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.
That was a damn good ad. As was the recent "Mirrors" ad. With Trump, the ads just write themselves.


Idk. Can't really relate to that (probly because I'm not a young girl wrestling with self-image issues :hilarious:), and ads like that one really pull me in the direction of the anti-pc crowd.

Tell you what I can relate to though.

Git your po' innocent-til-proven-guilty ass up against the wall so we see if you got a blunt...
stop-and-frisk-nypd.jpg







So fuck you Trump, for chasing your little commander of the Gestapo fantasies.
And fuck you Hillary, for worrying about the feelings of 12 year old girls when so many grown men (and women) have had their lives wrecked by this wayward criminal justice system.
 
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/nfl-presidential-debate-ratings-monday-night-football

Donald Trump's fears that the presidential debate schedule was "rigged" because some debates coincided with NFL games were apparently unfounded.

Monday's debate between Trump and Hillary Clinton was the most-watched presidential debate ever, while Monday Night Football suffered what were potentially the lowest ratings in its 47-year history, according to USA Today.

The game between the Atlanta Falcons and the New Orleans Saints drew a 5.7 overnight rating, according to USA Today. Previously, the lowest reported overnight rating for a Monday Night Football game was a 5.8 for a game between the Denver Broncos and the San Diego Chargers on Christmas Eve 2007.
 
Tell you what I can relate to though.

Git your po' innocent-til-proven-guilty ass up against the wall so we see if you got a blunt...
stop-and-frisk-nypd.jpg

Doesn't the TSA basically do the same shit at airports regardless of status, age, or gender?

When shootings get to the point where they currently are in places like Chicago, and only then, stop and frisk makes total sense to me, at least until things get better under control. Ya, cops may take your weed before sending you on your merry way, but they are mostly looking to take weapons off the streets. Cops know who the real bad guys are, so they focus mainly on them. I'd vote for a 30-day trial run making stop and frisk legal, then reevaluate the situation.
 
Doesn't the TSA basically do the same shit at airports regardless of status, age, or gender?

When shootings get to the point where they currently are in places like Chicago, and only then, stop and frisk makes total sense to me, at least until things get better under control. Ya, cops may take your weed before sending you on your merry way, but they are mostly looking to take weapons off the streets. Cops know who the real bad guys are, so they focus mainly on them. I'd vote for a 30-day trial run making stop and frisk legal, then reevaluate the situation.
I wouldn't.

If we are going to push for a policy/mindset at the national level (you know, national as in the level of office Trump is seeking, as opposed to local; he's not running for mayor of Chicago), it needs to be focused more on common sense, effective gun regulation. It needs to be free of the obfuscating effects of a failed Prohibition.

Send you on your merry way, my ass...

edit: what a hypocritical stance. Guns are my right! Guns are my property! But dat weed, oh hell no...
http://extract.suntimes.com/news/10...e-arrested-at-higher-rates-in-american-cities
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't.

If we are going to push for a policy/mindset at the national level (you know, national as in the level of office Trump is seeking, as opposed to local; he's not running for mayor of Chicago), it needs to be focused more on common sense, effective gun regulation. It needs to be free of the obfuscating effects of a failed Prohibition.

Send you on your merry way, my ass...

edit: what a hypocritical stance. Guns are my right! Guns are my property! But dat weed, oh hell no...
http://extract.suntimes.com/news/10...e-arrested-at-higher-rates-in-american-cities
First of all, some reading comprehension comes into play because I didn't say anything about trying it on a national level. Secondly, if you have a license to carry a weapon or weed, you have nothing to worry about aside from the inconvenience.

Additionally, convicted felons lose their right to legally carry a gun and the majority of shootings in the Chicago area are perpetrated by repeat gun offenders.
 
First of all, some reading comprehension comes into play because I didn't say anything about trying it on a national level. Secondly, if you have a license to carry a weapon or weed, you have nothing to worry about aside from the inconvenience.

Additionally, convicted felons lose their right to legally carry a gun and the majority of shootings in the Chicago area are perpetrated by repeat gun offenders.
First of all, I am speaking less to what you wrote, and more to a big picture view of what is going on.

Trump is running for a national position, and he speaks to a nation that has a real problem with it's justice system. He is speaking on a national stage. But he talks like a 6th grade bully, cheered on by a mob of his intellectual peers (and I'm being generous with the word peers here).

Cops know who the real bad guys are, so they focus mainly on them.
If cops know who the bad guys are, as you and Trump allege, why the need for stop and frisk? Why not single out those individuals? Perhaps your reality comprehension could use a bit of work...

Now I can understand there is a time for a police crackdown. There is a time for the National Guard to be called out. There are high crime areas and they have to be handled differently sometimes.

But I am sick and tired of this increasingly militant country that the Obama/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Reagan administration has bestowed upon us. And while I seriously doubt Hillary would reign it, at least she isn't trying to save her career by whipping our more bloodthirsty elements into a frenzy.
 
If cops know who the bad guys are, as you and Trump allege, why the need for stop and frisk?
Don't you know? ALL the black guys are the bad guys. But the bad guys might not always have the guns on them so they have to stop and frisk and look for something just in case /s
 
  • Like
Reactions: justjoinedtopost
Don't you know? ALL the black guys are the bad guys. But the bad guys might not always have the guns on them so they have to stop and frisk and look for something just in case /s

After taking office in March amid one of the most tumultuous times in department history, Superintendent Eddie Johnson bluntly said, "We know who they are." He was referring to the approximately 1,400 individuals, many of them gang members, whom the department put on a list of those they say are most likely to commit or be targeted by violence. Those on that list, Johnson said, are driving the killings and shootings.

Indeed, officials said 85 percent of the more than 2,100 people shot so far this year had been placed on what police refer to as the "strategic subject list."

When the department carried out two huge roundups in recent months, arresting scores of people over a few days, including at the start of the Fourth of July weekend, most of those arrested were on the list. Officers arrested more than 225 people since May in the two raids — all but 37 of them on the strategic subject list.

The intent was clear: Get as many of those behind the violence as possible off the street.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-chicago-police-violence-strategy-met-20160722-story.html
 
After taking office in March amid one of the most tumultuous times in department history, Superintendent Eddie Johnson bluntly said, "We know who they are." He was referring to the approximately 1,400 individuals, many of them gang members, whom the department put on a list of those they say are most likely to commit or be targeted by violence. Those on that list, Johnson said, are driving the killings and shootings.

Indeed, officials said 85 percent of the more than 2,100 people shot so far this year had been placed on what police refer to as the "strategic subject list."

When the department carried out two huge roundups in recent months, arresting scores of people over a few days, including at the start of the Fourth of July weekend, most of those arrested were on the list. Officers arrested more than 225 people since May in the two raids — all but 37 of them on the strategic subject list.

The intent was clear: Get as many of those behind the violence as possible off the street.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-chicago-police-violence-strategy-met-20160722-story.html
Also from your article...

"The idea is good in that prevention is far better than enforcement," said Safer, who prosecuted the Gangster Disciples in the 1990s. "The problem, at the moment, is that the police have no credibility."

"I know firsthand the impossibly difficult and dangerous job these officers have," he said later. "But the fact that 98 percent of them are well-intentioned and well-meaning is not enough. The police have to change their approach with the community."


So tell me, as an expert on reading comprehension, does this reinforce your views of stop and frisk? Do you think it adds to police credibility?

As long as we are going treat drugs as a crime...
As long as police are going to resist oversight and accountability...
As long as we are going to allow our government to be hobbled by a gun lobby that seeks to undermine efforts to combat gun crime...
As long as justice means hard time for the poor caught slingin sacks, while the political elites and corporate thugs like Trump have their run of the place...

...this government deserves no credibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SexySteph
Also from your article...

"The idea is good in that prevention is far better than enforcement," said Safer, who prosecuted the Gangster Disciples in the 1990s. "The problem, at the moment, is that the police have no credibility."

"I know firsthand the impossibly difficult and dangerous job these officers have," he said later. "But the fact that 98 percent of them are well-intentioned and well-meaning is not enough. The police have to change their approach with the community."


So tell me, as an expert on reading comprehension, does this reinforce your views of stop and frisk? Do you think it adds to police credibility?

As long as we are going treat drugs as a crime...
As long as police are going to resist oversight and accountability...
As long as we are going to allow our government to be hobbled by a gun lobby that seeks to undermine efforts to combat gun crime...
As long as justice means hard time for the poor caught slingin sacks, while the political elites and corporate thugs like Trump have their run of the place...

...this government deserves no credibility.
LOL, I'm far from a reading comprehension expert. However, I do believe 'stop and frisk' could be a very effective deterrent on a general level, but especially effective for specialized gang task force members in certain areas.

“If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem.”

Eldridge Cleaver
 
LOL, I'm far from a reading comprehension expert. However, I do believe 'stop and frisk' could be a very effective deterrent on a general level, but especially effective for specialized gang task force members in certain areas.

“If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem.”

Eldridge Cleaver
Hehe, forgive my little jab there.

I'm not against a short-term stop and frisk in a localized area in an emergency situation. My problem is seeing a vainglorious coiffed bullshit artist promote it as a solution to national problems, when the real solution is going to involve stopping the bullshit. And with an eye towards bullshit, the Drug War looms large. Unfortunately, there is too much profit in keeping it going.

For the record, I was tempted to turd you for dragging Eldridge Cleaver into this. :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: SexySteph
And while I seriously doubt Hillary would reign it, at least she isn't trying to save her career by whipping our more bloodthirsty elements into a frenzy.
This is bugging the hell out of me.

Should read "And while I seriously doubt Hillary would reign it in, at least..."
 
I want in on this...

POLITICAL DISCUSSION!!!
Excellent! The more the merrier!

We'll just need some information; do you wish to be lambasted by the left, or railed against by the right?
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/opinion/trump-how-could-we.html

More preaching to the choir.... Here's a really good column by Thomas Friedman today.

I've been trying to think of an analogy to help me understand how anyone could vote for Trump, even those who agree with his policy positions (as best that can be discerned).

My reaction to the Donald Trump-Hillary Clinton debate can be summarized with one word: “How?”

How in the world do we put a man in the Oval Office who thinks NATO is a shopping mall where the tenants aren’t paying enough rent to the U.S. landlord?

NATO is not a shopping mall; it is a strategic alliance that won the Cold War, keeps Europe a stable trading partner for U.S. companies and prevents every European country — particularly Germany — from getting their own nukes to counterbalance Russia, by sheltering them all under America’s nuclear umbrella.

How do we put in the Oval Office a man who does not know enough “beef” about key policies to finish a two-minute answer on any issue without the hamburger helper of bluster, insults and repetition?

How do we put in the Oval Office a man who suggests that the recent spate of cyberattacks — which any senior U.S. intelligence official will tell you came without question from Russia — might not have come from Russia but could have been done by “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds”?

How do we put in the Oval Office a man who boasts that he tries to pay zero federal taxes but then complains that our airports and roads are falling apart and there is not enough money for our veterans?

How do we put in the Oval Office a man who claims he was against the Iraq war, because he said he privately told that to his pal Sean Hannity of Fox News — even though he publicly supported the war when it began. Trump is so obsessed with proving his infallibility that he missed scoring an easy debate point for himself by saying, “Yes, I supported the Iraq war as a citizen, but Hillary voted for it as a senator when she had access to the intelligence and her job was to make the right judgment.”

How do we put in the Oval Office someone who says we should not have gone into Iraq, but since we did, “we should have taken the oil — ISIS would not have been able to form … because the oil was their primary source of income.”

ISIS formed before it managed to pump any oil, and it sustained itself with millions of dollars that it stole from Iraq’s central bank in Mosul. Meanwhile, Iraq has the world’s fifth-largest oil reserves — 140 billion barrels. Can you imagine how many years we’d have to stay there to pump it all and how much doing so would tarnish our moral standing around the world and energize every jihadist?

How do we put in the Oval Office someone whose campaign manager has to go on every morning show after the debate and lie to try to make up for the nonsense her boss spouted? Kellyanne Conway told CNN on Tuesday morning that when it comes to climate change, “We don’t know what Hillary Clinton believes, because nobody ever asks her.”

Say what? As secretary of state, Clinton backed every global climate negotiation and clean energy initiative. That’s like saying no one knows Hillary’s position on women’s rights.

Conway then went on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” and argued that Clinton, who was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, had never created a job and was partly responsible for the lack of adequate “roads and bridges” in our country. When challenged on that by MGM Resorts’s C.E.O., James Murren — who argued that his business was up, that the economy was improving and that Clinton’s job as secretary of state was to create stability — Conway responded that Clinton had nothing to do with any improvements in the economy because “she’s never been president so she’s created no financial stability.”

I see: Everything wrong is Clinton’s fault and anything good is to the president’s credit alone. Silly.

The “Squawk Box” segment was devoted to the fact that while Trump claims that he will get the economy growing, very few C.E.O.s of major U.S. companies are supporting him. Also, interesting how positively the stock market reacted to Trump’s debate defeat. Maybe because C.E.O.s and investors know that Trump and Conway are con artists and that recent statistics show income gaps are actually narrowing, wages are rising and poverty is easing.

The Trump-Conway shtick is to trash the country so they can make us great again. Fact: We have problems and not everyone is enjoying the fruits of our economy, but if you want to be an optimist about America, stand on your head — the country looks so much better from the bottom up. What you see are towns and regions not waiting for Washington, D.C., but coming together themselves to fix infrastructure, education and governance. I see it everywhere I go.

I am not enamored of Clinton’s stale, liberal, centralized view of politics, but she is sane and responsible; she’ll do her homework, can grow in the job, and might even work well with Republicans, as she did as a senator.

Trump promises change, but change that comes from someone who thinks people who pay taxes are suckers and who thinks he can show up before an audience of 100 million without preparation or real plans and talk about serious issues with no more sophistication than your crazy uncle — and expect to get away with it — is change the country can’t afford.

Electing such a man would be insanity.
 
The Arizona Republic has endorsed Clinton, the first non-Republican they've endorsed since the paper was founded in 1890.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...president-citing-trumps-deep-character-flaws/

A quote from the endorsement:

Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles.

This year is different.

The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified.

That’s why, for the first time in our history, The Arizona Republic will support a Democrat for president.
 
A lot of unconstitutional things could have some sort of positive affects on society as a whole but that doesn't change the fact that they are unconstitutional and therefor,
Un American.
Stop and frisk was deemed, for obvious reasons, to be unconstitutional so trump can just fuck right off.

And yeah... At a time like this in america when being unfairly targeted by the police is the root of a national civil rights movement lets... Plan to unfairly target people by police.
Ok. Yeah. Seems cool. Real good plan there screaming soggy Cheeto.

I'm embarrassed for the Republican Party right now. The debate was not just bad, it was embarrassingly bad, to the point I started hiding my face everytime trump opened his mouth or made that fucking toad face
 
A lot of unconstitutional things could have some sort of positive affects on society as a whole but that doesn't change the fact that they are unconstitutional and therefor,
Un American.
Stop and frisk was deemed, for obvious reasons, to be unconstitutional so trump can just fuck right off.

And yeah... At a time like this in america when being unfairly targeted by the police is the root of a national civil rights movement lets... Plan to unfairly target people by police.
Ok. Yeah. Seems cool. Real good plan there screaming soggy Cheeto.

I'm embarrassed for the Republican Party right now. The debate was not just bad, it was embarrassingly bad, to the point I started hiding my face everytime trump opened his mouth or made that fucking toad face

Tell us what you really feel
 
A wee bit of light hearted fodder for the flies to digest....

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump go into a bakery.
As soon as they enter the bakery, Hillary steals three pastries and puts them in her pocket.
She says to Donald, "See how clever I am? The owner didn't see anything and I don't even need to lie.” I will definitely win the election.
The Donald says to Hillary, "That's the typical dishonesty you have displayed throughout your entire life, trickery and deceit. I am going to show you an honest way to get the same result."
Donald goes to the owner of the bakery and says, "Give me a pastry and I will show you a magic trick." Intrigued, the owner accepts and gives him a pastry. Trump swallows it and asks for another one. The owner gives him another one. Then Donald asks for a third pastry and eats that, too.
The owner is starting to wonder where the magic trick is and asks, "What did you do with the pastries?" Trump replies, "Look in Hillary's pocket"......


That is all. Carry on.


 
  • Funny!
Reactions: Nikola Tesla
A lot of unconstitutional things could have some sort of positive affects on society as a whole but that doesn't change the fact that they are unconstitutional and therefor,
Un American.
Stop and frisk was deemed, for obvious reasons, to be unconstitutional so trump can just fuck right off.

And yeah... At a time like this in america when being unfairly targeted by the police is the root of a national civil rights movement lets... Plan to unfairly target people by police.
Ok. Yeah. Seems cool. Real good plan there screaming soggy Cheeto.

I'm embarrassed for the Republican Party right now. The debate was not just bad, it was embarrassingly bad, to the point I started hiding my face everytime trump opened his mouth or made that fucking toad face
Agree.mussolini.jpg

Tell me that Trump doesn't look more like Mussolini than Mussolini looks like Mussolini. lol
 
The similarities to Biff are eerie.

back-to-the-future-confirms-biff-tannen-based-on-donald-trump-ftr.jpg

4330bb8897bcf069709f2e6017e5e6f7b8a912c76ddc985980d5842de9600994_1.jpg
 
  • Funny!
Reactions: yummybrownfox
Real Talk:

Did the recent revelation of Palmer Luckey's involvement in the spread of pro-Trump and anti-Clinton memes via places like /pol/ and /r/The_Donalds -- all essentially for the lulz -- really escape mention in this thread?

The lowdown.

Honestly, the most interesting to come from this election is this sort of stuff, like the continued (and now wholly willful) ignorance of the power of internet communication, and the meme as propaganda, among other things.
 
Real Talk:

Did the recent revelation of Palmer Luckey's involvement in the spread of pro-Trump and anti-Clinton memes via places like /pol/ and /r/The_Donalds -- all essentially for the lulz -- really escape mention in this thread?

The lowdown.

Honestly, the most interesting to come from this election is this sort of stuff, like the continued (and now wholly willful) ignorance of the power of internet communication, and the meme as propaganda, among other things.

That article is a joke. The alt-right is not an organized group, it has no leaders, and no strategy. That subreddit has never been even remotely close to /polls influence. I don't doubt that a 24 year old millionaire would spend some money in a stupid mission like this, but that has little effect or importance within the alt-right.
 
This interview to a Bernie Sanders supporter who claims she saw first hand many evidences that the primaries were stolen from him was interesting. I don't know if Bernie Sanders would have had the support needed to secure the primaries if it had been a fair voting process, but the democratic party rigging the primaries is not only cheating Bernie Sanders out of the support he did have, they cheated american voters out of their votes.



I was never a fan of Bernie Sanders, I know where his alliances lie, but at least he had ideals. I find the intersection of Bernie/Trump voters really interesting. Many of Bernie's supporters who hated Trump are now openly for him.
 
For "millennials" and liberals who might still be considering Gary Johnson (via Kevin Drum):

Gary Johnson makes his pitch:

What would government be like in a Johnson administration? First, we would begin the conversation about the size of government by submitting a real balanced budget. Every government program would have to justify its expenditures, every year. Cuts of up to 20 percent or more would be on the table for all programs, including military spending. Changes to Social Security and Medicare must also be considered.​

Cuts of 20 percent or more. Conservatives will hate this because he's including the military. Progressives should hate it because it includes everything else. That means no spending on universal healthcare, climate change, student debt, Wall Street regulation, infrastructure, pre-K, or pretty much anything else. And if you care about helping the poor, you'd better be prepared to care about 20 percent less.

Is all of this an acceptable price to pay for having a president who favors marijuana legalization and a little less military intervention? YMMV, but it sure doesn't seem like it to me.​

Personally, Gary Johnson lost me with his "Aleppo? What's Aleppo?" comment. Shortly after that happened, I read an interesting blog comment suggesting that third parties would do better by starting at the bottom--i.e., get elected and established at the local and state levels, and develop a track record, before making a serious run for the presidency. As it is now, if Gary Johnson were to become president, he would have no automatic allies in Congress, and would find it almost impossible to staff his administration with Libertarian party members (it would probably end up being mostly Republicans, which sort of defeats the purpose of electing a libertarian.).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.