Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.

[MMIX]

So when was John Olivers early childhood education awareness raising?  Which is beside the point. The point was that John Oliver isnt "just a comedian" like that article claimed he has tangible ties to the Clinton Foundation.

No, the point is that Mr Oliver is " a leading content creator" of the sort that the Clinton Foundation looks to to help spread their messages on things like early childhood education. If you are going to insist that every commercial or non-commercial relationship between corporate bodies is a "Tangible Tie" [cue portentous music] then it is no wonder that you are so obsessed by conspiracy theories.

[MithridatesXXIII]

Criminal Resume:

Buys water from Nestlé
Finances human trafficking and child slavery.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

You can't argue with a conspiracy theorist.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Mother in Law disowned me over facebook post. IDGAF.

[xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed)]

So when was John Olivers early childhood education awareness raising?  Which is beside the point. The point was that John Oliver isnt "just a comedian" like that article claimed he has tangible ties to the Clinton Foundation.

No, the point is that Mr Oliver is " a leading content creator" of the sort that the Clinton Foundation looks to to help spread their messages on things like early childhood education. If you are going to insist that every commercial or non-commercial relationship between corporate bodies is a "Tangible Tie" [cue portentous music] then it is no wonder that you are so obsessed by conspiracy theories.

Ok John Oliver is a completely objective source. Whatever. Im not really obsessed with that conspiracy theory. Please, debunk some of my earlier ones about the Department of Justice.

You can't argue with a conspiracy theorist.

Most of you have yet to argue with most of my "conspiracy theories" and a few pages back you were all eating up conspiracies about Wikileaks being either being controlled by Putin or Tru-, sorry Cain got offended by that, ROGER STONE. Ive still yet to see any evidence of any of that, besides the fact that Wikileaks, an organization dedicated to government transparency, upon receiving a massive treasure trove of documented government corruption didnt do the right thing and bury it to prevent the rise of Literal Hitler Trump, or at least hang on to it until they got something equally dirty on Trump to publish to be fair. You know because thats how whistleblowing works.

So how about it? How about you try and argue with Clintons ties to the DOJ, or bribes to the FBI, or cutting funding to Bernie delegates?

[MithridatesXXIII]

Mother in Law disowned me over facebook post. IDGAF.

Over supporting Hillary or criticizing Trump? I'm sorry to hear it

[The Wizard Joseph]

You can't argue with a conspiracy theorist.

Most of you have yet to argue with most of my "conspiracy theories" and a few pages back you were all eating up conspiracies about Wikileaks being either being controlled by Putin or Tru-, sorry Cain got offended by that, ROGER STONE. Ive still yet to see any evidence of any of that, besides the fact that Wikileaks, an organization dedicated to government transparency, upon receiving a massive treasure trove of documented government corruption didnt do the right thing and bury it to prevent the rise of Literal Hitler Trump, or at least hang on to it until they got something equally dirty on Trump to publish to be fair. You know because thats how whistleblowing works.

So how about it? How about you try and argue with Clintons ties to the DOJ, or bribes to the FBI, or cutting funding to Bernie delegates?

<----- I don't know what this emote means, but it seems about right for you and your "alt-right" whatever, RP.

Even if Clinton were IN FACT a criminal, and I don't care to defend her but she ISN'T as yet charged, but were she I'd still prefer her and all the dogs of Wallstreet to the alternative over on "your side". I still remember you gleefully saying Trump's victory was "written in the stars" bruh. Funny thing is Hess once thought that very thing about the Reich. It was all kinds of lulzy! Have fun reliving the past with your alt-reich buddies fool.

You can lie with them. I've heard enough pig shit.

[xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed)]

You can't argue with a conspiracy theorist.

Most of you have yet to argue with most of my "conspiracy theories" and a few pages back you were all eating up conspiracies about Wikileaks being either being controlled by Putin or Tru-, sorry Cain got offended by that, ROGER STONE. Ive still yet to see any evidence of any of that, besides the fact that Wikileaks, an organization dedicated to government transparency, upon receiving a massive treasure trove of documented government corruption didnt do the right thing and bury it to prevent the rise of Literal Hitler Trump, or at least hang on to it until they got something equally dirty on Trump to publish to be fair. You know because thats how whistleblowing works.

So how about it? How about you try and argue with Clintons ties to the DOJ, or bribes to the FBI, or cutting funding to Bernie delegates?

<----- I don't know what this emote means, but it seems about right for you and your "alt-right" whatever, RP.

Even if Clinton were IN FACT a criminal, and I don't care to defend her but she ISN'T as yet charged, but were she I'd still prefer her and all the dogs of Wallstreet to the alternative over on "your side". I still remember you gleefully saying Trump's victory was "written in the stars" bruh. Funny thing is Hess once thought that very thing about the Reich. It was all kinds of lulzy! Have fun reliving the past with your alt-reich buddies fool.

You can lie with them. I've heard enough pig shit.

1) Hilter was an industrial-technological society cuck with a single testicle. Burn the cities. Let nature reclaim the great Satan.

2) What do you actually think Trump is going to do once he gains power? I get that hes a sexist, a racist, a pussygrabber ect but what actual policies do you think he is going to instate that you are so afraid of?

[MithridatesXXIII]

2)

He's going to lose it. He's going to get owned and tooled from every angle. That's just domestically.

[xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed)]

2)

He's going to lose it. He's going to get owned and tooled from every angle. That's just domestically.

"TRUMPS BOUND TO LOSE" - Increasingly nervous liberals for the XXXth time this year.

[MithridatesXXIII]

2)

He's going to lose it. He's going to get owned and tooled from every angle. That's just domestically.

"TRUMPS BOUND TO LOSE" - Increasingly nervous liberals for the XXXth time this year.

I suppose this is where you believe his deal making ability is going to prevent him from getting played.

[xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed)]

2)

He's going to lose it. He's going to get owned and tooled from every angle. That's just domestically.

"TRUMPS BOUND TO LOSE" - Increasingly nervous liberals for the XXXth time this year.

I suppose this is where you believe his deal making ability is going to prevent him from getting played.

I think votes against one candidate arent a vote for another. Trump has a decent core of dedicated followers who genuinely believe in him as a charismatic leader. Clinton has a decent core of people who dont like Trump. Remember in 2012 when Romney tried to ride the Obama-hate train without actually offering any positive reasons to vote for him?

[MithridatesXXIII]

2)

He's going to lose it. He's going to get owned and tooled from every angle. That's just domestically.

"TRUMPS BOUND TO LOSE" - Increasingly nervous liberals for the XXXth time this year.

I suppose this is where you believe his deal making ability is going to prevent him from getting played.

I think votes against one candidate arent a vote for another. Trump has a decent core of dedicated followers who genuinely believe in him as a charismatic leader. Clinton has a decent core of people who dont like Trump. Remember in 2012 when Romney tried to ride the Obama-hate train without actually offering any positive reasons to vote for him?

I'm not talking about what the public believes. I'm talking about competence. Making the sausage.

[xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed)]

2)

He's going to lose it. He's going to get owned and tooled from every angle. That's just domestically.

"TRUMPS BOUND TO LOSE" - Increasingly nervous liberals for the XXXth time this year.

I suppose this is where you believe his deal making ability is going to prevent him from getting played.

I think votes against one candidate arent a vote for another. Trump has a decent core of dedicated followers who genuinely believe in him as a charismatic leader. Clinton has a decent core of people who dont like Trump. Remember in 2012 when Romney tried to ride the Obama-hate train without actually offering any positive reasons to vote for him?

I'm not talking about what the public believes. I'm talking about competence. Making the sausage.

So youre talking about once he is in office?

[MithridatesXXIII]

If it were possible for him to make it there, he would only fail spectacularly.