Triumph is going to destroy the 'BUSA :(

[Fist 666]

The Constitution is absolutely a living document, you are familiar with the 13th and 21st amendments, yes?

 

What a selective view of handouts and distribution/redistribution you have. The measly percentage of your tax money that goes to individual humans which you use as a backbone argument are laughable in comparison to defense, agricultural subsidies, and definitive corporate handouts. Here is a breakdown of meme/reality that clarifies what is actually spent.

 

If any tax-and-redistribution is theft, all redistribution is theft and I would expect to see you on the front line protesting things that take a much greater piece of your tax dollar such as defense spending, police spending, corn subsidies (which only act make people fat and sick), corporate welfare, etc . Remember, "Just because you vote to steal from someone doesn't make it not immoral to steal;" so if its a level playing field, tax money spent on a new jet or weapons system is as equally egregious as tax money spent feeding disadvantaged children or helping mentally challenged homeless people. (you cannot half-assedly resent socialism).

But I understand, poor people are a much easier target to paint red and blame for their own short comings, after all, if you can feed yourself, why can't everybody else?

 

Resenting the poor and needy for culture shifts, most of which have been driven by corporate policy and failed government policies (particularly within education and prison politics), is outright offensive.

[morton]

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist and the greatest trick the capitalists ever pulled was convincing the poor that one day they would be rich too.

[Hua Guofang]

Yes, I am a complete noob on the US constitution but the fact that it can be and does get amended means that is 100% a living document, right?

[One Man Banned]

The only progress I'm seeing is pushing towards a police state where the unruly have been so pushy about trying to get their way that the police have to step in and the government has to put a stop to it. On the subject of socialism, it's a horrible idea and would never work in America. Just because you vote to steal from someone doesn't make it not immoral to steal. It's a highly ridiculous notion that someone with a lot of money should pay for those that have not applied themselves in life to also be successful.... The government isn't the peoples' own personal robin hood. If you want something in life you need to work for it. If you intend to have "hand outs" to get you by then maybe North Korea is a good spot to go, where the government dictates what people have and don't have.

 

Um, how many politicians, how many of the top 1%, do you think are self made men/women? They exist, but a lot of those old ass politicians and corporate jerk offs had shit handed to them by their parents, by breaks afforded them to run businesses, by earning off the sweat of other people's backs who really were poor, downtrodden people, immigrants with little to start, etc. Do I feel bad if they have to somehow compensate or make up for that? Not one bit. Fuck those people unless they really are trying to do something to give back.

 

Kind of separate but related topic, but the concept of wealth in America (elsewhere too?) is pretty fucked, kind of geared toward needing to have more and more with no ceiling. Not talking about rights to amass wealth, more that it's kind of a meaningless concept, numbers on paper. Can't recall if it was Russia or where that at one point their economy tanked so bad that you basically would need a pile of 1s to equal what was previously $1. I'm sure most big businesses have back-ups, mirrored sites, etc., but after things like 911 and the idea of hitting America in its financial sector I wonder what would happen if some of these hackers wiped the acounts of some corporation or Richie Rich type. Not stole from per se, just erased numbers and set it back to 0.

[One Man Banned]

Yes, I am a complete noob on the US constitution but the fact that it can be and does get amended means that is 100% a living document, right?

 

Don't worry, I'd wager that the overwhelming number of Americans do not know the Constitution and can't name more than the 3 amendments they see commonly used on TV/the news, like "I plead the 5th."

[Fist 666]

F

I

F

[CALIgula]

I've literally got a copy of the constitution sitting next to my computer monitor right now.

 

I just opened it up and read that the last amendment was the 27th and it was ratified on may 7th 1992, so yes its a living document albeit the amendments don't occur too often, the 26th becoming ratified on july 1st 1971.

[Dirty_habiT]

The measly percentage of your tax money that goes to individual humans which you use as a backbone argument are laughable in comparison to defense, agricultural subsidies, and definitive corporate handouts.

 

If any tax-and-redistribution is theft, all redistribution is theft.

 

But I understand, poor people are a much easier target to paint red and blame for their own short comings, after all, if you can feed yourself, why can't everybody else?

 

Resenting the poor and needy for culture shifts, most of which have been driven by corporate policy and failed government policies (particularly within education and prison politics), is outright offensive.

 

You're entitled to being offended, but it is a choice you make to spend your energy that way. You're correct in saying that all tax is theft. I agree but that doesn't mean that I agree to paying a higher percentage of tax for programs that I do not agree with. I'd be willing to guess that many protestors (read spending time not working/stimulating economy/earning money) are trying to get some of the rich's money because they somehow think it's owed to them. I, personally, have worked hard to get where I am and don't like giving my hard earned money to fuckos that want to spend their time tossing back malt liquor and don't have the testicular fortitude to drag their sleeping in asses out of bed and get to work every day. I've been making that decision for years and intend to continue doing so.

 

It also doesn't tickle me when people that don't earn try to vote as to where my money should be spent. Currently I'm saving to buy some land and I would doubt there are many land owners out there putting bandanas on their faces and kicking cars/breaking windows/throwing rocks at police. It's because they've worked to earn something in life and they have something they stand to lose by getting in trouble with the police. When you ain't got shit going on, I guess go protest because going to jail cannot be that much worse than the efficiency apartment you can barely afford with 6 of your "bros" sharing rent and making gourmet ramen recipes.

 

The reason I can feed myself (and my brother that currently lives with me, and my girlfriend) is because I've consistently gotten rather decent pay raises over the past 6 years of my life by applying myself and moving to better opportunities when they present themselves. I've also got stock option in two startups that I've worked for now so whenever they decide to go public, the money I've spent buying those options will multiple itself by quite a bit. This is an example of being good with money and working to improve your own life for anyone that is taking notes. If you're not doing this or moving towards a goal of a better life for yourself without it involving the taking of other peoples' assets.... well then I dgaf about you. It's not about if you make 30k/yr or if you make 250k/yr.... it's about the effort you're putting forth to contribute.

 

Protesting isn't contributing to anything but a bunch of kids that want to cry and break other peoples' toys because they basically can't figure shit out.

[Fist 666]

Not offended, just think you're making incomplete arguments to back up a wholly selfish agenda without regard for humanity.

 

To be clear, I'm using your argument of "taxation as theft" to call you out. You do not get to pick and choose--yet you are.

I find the libertarian, "I didn't sign the social contract" argument to be childish and selfish, let alone illogical and incomplete. Taxation without representation perhaps has a leg to stand on, the rest does not.

 

Bitching about the unemployed/poor/lazy/whatever-pejorative-you-want-to-use voting to benefit themselves is fucking stupid. Is it okay for the rich to vote to benefit themselves? By everything you've said I expect a, "well of course, they've earned the right to do so through hard work, perseverance, and application of testicular fortitude..." The thing about democracy is that absolutely nobody, especially you, can say that one person's vote is more or less valuable. (Felony disenfranchisement and corporate person-hood are other can-o-worm arguments related to this thread). NOT voting in your own best interest would of course be stupid, but consistently voting against the livelihood of the poor/sick/weak among us is inhumane.

Your arguments are principally split between supporting oligarchy and anarchy. (Anarcho-capitalism is dumb).

 

If you think the benefits of an unregulated market, voter suppression, etc outweigh human existence or environmental impact then we will find no middle ground.

 

The crux of all your arguments/complaints are all anecdotal fallacies. Your experience and your view of the world is singular. Your assumptions of what people who vote for social programs do is kind of frightening.

 

Edit: Plenty of us own land, homes, and protest. Stating,"Protesting isn't contributing to anything but a bunch of kids that want to cry and break other peoples' toys because they basically can't figure shit out." clarifies not only a lack of historical understanding on your part, but also reinforces your pick-n-choose approach to the Constitution. Not a good look.

 

_______________________________________________

 

Where is Frankie at these days?

[One Man Banned]

Well I kind of agree with his last sentence though, coming from prior arguments I've made that today's protestors are disorganized and misguided in so so many ways. Not that they don't have good causes, just not a good way to go about it. Like the 60's ended and people didn't need a voice anymore and/or forgot how to protest. Kind of ironic given that people have much more opportunities to have a voice these days with social media and all.

 

I just had to do some reading on racism, types/levels of, one was Symbolic Racism, paraphrasing here but it "encompassed people who believe that minorities violate traditional American values such as hard work or self-reliance. They deny their prejudice and believe that social/economic problems of minorities are due to personal, internal factors like lack of effort or discipline. In surveys they are found to reject obvious forms of prejudice/discrimination but openly oppose programs designed to assist those who have been victims of discrimination."

 

@Dirty_habiT I pretty much disagree with what you wrote but appreciate your opinion and hope you'll be back to argue it some more. Curious based on what you've said, how you view govt's roll of representing the people- not just the rich people, yet govt gives itslf and businesses a lot of breaks and incentives that don't really benefit many beyond themselves. I mean voting is not based on how much $ you have, so govt should be repping the poor people and doing something for them too, no?

[Fist 666]

I agree that a significant percentage of protesters are indeed whiny brats with no vision and perhaps even lack of understanding for what they are confronting. However, there are plenty of protests that produce tangible results. NC's HB2 for a recent example.

 

Occupy caught a lot of flack with this reputation. I was heavily involved with Occupy Tacoma, and will fully acknowledge that probably a quarter of those involved were the brats you guys are concerned with, but a heavy majority of us were employed homeowners concerned about the evolution of our democracy into plutocracy/corporatocracy. There were zero paid protesters in that group. We actively kept out the black bloc assholes, something the Seattle chapter was less successful with.

 

Keep in mind I "served" this country and "fought" to defend the Constitution (in principle, that's another can-o-worms we can use to derail if anyone is interested) so I am very personally committed to seeing our nation thrive and have our government serve all of its citizens, even the whiny brats.

 

@One Man Banned I'm curious, with the symbolic racism paragraph--did you bring that into the conversation due to the, "tossing back malt liquor" comment? I was just going to leave that one alone, but was wondering if anyone else took it for what it was.

[theprotester]

My ears were burning.

[One Man Banned]

I wouldn't say whiny brats personally. There are a lot of problems with the younger and younger crowd, but the flipside of that is they have reaosn to be disillusioned, I mean, what did people expect the "Me Generation" was going to produce to come afterward? What I am saying though is that by and large protest movements these days are kind of weak, and they direct their energies in the wrong direction producing little if any change. Are there exceptions, I guess so, but overall, I don't see that. Occupy is a good example. Remove anything about paid people, hijacked movement, etc., just look at where it physically started, camping out at Wall St. This accomplished what? Symbolic perhaps, for those willing to take notice. Don't want to type a lot right now so I'l bring it down to if you want to kill something you cut off its head, you don't make camp at its feet and yell at it. That's what protestors these days seem to do.

 

@Fist 666 the whole fought & served piece is an excellent derail or maybe separate thread, it has always interested me and is a conversation I've had with a lot of military people.

 

The symbolic racism comment was related to the generalization that if people just worked harder they wouldn't be in that position. That's far too broad and simplistic. We probably all know or have seen some of the people he describes, but I've been to a lot of bad areas across the U.S. and beyond and there are some good honest people to be found there that are getting fucked in various manners. I also want to say that I'm not calling anyone racist, or at least not deliberately racist. This is a concept I had just read about for something and it fit with the thinking I saw here.

 

Final thought for now, there are very few millionaires out there compared to the general population, everyone else is slacking? And of those millionaires, very few are "self made" so they didn't get there by kicking their own ass.

[One Man Banned]

For the tax= theft people:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/04/05/the-irs-took-millions-from-innocent-people-because-of-how-they-managed-their-bank-accounts-inspector-general-finds/?utm_term=.1ab900d80755

[theprotester]

https://mainerepublicemailalert.com/2015/08/17/us-congress-house-joint-resolution-192-of-june-5-1933-3/

[Hua Guofang]

I agree with pretty much everything that Fist, Banned and Cali are saying.

 

D-Habs, I think you are pretty simplistic in some of the things you are saying here. I agree with some of the sentiment but the world is far more complex than the way you seem to frame things. This is the stand out for simplistic and maybe a bit self-serving - It's a highly ridiculous notion that someone with a lot of money should pay for those that have not applied themselves in life to also be successful.

This begs the question of whether everyone who is hard off is that way because they are lazy and had all the opportunities they needed to be successful. As it also assumes that everyone who is well off got there through their own honest hard work. Clearly the world is far more complex (and less fair) than your statement makes out and seems to undermine the credibility of some of your position.

 

As an old soldier I also agree with Fist. I'd bet my magical third testicle that you've never served and sacrificed yet there are many who have that could use some support. Also, without tax how do you propose that your defence force is afforded, how will you manage disaster relief, how will you manage federal scale infrastructure that cannot be developed, planned and integrated without a national level approach? Etc., etc. These are all facets of socialism and taxation that a nation cannot do without and how can you plan that those who pay less tax get less defence or benefit less from disaster relief efforts, etc. etc.

 

Again, it's a complex issue in a complex world that does not allow simplistic and absolute positions.

[One Man Banned]

https://mainerepublicemailalert.com/2015/08/17/us-congress-house-joint-resolution-192-of-june-5-1933-3/

 

Started to lose some of what was being said toward the end. But as I read it my 1st thought was that correct or not, it looks like the work of Sovereign Citizens. Next thought was correct or not, anyone actually trying to do what is proposed in that is likely ending up on the govt radar in a bad way, with charges/prosecution/much headache to follow. Then I got past the end and read about the author. Ha.

[Dirty_habiT]

I never said I was against tax of any kind. I am, however, clearly against socialism that votes to take peoples' money to serve their own ideas.

 

If the "1%" vote in their own favor how does that pan out if everyone is allowed to vote and the people that could vote in their favor could easily override the 1%? The argument that the rich control everything isn't that simple. They control certain things, like the prices I pay for products that are made by their companies.

 

My dad served and so did one of my brothers. I don't think that this is a free pass to dictate what you think is right. Neither my dad or my brother ever bring up the "i served" argument because it simply doesn't hold a lot of merit unless you're talking to someone else that served and would give you sick kudos for doing so. I didn't get into the military because I found a good paying job before resorting to that. I did almost join but I was, thankfully, saved from doing so.

 

If you want to call drinking malt liquor racist, be my guest. I'm white and I used to drink a lot of malt liquor without being a wigger. This is yet another example of the left trying to name people into groups and perceive things as they see fit to perceive them. You cannot reliably establish motive to me saying tossing back malt liquor. How about the angle that it is something that poor people drink because it's a lot of bang for their buck? Maybe you're assuming black people are poor and you're the racist?

[Fist 666]

I agree, military service doesn't provide a free pass. Your vote counts exactly as much as mine. I only mention it to clarify that I (through intent, not necessarily consequence) have skin in the game of defending the Constitution.

 

If our democracy were truly reflective of votes, perhaps the 1% argument would work. As corporations-as-people and special-interest or lobby groups, let alone money in politics, have come to hugely affect our supposed representatives I think it is wholly straightforward to understand why the working class cannot outvote the wealthiest at the top of the pyramid.

 

Stating that all tax is theft implies your being against all taxes. I assume you can track that argument?

Do you think that the military industrial complex's siphoning of your tax dollars isn't taking your money to "serve their own ideas?" Where do your draw the line of what taxes are okay to be used to benefit the US population? If defense is okay why is healthcare not? Are roads and general infrastructure okay? Are you against your dollars going to the EPA or to national parks? Is environmental preservation important? Do farmers who receive massive subsidies for growing corn deserve the same scorn as those who receive welfare to eat and not die?

 

I assumed mild racism in your malt liquor comment based on other comments you've made over the years, I sincerely apologize if I misconstrued this as the exception to a pattern... /s

 

To the point: you're not really answering questions or defending your stance.

[CILONE/SK]

I dipped in here to see what it was about.

 

I'm in too good a mood to cross fire.

 

Might come back.

[One Man Banned]

I dipped in here to see what it was about.

 

I'm in too good a mood to cross fire.

 

Might come back.

 

Please do, we need more opinions.

[Hua Guofang]

Only reason I won't read this book is because all it will do is make me angry (or angrier) at politics.

The more I know the angrier I already am that Sanders didn't get the gig.

Yikes! New Behind-the-Scenes Book Brutalizes the Clinton Campaign

 

'Shattered,' a campaign tell-all fueled by anonymous sources, outlines a generational political disaster

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-on-the-new-book-that-brutalizes-the-clinton-campaign-w477978

 

A new book by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes examines what went wrong during Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. Justin Sullivan/Getty

Matt Taibbi

 

There is a critical scene in Shattered, the new behind-the-scenes campaign diary by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, in which staffers in the Hillary Clinton campaign begin to bicker with one another.

 

Taibbi: For White America, It's 'Happy Days' Again

Jeff Sessions rolls the clock back on civil rights enforcement

 

At the end of Chapter One, which is entirely about that campaign's exhausting and fruitless search for a plausible explanation for why Hillary was running, writers Allen and Parnes talk about the infighting problem.

 

"All of the jockeying might have been all right, but for a root problem that confounded everyone on the campaign and outside it," they wrote. "Hillary had been running for president for almost a decade and still didn't really have a rationale."

 

Allen and Parnes here quoted a Clinton aide who jokingly summed up Clinton's real motivation:

 

"I would have had a reason for running," one of her top aides said, "or I wouldn't have run."

 

The beleaguered Clinton staff spent the better part of two years trying to roll this insane tautology – "I have a reason for running because no one runs without a reason" – into the White House. It was a Beltway take on the classic Descartes formulation: "I seek re-election, therefore I am... seeking re-election."

 

.

 

Unfortunately, Keilar was not particularly gentle in her conduct of the interview. Among other things, she asked Hillary questions like, "Would you vote for someone you didn't trust?" An aide describes Hillary as "staring daggers" at Keilar. Internally, the interview was viewed as a disaster.

 

It turns out now it was all a mistake. Hillary had not wanted Brianna Keilar as an interviewer, but Bianna Golodryga of Yahoo! News, an excellent interviewer in her own right, but also one who happens to be the spouse of longtime Clinton administration aide Peter Orszag.

 

This "I said lunch, not launch!" slapstick mishap underscored for the Clinton campaign the hazards of venturing one millimeter outside the circle of trust. In one early conference call with speechwriters, Clinton sounded reserved:

 

"Though she was speaking with a small group made up mostly of intimates, she sounded like she was addressing a roomful of supporters – inhibited by the concern that whatever she said might be leaked to the press."

 

This traced back to 2008, a failed run that the Clintons had concluded was due to the disloyalty and treachery of staff and other Democrats. After that race, Hillary had aides create "loyalty scores" (from one for most loyal, to seven for most treacherous) for members of Congress. Bill Clinton since 2008 had "campaigned against some of the sevens" to "help knock them out of office," apparently to purify the Dem ranks heading into 2016.

 

Beyond that, Hillary after 2008 conducted a unique autopsy of her failed campaign. This reportedly included personally going back and reading through the email messages of her staffers:

 

"She instructed a trusted aide to access the campaign's server and download the messages sent and received by top staffers. … She believed her campaign had failed her – not the other way around – and she wanted 'to see who was talking to who, who was leaking to who,' said a source familiar with the operation."

 

Some will say this Nixonesque prying into her staff's communications will make complaints about leaked emails ring a little hollow.

 

Who knows about that. Reading your employees' emails isn't nearly the same as having an outsider leak them all over the world. Still, such a criticism would miss the point, which is that Hillary was looking in the wrong place for a reason for her 2008 loss. That she was convinced her staff was at fault makes sense, as Washington politicians tend to view everything through an insider lens.

 

Most don't see elections as organic movements within populations of millions, but as dueling contests of "whip-smart" organizers who know how to get the cattle to vote the right way. If someone wins an election, the inevitable Beltway conclusion is that the winner had better puppeteers.

 

Clinton accepting the Democratic nomination. Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty

The Clinton campaign in 2016, for instance, never saw the Bernie Sanders campaign as being driven by millions of people who over the course of decades had become dissatisfied with the party. They instead saw one cheap stunt pulled by an illegitimate back-bencher, foolishness that would be ended if Sanders himself could somehow be removed.

 

"Bill and Hillary had wanted to put [sanders] down like a junkyard dog early on," Allen and Parnes wrote. The only reason they didn't, they explained, was an irritating chance problem: Sanders "was liked," which meant going negative would backfire.

 

Hillary had had the same problem with Barack Obama, with whom she and her husband had elected to go heavily negative in 2008, only to see that strategy go very wrong. "It boomeranged," as it's put in Shattered.

 

The Clinton campaign was convinced that Obama won in 2008 not because he was a better candidate, or buoyed by an electorate that was disgusted with the Iraq War. Obama won, they believed, because he had a better campaign operation – i.e., better Washingtonian puppeteers. In The Right Stuff terms, Obama's Germans were better than Hillary's Germans.

 

They were determined not to make the same mistake in 2016. Here, the thought process of campaign chief Robby Mook is described:

 

"Mook knew that Hillary viewed almost every early decision through a 2008 lens: she thought almost everything her own campaign had done was flawed and everything Obama's had done was pristine."

 

Since Obama had spent efficiently and Hillary in 2008 had not, this led to spending cutbacks in the 2016 race in crucial areas, including the hiring of outreach staff in states like Michigan. This led to a string of similarly insane self-defeating decisions. As the book puts it, the "obsession with efficiency had come at the cost of broad voter contact in states that would become important battlegrounds."

 

If the ending to this story were anything other than Donald Trump being elected president, Shattered would be an awesome comedy, like a Kafka novel – a lunatic bureaucracy devouring itself. But since the ending is the opposite of funny, it will likely be consumed as a cautionary tale.

 

Shattered is what happens when political parties become too disconnected from their voters. Even if you think the election was stolen, any Democrat who reads this book will come away believing he or she belongs to a party stuck in a profound identity crisis. Trump or no Trump, the Democrats need therapy – and soon.

[One Man Banned]

Figure there are 1 or 2 of you who are happy with how the vote went. I saw the last few minutes on up to where the president was talking at the WH. Some random thoughts, there's a lot of security around Congress, the WH, yet that bus load of Republicans got stopped at traffic lights and there appeared to only be like 3-4 security vehicles accompanying them, guess I thought they would have cleared the way for them.

 

Has there been many times where so many congressmen have been invited to the WH over something like this? Looking at the stage it looked mainly like a bunch of rich old white men gloating and holding each other's dicks.

 

Was nice of Jimmy Kimmel to lend his support with his story, but then I'm thinking- he's Jimmy Kimmel. He has insurance through the network, sure, but even if he didn't, pretty certain dude could pay the whole bill for his son in cash. Probably got star treatment the whole way through, not what most Americans face.

 

Find it a little hard to believe that the insurance companies are going under because of Obamacare. They make money on the gamble that you're not going to get sick and use your benefits, and even when you do use your benefits someone is monitoring them trying to get you to use as little as possible. Also curious what actually makes care expensive. As seen recently with some individuals, they take a needed medication and jack the price up astronomically, so we know that at least certain treatments do not cost as much as you are charged.

[One Man Banned]

Forgot one thing- Dems and others need to stop trying to make zingers at Trump involving the literal use of his name- it's gotten mad old and isn't funny anymore, if it ever was. Think they need to stick to politics and leave the jokes for the comedians.

[tomcruisemom'sshoes]

Still can't believe this orange crotch grabbing beauty pageant owner is the president of my country..

 

Lets just go ahead get Otto out of north korea then nuke that shithole then try to get through the next 4 years without another war

[theprotester]

The insurance companies were 100% involved in creating the aca.

 

I still say trump is better than Hillary. People say well that's the past stop bringing her up. Which I agree with in some ways but the reality is if it wasn't him it'd be her and there's more chance this mythical ww3 would have already kicked off.

[Hua Guofang]

I don't see any evidence to support that argument, pro. What I do see is one Pres who has bombed a country (that did nothing to the US) and is doing brinksmanship with another.

 

Regardless of how reasonable his actions are or are not, in his first 100 days Trump is an interventionist and militaristic leader. I find it curious that your attacking her without any actual evidence and implicitly giving Trump a pass for what he is doing.

[theprotester]

Definitely not giving a pass and yes he basically ran on being non interventionist.

 

I can't point to any track record of his but I can certainly point to a myriad of past actions from Hillary that would suggest she is more of a war monger. She is still today out there blaming Russia for her losing the election.

 

As far as I can tell whether trump was lying or not doesn't change the fact that it's almost back to business as usual. Sad really. His misty eyes for generals and his get out of the way and let the military do their jobs apparently has a swag of people reinlisting

[tomcruisemom'sshoes]

So somebody that is ridiculously thin skined, has multiple companies that failed, and is trying to run our country like a business, and has ZERO I repeat ZERO experience in politics is better than somebosy that has spent their whole career in politics and fighting for childrens future is a better candidate to run a country?

 

GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE.

 

Do you even live in america?

[tomcruisemom'sshoes]

"Blaming" russia lmao...Russia did have their hands in the election. Its no doubt about it. Haven't you heard of the whole golden gate thing? Trump is putins puppet bro. And please lets see this whole track record you got on hillary besides her emails. And ill gladly sit on my ass at work to get paid to tell you all the dumb embarassing shit trump has done and said.