you don't know it because you keep going back to the right wing bubble for your news. Stop doing that and you'll be much more knowledgeable.

Lol the same Washington Post that is owned by a technocratic ideologue who has publicly disapproved of Donald Trump, and is publicly dedicating 25 journalist to stopping trump?! Lol god you delusional lemming.

It's telling that to simply accurately report what Trump does is now interpreted as aggression by the people with the least to lose from this election, or any election for that matter.

[Mintjewlips]

Lol the same Washington Post that is owned by a technocratic ideologue who has publicly disapproved of Donald Trump, and is publicly dedicating 25 journalist to stopping trump?! Lol god you delusional lemming.

It's telling that to simply accurately report what Trump does is now interpreted as aggression by the people with the least to lose from this election, or any election for that matter.

Simply accurately reporting what Trump says, and thats it, is journalism. Putting your own spin on it in other to fall in line with the corporate heads is not journalism.

Go ahead and call what you would have considered facts in 2005, a "conspiracy theory". Or are you just another libtard with short term memory?

[hongkonger]

"GOP insiders: Trump can't win
'Trump is underperforming so comprehensively...it would take video evidence of a smiling Hillary drowning a litter of puppies while terrorists surrounded her with chants of ‘Death to America,’' said an Iowa Republican." cont..

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...nsiders-226932

Assange prolly has that video. That prick has gotten political and that is disappointing.

He's doing a great public service by exposing those in power (including Obama and Hillary) and pushing for transparency. He doesn't like Hillary like so many of us don't, but he actually wants Trump unlike any sane person. So he's beyond exposure and into anarchy.

[hongkonger]

Debates

Wiki leaks, leaks more emails

Terror attack

Trump wins landslide victory.


In that motherfucking order.


/thread

Wanna bet?

[Dan Druff]

Yea lets all get our news from gawker, media matters, salon.com (where they have a self admitted pedophile blogging), politico, and any other "credible" sites. You know "credible"..... you condescending idiotic. Just because you had daddy issues and can't stand the patriarch doesn't mean we're all effeminate fuck boys who can't stand an alpha male who has self confidence in himself and is a real man, not like the milquetoast idiotic libtard that you are

Here is the problem. Seriously, though, it's not your fault. You listed some blogs that occasionally break a story, but generally are opinion writers. Do you even know how to get news?

Get your news from the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC News etc. Republicans have been lying to you for decades and now you are totally ignorant. But you don't know it because you keep going back to the right wing bubble for your news. Stop doing that and you'll be much more knowledgeable.

As a Republican, I don't find that it's enough to only get news from the sources you listed.

They are often slanted toward the left, or more commonly, simply avoid stories which make the left look bad (unless they are too big to ignore).

I will admit that much of the "news" from right wing sites is crap. In fact, sometimes I get frustrated reading these sites, as it is clear they are purposely slanting the story so much to their own side that it's impossible to get a grip on the reality of the situation, even if a neutral reporting of the story would still favor the right.

Of course, the same happens from left wing sites. For example, I just ran into a laughable HuffPo article which takes Republicans to task for "falsely" claiming crime is on the rise. Knowing that violent crime IS indeed on the rise, I was wondering how this article was going to "prove" its point. The article cited data that "violent crime has decreased in the past decade".

I laughed.

The past decade? Talk about a manipulation of statistics. In reality, crime was decreasing for the first 7 years of the past decade (as it was for the past 16 years before that), but has gone sharply UP in the past 3 years. So overall the crime rate in 2016 might be lower than what we saw in 2006, but it's way higher than 2013, which is much more important. The HuffPo used "the past decade" as its analyzed timespan to cover this fact up, and attempted to make Republicans look like lying snakes despite their TRUE claim about rising violent crime. Terrible.

Bottom line is that, regardless of your political affiliation, you need to read news from left, center, AND right wing sources, and then make up your mind.

[adamantium]

Here is the problem. Seriously, though, it's not your fault. You listed some blogs that occasionally break a story, but generally are opinion writers. Do you even know how to get news?

Get your news from the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC News etc. Republicans have been lying to you for decades and now you are totally ignorant. But you don't know it because you keep going back to the right wing bubble for your news. Stop doing that and you'll be much more knowledgeable.

As a Republican, I don't find that it's enough to only get news from the sources you listed.

They are often slanted toward the left, or more commonly, simply avoid stories which make the left look bad (unless they are too big to ignore).

I will admit that much of the "news" from right wing sites is crap. In fact, sometimes I get frustrated reading these sites, as it is clear they are purposely slanting the story so much to their own side that it's impossible to get a grip on the reality of the situation, even if a neutral reporting of the story would still favor the right.

Of course, the same happens from left wing sites. For example, I just ran into a laughable HuffPo article which takes Republicans to task for "falsely" claiming crime is on the rise. Knowing that violent crime IS indeed on the rise, I was wondering how this article was going to "prove" its point. The article cited data that "violent crime has decreased in the past decade".

I laughed.

The past decade? Talk about a manipulation of statistics. In reality, crime was decreasing for the first 7 years of the past decade (as it was for the past 16 years before that), but has gone sharply UP in the past 3 years. So overall the crime rate in 2016 might be lower than what we saw in 2006, but it's way higher than 2013, which is much more important. The HuffPo used "the past decade" as its analyzed timespan to cover this fact up, and attempted to make Republicans look like lying snakes despite their TRUE claim about rising violent crime. Terrible.

Bottom line is that, regardless of your political affiliation, you need to read news from left, center, AND right wing sources, and then make up your mind.

I really find it difficult to take what you say seriously anymore after learning you are voting for Trump.

[GringoStar]

I really find it difficult to take what you say seriously anymore after learning you are voting for Trump.

Keep in mind, it has been statistically proven that individual votes have no impact on the outcome of elections, even on a city-wide basis, much less on a national scale.

Princeton did a study in 2014 that concluded that US is an oligarchy and Jimmy Carter recently confirmed this to be the case.

[Mintjewlips]

Here is the problem. Seriously, though, it's not your fault. You listed some blogs that occasionally break a story, but generally are opinion writers. Do you even know how to get news?

Get your news from the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC News etc. Republicans have been lying to you for decades and now you are totally ignorant. But you don't know it because you keep going back to the right wing bubble for your news. Stop doing that and you'll be much more knowledgeable.

As a Republican, I don't find that it's enough to only get news from the sources you listed.

They are often slanted toward the left, or more commonly, simply avoid stories which make the left look bad (unless they are too big to ignore).

I will admit that much of the "news" from right wing sites is crap. In fact, sometimes I get frustrated reading these sites, as it is clear they are purposely slanting the story so much to their own side that it's impossible to get a grip on the reality of the situation, even if a neutral reporting of the story would still favor the right.

Of course, the same happens from left wing sites. For example, I just ran into a laughable HuffPo article which takes Republicans to task for "falsely" claiming crime is on the rise. Knowing that violent crime IS indeed on the rise, I was wondering how this article was going to "prove" its point. The article cited data that "violent crime has decreased in the past decade".

I laughed.

The past decade? Talk about a manipulation of statistics. In reality, crime was decreasing for the first 7 years of the past decade (as it was for the past 16 years before that), but has gone sharply UP in the past 3 years. So overall the crime rate in 2016 might be lower than what we saw in 2006, but it's way higher than 2013, which is much more important. The HuffPo used "the past decade" as its analyzed timespan to cover this fact up, and attempted to make Republicans look like lying snakes despite their TRUE claim about rising violent crime. Terrible.

Bottom line is that, regardless of your political affiliation, you need to read news from left, center, AND right wing sources, and then make up your mind.

[ToasterOven]

Here is the problem. Seriously, though, it's not your fault. You listed some blogs that occasionally break a story, but generally are opinion writers. Do you even know how to get news?

Get your news from the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC News etc. Republicans have been lying to you for decades and now you are totally ignorant. But you don't know it because you keep going back to the right wing bubble for your news. Stop doing that and you'll be much more knowledgeable.

As a Republican, I don't find that it's enough to only get news from the sources you listed.

They are often slanted toward the left, or more commonly, simply avoid stories which make the left look bad (unless they are too big to ignore).

I will admit that much of the "news" from right wing sites is crap. In fact, sometimes I get frustrated reading these sites, as it is clear they are purposely slanting the story so much to their own side that it's impossible to get a grip on the reality of the situation, even if a neutral reporting of the story would still favor the right.

Of course, the same happens from left wing sites. For example, I just ran into a laughable HuffPo article which takes Republicans to task for "falsely" claiming crime is on the rise. Knowing that violent crime IS indeed on the rise, I was wondering how this article was going to "prove" its point. The article cited data that "violent crime has decreased in the past decade".

I laughed.

The past decade? Talk about a manipulation of statistics. In reality, crime was decreasing for the first 7 years of the past decade (as it was for the past 16 years before that), but has gone sharply UP in the past 3 years. So overall the crime rate in 2016 might be lower than what we saw in 2006, but it's way higher than 2013, which is much more important. The HuffPo used "the past decade" as its analyzed timespan to cover this fact up, and attempted to make Republicans look like lying snakes despite their TRUE claim about rising violent crime. Terrible.

Bottom line is that, regardless of your political affiliation, you need to read news from left, center, AND right wing sources, and then make up your mind.

I say NYT and WaPO, you complain about Huffpo. See the problem here, Druff? You can't possibly think Huffpo is the same as NYT? C'mon.

[Tellafriend]

Says it all

[hongkonger]

Here is the problem. Seriously, though, it's not your fault. You listed some blogs that occasionally break a story, but generally are opinion writers. Do you even know how to get news?

Get your news from the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC News etc. Republicans have been lying to you for decades and now you are totally ignorant. But you don't know it because you keep going back to the right wing bubble for your news. Stop doing that and you'll be much more knowledgeable.

As a Republican, I don't find that it's enough to only get news from the sources you listed.

They are often slanted toward the left, or more commonly, simply avoid stories which make the left look bad (unless they are too big to ignore).

I will admit that much of the "news" from right wing sites is crap. In fact, sometimes I get frustrated reading these sites, as it is clear they are purposely slanting the story so much to their own side that it's impossible to get a grip on the reality of the situation, even if a neutral reporting of the story would still favor the right.

Of course, the same happens from left wing sites. For example, I just ran into a laughable HuffPo article which takes Republicans to task for "falsely" claiming crime is on the rise. Knowing that violent crime IS indeed on the rise, I was wondering how this article was going to "prove" its point. The article cited data that "violent crime has decreased in the past decade".

I laughed.

The past decade? Talk about a manipulation of statistics. In reality, crime was decreasing for the first 7 years of the past decade (as it was for the past 16 years before that), but has gone sharply UP in the past 3 years. So overall the crime rate in 2016 might be lower than what we saw in 2006, but it's way higher than 2013, which is much more important. The HuffPo used "the past decade" as its analyzed timespan to cover this fact up, and attempted to make Republicans look like lying snakes despite their TRUE claim about rising violent crime. Terrible.

Bottom line is that, regardless of your political affiliation, you need to read news from left, center, AND right wing sources, and then make up your mind.

I wish I weren't out of rep. Great post.

Druff, have you considered voting for Johnson?

[BiffCo99]

As a Republican, I don't find that it's enough to only get news from the sources you listed.

They are often slanted toward the left, or more commonly, simply avoid stories which make the left look bad (unless they are too big to ignore).

I will admit that much of the "news" from right wing sites is crap. In fact, sometimes I get frustrated reading these sites, as it is clear they are purposely slanting the story so much to their own side that it's impossible to get a grip on the reality of the situation, even if a neutral reporting of the story would still favor the right.

Of course, the same happens from left wing sites. For example, I just ran into a laughable HuffPo article which takes Republicans to task for "falsely" claiming crime is on the rise. Knowing that violent crime IS indeed on the rise, I was wondering how this article was going to "prove" its point. The article cited data that "violent crime has decreased in the past decade".

I laughed.

The past decade? Talk about a manipulation of statistics. In reality, crime was decreasing for the first 7 years of the past decade (as it was for the past 16 years before that), but has gone sharply UP in the past 3 years. So overall the crime rate in 2016 might be lower than what we saw in 2006, but it's way higher than 2013, which is much more important. The HuffPo used "the past decade" as its analyzed timespan to cover this fact up, and attempted to make Republicans look like lying snakes despite their TRUE claim about rising violent crime. Terrible.

Bottom line is that, regardless of your political affiliation, you need to read news from left, center, AND right wing sources, and then make up your mind.

I say NYT and WaPO, you complain about Huffpo. See the problem here, Druff? You can't possibly think Huffpo is the same as NYT? C'mon.

The problem is that you think the NYT and WaPO aren't biased. They lean very heavily to the left. And that's not my opinion, that's a fact. HuffPo is radical left. Seems you're the one who needs to be educated.

[MumblesBadly]

Here is the problem. Seriously, though, it's not your fault. You listed some blogs that occasionally break a story, but generally are opinion writers. Do you even know how to get news?

Get your news from the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC News etc. Republicans have been lying to you for decades and now you are totally ignorant. But you don't know it because you keep going back to the right wing bubble for your news. Stop doing that and you'll be much more knowledgeable.

As a Republican, I don't find that it's enough to only get news from the sources you listed.

They are often slanted toward the left, or more commonly, simply avoid stories which make the left look bad (unless they are too big to ignore).

I will admit that much of the "news" from right wing sites is crap. In fact, sometimes I get frustrated reading these sites, as it is clear they are purposely slanting the story so much to their own side that it's impossible to get a grip on the reality of the situation, even if a neutral reporting of the story would still favor the right.

Of course, the same happens from left wing sites. For example, I just ran into a laughable HuffPo article which takes Republicans to task for "falsely" claiming crime is on the rise. Knowing that violent crime IS indeed on the rise, I was wondering how this article was going to "prove" its point. The article cited data that "violent crime has decreased in the past decade".

I laughed.

The past decade? Talk about a manipulation of statistics. In reality, crime was decreasing for the first 7 years of the past decade (as it was for the past 16 years before that), but has gone sharply UP in the past 3 years. So overall the crime rate in 2016 might be lower than what we saw in 2006, but it's way higher than 2013, which is much more important. The HuffPo used "the past decade" as its analyzed timespan to cover this fact up, and attempted to make Republicans look like lying snakes despite their TRUE claim about rising violent crime. Terrible.

Bottom line is that, regardless of your political affiliation, you need to read news from left, center, AND right wing sources, and then make up your mind.

The current mayor of Los Angeles mentioned in an interview in a recent Freakonomics Radio podcast episode that the recent rise in crime in that city is partially due to the in-recent-years early release of felons before social service programs were ramped up to reduce their need to turn back to crime to support themselves. The other major reason is that LA police were behind the curve on his gangs has shifted to social media from traditional "gang" media (graffiti) as signals of rising rival gang tensions.
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/conf...le-politician/

But, of course, Druff, who prolly has spent many years researching this matter (prolly by reading newspapers and local Fox News reporting) is probably much better informed about the matter than that Rhodes scholar polymath, who before being elected mayor of LA a few years ago, was on the Los Angeles City Council, half of that time as its president. 'Cause he's a liberal, no doubt. Or am I wrong on that matter?

[Sanlmar]

the recent rise in crime in that city is partially due to the in-recent-years early release of felons before social service programs were ramped up to reduce their need to return back to crime to support themselves....

Right, social service programs were the difference. They always are.

I'm sorry, you mean the felons might have staffed this social service and gained useful employment?

[MumblesBadly]

I say NYT and WaPO, you complain about Huffpo. See the problem here, Druff? You can't possibly think Huffpo is the same as NYT? C'mon.

The problem is that you think the NYT and WaPO aren't biased. They lean very heavily to the left. And that's not my opinion, that's a fact. HuffPo is radical left. Seems you're the one who needs to be educated.

The NYT and WaPo lean heavily to the left? Are you fucking kidding me??? Then explain why they both stopped labeling waterboarding as "torture" during Dubya Bush's administration, when since World War II, it had been classified as torture when the US prosecuted Japanese military commanders for war crimes for doing so during that war??? And WaPo continued not doing so well into Obama's 2nd term. Give me a fucking break!

[sonatine]

Bottom line is that, regardless of your political affiliation, you need to read news from left, center, AND right wing sources, and then make up your mind.

Each one of the legitimate entries into the field in each of the 3 media affiliations described openly regards Trump as the worst America has to offer made flesh.

If you want to quote the affiliates that are pro-Trump at this point, you are basically saying "I know, Ive read their articles, and yeah I know the holocaust actually DID happen, vaccines actually DONT cause autism, and Obama DOESNT our guns, we actually DID land on the moon, the bible is NOT a rule book for global domination, dinosaurs DID exist, but I think they are onto something with this Trump guy!"


Because if youre advocating anyone who is pro-Trump at this point, you are 100% smack dab in the middle of Duck Dynasty USA and you need to own that shit. Like forever.