ADVERTISEMENT

OT- The Battle of the Billionaires

And my best friend, a huge WWE dork, actually said he'd consider voting for Trump just because he's in the WWE Hall of Fame.

How do I convince him not to?
 
  • Like
Reactions: brgossRU90
And my best friend, a huge WWE dork, actually said he'd consider voting for Trump just because he's in the WWE Hall of Fame.

How do I convince him not to?
This might convince him to do it:
shrug_gif.gif
 
No Trooper, be honest. You are just upset he married a woman.

On a much more important note, she immediately becomes the hottest First Lady. Ever. Blowing by Jackie O.
 
As a billionaire myself, I cannot fathom a scenario where I could vote for Donald.

Really? How about a scenario where the opposition is HC? I'm looking for a 14/14 sweep on ST and Arkansas will be a big state for the Donald to carry. Last poll I saw he was down 4 points.
 
Last edited:
As a billionaire myself, I cannot fathom a scenario where I could vote for Donald.

The first election I could vote in was '72, and only because a constitutional amendment had dropped the voting age from 21 to 18. I voted for every office but President. Looked at Nixon vs. McGovern and said "None of the above". Trump vs. Clinton would be a repeat.

Edited to add: I'd have to think long and hard about voting for "Nanny State Mike". but I won't rule it out.
 
The soda ban guy?

Yes and infuriating. But at the same time, despite his nanny state quirks, he was the best manager of the NYC bureaucracy (including the schools) as mayor as anyone since possibly LaGuardia. NYC was lucky to have him and Guiliani, and particularly in the order in which they served. Guiliani made it governable and Bloomberg governed fairly well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PRH_RU
Not one single decent candidate from either side. After Clinton and Trump, Bernie is living in la-la land and Cruz and Rubio are extremist panderers. Both parties are just destroying themselves pandering to the extremes within their bases.
 
I can't wait until President Clinton nominates a replacement for Scalia.
The reactionaries are gonna wish they had gone with Obama's choice.
[banana][banana][banana]


Interesting leap of faith considering he hasn't nominated anyone yet. Great politics hinting at Sandoval with the possible ancillary benefit of removing him from consideration for the VP slot and opening up the governorship of Nevada for a Harry Reid lackey. But most of the political benefit has already been achieved at zero cost. If he were to actually nominate him there would be apoplexy and a firestorm from the far left. We'll see what happens when there is an actual political cost of doing it.
 
Yes and infuriating. But at the same time, despite his nanny state quirks, he was the best manager of the NYC bureaucracy (including the schools) as mayor as anyone since possibly LaGuardia. NYC was lucky to have him and Guiliani, and particularly in the order in which they served. Guiliani made it governable and Bloomberg governed fairly well.

Agreed. Hated Bloomberg's nanny state quirks, too, but they were a tiny part of his responsibilities. I thought he was a great executive, which is sometimes overlooked - he governed efficiently and responsibly and made many improvements across the city. He would be a good centrist candidate and a breath of fresh air vs. the bigoted blowhard, Trump and the unlikable prevaricator, Clinton, assuming those are the candidates. Not even sure which side he'd "hurt" more, though, as opposed to when Perot or Nader ran as 3rd party candidates.
 
He's so unrestrained and unqualified I could see trump dropping a nuclear bomb somewhere, like iran. His spokesidiot--the same moron who talked about half breeds--even said "what good is a nuclear triad if you're afraid to use it?" Wtf. He scares me like no other politician I've seen.
 
I can't wait until President Clinton nominates a replacement for Scalia.
The reactionaries are gonna wish they had gone with Obama's choice.
[banana][banana][banana]
Nah, I think it is a non-issue to republicans as they know the dems did it to republican presidents
 
nothing better then Hillary lying to the Bengahzi family members then sending her daughter the truth in an email!

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/12/09/hillary-clinton-benghazi-families-lying-video-protest-claims/
"Fog of war" she claims..made her say that!

Now, I can’t—I can’t help it the people think there has to be something else there. I said very clearly there had been a terrorist group that had taken responsibility on Facebook between the time that I—you know, when I talked to my daughter, that was the latest information. We were giving it credibility. And then we learned the next day it wasn’t true. In fact, they retracted it.

This was a fast moving series of events in the fog of war. And I think most Americans understand.
 
Hillary and lying are like pb&j.

I liked when she claimed she landed in a heli in the ME to a haze of gunfire. Then the video surfaced of her holding a press conference right outside of the aircraft.

It's comical how her followers, dwindling as they are, are not able to recognize what she really is.
 
Hillary and lying are like pb&j.

I liked when she claimed she landed in a heli in the ME to a haze of gunfire. Then the video surfaced of her holding a press conference right outside of the aircraft.

It's comical how her followers, dwindling as they are, are not able to recognize what she really is.


Actually that was in the Balkans where she [/truth] ran across the tarmac avoiding sniper fire.
 
nothing better then Hillary lying to the Bengahzi family members then sending her daughter the truth in an email!

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/12/09/hillary-clinton-benghazi-families-lying-video-protest-claims/
"Fog of war" she claims..made her say that!

Now, I can’t—I can’t help it the people think there has to be something else there. I said very clearly there had been a terrorist group that had taken responsibility on Facebook between the time that I—you know, when I talked to my daughter, that was the latest information. We were giving it credibility. And then we learned the next day it wasn’t true. In fact, they retracted it.

This was a fast moving series of events in the fog of war. And I think most Americans understand.
Not a fan of Clinton, but I don't trust Breitbart as a credible news source.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT