AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!
  • ** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **
    Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.

Who would you vote for?

  • Donald Trump

  • Hillary Clinton

  • Bernie Sanders

  • Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party)

  • Jill Stein (Green Party)

  • Other

  • None


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jill Stein just gave this interview in support of Trump:


Again with the Russia. Interesting that a far-left figure like Stein thinks Hillary is more dangerous. Not saying it means anything; only that it is interesting.

We are told Russians supposedly hacked Democrats and Russians alike. Yet the focus seems to be on damaging a VERY flawed Democratic candidate. The Republican candidate is speaking like a fascist, threatening to lock up not only a political opponent, but even her lawyers, and hinting at a McCarthyesque purge of the FBI and DOJ.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/mac-stipanovich-hillary-clinton-support/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ton-is-a-threat-to-american-democracy/503516/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-vows-put-hillary-clinton-her-lawyers-/
This in a country that has been divided by identity politics and propaganda on all sides, has lost the ability to discern between conspiracy theories and the truth, and may be one spark away from going up in flames. And if the stupidity of "every politically incorrect word is wrong!" is to be matched, it can only be done so by "words don't matter!"

So here we sit, too numbed by military actions to realize we may be on the brink of WWIII, arguing over the importance of pussy grabbing because this woman is dying to be president...

 
Welp, Bob Dylan has won the Nobel prize for literature. Maybe he can be persuaded to make a last-minute run for president and save us from this choice.
 
Something I've thought is an interesting thought for the "lesser of two evils" voters out there (most of us? haha) is that a vote for Hillary is 99.9% certain to remove Trump from anywhere near the white house or political influence at this point.

However, Hillary is so deeply ingrained in the fabric of our political system that a vote for Trump is not going to be doing much of anything other than leaving her in just as much power and influence as she's always had. President is not supreme overlord, even if he seems to think so... she's not going anywhere, she'll just be slightly less powerful than him... so they'll both be in power.

Oh god... but yeah

I have to disagree on this. If Hillary is defeated, I think that's the end of the line for her, politically. Her whole career has been building toward becoming president, and if she doesn't make it this time, she'll be too old in 2020. She's also too old to be appointed to the Supreme Court (presidents want to appoint someone relatively young who will serve for decades). Hillary just isn't a natural leader of a political movement like I believe Trump would continue to be (for better or worse, mostly worse) if he loses the election.

All of which is why Hillary needs to be elected president.
 
The last 24 hours have pretty much ruled out Trump for me. Burning the house down is appealing, but I have family members who would roll in their graves if they knew I was voting for a fascist after they fought to defeat it in WWII.

The members of Trump's cult have helped clarify things. Watching an interview a little while ago, a surrogate demonizing Hillary on one of the networks for the rape trial...just no. Then he's bragging about walking in on naked teenage contestants, and they are being urged to slobber affection all over him? Riiiigggggtttt...

Not even going to wait until election day. Early voting, third party at the top, dem/third party rest of the ticket.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SexySteph
The Republican candidate is speaking like a fascist, threatening to lock up not only a political opponent, but even her lawyers, and hinting at a McCarthyesque purge of the FBI and DOJ.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/mac-stipanovich-hillary-clinton-support/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ton-is-a-threat-to-american-democracy/503516/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-vows-put-hillary-clinton-her-lawyers-/
This in a country that has been divided by identity politics and propaganda on all sides, has lost the ability to discern between conspiracy theories and the truth, and may be one spark away from going up in flames. And if the stupidity of "every politically incorrect word is wrong!" is to be matched, it can only be done so by "words don't matter!"

So here we sit, too numbed by military actions to realize we may be on the brink of WWIII, arguing over the importance of pussy grabbing because this woman is dying to be president...



Not that I think Trump is actually going to be able to disentangle Washington DC, but the reason he is talking that way about the FBI and the DOJ is because one of the major email "leak" stories this week was that the White House intervened on at least one occasion to suppress the story surrounding Hillary's "Secret Server" scandal, through backdoor channels with the State Department. Then some emails suggest that there could be collusion between the State Department and Hillary's campaign directly at worst, and improper communications between the two at best. In layman terms this means that Obama's DOJ was involved in spinning the Server story to avoid fallout, overlooked Hillary's crimes on purpose, gave some aides immunity, and gave her the heads up regarding sensitive information about trials, which implies she has a special status different from every other citizen in the US. When there isn't a clear line between the judicial system and the executive we call this a breach of democracy. When there isn't a clear line between the judicial system and a political party's candidate... I don't even know what to call it.

But now, per a report last night from the Wall Street Journal, we know that, not only did the Obama administration know about Hillary's private email server they actually conspired, along with the State Department, to cover it up. New emails, obtained by the Wall Street Journal via a FOIA request by the Republican National Committee, reveal communications between the White House and the State Department coordinating over how to minimize the potential fallout from Hillary's email scandal so as to not impact her nascent presidential campaign.

Source: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...-hillary-email-scandal-leaked-emails-revealax
 
Good, long article from late August about Wikileaks and Julian Assange, focusing on possible explanations of his seeming friendliness to Russian interests and his hostility to Hillary Clinton. The consensus seems to be that Assange isn't actually "working for" the Russians, but he sees Russia in a favorable light because Putin has given him some public moral support, which he badly needs given his current circumstances. It's also believed that Russian intelligence has provided him with some of the material he's released. He welcomes receiving such documents, regardless of the source or the agenda of the provider.

There are a few interesting paragraphs about his lifestyle in the Ecuadorean embassy, and it describes some health issues that can't be treated without him leaving the safety of the embassy.

There's an interesting tidbit about the "October Surprise" that supposedly will damage Clinton's campaign. Someone who knows Assange said that he loves to engage in disinformation and misdirection, the implication being that there is, and will be, no such release.

Edward Snowden figures prominently in the article. Interestingly., Snowden objects to how Assange releases documents without redacting sensitive personal information such as SSNs. Such information isn't necessary to accomplish the purpose of the leak.
 
Not that I think Trump is actually going to be able to disentangle Washington DC, but the reason he is talking that way about the FBI and the DOJ is because one of the major email "leak" stories this week was that the White House intervened on at least one occasion to suppress the story surrounding Hillary's "Secret Server" scandal, through backdoor channels with the State Department. Then some emails suggest that there could be collusion between the State Department and Hillary's campaign directly at worst, and improper communications between the two at best. In layman terms this means that Obama's DOJ was involved in spinning the Server story to avoid fallout, overlooked Hillary's crimes on purpose, gave some aides immunity, and gave her the heads up regarding sensitive information about trials, which implies she has a special status different from every other citizen in the US. When there isn't a clear line between the judicial system and the executive we call this a breach of democracy. When there isn't a clear line between the judicial system and a political party's candidate... I don't even know what to call it.



Source: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...-hillary-email-scandal-leaked-emails-revealax
You may not understand this point of view. I am going to say it anyway. Guilt is being presumed here. Do you understand that, and do you care? You shouldn't take a report like this, rush to judgment on it, then use it to incite an angry mob and tell them you are the only answer.

I have already seen the leaks being twisted and misrepresented, and it has cast doubt on them in my mind. Not to mention that I don't know how credible they are to begin with.

"Then some emails suggest that there could be collusion..."
This is not enough for me. Not when I have been watching the Republicans run every scrap of truth they can find through their conspiracy grinder for god knows how long. Not when I have watched them lie lie lie this campaign, and over and over and over throughout the last five administrations.

This is destabilization by someone. The Repubs? The Russians? The CIA? I don't know, and I don't care. The timing and the targeting are not coincidental imo.

Clinton was never an option for me. If we are going to go through the 90's again, it's not going to be on my vote. I bullshit, I troll, and I tell the truth sometimes; I'm #neverHillary, no matter what, and that's the truth.

And there is no way in hell, after the last 24-48 hours of watching that predator the Republicans offered up, and watching all his surrogates on their whirlwind, pressured speech apologetics tour, that I am going to vote for him. I think Americans have a real responsibility to get out and vote against this man. He represents a takeover by the worst of our culture (if not mankind).

Not going to just throw up my hands and not vote either. This is too important to throw away the slim chance that my vote might count.

I know about the emails. Let me know if it turns out they are smuggling cocaine. Or selling arms to Iran. Then I'll be impressed. Oh, and make sure the candidate you send me to fix the problem isn't an instigating would-be tyrant.

This whole business is shitty to the core.
 
Sorry for the clickbaity comment, I meant to say " in support of Trump's policy in Russia" but posted in a rush. She seems to think Hillary is much more dangerous than Trump with both Russia and Wallstreet
I think she'd be right, and it's always made me cringe a little when people relate Trump to WW3 or nukes. An important thing Jill Stein didn't mention. Hillary Clinton outright saying that she will treat cyber attacks as a military attack which would include military responses, while in the same breath reminding us that she believes that Russia hacked the DNC:

Hillary Clinton said:
"We got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take to fight to thoes who go after us. As President I will make it clear. That the United States will treat cyber attacks just like anyother attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic, and military responses"

Her voting record historically has always been that of a war hawk, she's never seen a war she didn't want the US involved in. Her biggest financiers are defense contractors (Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics). As senator in 2008 she even co-sponsored a resolution to expand Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. I can't even stress how big of a threat this would have been for World security. Her policy in Syria also is scary as hell. She's hellbent on getting rid of Assad even knowing full well whatever rebels are left in Syria will enforce Sharia law, and knowing how important Syria is to Russia.

I don't think there is another "reset button" attempt for Hillary to have the Russians push that will help improve relations between them. If she tries, I hope she actually translates it right, and not have it actually translate to "overload" like in 2008.

Trump is beyond awful, I agree with most of you on that, but it's hard to argue that the World would be safer with her as president.
-----------------------------------
Edit: Not to mention drone strikes. Here is a history of US drone strikes since 2016. Hillary Clinton was secretary of state between 2009-Feb 2013, see a giant increase then decrease in 2013:

rheXGE4.png


She actually approved them from her private email, not knowing that drone strikes were considered classified. And let's not forget her flippant remark about "why can't we just drone strike Assange?"
 
Last edited:
I have to disagree on this. If Hillary is defeated, I think that's the end of the line for her, politically. Her whole career has been building toward becoming president, and if she doesn't make it this time, she'll be too old in 2020. She's also too old to be appointed to the Supreme Court (presidents want to appoint someone relatively young who will serve for decades). Hillary just isn't a natural leader of a political movement like I believe Trump would continue to be (for better or worse, mostly worse) if he loses the election.

All of which is why Hillary needs to be elected president.
I could definitely see your point and agree on her lacking of leadership OOMF for sure. I have no doubt that after the fact Trump will probably keep trying... for something, he loves those rallies way to much! Hillary is currently so embedded and influential, no office hold required, was the point I was making and I don't see her just going to bed after this. Even if she wasn't running for POTUS she would still be a very strong and influential part of Washington right now. (evidence for our funked ass system ha)

But I guess in either case they are both pretty old, and thankfully we shouldn't have to suffer through either of them much longer.
Trump is melting pretty slowly for a 70 year old creamsicle but he is still 70. We have a couple of senior citizens running for president, I'm pretty sure this is the first time the two candidates were THIS old too... if I'm remembering correctly.
 
I think she'd be right, and it's always made me cringe a little when people relate Trump to WW3 or nukes. An important thing Jill Stein didn't mention. Hillary Clinton outright saying that she will treat cyber attacks as a military attack which would include military responses, while in the same breath reminding us that she believes that Russia hacked the DNC:



Her voting record historically has always been that of a war hawk, she's never seen a war she didn't want the US involved in. Her biggest financiers are defense contractors (Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics). As senator in 2008 she even co-sponsored a resolution to expand Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. I can't even stress how big of a threat this would have been for World security. Her policy in Syria also is scary as hell. She's hellbent on getting rid of Assad even knowing full well whatever rebels are left in Syria will enforce Sharia law, and knowing how important Syria is to Russia.

I don't think there is another "reset button" attempt for Hillary to have the Russians to push that will help improve relations between them. If she tries, I hope she actually translates it right, and not have it actually translate to "overload" like in 2008.

Trump is beyond awful, I agree with most of you on that, but it's hard to argue that the World would be safer with Hillary as president.

Lawrence Wilkerson says the same thing about Hillary being a war hawk.

And about Russia...
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html
This weighs on me. Kind of looks to me like America pulled a real shit move here.



edit: Another thing. How is it this government, that is spending god only knows how much to watch every move we make online, can't lock down their own emails?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ACFFAN69
edit: Another thing. How is it this government, that is spending god only knows how much to watch every move we make online, can't lock down their own emails?

Maybe workplaces need to go back to the typewritten, paper "Interoffice Memo." ;-)

I remember those days. Amazing that anything got done back then
 
  • Like
Reactions: justjoinedtopost
Jill Stein just gave this interview in support of Trump:


The fact that this equaled "in support" to you is very telling.
 
Last edited:
The fact that this equaled "in support" to you is very telling.

Reading the full thread before trying to retort is always a good idea ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ

Sorry for the clickbaity comment, I meant to say " in support of Trump's policy in Russia" but posted in a rush. She seems to think Hillary is much more dangerous than Trump with both Russia and Wallstreet
 
Reading the full thread before trying to retort is always a good idea ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ
Sorry about that, I didn't actually see your follow up and was only responding to your original post.
My bad.
 
Sorry about that, I didn't actually see your follow up and was only responding to your original post.
My bad.

Thats cool, let's put this behind us and eat some Peace Carrots

Screen Shot 2016-10-13 at 7.29.33 PM.png

Edit so I don't double post... on the problems with Russia this is an interesting video of Putin explaining how the american establishment has been trying to push Russia covertly even though they say they are against proliferation of nuclear weapons and then make the media blame the results on "Russian Aggression" when it is the US that has been putting the peace in danger.

 
Last edited:
A conspiracy I can believe in: Trump is a Clinton plant.
 
haha!!!!! I've honestly wondered this since the beginning... *folds tinfoil neatly


Trump a Hillary plant is my 2nd favorite conspiracy. My favorite is that we are all part of the "Democracy video game" created by advanced alien society. The USA country was too over power, so they cranked difficulty level up to impossible and Hillary and Trump are the ultimate challenge.

Luckily game over will soon be here.
 
loll Trump's defense against sexual harassment

"Preposterous! Look how ugly she is!"

omfg lol

Think it's time for the Trump kids to have a talk amongst themselves, decide whether or not it's time to take Daddy's keys away.
 
@justjoinedtopost I have a solution for your dilemma of who to vote for: write in Ivanka Trump. She'll be 35 on October 30, so she qualifies under the Constitution. By all accounts, she's very smart, politically savvy and "...as smooth as [The Donald] is rough-hewed." Last but not least, she's very easy on the eyes, so she would meet with Donald's approval (and maybe he would go away then).
 
loll Trump's defense against sexual harassment

"Preposterous! Look how ugly she is!"

omfg lol

Think it's time for the Trump kids to have a talk amongst themselves, decide whether or not it's time to take Daddy's keys away.

He looks like a damn Thanksgiving turkey or something. I could just stick a fork and knife in him every time I look at him. :p
 
  • Funny!
Reactions: EspiKvlt
This guy is trying to predict who will win the election and he says in the end it will be about who carries more weight: legacy media or social media. I thought it was interesting.



He has so many interesting videos but I unsubscribed because he makes like 10 videos a day. Could not keep up. x___x
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mila_
This guy is trying to predict who will win the election and he says in the end it will be about who carries more weight: legacy media or social media. I thought it was interesting.


I always wondered what a cross between John Lennon and Ann Coulter would look like. Now I know. I mean, look at him! What a loser (sorry, just got done watching the trump rally :bag:)

I think the question is less social vs. legacy. I think the question is critical vs. gullible. When a big news story hits I check out the networks, rest of the time I read from a number of sites. From CNN to youtube chat and every tweet in between, bullshit abounds, left and right.

Assange is interesting. Curious to see if there are any videos released, or if that's just a rumor. I think a much of what wikileaks has released is important, and doesn't get talked about enough. I also think giving the alt-right crowd 30,000 emails to interpret is akin to issuing guns in a mental ward.
 
I would pay to see a picture of your face, stud.
Yes, I should apologize. Like I say, I just got off a trump rally. My behaviour was out of line there.

And you have a point. I am certainly no looker. Six foot tall, orange, got an orangutan pelt stapled to the top of my head. Practically the only thing I have going for me is that I know how much sad looking green pussy likes to be grabbed...
Every woman whether she is willing to admit it or not, wants the guy who has enough bravado to take her and kiss her, grab her and pin her down.
 
  • Funny!
Reactions: yummybrownfox


Now this is an interesting video. I agree with much of what he says here.
Yes the corporate media will lie, either by omission or commission. Sometimes for money. People need it, people want it. That's just the way it is.
"For years I have created videos on a range of topics; politics, religion (and antireligion), gardening, current events, and philosophy. As an early arrival to Youtube, I have always disliked the concept of ad revenue, but being compensated for the rather massive amount of material I create is now a necessity."
This in his own words. https://www.patreon.com/Styxhexenhammer666
That doesn't mean I reject everything he says.

This whole business about Trump as a man who is oblivious to boundaries, both sexual and otherwise; it's clear it is true. But is this the right way to cover the story?

"Over the course of the 2016 election, CNN hired four Trump supporters -- Kayleigh McEnany, Scottie Nell Hughes, Jeffrey Lord, and Corey Lewandowski -- to act as full-time Trump surrogates and defend their candidate on-air. CNN has defended its hirings by suggesting that surrogates like Lewandowski are needed to provide “balance,” especially after several of CNN’s traditional Republican commentators expressed their opposition to the GOP presidential nominee.

CNN’s decision to hire professional Trump apologists has made for some fascinating -- if not excruciating -- television. Their appearances frequently result in screaming matches, with hosts and other panelists trying desperately (and fruitlessly) to deal with the surrogates’ barrage of talking points, misdirection, and blind stubbornness. The Trump surrogates do a masterful job of avoiding being pinned down -- they change the subject, argue in circles, make things up, and generally do whatever they can to sidetrack any negative discussion about Trump."

https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/14/video-cnn-has-trump-surrogate-problem/213824

So Trump surrogates are CNN employees. W.T.F. I don't believe for a minute they were picked for balance. You know, Jerry Springer was entertaining there for a while.

None of this is new. Everything has just sped up. Same messages, same manipulations.

We knew the mainstream media wasn't right a long time ago. Got rid of our TV. Got our alt truth in books. Reel-to-reel tapes. Cassette tapes. I wish I had the old VHS abortion, homosexuality, and Islam tapes we bought. If we had youtube, I imagine we could have saved a lot of gas money travelling to revivals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.