Come on. A guy walking around with a rifle moments before snipers opened fire. I think it’s pretty reasonable to label that individual as a suspect, don’t you think?

Right? It’s about time the tables have been turned.

Maybe Calvin reads Jez.

Then why did your colleague include that in her article, Sis?

I will most likely vote for Clinton, but all I can think of is the scene in Animal Farm where Napoleon kills Snowball and then presents Snowball’s plans as his own

Since the attackers are reported to be Muslim refugees (not reported above because, well, Gawker) perhaps he’s refering to immigration laws.

You just proved my point even more. She does care what people think, she’s a model. Her life has been molded into revolving around other people’s opinions of her. So fine, you want to do that, go for it. But cut this shit and 1) don’t act like you don’t care about people’s opinions and 2) like you’re doing anything…

Incompetent, reckless, and negligent, but not criminal. That is an exoneration any POTUS candidate should be proud to run on.

Democrats might not want to be too happy about this, it’s probably the best outcome for trump and the pubs. If Clinton were indicted it’s possible she drops out or be replaced at the convention...and not by sanders. Instead of a fresh new nominee with a fraction of clintons baggage, the pubs will have a highly damaged…

BABY BUMP!!!!

YOu mean because he’s an established movie star and she’s still a stand-up comic. Yeah, they’re equal.

I don’t think women get paid less than men in general. There may be instances of this, on a micro-level, but I think on the whole HR departments (who are mostly women) based income and benefits on work history, and education.

You’re wasting your time trying to have a conversation with rabid Clinton shills. Their online behavior is appalling, and it’s going to bite them in the ass come November when the people who would have voted Clinton but preferred Bernie will say fuck it and not vote for her after all. The Hillbots will wonder where…

If you think rules can be unfair, you should have used that rhetoric in your initial post. I think any rhetoric is on the table, when you need to get these Sanders supporters in line which—incidentally—means you need them to vote for your party while you simultaneously consider them outsiders to your party. That seems…

Calling someone “Eurotrash” or a “wacky Brit” is using someone’s geographical origins as an insult. Why do you think calling someone Eurotrash is not an insult?

I’m railing against someone using someone’s geographical origins as an insult. Why do you think that’s okay?

No. This has now actually happened in this thread. This is not some imagined phenomenon.

Don’t tell these people you’re not American. That just draws out their xenophobia. The only kind of xenophobia they don’t like is the kind directed at Mexicans because it’s what Trump does. Everyone else is fair game because they think nobody else is affected by US domestic politics so they shouldn’t be allowed to…

They thought Hillary was the most likely outcome in 2008.

So, you don’t think a major political party, whose constitution requires them to be nuetral during the primary process, working to give an advantage to one candidate over all others is something to be concerned about?