Forums / Fun! / Memeory Lane

xTSGx wrote:

Jesus Christ Himself could have descended from heaven and moderated one of the debates and you still would complain about conflicts of interest because Bill Clinton’s a Baptist.

Actually it would be because Bernie is a jew.

sorry I did not mean to actually quote this whole post. my b.

{ Lisa, you’re smarter than that. We all know the only reason Trump had a chance to begin with is because he was 1.) already famous 2.) already a meme 3.) has enough money to not rely on the party system. }

He is not the first person to be any of those things and run for a major office. Arnold Schwarzenegger never managed a federal position. Arnold Schwarzenegger was also elected as a Republican, the party makes it pretty easy for outsiders with their own money supply to get involved.

{ because people somehow feel that the best way to free the country from the business man bought politicians is to elect the business man himself and cut out the middle man. }

We have been literally waiting eight years for the GOP Congress to roll out some policy plans, anything to replace the disaster the Democrats have led us on. Less than a month after Trump was nominated, he meets with Paul Ryan and they decide now is the time to roll out policy packages to the American people. If you think he's still running on memes, you're the one not paying attention.

{ And what if Trump comes in and fucks the country over harder than Obama and Bush could ever imagine? }

Unlikely, it's pretty hard for one person to do that and he'd be more intensely scrutinized than any President before him. Unlike Obama, I have a feeling the mainstream media wouldn't so nicely ignore a President Trump's similarly heavy handed and extremely questionable Executive Order use. The policies he's running on aren't revolutionary, half of them are legitimately enforcing our own laws that already exist but have been ruled invalid via previously mentioned Executive Order abuse.

I actually logged back in to make a thread about how all of the sudden Europe is enacting all of Trump's economic policies as they realize what globalization means for the first world, so more on that later.

{ magically make people stop voting for people with political experience }

That is not the end goal. The message being sent here is that the people with political experience have got to start representing the people better or move over for much less qualified people who will. This is more about the next generation in politics taking over than it is about specifically not-political candidates suddenly becoming the most norm. I'm talking about people like my friend out in Texas who had been working on the Cruz campaign, he went to school to be in politics, they're the next round of people with political experience who are going to start appealing to a more socially moderate audience.

{ Vote for him if you think he will run the office better than Hilary }

I genuinely think he will at this point in this election.

Personally, I won't be voting for Trump because I see him as nothing but another version of Clinton--willing to say and do just about anything to get elected. Only difference is he looks at the conservative polls while Clinton eyes the liberal ones.

In other news, Johnson's now polling at 12%, taking 8% of Dems and 7% of Cons. He also apparently leads Clinton among independents.

Now to the big question: does anyone think he'll actually get an elector in the electoral college? I'm still hopeful he can trigger a happening and force things to the House, if only for my own amusement over the ensuing political clusterfuck.

>Gary Johnson pulling double digits

Oh shit son

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9W0F2mz1jc

Haha, this video has been downvoted into oblivion.

No, the difference is that we know Clinton will be another 4 years of bad liberal policy that further fuck the country over in favor of globalization. My top issue is the economy no matter who's running and the Democrats can always be counted on to fuck that up. The latest jobs report was so bad the Fed is reconsidering raising interest rates for the billionth time, it's also the billionth time they told us that the economy is recovered and strong enough to raise them then had a dismal jobs report or GDP downgrade.

I meant to post about that jobs report actually. Here's a Forbes link.

{ The employment picture took a turn for the worse Friday with new data showing the weakest payroll gains in nearly six years. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate dropped to its lowest rate in nearly nine years as people abandon the labor force. }

Read carefully, this will be very confusing for those of you who buy into liberal claims of THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS SO LOW HUZZAH WE ARE SAVIORS!

{ A report out from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Friday shows employers in the United States added only 38,000 jobs last month, the smallest gain since September 2010. The BLS report also shows that in May the unemployment rate declined to 4.7%, the lowest rate since November 2007. The rate had been at 5% in March and April. These results were far off economists’s already tempered expectations for about 155,000 jobs added and for the unemployment rate to decline to 4.9%. }

Economists expected the unemployment rate to drop not because people are finding employment, but because so many people are out of the workforce long term that it's actually impacting the unemployment rate (you're only counted as unemployed for one year after losing a job, then you're out of the labor force and don't count in the unemployment stats; this is why some economists attempt to figure out a "real unemployment" number).

{ The cause of the mixed top-line picture is a shrinking workforce. The labor force participation rate decreased to 62.6%, from 62.8% in April. As a result, in May 7.4 million Americans were unemployed, down from 7.9 million in April. “It seems like in all gains we had seen in the winter months got reversed,” said Satyam Panday, U.S. economist at S&P Global Ratings, in an interview. }

A .2 decrease in the labor participation force means roughly half a million people crossed the 1-year-out-of-work line. Another contributor notes at the end of the Forbes piece that the ongoing Verizon strike and small number of retiring baby boomers (remember, age 65+ is the only demographic that has seen job gains since 2000) aren't enough to explain these weak numbers.

This is what Democrat fiscal policy does.

I am far more interested in what a mere businessman has to say and do about the economy than another Democrat.

where did the comments go?

I dunno. I think YouTube is having issues right now, because comments aren't loading for me on other videos either.

Youtube isn't having issues, the comments on other videos do load.

Ah. Then I do not know.

Concerned about violence from Bernie supporters and other "activists", who have been designated to an off-site protest zone already anyway and will not actually be allowed at the convention, the DNC has decided to completely enclose the convention center with… A WALL.

{ Security at the Sports Complex during the Democratic National Convention next month will include “no-scale fencing” to enclose the Wells Fargo Center and Xfinity Live!, the Secret Service special agent in charge said in an interview Thursday. }

No word yet on whether it will be labeled a Trump Wall and its constructors deemed racist, as many senior classes whose wall pranks backfired spectacularly have learned this month.

I know I'm late with this reply (the results of the primaries and the caucus that took place the day after that AP story came out made all but the most defiant Sanders supporters give up):

2001: Jet fuel can't melt steel beams!
2016: Superdelegates don't vote until July 25!

Russian hackers released the DNC's playbook against Trump, and are threatening to release the emails that Clinton had on her servers – if indeed they do and there is some real tangible scandal there, her campaign is in huge trouble. This is what Bernie is hoping for, but the Democrats will simply not give it to him.

Some have said that if it comes down to it, they may force-tap Biden to run, at the last minute, with a clean slate, and a few months to run a major campaign.

On the topic of "ask the gays"

One COULD ask a few gays on twitter what they'd think and that's expected response.
But then one could also see the after effects of what happened and see that Gun sales spike amongst gays and lesbians following the attack.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/16/guns-sales-spike-among-gays-lesbians-after-orlando/

Instead of asking a vocal minority of activists, how about instead seeing what the silent majority is doing.

sighs it's a joke. I wanted to share a joke. I know it's not completely accurate, and I know there's more to the story. Has everyone on KYM lost their sense of humor?

I know it's a joke. But the facts of the matter are is that there is a small minority of activists that LOVE to speak for a bunch of other people and make presumptions.

Yet, here's a clear reality. there are many in the gay community that realized that they need to protect themselves.

“The LGBT community, the gay community, the lesbian community -- they are so much in favor of what I’ve been saying over the last three or four days,” Trump said. “Ask the gays what they think and what they do, in, not only Saudi Arabia, but many of these countries, and then you tell me -- who’s your friend, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton?”

Just so we know exactly what we're talking about. Since, y'know, you wanted to make a joke into a serious discussion.

Yet, here’s a clear reality. there are many in the gay community that realized that they need to protect themselves.

Well, yeah. This doesn't mean they approve of the rhetoric Trump uses. I doubt this specific incident made Trump's support jump higher than Hillary Clinton's, given in May he had only 18% support as compared to her 54% among those who identify as LGBT. He said he'd "strongly consider" putting judges on the Supreme Court that would overturn Obergefell. Several of Trump's court picks were expressly anti-lgbt. He also attacked Obergefell, unsurprisingly. He said conservatives could trust him on traditional marriage and that the ruling was shocking.

So, yes, they want to defend themself, and they bought a lot of guns to do that after Orlando. But Trump's not their friend. Compare Trump, who has spoken against gay marriage in the past year, to Clinton, who has supported same-sex marriage fully for three years.

Add in the fact that Clinton has said she doesn't want to sit on her hands and do nothing about Islamic terrorism. Rather, she's said she's pretty strongly for attacking them.

"This is a time for America to lead, not to cower. And we will lead, and we will defeat terrorists that threaten our friends and allies," Clinton said, vowing an all-out fight against the Islamic State and terrorist groups.

So, yeah, "the gays" don't have a strong friend in Trump. I highly doubt Orlando will change the numbers a whole lot, so that the LGBT community by any good numbers prefer Trump to Clinton.

Maybe I'm wrong. But I doubt it.

@lisalombs Re: Protests at the Dems' convention

I'm no fan of Trump (or Republicans, period) but after what those protesters in California did, I'd love to go to Philly and burn the Mexican flag. I've also had it up to here with Sanders and the Sandersistas so I'd burn the flag of Vermont, too. But even if I could make it to Philly, there's probably a fire safety law against burning flags in the streets, and I'm a law-abiding citizen.

Professor Rivers, I understand your point better, sorry I got too serious about it. I took it the wrong way.

From my point of view Pink Pistols are a legitimately great reason for why the second amendment needs to exist.

It's alright, we all misunderstand people from time to time. Jokes on KYM have been taken more and more seriously lately, and I've started getting a bit annoyed. Sorry if I seemed aggressive.

I am all for gun ownership, just for the record. I think the pink pistols, from what I know, is a good organization, given that the LGBT community is associated with the left, and guns with the right. I support both.

GOPpers are planning a last-ditch effort to stump Trump.

I reckon it'll go badly for the Republicans no matter what happens. His poll numbers are down across all non-white male demographics, yet if he gets shafted the GOP has effectively rejected democracy. It perfectly vindicates the narrative that the elite opposes a grassroots campaign.

Older, but relevant: Cleveland is spending $20 million in federal money on riot and security gear for the Republican convention

Apparently, a UK man who had overstayed his visa was planning on assassinating Trump at a Las Vegas rally. He tried to grab a gun from a cop's holster and was promptly arrested. How he was going to get through the Secret Service's metal detectors and into the rally hasn't been clarified.

He was already in the rally, the cop was part of Trump's security and was standing relatively near him. He asked to get Trump's autograph then… idk just pounced? This is made pretty hilarious by the fact that it's a British guy (here illegally on an overstayed visa) who literally went to a shooting range to learn how to fire a gun the day before an assassination attempt he'd supposedly been planning for a year.

@xTSGx

After Jo Cox was assassinated, I noticed that some on the left in the UK alleged that the rhetoric from those on the right was partly to blame for her killing. Will they now admit to partial responsibility for this bloke's assassination attempt? Nah, they'll probably blame Trump's rhetoric.

36 House Democrats take a leaf out of the college activist handbook and stage a SIT IN on the floor of the House.

Throwing a literal tantrum over gun control, after the Senate failed to pass any of 4 proposed gun control measures. Democrats said the 2 by the GOP didn't go far enough, the GOP said the 2 by Democrats went too far in taking rights away from people who have not been tried or found guilty of anything.

laughed so hard I fucked up my mascara T_T

-What is the legality of Senators participating in the disruption of the House's business? (I think they're skirting the issue by only being present after the House is adjourned, but the issue is unclear).

-House rules state you can't have your cell phone activated on the House floor:

Pursuant to the modification of this clause in the 112th Congress, the Speaker announced that mobile electronic devices that impair decorum include wireless telephones and personal computers, but that electronic tablet devices may be used unobtrusively in the Chamber, although no device may be used for still photography or for audio or video recording (Speaker Boehner, Jan. 5, 2011, p. l). The Chair has also announced that Members should disable wireless telephones on entering the Chamber (e.g., June 12, 2000, p. 10369).

-The media is making much of the fact that Ryan cut the camera and microphones. It's worth pointing out that when Nancy Pelosi was speaker, she did the same in 2008, with the additional step of turning off the lights.

-Why do Democrats want to force a vote they can't win? It couldn't possibly be to have a campaign issue when Congress recesses next week, now could it? It's not like incumbents need to raise money for a major election coming up in the fall, right?

Democrats want a) the Republicans to cave or b) cause a scene by forcing the Speaker to clear the Floor with security. This is why John Lewis, a civil rights icon, is the public face of the sit-in. Footage of him dragged off the House floor would be shown side by side with footage of him being dragged away from lunch counters in the 1960s.

bruh the worst the media called the Dems sitting on the fuckin' floor were "rebellious". What do you think the commentary would have looked like if the GOP had staged a sit-in over unregulated late term abortion?

Not to mention the bill they're crying didn't pass, Feinsetin's bill, which the liberal media sobbed to us all was the bill that would have stopped the Orlando shooting and the nasty gun nut Republicans wouldn't pass it~ it would have stopped the Orlando shooting because it REMOVES DUE PROCESS from people put on government watch lists by restricting them from buying weapons until five years AFTER they're deemed INNOCENT by the FBI and removed from the list. Even the most liberal of pundits said how shit an idea that is. But that's what they'd rather do than let the FBI profile Muslims, we don't want to be racist Islamophobes!!

Speaking of profiling tho, the Supreme Court upheld affirmative action today. So if we can take into account someone's race when deciding whether to admit them into university or give them a job, why can't we consider it in a terror investigation?

Obama's amnesty is also dead c/o the Supreme Court. He already cried about it during a press conference.

In candidate related news, Hillary Clinton's email investigation has taken a very significant turn.

Huma (her aide) turned over her emails and apparently didn't scrub them as well as Hillary, because a very key series of emails were missing from what Hillary turned over that were found in Huma's.

{ Former Secretary Hillary Clinton failed to turn over a copy of a key message involving problems caused by her use of a private homebrew email server, the State Department confirmed Thursday. The disclosure makes it unclear what other work-related emails may have been deleted by the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

The email was included within messages exchanged Nov. 13, 2010, between Clinton and one of her closest aides, Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin. At the time, emails sent from Clinton's BlackBerry device and routed through her private clintonemail.com server in the basement of her New York home were being blocked by the State Department's spam filter. A suggested remedy was for Clinton to obtain a state.gov email account. }

As we all know, she did not accept that suggestion and continued using her own email for official government business.

In another set of emails, it was revealed that to fix the problem, the State Department took their own security systems offline to fix it!!

{ State Department staffers wrestled for weeks in December 2010 over a serious technical problem that affected emails from then-Secretary Hillary Clinton's home email server, causing them to temporarily disable security features on the government's own systems, according to emails released Wednesday.

The emails, reviewed by The Associated Press, show that State Department technical staff disabled software on their systems intended to block phishing emails that could deliver dangerous viruses. They were trying urgently to resolve delivery problems with emails sent from Clinton's private server. }

Mere days later, an IT tech shut down Clinton's home email server because he noticed someone attempted to breach it.

{ Days after the technical crisis, on Jan. 9, 2011, an IT worker was forced to shut down Clinton's server because he believed "someone was trying to hack us." Later that day, he wrote, "We were attacked again so I shut (the server) down for a few min." It was one of several occasions when email access to Clinton's BlackBerry smartphone was disrupted because her private server was down, according to the documents. }

Also: { In a blistering audit released last month, the State Department's inspector general concluded that Clinton and her team ignored clear internal guidance that her email setup broke federal standards and could leave sensitive material vulnerable to hackers. Her aides twice brushed aside concerns, in one case telling technical staff "the matter was not to be discussed further," the report said. }

I'm desperately hoping the email investigation goes somewhere soon TBH; if Clinton gets indicted she won't get the nomination no matter how much business support she has and we'll be saved from the Clinton vs. Trump election nightmare.

If this doesn't kick it into the next level, we have to admit to ourselves that it's really not going to happen. That's some solid evidence, even if they don't want to put her in jail she should have to publicly apologize and pay a fine or something. Bawl for mercy like that Japanese guy. I'll take anything at this point.

Please don't tell me you believe Sanders is morally entitled to become the Democratic candidate for President in the event Clinton has to drop out of the race. Who knows what other candidate might have run, and defeated Sanders, had Clinton not entered the race.

I wonder why the Department of Justice has given Bryan Pagliano only limited immunity, not full immunity. But I don't see any Republicans clamoring for giving him full immunity.

If it isn't her it would most likely end up going to Joe Biden.

Then there's this:

"A former U.S. attorney says there is no doubt that, before the November election, the FBI will recommend to Attorney General Loretta Lynch that she prosecute Hillary Clinton for mishandling of classified information, warning that intervention by the White House would provoke a revolt of Watergate proportions.

"“Based on the information they have secured from their brothers and sisters in the law enforcement community, there is unanimity on the fact that charges are going to be recommended by the FBI,” he said.

“It is impossible for them not to, under the circumstances,” he stressed.

DiGenova acknowledged, however, that Lynch has the discretion to do nothing.

But to the people in the FBI and intelligence community, he said, that would be “inconceivable.”
"

He explained that the FBI is “acting on the basis that the server was set up purposefully to avoid disclosure to the public, the press, the Congress and the courts in response to legitimate legal requests and in response to subpoena.”

“That establishes the intent necessary for criminal activity, in the area of negligent handling of classified information,” he said.

DiGenova said the FBI has established a connection between the official acts of Clinton as secretary of state and the speech and fundraising activities of the Clinton Foundation.

He said he wouldn’t be surprised if the FBI has already begun retrieving documents from the Clinton Foundation as its investigation of Hillary Clinton expands into issues of political corruption"

“This is a locked case of minimally a violation of the classified information statutes,” he said. “There are people who have lost their jobs, lost their security clearances, have been convicted of crimes, for leaving a single document out on their desks overnight.

“This case dwarfs, and I underscore dwarfs, the Petraeus case by multiples in the thousands.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/fbi-revolt-of-watergate-proportions-if-hillary-skates/#XHlkPWoaFeO4fJ3g.99"

The FBI originally was protecting her until she threw them under the bus. They respond in kind. And as I have pointed out they are put into a very strange position of being "king makers" – so it seems te best course for them is to release the info peace meal until congress or the DoJ can act on it. But the longer t hey don't, the more info is going to come out, inevitably, if nothing is done you're g oing to see a shit storm.

Pretty much anyone is better than Clinton. At this point, I would accept almost any alternative.

@Patrick

Didn't Biden insist that he wasn't going to run? He might change his mind if Clinton gets disqualified, but IIRC he was pretty adamant about not running.

>implying a politician wouldn't flip-flop

Colonel Sandor said:

Why do Democrats want to force a vote they can’t win?

They want to make gun control an election year issue. Which I find quite funny considering the last time they made it an election year issue.

Footage of him dragged off the House floor would be shown side by side with footage of him being dragged away from lunch counters in the 1960s.

And that's why Ryan quite smartly adjourned the House rather than call in the Sergent-at-Arms. It raises the question: does a group of childish Congressmen make a noise in an empty chamber of Congress with no cameras or AC?

Glorious Nippon Snickerway said:

…the email investigation goes somewhere soon…

It won't. The FBI could be led by Karl Rove and Clinton would still get out of it squeaky clean. That's what building up 30 years of connections and back scratching does.

Didn’t Biden insist that he wasn’t going to run?

And Nixon had his last press conference in 1962.

Folks, from what I recall, the reason that Biden gave for not running was, campaigning for President requires a lot not only of the candidate but of his or her family, and he said that at that time, when he made the announcement that he would not run, he could not bring himself to make such a commitment. A good deal of time has passed since then so conceivably, he could be ready now, especially since he would not have to campaign during the (lengthy) primary and caucus season and the de facto beginning of the general election skirmish. Thus, if he was sincere (and I know that's a big if, since he's a politician), a (very) late entry into the race would not necessarily constitute a "flip-flop".

That said, I have yet to forget that he has a history of being too touchy-feely with women at times. IIRC, the last time he did this in public was after he administered the oath of office to Secretary of Defense Ash Carter (according to Wikipedia, this took place on February 17, 2015) and Carter's wife was on the receiving end. I'm kind of amazed that women who sing his praises now seem to have forgotten this.

Good news, you guys.

I know some of you were pretty concerned that Islamophobia might sweep across the nation after the worst terrorist attack since 9/11 devastated Orlando.

Well the LGBT community is coming together to prove it's not that weak minded.

c/o New York Pride

Furious Republican FEC commissioner leaks circumstances of hugely controversial FEC vote against FOX News. Says the official report will be published tomorrow and he wants people to be aware of it.

For the first time in history, the FEC voted to punish debate sponsorship.

{ At issue was the Aug. 6, 2015 Fox presidential debate. Initially, the network planned to host one debate featuring 10 candidates. But as the date got close and the nearly two dozen GOP presidential candidates were close in the polls, Fox added a second debate that included seven other candidates. }

Lee E. Goodman, the GOP commissioner, explains in a statement:

{ A complaint was filed with the FEC alleging that Fox News' editorial decision to expand the debate from one debate to two debates, and to include 7 candidates in the undercard debate, constituted an illegal corporate contribution by Fox News to the candidates who participated in the debate. The FEC had to decide whether to enforce the corporate contribution ban against Fox News.

Astonishingly, three FEC commissioners (Weintraub, Ravel, Walther) concluded that Fox News violated the Federal Election Campaign Act by making a prohibited corporate contribution to the 7 candidates invited to the debate. That is, by expanding the debate format to a broader group of candidates, Fox News violated the law. }

Only once in history has the FEC moved to punish debate sponsorship, threatening the NH Telegraph for planning a debate between Reagan and Bush. The paper pulled out and Reagan famously paid for the event himself, so the vote never happened.

The 3 Democrats on commission voted to enforce the ban, which was thankfully blocked by the 3 Republicans. Maybe not so thankfully, had it been 4 Democrats and this passed it would have been an astounding PR nightmare.

538 has released their general election forecast project. Before you get dismissive purely because of the name "538", it should be noted that A) their previous, primary election model got most of the results right, and B) they've learned from their mistakes.

Based on the current polling, well, RIP Trump. Should be noted we have several more months to go, and anything can happen.

Also interesting, their including Johnson due to his significant polling numbers. He's expected to get 0.8 electoral votes. Stunning.

ProfessorRivers said:

He’s expected to get 0.8 electoral votes. Stunning.

That sounds sarcastic, but I would be incredibly impressed if he got an electoral college vote. It'd be the first time since 1968 a third party got one.

>RIP Trump

Trump takes the lead in latest Rasmussen poll.

{ The tables have turned in this week’s White House Watch. After trailing Hillary Clinton by five points for the prior two weeks, Donald Trump has now taken a four-point lead.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with 43% of the vote, while Clinton earns 39%. }

{ Trump made a major speech on jobs and trade on Tuesday that even the New York Times characterized as “perhaps the most forceful case he has made for the crux of his candidacy …. that the days of globalism have passed and that a new approach is necessary.” }

Maybe don't rely on ESPN as your end all of political news…

xTSGX wrote:

I would be incredibly impressed if he got an electoral college vote. It’d be the first time since 1968 a third party got one.

Unless you count the faithless elector who voted for the Libertarian candidates in 1972 (if Wikipedia is to be believed).

Again, nobody on kym seems to have a sense of humor anymore.

Regardless, the model used there is far more rigorous and accounts for many more variables than a single poll from a group which regularly overstates the popularity of the Republican candidate. Did you try reading how it works? Because if you did, you'd know all this.

Maybe you should try doing some reading instead of just attacking the name.

Also, did you just single out the one part you didn't like? Directly before and after I said based on the current polling and that anything can change.

(Sorry for the double post, can't edit anymore)

I hope you're keeping up, because two other polls released today (by Reuters and PPP) say that in a two way and a four way race (adding in Johnson and Stein) Trump is losing. Pretty easy to find polls nowadays if anyone wasn't aware.

You know, as much as I think trump wouldn't be any worse then any other president, after all most presidents are a bit pompus and generally assholes while on the job, I don't have much particular love for donald trump. And I would prefer him not to be the president unless he chooses a vice president who can seemingly balance out his bombastic jerkness.

But this…this is just sad. Its like a loopey boxer trying to throw a swing and having it limply bounce off the other boxers chest. It's like those republican chuckle-fucks who think the clintons actually comitted and covered up multiple homicides.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html

The article brings up a case where the person accusing donald trump of rape, his first wife, says she didn't mean it in a "literal or criminal" way, but meant hair pullling instead. Using this as evidence to Donald Trump being guilty of literal and criminal rape seems a bad decision.The use of mysoginy as a descriptor for trump seems more just red meat at this point, like republicans and "freedom".

And finally it ends with trying to claim this proves rape culture is real.

Just in case anyone still thinks anything will come from the Clinton email scandal, Bill Clinton met with Attorney General Lynch on board her private jet. It was just for small talk, of course. I mean, haven't you ever walked through an airport and then boarded someone's private airplane to talk with them about your grandchildren and golf before?