Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Just kidding.

The real thread title is: Liberals scream and cry like babies.


TBH Many quesitons arise since Donald Trump has been sworn as president of the US:

- Why so many liberals have the problem with peaceful transition of power?
- Can the liberal rhetoric of "revolution" hurt the US in the long run, and by how much?
- How to unite liberlas and conservatives under president Trump? Can it be done?

Thoughts?


BTW some insights on the matter. Enjoy:

qoicf4huNYk

Didn't Trump and conservatives have a problem with the peaceful transition of power too, had they not won? Trump said he would only accept the election results if he wins right? Several prominent conservative figures proclaimed they'd get their guns and march on Washington if Hillary won. You can't whine about liberals protesting when conservatives would've been much worse. Do you think Trump would've peacefully gone to Hillary's inauguration like she did for his?

So your argument is the Liberals aren't that bad because if the situation was reversed the conservatives may have possibly done something similar, Maybe?

Huh, where have I heard that one before. mmm

Originally posted by Silent Master
So your argument is the Liberals aren't that bad because if the situation was reversed the conservatives may have possibly done something similar, Maybe?
He seems to be claiming that, huh.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Didn't Trump and conservatives have a problem with the peaceful transition of power too, had they not won? Trump said he would only accept the election results if he wins right? Several prominent conservative figures proclaimed they'd get their guns and march on Washington if Hillary won. You can't whine about liberals protesting when conservatives would've been much worse. Do you think Trump would've peacefully gone to Hillary's inauguration like she did for his?
Words and assumptions =/= actions and facts

Also, you say it might have possibly happend with conservatives too. Cool. That's a story for a speculative fiction novel, I guess.

In actual reality, however, liberals behaved like spoiled brats and continue to do so.


Regardless, my question is more to the nature of healing the wounds, as one may call it. What needs to happen during Trump's presidency so that liberals and conservatives unite truly?

For starters don't appoint destructive assholes to the cabinet who undermine their agencies, go with experienced intelligent people. Don't ignore the intelligence agencies and respect them like a responsible president, conduct a sober investigation towards Russian involvement in hacks. Release tax returns, divestitures and definitively assure public that Trump has no conflicts of interest. Behave responsibly in respect to human rights, don't play with people's lives.

If most of these things happen liberals will just be bummed and not viscerally furious.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Didn't Trump and conservatives have a problem with the peaceful transition of power too, had they not won? Trump said he would only accept the election results if he wins right? Several prominent conservative figures proclaimed they'd get their guns and march on Washington if Hillary won. You can't whine about liberals protesting when conservatives would've been much worse. Do you think Trump would've peacefully gone to Hillary's inauguration like she did for his?

We mustn't talk how Trump preemptively set himself up to cry if he lost, even though the words literally came out of his own mouth. We also mustn't refer to the protest when Obama won in 2008 & 2012, those apparently didn't happen or did and were justified and not whiny crying. We've entered the world of #altfacts

It's hilarious that the irony is lost on Stigma Lol. Hilarious but not surprising.

Even after it's been pointed out before, whining over how liberals/SJWs/feminist whining upsets you.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
It's hilarious that the irony is lost on Stigma Lol. Hilarious but not surprising. The actual irony is, Adam, that liberals behaved like retards and continute to do so, yet to point that out is frowned upon by other liberals. That is ironic indeed.

There will be no true discussion, if liberals cannot honestly address these problems within their political side.

BTW Noone is denying the facts of the past, but we focus on the present.

If you took some time to address the clip or the main questions that would be appreciated

Originally posted by Stigma
BTW Noone is denying the facts of the past, but we focus on the present. Oh dear.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Oh dear.
Oops.

Is the fact that present day is tainted by liberals behaving like retards an uncomfortable topic for you to address?

Originally posted by Firefly218
Didn't Trump and conservatives have a problem with the peaceful transition of power too

Yes, but we can't get mad at all the Leftist "protests" that were really just SJW Cry Baby Riots. Because when the Leftists go out and cause massive private and public property damage its justifiable.


Cause they is SJW PC CRY BABY SORE LOSERS!

WAAAHHH!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Yes, but we can't get mad at all the Leftist "protests" that were really just SJW Cry Baby Riots. Because when the Leftists go out and cause massive private and public property damage its justifiable.


Cause they is SJW PC CRY BABY SORE LOSERS!

WAAAHHH!!!!!!!!


I don't like riots... I like peaceful protest, but rioting is too far. Had Hillary won and conservatives peacefully protested I wouldn't be angry about it, I'd support their rights as citizens to peacefully protest just as you should do for liberals. No decent person condones rioting because innocents get hurt.

Doesn't matter, violence or peaceful; they'll whine anyways. eg The women's march reportedly had no incidents of violence and they still whine that a bunch of people marched.

Originally posted by Robtard
Doesn't matter, violence or peaceful; they'll whine anyways. eg The women's march reportedly had no incidents of violence and they still whine that a bunch of people marched.

That or the Main Stream Leftist Biased Media will make up lies about when the Right does Peacfully Protest.

aka The Tea Party.

Looks like Stop the hate is back.

Originally posted by Firefly218
I don't like riots... I like peaceful protest, but rioting is too far. Had Hillary won and conservatives peacefully protested I wouldn't be angry about it, I'd support their rights as citizens to peacefully protest just as you should do for liberals. No decent person condones rioting because innocents get hurt.
This is very reasonable of you and I agree

Unfortunately, violent liberals use their "revolution" rhetoric as means to channel their frustration with the election results:

nIqfVEqzSzU

&

dO2H_yT9A0U


What changes in liberal camp need to be made in order to stop violence and open up a possibility for true unity among Americans?

Originally posted by Firefly218
For starters don't appoint destructive assholes to the cabinet who undermine their agencies, go with experienced intelligent people. Don't ignore the intelligence agencies and respect them like a responsible president, conduct a sober investigation towards Russian involvement in hacks. Release tax returns, divestitures and definitively assure public that Trump has no conflicts of interest. Behave responsibly in respect to human rights, don't play with people's lives.

If most of these things happen liberals will just be bummed and not viscerally furious.

For starters, intelligence agencies need to keep shit from getting leaked out to media sources like Washington Post, for starters.

Or they need to keep their mouths shut before making public announcements without any evidence to back it up. You'd think intelligence agencies would be..intelligent.

Originally posted by Stop the hate
Not everything has an answer you'd understand Snake eyes... Your third grade teacher told you that when you were 25.

You're deflecting.

Watch out bro you're dealing with an alpha.

Originally posted by Surtur
For starters, intelligence agencies need to keep shit from getting leaked out to media sources like Washington Post, for starters.

Or they need to keep their mouths shut before making public announcements without any evidence to back it up. You'd think intelligence agencies would be..intelligent.

Pretty much agreed on the 'shut up until you have concrete evidence'.

But very odd that you had the opposite approach when it was the FBI and Clinton. Why do you think that is?

Originally posted by Robtard
Pretty much agreed on the 'shut up until you have concrete evidence'.

But very odd that you had the opposite approach when it was the FBI and Clinton. Why do you think that is?

Opposite approach? Did the FBI leak shit, and then Clinton questioned the FBI, and then people whined about her daring to question the FBI? Did that happen?

Notice it's awful when Trump criticizes the CIA, but criticizing the FBI? It's kosher, because logic and reasons.

Why do you feel that is?

You and your selective memory. I'm not even blaming your drug use either.

Originally posted by Robtard
You and your selective memory. I'm not even blaming your drug use either.

But Leftist Democrats say doing Drugs is OK!?


Or is that why they say its OK?

Originally posted by Robtard
You and your selective memory. I'm not even blaming your drug use either.

There is nothing selective, you're trying to imply hypocrisy by saying I'm okay with leaks for one person, but not for the other.

In fact that isn't the case, but it's only one side that has been getting whined at for daring to question intelligence agencies.

If they didn't want to be questioned they should have kept their mouths closed until they could provide evidence, and should have tried to prevent any leaks to shitty rags like the WP.

^ see. this is why drugs are bad, kids. mmmkay?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
^ see. this is why drugs are bad, kids. mmmkay?

You are saying drugs helped me to recognize the differences in the situations?

Hmm, I can see why a liberal would find that "bad". They thrive on false equivalencies.

We need to get Bash some Hash. He is way to uptight...as his avatar clearly shows us.

Originally posted by Surtur
There is nothing selective, you're trying to imply hypocrisy by saying I'm okay with leaks for one person, but not for the other.

In fact that isn't the case, but it's only one side that has been getting whined at for daring to question intelligence agencies.

If they didn't want to be questioned they should have kept their mouths closed until they could provide evidence, and should have tried to prevent any leaks to shitty rags like the WP.
Because you have shown time and time again that you have double-standards. This is a fact.

This is a lie from your lips.

What exactly are your whining about now? Do you even know for sure?

Originally posted by Robtard
Because you have shown time and time again that you have double-standards. This is a fact.

This is a lie from your lips.

What exactly are your whining about now? Do you even know for sure?

You've shown time and time again you practice hypocrisy on an epic scale. Anything else?

Originally posted by Surtur
You've shown time and time again you practice hypocrisy on an epic scale. Anything else?


You used fifteen words when you could have just used two in your "No you!" retort, sport.

Originally posted by Robtard
You used fifteen words when you could have just used two in your "No you!" retort, sport.

Reading 15 words in a row is putting poor Robbie's reading comprehension to their limit....

Originally posted by Robtard
You used fifteen words when you could have just used two in your "No you!" retort, sport.

Just say what you mean. "You said something similar to what I said, so what you said has less credence because reasons".

Originally posted by Stigma
Just kidding.

The real thread title is: Liberals scream and cry like babies.

Well, they are great at triggering you, that is for sure.

Maybe you should show everybody how un-bothered you are by liberals, by starting some more threads about them.

It's funny how when people comment on the stupid things liberals do they get made fun of and accusations of being triggered, meanwhile those who comment on the stupid things conservatives do get praise for standing up to power and trying to make the world a better place.

#Triggered

Originally posted by Silent Master
It's funny how when people comment on the stupid things liberals do they get made fun of and accusations of being triggered, meanwhile those who comment on the stupid things conservatives do get praise for standing up to power and trying to make the world a better place.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Well, they are great at triggering you, that is for sure.

Maybe you should show everybody how un-bothered you are by liberals, by starting some more threads about them.

Polanski only need make two more "I hate liberals!" threads to show how not #triggered he is by everything liberal. Can he do it.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Well, they are great at triggering you, that is for sure.
Funny you should say that, given that I never requested a thread name to be changed because it challenged my views, unlike you.

TBH I am concerned with a vile ideology that is growing at the heart of liberalism today and uses "righteous anger" rhetoric for violent means.

It is indeed sad that many liberals simply ignore that and prefer meaningless slongans like #triggered instead of an honest approach to the problems they have.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
#Triggered

You realize that you just proved my point, right?

Originally posted by Stigma
Funny you should say that, given that I never requested a thread name to be changed because it challenged my views, unlike you.

TBH I am concerned with a vile ideology that is growing at the heart of liberalism today and uses "righteous anger" rhetoric for violent means.

It is indeed sad that many liberals simply ignore that and prefer meaningless slongans like #triggered instead of an honest approach to the problems they have.

I do not know why the title was changed, because I did not request that it be. I only took credit for suggesting the title that was ultimately chosen. I was as surprised as you to see it. You are obviously triggered by it though. So much so, that you had to create a thread inspired by it.

Moreover, who claimed liberals only support non-violent resistance in all circumstances? Many of the seminal events in American LGBT civil rights have been precipitated by violence, e.g. the Stonewall riots and the White Night riots. People are quick to forget that the modern LGBT movement started with LGBT people throwing bricks at police and lighting squad cars on fire.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I do not know why the title was changed, because I did not request that it be. I only took credit for suggesting the title that was ultimately chosen. I was as surprised as you to see it.
Then we are all surprised.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You are obviously triggered by it though. So much so, that you had to create a thread inspired by it.
I also already pointed out that throwing the slogan #triggered does not do any good to liberals these days.

There is the problem with violence among liberal minded people and it needs to be addressed.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Moreover, who claimed liberals only support non-violent resistance in all circumstances? Many of the seminal events in American LGBT civil rights have been precipitated by violence, e.g. the Stonewall riots and the White Night riots. People are quick to forget that the modern LGBT movement started with LGBT people throwing bricks at police and lighting squad cars on fire.
Right. Not sure how being violent at an inaguration ceremony is equivalent to that?

Also, I disregard violence as it is, unless it's war or stopping crimes etc.

MLK and Ghandi proved you can get your way through peaceful means.

Originally posted by Robtard
Polanski only need make two more "I hate liberals!" threads to show how not #triggered he is by everything liberal. Can he do it.



His name is Stigma.

But can he do it?

Something's wrong with your keyboard, m8.

I agree with the title of the thread and Stigma's larger point that liberals are very kind hearted, great people. The best people really, everyone seems to think so. They want what is best for the environment and their fellow citizens. Noble intentions, indeed.

Originally posted by BackFire
I agree with the title of the thread and Stigma's larger point that liberals are very kind hearted, great people. The best people really, everyone seems to think so. They want what is best for the environment and their fellow citizens. Noble intentions, indeed.

Plus even if you didn't agree with the title of the thread you could have always just changed it again, right?

I do have that power, yes. But I've never used it. No thread titles have ever been changed. Period.

Some liberals do stuff = all liberals do said thing.


Some conservatives do stuff = "It's just a fringe group."


And don't give me that bullshit that I wouldn't say the same thing if the roles were reversed. That doesn't change the situation. It's just a way of making yourself feel better about being a cold-hearted bastard.

Originally posted by BackFire
I do have that power, yes. But I've never used it. No thread titles have ever been changed. Period.

Oh I see, you guys got hacked then, because someone did.

Originally posted by Surtur
Oh I see, you guys got hacked then, because someone did. That's a fact.



An alternative fact.

Originally posted by Scribble
Some liberals do stuff = all liberals do said thing.


Some conservatives do stuff = "It's just a fringe group."


And don't give me that bullshit that I wouldn't say the same thing if the roles were reversed. That doesn't change the situation. It's just a way of making yourself feel better about being a cold-hearted bastard.

In other words, don't call out hypocrisy because reasons.

Originally posted by Scribble
That's a fact.



An alternative fact.

Lol nope, I literally saw the original title of the thread.

Are Liberals better then The Phantom Menace?

Originally posted by Surtur
In other words, don't call out hypocrisy because reasons. In other words, baby, kiss me.


Nah, in other words, call out your own hypocrisy, not just other people's.


I mean you are the one who left a debate with me yesterday to hide in an echo chamber.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol nope, I literally saw the original title of the thread. That's debatable. Did you see an aerial view of the title of the thread?

Originally posted by Surtur
Oh I see, you guys got hacked then, because someone did.

Looks who's crying and throwing accusations about hacking now, what a special snowflake-hypocrite-whiny-sensitive-sally.

Originally posted by Scribble
That's debatable. Did you see an aerial view of the title of the thread?

I read the title of the thread, I can see the original title of the thread now lol. You can see it if you click the link.

So either Stigma changed the title to insult himself or...

Originally posted by Robtard
Looks who's crying and throwing accusations about hacking now, what a special snowflake-hypocrite-whiny-sensitive-sally.

Not crying, don't care personally, just want people to grow some balls.

I find the butthurt amusing as hell.

In other words...

Originally posted by Surtur
Not crying, don't care personally, just want people to grow some balls.

I find the butthurt amusing as hell.

If you don't care, then why are you whining about it and throwing accusations?

Originally posted by Robtard
If you don't care, then why are you whining about it and throwing accusations?

I'm not whining nor throwing accusations. I'm stating facts. The title was changed, that is a fact.

Who did it? I don't know. Either a mod did, or someone hacked it.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm not whining nor throwing accusations. I'm stating facts. The title was changed, that is a fact.

Who did it? I don't know. Either a mod did, or someone hacked it.

As noted, #alternativefacts

Nice false dilemma, sport

Originally posted by Robtard
As noted, #alternativefacts

Nice false dilemma, sport

Alternate facts? Lol. Yes, how dare I point out something.

If people want to play those pathetic games it is fine, sad..but fine.

Meanwhile, Surtur ignores my advice to hold his president to account no matter what. The left would have held their president to account, considering that most of them didn't even like her; hold yours to account like a good American instead of pretending that protest and attempts at revolution are anti-American.

Originally posted by Surtur
Alternate facts? Lol. Yes, how dare I point out something.

If people want to play those pathetic games it is fine, sad..but fine.

It's only okay to say "alternative facts" if it's out of your tangerine god's camp. Is that the narrative now.

What games do you speak of?

Originally posted by Scribble
Meanwhile, Surtur ignores my advice to hold his president to account no matter what. The left would have held their president to account, considering that most of them didn't even like her; hold yours to account like a good American instead of pretending that protest and attempts at revolution are anti-American.

I'm not ignoring any advice, just laughing at the butthurt of either a mod editing a title or someone hacking into it in order to edit a thread title.

Nobody said protests are anti-american. You just don't get to be a piece of utter shit and burn and destroy shit, agreed?

Originally posted by Surtur
Oh I see, you guys got hacked then, because someone did.

There was no hack. Never. We could never get hacked, here. We have a great defense. If we were hacked it was probably just by some fat guy. But it definitely wasn't Russia.

The thread title was never changed. If you continue to imply that it was we mods might have to rethink our relationship with you lowly normal members.

Originally posted by Surtur

Nobody said protests are anti-american. You just don't get to be a piece of utter shit and burn and destroy shit, agreed?

These "anti-Americans" might disagree with you:

https://www.landofthebrave.info/images/boston-tea-party-cooper.jpg

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm not ignoring any advice, just laughing at the butthurt of either a mod editing a title or someone hacking into it in order to edit a thread title.

Nobody said protests are anti-american. You just don't get to be a piece of utter shit and burn and destroy shit, agreed? Bad people did bad things. Agreed. Now hurry up and call your president a liar. Because he's a liar.

Originally posted by BackFire
There was no hack. Never. We could never get hacked, here. We have a great defense. If we were hacked it was probably just by some fat guy. But it definitely wasn't Russia.

The thread title was never changed. If you continue to imply that it was we mods might have to rethink our relationship with you lowly normal members.

So how do you explain the difference in titles?

Originally posted by Surtur
So how do you explain the difference in titles?

The titles is the same as it has always been.

Originally posted by Scribble
Bad people did bad things. Agreed. Now hurry up and call your president a liar. Because he's a liar.

Everyone running for the role of president was a liar.

Originally posted by BackFire
There was no hack. Never. We could never get hacked, here. We have a great defense. If we were hacked it was probably just by some fat guy. But it definitely wasn't Russia.

The thread title was never changed. If you continue to imply that it was we mods might have to rethink our relationship with you lowly normal members. I love the mods; I have a great relationship with the mods. I've been to the mod forum, I've spoken to them, they love me. I love the mods. Me and the mods, let me assure you, are on great terms. I'm going to make KMC great again.

Originally posted by BackFire
The titles is the same as it has always been.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t638826.html

What is the word directly above the first word in the topic "Obviously" ?

Originally posted by Surtur
Everyone running for the role of president was a liar. Call your president a liar.

I find liberals to be inappropriately self-righteous, egotistical, anti-individualistic (counterintuitively), subversively racist, subversively sexist, often meritlessly proud, and anti-individual freedom with many things.

In general, most liberals, people who identify as liberals, are asses.


However, I find conservatives to be overty sexist and racist, willfully ignorant, anti-Christian, and way way way too nosy and controlling.



So who is going to be honest and claim some of the above attributes?

I'm an ass, egotistical, and sometimes sexist. I identify as a social liberal.

Originally posted by Scribble
I love the mods; I have a great relationship with the mods. I've been to the mod forum, I've spoken to them, they love me. I love the mods. Me and the mods, let me assure you, are on great terms. I'm going to make KMC great again.

Lol I see, it's a Trump temper tantrum.

Originally posted by Scribble
I love the mods; I have a great relationship with the mods. I've been to the mod forum, I've spoken to them, they love me. I love the mods. Me and the mods, let me assure you, are on great terms. I'm going to make KMC great again.

lol!

I hear his voice.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol I see, it's a Trump temper tantrum. Being satirical in a very obvious and unfunny way isn't exactly a temper tantrum, dude. Now call your president a liar. Call him out. Hold him to account.

Originally posted by Scribble
Being satirical in a very obvious and unfunny way isn't exactly a temper tantrum, dude. Now call your president a liar. Call him out. Hold him to account.

Editing titles due to being butthurt would be a symptom of a tantrum though wouldn't you say? Though of course you didn't do it.

Originally posted by Surtur
Not crying, don't care personally, just want people to grow some balls.

I find the butthurt amusing as hell. It's nice that you can laugh at yourself like that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I find liberals to be inappropriately self-righteous, egotistical, anti-individualistic (counterintuitively), subversively racist, subversively sexist, often meritlessly proud, and anti-individual freedom with many things.

In general, most liberals, people who identify as liberals, are asses.


However, I find conservatives to be overty sexist and racist, willfully ignorant, anti-Christian, and way way way too nosy and controlling.



So who is going to be honest and claim some of the above attributes?

I'm an ass, egotistical, and sometimes sexist. I identify as a social liberal. Imo, regardless of political affiliation, most people are either stupid, narcissistic, or both.

I consider myself to fall into the narcissistic side of things, but of course I would.

However, I don't affiliate politically. But as far as opinions go, I do fall into the left-wing side of things on most issues.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
It's nice that you can laugh at yourself like that.

Yikes, isn't this one of the dreaded "no you's" you're always whining about?

Originally posted by Surtur
Editing titles due to being butthurt would be a symptom of a tantrum though wouldn't you say? Though of course you didn't do it. Originally posted by Scribble
Call your president a liar. Stop deflecting, dude. "Be a man", as you would say.

No, it's that your post can be interpreted both ways. Keep up m8.

Originally posted by Scribble
Stop deflecting, dude. "Be a man", as you would say.

Oh my lil Scrib, is it being a man to let some douche on the internet goad you into saying something? Is that manly, to you? To say it because someone told you to say it?

Originally posted by Surtur
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t638826.html

What is the word directly above the first word in the topic "Obviously" ?

I can't speak for Stigma's intention for making that thread and then creating a sub-title that says the opposite.

Originally posted by Surtur
Oh my lil Scrib, is it being a man to let some douche on the internet goad you into saying something? Is that manly, to you? To say it because someone told you to say it? Well, let me ask you: what is so bad about holding the president to account? Is that un-American?

Originally posted by BackFire
I can't speak for Stigma's intention for making that thread and then creating a sub-title that says the opposite.

And yet I saw the thread with that same sub title myself. Why would he insult himself in his own thread title? Just..guilt, I guess?

Right, we'll just go with guilt then.

Originally posted by Scribble
Well, let me ask you: what is so bad about holding the president to account? Is that un-American?

Who said it was un-American? What was said is "don't be a piece of shit and burn and destroy shit because you're a child in the body of an adult".

Okay, I added the part about the child and body at the end.

Originally posted by Surtur
And yet I saw the thread with that same sub title myself. Why would he insult himself in his own thread title? Just..guilt, I guess?

Right, we'll just go with guilt then.

Classic liberal guilt.

Originally posted by BackFire
Classic liberal guilt.

I assume so, because otherwise it would be sad and cowardly.

Originally posted by BackFire
I can't speak for Stigma's intention for making that thread and then creating a sub-title that says the opposite. Why would you change the title of a topic you cold monster!!

Originally posted by Surtur
Everyone running for the role of president was a liar.

Originally posted by Stigma
BTW Noone is denying the facts of the past, but we focus on the present.


Focus. On. The. Now.

Trump. Is. The. Now.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Why would you change the title of a topic you cold monster!!

Hmm? Who said he changed it? It was liberal guilt or at best a sad pathetic hacker.

Plus the why isn't up for debate, we all know why someone would do it: an epic hurting on their rump over trump(a rhyme, heh).

The question would be more why hide it, but as I said..Stigma just was probably in a very self deprecating mood.

The point went over your head, m8. Who ****ing cares.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
The point went over your head, m8. Who ****ing cares.

You consistently mistake someone not getting your point with them just not giving a shit about what your point was.

Originally posted by Surtur
And when did this turn into a conversation over what is more important? You said some shit about him being "held to account". Yes, he should be, but you don't do it by setting peoples hair on fire or limo's on fire or destroying random property.

If you weren't referring to those people when you said "being held to account" then okay. No, screw those people. I'm asking you, or people like you, i.e. Trump voters, to hold him to account. If I were you, I'd be in a rage right now. If I voted for a guy who was going to drain the swamp, and he ended up filling it with more sewage straight away, I'd be ****ing livid.

Oh look, you repeat what I say. You're cool.

Originally posted by Scribble
No, screw those people. I'm asking you, or people like you, i.e. Trump voters, to hold him to account. If I were you, I'd be in a rage right now. If I voted for a guy who was going to drain the swamp, and he ended up filling it with more sewage straight away, I'd be ****ing livid.

I've called Trump a liar numerous times in the past.

Who don't you KMC liberals actually debate the opposition instead of just being pithy?


I mean seriously. Look how much progress I'm making being level-headed and rational.

Originally posted by Scribble
Who don't you KMC liberals actually debate the opposition instead of just being pithy?


I mean seriously. Look how much progress I'm making being level-headed and rational.

Lol either you don't read this part of the forum much or this is satire.

Originally posted by Surtur
I've called Trump a liar numerous times in the past. Then why do you keep sticking up for him no matter what he does? I haven't seen you criticise him in ages, despite the main GDF Trump thread being made by you, criticising Trump.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol either you don't read this part of the forum much or this is satire. I wasn't really sure what I was going for with that post. I think it was 90% satire, but who knows any more?

Originally posted by Scribble
Then why do you keep sticking up for him no matter what he does? I haven't seen you criticise him in ages, despite the main GDF Trump thread being made by you, criticising Trump.

I do, I didn't agree with the recent actions he took when it comes to mortgages.

Oh yes, Surtur's scathing "Trump made a mistake" retort.

Originally posted by Robtard
Oh yes, Surtur's scathing "Trump made a mistake" retort.

Someone made a comment about it and I responded I felt it was a mistake yes. Was I supposed to write an essay on it for you?

It's not enough to disagree with Trump anymore, I apparently have to really really really disagree.

Do you see how insane you sound? Did you expect some kind of spread sheet where I'd point out the pro's and con's of his decision?

If I stick up for Trump it's because I feel people are being hypocritical when it comes to him, not because I think he's a great human being or because he would have been my true choice for a candidate.

Climbing back on that cross, Surtur. Leave some room for the other guy, even though he's skinny.

Originally posted by Scribble
Who don't you KMC liberals actually debate the opposition instead of just being pithy?


I mean seriously. Look how much progress I'm making being level-headed and rational.

I just can't understand your use of the word "pithy", here. I feel dumb. I don't understand how their games with Surtur consist of pity replies...

No, I am not being sarcastic.

Originally posted by Surtur
I do, I didn't agree with the recent actions he took when it comes to mortgages. Fair enough. What about Goldman-Sachs in office, etc.? If I were a conservative, I'd be super pissed off. For me, it'd be like electing Jeremy Corbyn and then he went into a coalition with the Tories and raised student finance, scrapped social housing and continued bailing out bankers.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I just can't understand your use of the word "pithy", here. I feel dumb. I don't understand how their games with Surtur consist of pity replies...

No, I am not being sarcastic. Looking up the actual definition of "pithy", I'm not sure now. Generally I've seen it used as a stand-in for "sardonic" and similar things, so that's kind of what I was going for. Like, instead of debating, just playing the sarcasm card.


But again, I'm not sure how much irony I was going for with that post any way, so who knows.

Originally posted by Scribble
Fair enough. What about Goldman-Sachs in office, etc.? If I were a conservative, I'd be super pissed off. For me, it'd be like electing Jeremy Corbyn and then he went into a coalition with the Tories and raised student finance, scrapped social housing and continued bailing out bankers.

I'm not happy with some of his choices, especially with stuff like Sachs. Here is my thing: Trump is still a wildcard for me. People will say "he is doing some of the same stuff he criticized Hilary for". That could potentially be the case, and I'm not attempting to make excuses for him, but rather because I truly believe this person is such a bizarre individual..I find it to be possible he truly believes somehow he can do it differently, or that they won't have a hold over him like they might have with Clinton, or something like that.

What is that one kung fu style...the drunken master or something? Is there any chance Trump has somehow used the political version of such a thing on us? People everywhere laughed and called him stupid and just a reality tv star and now here he is..the most powerful man in the world. Yet some are still just dismissing him as an idiot who either just lied or tripped his way right into the WH.

Originally posted by Scribble
Looking up the actual definition of "pithy", I'm not sure now. Generally I've seen it used as a stand-in for "sardonic" and similar things, so that's kind of what I was going for. Like, instead of debating, just playing the sarcasm card.


But again, I'm not sure how much irony I was going for with that post any way, so who knows.

Whatever, pithy is the new word we will use! haermm

I'm tired of their apathetic and marginally relevant retorts. They are in a perpetual pithing match with Surtur.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm not happy with some of his choices, especially with stuff like Sachs. Here is my thing: Trump is still a wildcard for me. People will say "he is doing some of the same stuff he criticized Hilary for". That could potentially be the case, and I'm not attempting to make excuses for him, but rather because I truly believe this person is such a bizarre individual..I find it to be possible he truly believes somehow he can do it differently, or that they won't have a hold over him like they might have with Clinton, or something like that.

What is that one kung fu style...the drunken master or something? Is there any chance Trump has somehow used the political version of such a thing on us? People everywhere laughed and called him stupid and just a reality tv star and now here he is..the most powerful man in the world. Yet some are still just dismissing him as an idiot who either just lied or tripped his way right into the WH. I can understand that. I suppose we'll see, but he isn't off to a good start, imo. I hope you'll be willing to hold him to account when needed. People really need to start doing that more often imo, both left and right.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm not happy with some of his choices, especially with stuff like Sachs. Here is my thing: Trump is still a wildcard for me. People will say "he is doing some of the same stuff he criticized Hilary for". That could potentially be the case, and I'm not attempting to make excuses for him, but rather because I truly believe this person is such a bizarre individual..I find it to be possible he truly believes somehow he can do it differently, or that they won't have a hold over him like they might have with Clinton, or something like that.

What is that one kung fu style...the drunken master or something? Is there any chance Trump has somehow used the political version of such a thing on us? People everywhere laughed and called him stupid and just a reality tv star and now here he is..the most powerful man in the world. Yet some are still just dismissing him as an idiot who either just lied or tripped his way right into the WH.

This seems like another attempt at mitigating blame, like your "mistake" comment towards our mortgage rates, it wasn't a mistake like getting someone a turkey sandwich when they asked or ham, it was deliberate. He's not "drained the swamp" as he claimed, he literally went on TV and said after the fact that it was just some fancy sounding thing and he had no intention. He's literally told you he lied and your stance is still basically "oh, we have to wait and see". Do you honestly not see the ridiculousness of it?

*I don't mean that as an attack, I'm genuinely asking*

Originally posted by Scribble
I can understand that. I suppose we'll see, but he isn't off to a good start, imo. I hope you'll be willing to hold him to account when needed. People really need to start doing that more often imo, both left and right.

When he truly does something bad I think people will. But I feel at least for the first few weeks people will be in a "wait and see" mode.

In some ways I find his ego can sometimes be a good thing because I don't think he could handle not doing *any* of his promises.

Originally posted by Robtard
This is another attempt at mitigating blame, like your "mistake" comment towards our mortgage rates, it wasn't a mistake like getting someone a turkey sandwich when they asked or ham, it was deliberate. He's not "drained the swamp" as he claimed, he literally went on TV and said after the fact that it was just some fancy sounding thing and he had no intention. He's literally told you he lied and your stances is still "oh, we have to wait and see". Do you honestly not see the ridiculousness of it?

I didn't say he did it accidentally. I said it was a mistake. It was wrong.

So yes, my stance is indeed "wait and see" because nothing has actually happened yet. It's day frickin 4.

But I just love how even when I agree he did something wrong..if I don't choose the right words, you b*tch about it, and yet you always call me out for complaining?

Originally posted by Surtur
I didn't say he did it accidentally. I said it was a mistake. It was wrong.

So yes, my stance is indeed "wait and see" because nothing has actually happened yet. It's day frickin 4.

But I just love how even when I agree he did something wrong..if I don't choose the right words, you b*tch about it, and yet you always call me out for complaining?

Yet Trump literally went back on his word regarding "draining the swamp". It has happened, he's made his appointments. He literally told us he was bullshitting regarding the matter. What more do you need?

So when's Hillary going to jail?

Originally posted by Robtard
Yet Trump literally went back on his word regarding "draining the swamp". It has happened, he's made his appointments. He literally told us he was bullshitting regarding the matter. What more do you need?

Hey, be serious for a moment because I have a question.



What did "draining the swamp" mean?


Did he mean removing the career politicians from DC? That's what I thought he meant.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Hey, be serious for a moment because I have a question.



What did "draining the swamp" mean?


Did he mean removing the career politicians from DC? That's what I thought he meant.

I took it to mean "remove corruption and conflicts of interest."

Originally posted by dadudemon
Hey, be serious for a moment because I have a question.



What did "draining the swamp" mean?


Did he mean removing the career politicians from DC? That's what I thought he meant. Yeah, but also in his inauguration speech he said he was taking the power back and giving it to the people, with a bunch of bankers sitting in the VIP seats. So it all fits into that same kind of category of dishonesty.

Originally posted by BackFire
I took it to mean "remove corruption and conflicts of interest."

Is that the actual quote? If so, yeah, that's a pretty damming statement.


Originally posted by Scribble
Yeah, but also in his inauguration speech he said he was taking the power back and giving it to the people, with a bunch of bankers sitting in the VIP seats. So it all fits into that same kind of category of dishonesty.

Seems like something Palpatine would do.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Seems like something Palpatine would do. George Lucas may be a cheesy writer, but his "This is how liberty dies..." line is actually pretty damn accurate, historically.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Hey, be serious for a moment because I have a question.

What did "draining the swamp" mean?

Did he mean removing the career politicians from DC? That's what I thought he meant.

For one, not hiring Goldman Sach's bankers who in Trump's own words 'robbed our working class'. iirc, his team now has five Goldman people. Corruption, nepotism etc,

But I can see where in the revisionist world we're moving to, 'drain the swamp' can mean whatever it needs to be, in a fluid-like manner.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Is that the actual quote? If so, yeah, that's a pretty damming statement.




Seems like something Palpatine would do.

No, it's not a quote. That's just my interpretation of what "drain the swamp" meant.

Originally posted by Robtard
But I can see where in the revisionist world we're moving to, 'drain the swamp' can mean whatever it needs to be, in a fluid-like manner. Even if he meant one thing in the first place, that can quickly just become another 'alternative fact'.

I gave up on trying to understand what it means. Seems every one of us has a slightly different definition with Robtard's being the most...broad?


Anyway, I found this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-does-drain-the-swamp-mean-was-dc-built-on-a-swamp-2016-11

"Back when malaria was a problem in the US and Europe, draining swamps was an effective way to kill the mosquitoes that bred there and spread the disease."


And it was used by Reagan to talk about getting rid of excessive spending in DC (earmarks, pork barrel...what have you). It was "wasteful government spending."




So was this what Trump was talking about? This is different than ALL of our definitions and Trump is old enough to have heard and understood the original use.

It's all academic at this point. I doubt Trump even really knew what it specifically meant. Probably just thought it sounded good.

Originally posted by BackFire
It's all academic at this point. I doubt Trump even really knew what it specifically meant. Probably just thought it sounded good.

Originally posted by BackFire
I can't speak for Stigma's intention for making that thread and then creating a sub-title that says the opposite.
Actually my fingers slipped when I was writing the title and I needed to clarify it in the op./ shrug

No worries, I can count on you if a correction in the title is needed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I gave up on trying to understand what it means. Seems every one of us has a slightly different definition with Robtard's being the most...broad?


Anyway, I found this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-does-drain-the-swamp-mean-was-dc-built-on-a-swamp-2016-11

"Back when malaria was a problem in the US and Europe, draining swamps was an effective way to kill the mosquitoes that bred there and spread the disease."


And it was used by Reagan to talk about getting rid of excessive spending in DC (earmarks, pork barrel...what have you). It was "wasteful government spending."




So was this what Trump was talking about? This is different than ALL of our definitions and Trump is old enough to have heard and understood the original use.
That"s a good point.

Originally posted by Stigma
Actually my fingers slipped when I was writing the title and I needed to clarify it in the op./ shrug

No worries, I can count on you if a correction in the title is needed.

Indeed you can. Do you want me to change the title to something else?

Originally posted by BackFire
Indeed you can. Do you want me to change the title to something else?
Nah, thanks.

I think the sarcasm of that title is self-explanatory.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I gave up on trying to understand what it means. Seems every one of us has a slightly different definition with Robtard's being the most...broad?


Anyway, I found this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-does-drain-the-swamp-mean-was-dc-built-on-a-swamp-2016-11

"Back when malaria was a problem in the US and Europe, draining swamps was an effective way to kill the mosquitoes that bred there and spread the disease."


And it was used by Reagan to talk about getting rid of excessive spending in DC (earmarks, pork barrel...what have you). It was "wasteful government spending."




So was this what Trump was talking about? This is different than ALL of our definitions and Trump is old enough to have heard and understood the original use.

For me it meant getting rid of the scourge of lobbyists influencing politicians with donations and back handers. I suppose he's succeeded as he cut out the middle man and just put the lobbyists straight into his cabinet.

Originally posted by jaden101
For me it meant getting rid of the scourge of lobbyists influencing politicians with donations and back handers. I suppose he's succeeded as he cut out the middle man and just put the lobbyists straight into his cabinet.
Mmmm, legalized corruption. Feels good, man.

Originally posted by Stigma
Actually my fingers slipped when I was writing the title and I needed to clarify it in the op./ shrug

No worries, I can count on you if a correction in the title is needed.

Ah yes of course. Slippery fingers.

Originally posted by BackFire
It's all academic at this point. I doubt Trump even really knew what it specifically meant. Probably just thought it sounded good.

He went on to say (iirc, at a event in Kentucky) that it was just something that sounded good and made people clap; he had no intention of applying action to the words, whatever they meant.

He basically told them he was just bullshitting to get their support and they still clapped, well, most of them.

Originally posted by Robtard

He basically told them he was just bullshitting to get their support and they still clapped, well, most of them.

Sucks when someone steals Hilary's whole schtick.

Yes, yes, when something shitty about Trump is pointed out, deflect to Clinton.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, yes, when something shitty about Trump is pointed out, deflect to Clinton.

It was okay for liberals to do the opposite during the election, you didn't whine about that at the time. May I ask why you didn't whine about that at the time?

And right on cue, you followed up your "but Hillary!" with a "no you!" What a man-child.

Originally posted by Robtard
And right on cue, you followed up your "but Hillary!" with a "no you!" What a man-child.

Lol, as opposed to the people who respond with "triggered" right on cue?

I hate to break this to you: if I'm a man child, you are as well. I know I know, another clever "no you" retort, right?

And here we are again, I didn't have to do it; I've made you point out your own silly antics. *pats self on back*

Originally posted by Robtard
And here we are again, I didn't have to do it; I've made you point out your own silly antics. *pats self on back*

Have you ever done a "no you" reply in your history at this forum?