I don’t play overwatch, context? I assume hanzo is bad?
Hanzo is fine, but he’s not a character for all seasons. He’s a sniper, so you usually only need one (or none). Sometimes you get people who only play snipers and so you end up with two of your six characters being snipers, when you’re attacking, which cripples your team. Then if they go on about how they’re only losing because their team is shitty, it rubs salt in the wound. You want to reach through your monitor and throttle them, which is generally how I feel when I see videos of Trump.
They may also be trying to say that Hanzo is difficult to master, and most Hanzo mains are shitty players. The www.trumpisnotateamplayer.com website suggests that their main point is that Trump is doing a shitty job but he blames everyone but himself. The website also features some entertaining pictures of Trump as various Overwatch characters.
Well, he has to wait for the investigators he sent to Hawaii back in 2011 to get back here and get to work. That’s a long plane ride!
More likely: the Trump people are trying to coordinate with the WikiLeaks people to come up with a convincing “email” that will list those accusers who’ve come forward so far, and state that each is willing to tell the “fake story” the Clinton people will give them, in exchange for $10,000.
The tricky bit with creating a ‘piece of evidence’ of this type is not so much the wording, as it is the question of when you claim it was sent. If you make up a date that would easily be proven impossible–for example if you decide to have John Podesta be the sender, but it turns out he was provably having surgery that day and was unconscious–then you get egg on your face.
So all that figuring-out-and-double-checking takes time.
Do you have any proof whatsoever that Wikileaks has faked evidence in the past?
Khmer is pretty:
ផ្ញើពីទូរស័ព្ទរបស់ខ្ញុំដោយប្រើ Tapatalk
Actually, it appears that at least some of the e-mails were faked by the Russians, with Wikileaks being used as a laundering conduit (possibly innocently at first, but by now they know or reasonably should know that their sources are worthless and should refrain from releasing anything obtained from them):
:smack: :smack: :smack:
I would not be at all surprised if this is what they’re trying to produce… especially given the fact that Trump specializes in projection.
And it is perfectly possible that the 4 ladies that Trump paraded about before the 2nd debate are all on the Trump payroll in some fashion. I don’t think they’re doing all of this for free at any rate.
The ultimate nail on the trump coffin is video evidence of one his assaults… I really hope there’s one out there.
No proof is necessary given that Julian Assange has stated categorically that he will not reveal the sources of the “documents” he releases through WikiLeaks. (He will, however, hint broadly when that suits his purposes, as seen in the article quoted below.)
The convenient upshot is that the authenticity of what WikiLeaks releases cannot be verified.
WikiLeaks is fanning a conspiracy theory that Hillary murdered a DNC staffer.
Also in your article:
I again ask Sherrerd for the basis of his idle speculation that Trump and Wikileaks might be cooking up a bunch of fake emails togehter.
Eta: oh, now I see no proof is necessary. We can all calmly know that anything coming from wikileaks that damages Clinton is fake because Assange is a jerk. Ok
The Russians altered an email from John Podesta to Sidney Blumenthal and edited a paragraph by Newsweek writer Kurt Eichenwald to make it look like Podesta implicated Hillary in the Benghazi case. Pretty clumsy forgery, actually.
So your position is that it’s reasonable to assume that unsourced material is authentic?
Probably because it wasn’t a forgery at all. Some dipshit in a rush to write an article didn’t read the top bit of an email.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/11/the-trump-putin-link-that-wasnt/
No, it should be regarded with caution. But you know damn well that’s not what you said. The text is right up above.
She won’t wait at all – she won’t have any illusion that he will concede. As soon as all the networks call it (presumably once polls close in CA, if not before) then she will make her speech. She’ll want to do it in prime time, or as close as possible, and she’ll want Trump’s meltdown to be as close as possible as well.
In fact, I’d bet a good chance Trump would try to give his speech at the same time, since he’s such a buffoonish asshole.
Newspaper endorsements to date:
Daily papers:
Hillary Clinton 115 (19 of these endorsed Romney in 2012, 51 of them did not endorse anyone)
No endorsement 11
"Not Donald Trump 9
Gary Johnson 6
Donald Trump ** 0**
Weekly Papers:
Hillary Clinton 33
“Not Donald Trump” 1
Donald Trump 0
Magazines:
Hillary Clinton 8
“Not Donald Trump” 4
Donald Trump 0
Totals:
Hillary Clinton 156
“Not Donald Trump” 14
Gary Johnson 6
Donald Trump ** 0**
Didn’t the Murdoch papers endorse him? I coulda sworn the WSJ or NY Post did.
My mom, still a die hard Trump supporter/voter, said something today that kinda made me wonder about his base. I commented about how he was going down in the polls and it was looking less and less likely that he’d win. She basically said something to the likes of, well even if she does win she’ll be dead within a month anyway.
Is idea something all Trump supporters are trying to ‘comfort’ themselves with? Is there some talk going around the Trump camp about how someone’s bound to take out Hillary if she wins? I found it more than a little disturbing hearing it come from my mother and honestly, I’m almost hoping other people ARE saying this too. Just so I can have the reassurance she’s not completely fucked up.
Well, here is Trump’s "proof" that he did not assault any women at any time:
His campaign has dug up a guy who claims he was on the flight with Trump and Jessica Leeds, and didn’t see a thing wrong. In fact, he claims that “she wanted to marry him.”
The dude has no evidence that he was even on the flight - and even got the years wrong. He would have been 18 or 19 at the time, and cannot explain what he was doing on the flight, or why he would have been in 1st class. Oh, and another small matter - he also has claimed that he helped procure underage boys for senior members of Margaret Thatcher’s government during an annual conference for Britain’s Conservative Party.
So… The Trump campaign has come up with a nutter who is telling a story with no evidence whatsoever to back it up.
I advanced a theory. That you took my words as a claim of fact says more about you than it does about me.
Trumpish “fact checking” strikes again!