Longknife

I can't wait for someone to misunderstand the context of this one and become too furious to calm down and read it again. Not gonna lie, I did a double-take while reading the first line. That would've been almost TOO blatant, like the entire thing was some bad, incredibly thorough (and late) April Fool's prank.

She burns a bridge by voicing her opinion...? No, I don't think that's an act of hostility. I think that's your right in a democracy. And it wasn't "attempt at unity after a bitter primary," it was in February. This was when the race was just beginning.

Politics is like war. Also, ever listen or read stuff by Sanders zealots? Party loyalty isn't much to count on, least of all during a primary. From a pragmatic standpoint, I understand it. However, this is my issue with it: One, the link you quoted, they clearly have some personal hostilities towards Bernie supporters. Those are private ("private," now) emails and they still speak poorly of them. I'm sure you can find zealot idiots supporting Sanders, as you can with any candidate, but letting those zealots color your views of the entire group...? That's on you. Either these people are all willfully clinging to those fringe zealots and claiming those represent the average supporter and thus Sanders supporters deserve no respect, or the Clinton campaign's higher-ups are purposefully introducing only the most ridiculous Sanders supporters to the lower-downs in order to cultivate such views, which again is pretty warped. Either you have petty children or you have the same sort of narrative spinning that the mainstream media has now. Two, look at the link regarding Tulsi Gabbard. In a way I get it. "It's war," they're being pragmatic. They're doing what needs to be done to get the desired result, right? Here's the problem. Let's assume the two guys in question genuinely believe Clinton is the best candidate for the job. Good for them. Let's also take them at their word that they like Tulsi. I have a very difficult time believing that Tulsi supporting Sanders is enough to shatter their positive view of her entirely. The purpose of any job is to provide a service to the best of your ability. In politics, it's finding the best candidate. If you're letting your desire to see a candidate in one race make you retract support of a deserving candidate in another, well there's your problem: you've just opened a floodgate to invite in a terrible candidate in Tulsi's race. Ideally, one should simply follow their heart in terms of candidates, not feel like they must succumb to pressure. I realize that's all rather idealistic and that of course this doesn't always happen, but it's also true. I mean on a seperate note, the method itself is rather hostile. May sound dumb or ****ty but, why not bribe Tulsi instead? Why not offer additional support in exchange for her supporting Clinton? Yes yes now Tulsi's job performance judgement is colored, but my point is that they opted for a threat rather than positive reinforcement, and that alongside some of the other evidence...? It paints a rather hostile "bend the knee" attitude amongst the Clinton campaign. To some extent, I do think this kind of stuff happens amongst other politicians. Universally? Nah, I actually like to believe humans are good by default and want to feel like they're doing good, so I'd imagine this doesn't happen as often as some cynics may think. But does it happen? Undoubtedly, because it's pragmatic and gets results. All the same, that doesn't change how jesus christ it's downright unsettling to see that this type of attitude seems to repeat itself over and over and over when the Clinton campaign is involved. I think that speaks volumes about the person running and their preferred method of dealing with issues... EDIT: Wikileaks just dropped another email batch. Isn't that two in one day wtf?

Speaking of which, remember Nina Turner? The Ohio Senator and Sanders supporter that was ejected from the DNC with zero explanation? Didn't know this, but turns out she used to be on the Correct the Record Board of Directors and used to be a Clinton supporter. She walks out, supports Sanders, fast forward to the DNC and she's ejected with zero explanation. How ****ing disgusting and sickening is it to consider Nina Turner may have been kicked not for some politically strategic purpose, not because she posed a threat or potential to cause a problem, but because some egomaniac couldn't handle having to share the same room with someone that dared disagree with them? I do want to clarify that that above motivation (Nina being ejected for petty, personal reasons) IS speculation on my part and by no means confirmed, but given what we've seen, it's sadly inside the realm of possibility, and man it's pretty disgusting to think about if that is the motivation for kicking her out. I'd much rather prefer a politically strategic reason for kicking her out rather than "I'm a petulant child and I'm running for President of the United States." Here's to hoping that's not the case. Edit: Oh my gooooooood~, I don't consider these the most damning since all they do is confirm what we initially suspected (would rather know if there's any new controversies to be concerned about), but something about reading them is particularly painful and somehow exhausting. It really is a "bend the knee" sort of mentality going on in the democratic party.

New email leaks out, just released. This one jumped out at me thusfar. Putting moles in Bernie's camp is one thing. I mean ok, strategically there's a motivation for it even if it's considered foul play. If she's determined to win, she'd do it....but doing the same to Joe Biden long before he even makes a serious attempt for President...? That's uhhh...not exactly encouraging. That's crazy levels of controlling. EDIT: Would love to know why these people hold such disdain for Bernie's camp and supporters. What could any of them have possibly done to warrant the constant snide remarks and the like? I really can't grasp why these people would be so heated and hateful towards someone else amongst their party.

Then what was it? Enlighten me. Should be pretty clear how it fit with the comments at the time. Was a statement. BSing me is fine, I'll live. For your sake though, I hope you're not BSing yourself.

Then what was it? Enlighten me.

No Bruce, I'm suggesting you're a ****ing idiot. A bias person clings to a side for a variety of reasons ranging from personal interests to an unwillingness to consider opposing views, an idiot awkwardly stumbles about debate areas, incapable of recognizing what their own personal interests are and incapable of comprehending opposing views, thus forever clinging to and supporting the first stance that jangled some shiny keys in front of the idiot's face to make them happy. No worries, your flawless reputation as the least biased member of this community remains untarnished. Put some effort into your attempts to enrage people and then you might actually get attention for once. Without effort, it's just a pathetically hateful and spiteful little mark with obvious intentions that ultimately does nothing but peg you as a rather petty person.

What's interesting though is that there's obvious media bias for Clinton, so can we even trust the polls...? LK please stop using places like Reddit as your source of information, that just leads to constant confusion where you never seem to understand whats going on or you question actual data that is relevant and you ask questions like " who can we trust ....can we trust the polls " ? I'm sorry but this has to be the third time I've seen this and it's starting to get on my nerves. Maybe a month ago I said "btw guys I visit reddit" and suddenly there's this narrative that I'm this die-hard redditor that shares all the faults of the website? That's a bogus sort of argument and you idiots know it. How about you judge me based on the things I say rather than judging me by the things people say in communities I'm a part of? Besides, did I not give my big honking speech about how I hate their formatting and downvote system (encourages echo chambers for days) and begrudgingly visit the site simply because it's a good central hub for news and info? Part of understanding an election is understanding voter sentiment, and I got news for you, that website has a lot of opinions floating around it. Hell yes I'm gonna thumb through it. Secondly, I'd just like to point out that this criticism is coming from some members of the humble Obsidian off-topic section. A subforum sooooooooo diverse that collectively, we haven't got a single vagina voicing opinions in it! Wow! You're right guys, I really should ditch major websites. Why would I ever need to read those when I've clearly got every opinion and reasonable input I could possibly need on this website?! And imagine if I tried to do the same you're doing to me and claim any member here automatically shares the opinions, mannerisms and general world philosophies of all members of this community. If I characterized any one of you based on you simply having the audacity to visit and/or participate in this community, between Volourn, oby, Leferd, Sharp_one, Gronmir and you Bruce, we'd get some sort of weird ass bastard child that only links statistics about how foreigners are all Nazis unddeserving of GLORIOUS MOTHER RUSSIA because they don't respect women properly by purchasing their prostitution services, all while talking like some ogre video game character (or whatever it is he's imitating). It'll only get weirder as we add more, too. Finally? Bruce, everyone knows Hillary Clinton could take a big giant dump in a 4-month old infant's mouth on live television and you'd believe the CNN story that it's all a Russian conspiracy or that the infant was actually a Russian spy about to assassinate Obama. Here, have a video comparing wikileaks emails to an interview that took place back in ~January. I FOUND IT ON REDDIT: Not trustworthy because reddit? Okay here you go Bruce, I imagine you'd be a fan of the Young Turks. Here's a video that was in my suggested vids just this morning:

What's interesting though is that there's obvious media bias for Clinton, so can we even trust the polls...? I mean if you look at polls by media outlet for who won the second debate, you see the same pattern of FOX claiming Trump won by a mile while CNN claims Clinton won by a mile, then when I check the most neutral or obscure sources I can find they're split 50-50. Besides, Brexit was lagging behind in polls, wasn't it? The thing about this election is anything can happen. Tomorrow either candidate could have a leaked video of them hiring a hitman on somebody. Trump might say he thinks the Irish smell awful and lose 15 percentage points. Hillary might pass out or another wikileaks batch might have something damning and she might lose 10 points. About three weeks ago Clinton was lagging in critical swing states despite a higher popular vote percentage. Think then she fainted, fast forward to now and it's been Trump's turn to screw up for the past while. Will Hillary get another turn? Hell even if she does, Hillary might lose 7 points on something, but then it may not matter if the general election is as rigged as the democratic primary. I for one am very curious to see the outcome, and to see how the end result compares to all the polling that's gone on pre-election.

Extending your lifespan is something I feel like most people would be willing to give a shot. After all, it's not like a shot that makes you permanently immortal or the like, so if you were to extend your life and decide "nah yknow what this **** is gay" then you just don't do it again, problem solved. I think things could get pretty boring though if people started modifying their genes for desirable traits in LITERALLY EVERYTHING. Exaggerated example, but imagine if all dudes were Fabio and all women were Kate Upton. Initially you'd think "sweet!" but after a while I imagine things might begin to feel rather hollow...

Is it my turn to tell Bruce to screw off yet? I've waited patiently in line.

There's more. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3774 Huh, that was an interesting admission. So the Saudis and Qatars are financing ISIS and giving logistic support as well, well better ram up that diplomacy and... http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-charity.html?_r=0 Awww, shoot. Yep, saw that one late last night. There's another one that HEAVILY implies Hillary Clinton is actually homophobic and none too fond of gay people (her campaigners are discussing difficulty with how she should address the matter since they say they want to admit her past stance of "between a man and a woman" was wrong, but they feel Clinton is too adamant about this one to just give whatever answer they want her to), I could dig it up if people want me to. Didn't bother linking it cause obviously it's more interesting if you're a homosexual, I don't think anyone here is, so for those here and for the average joe, it's really more or less just another example of how two-faced she can be. There's plenty of stuff in there that confirms what we've expected: she's two-faced, you cannot trust a word she says worth a damn, and at times she's utterly incompetent at her job as Secretary of State. Despite all that, I sadly don't feel it's enough. In the same way I bore of the media reminding us that Trump is an idiot, I don't think the average viewer will take to stories reminding them Clinton is a liar. That combined with how bought the media is...? None of this is gonna see the light of day enough to flip votes. What wikileaks needs to release is something so blatant and scathing that it can't simply be swept under the rug. Distaste for one minority group...? I fear that won't be damning enough that the minority group in question catches wind of it. Confirmation of past suspicions regarding her handling of her title as Secretary of State? We were already pretty damned sure what was going on, so confirmation isn't really a groundbreaking revelation that changes the game, it's just nice to have it for the sake of confirming it's not wild suspicion. I've said this a dozen times already, but hot DAMN it bothers me how she just gets a pass from the media. Media is constantly painting Trump as dangerous and like he might nuke us all, but here's the thing. Watch just the intro of the video, listen to the stats. One total mention of Climate Change, one total mention of poverty, zero discussions of privacy, 11 of ISIS, 34 of Russia, 10 of Iran, 10 of Assad. Really guys? You think that happens with only ONE candidate being a dangerous warhawk? I promise you the Russias aren't all Trump; after all, that's Hillary's scapegoat. She's just as dangerous (hell, if not more), yet she's rarely scrutinized for this. And the debate...? I think it does a lot to represent what she in particular cares about. Perhaps Trump too, (tough to say since that idiot can start rambling about any number of topics if simply prompted to) but Hillary...? We just got wikileaks confirmation she's two-faced as hell. If the discussion tends to go towards warhawk topics when she's speaking on her own accord, those are probably the topics she cares about. And for every time Trump does something stupid: She's always been able to match him:

Speaking of scandals, a new email dump just dropped. People still digging through them, but here's a couple good tidbits discovered so far: Univision answering to the DNC/Clinton campain. A rather humorous and short one that may (or may not, to be fair) be alluding to Clinton's health concerns. Bernie has more female donors (shocking, right?)

Reddit's political subreddit got caught deleting the most popular thread in all of reddit (for the time, of course) because it didn't suit Hillary's agenda. For those not familiar with reddit, clicking the thread title will lead you to the original thread. The thread I linked to is an automated subreddit that automatically archives certain threads that've been deleted, including ones that were popular enough to hit the front page. Meanwhile, Wikileaks has some lulz as Clinton inadvertedly more or less confirmed the authenticity of their leaked Podesta Emails.

So I take it Hillary is a sure-win now since Trump debated so poorly right guys? No Trump supporter would continue supporting him after tha- I mean hot damn why can't either of these two campaigns go two weeks without some kind of screw up?

I don't buy the Russian angle because it's one designed to trigger fear and anger. Back in the day if you wanted to discredit someone, you called them a communist. Today? "Russia did it." Same thing. To top is off, this is the same Russia where we caught some rather embarassingly bad spies of theirs a couple years ago, and Snowden went on record shortly after the initial accusation stating "if Russia were behind it, there wouldn't be any doubt in the US government's mind. They would know it for sure." The thing is that let's say hypothetically that Russia was behind the leaks. Guess what? I don't care. If the leaks are legitimate, I don't care if Zombie Hitler was behind them. The thing is you'll notice that Hillary, the DNC and any other names involved never claimed the leaks were fake. Hell, Colin Powell vouched for them as legitimate. The thing is that not denying their legitimacy can more or less confirm them as true. Not quite, of course, but my point is that getting caught in a lie can have all sorts of negative implications, thus they're forced to never outright deny those leaked discussions took place. So for all intent and purposes, the leaks are legitimate. If I were to, as an example analogy, expose damning evidence that OJ Simpson was behind those murders, and my motivation for doing so wasn't a desire to see justice served, but because I'm a petty, spiteful and hateful human being and OJ Simpson beat me in a spelling bee in high school and I've never gotten over it, does this make the evidence any less meaningful? No it does not. Sure it definitely distances me from the image of being some saint of a human being, but it doesn't change tangible evidence. Exact same case with Russia and these leaks; I would quickly doubt that the intentions are out of Russian concern for the American people rather than something more self-interested, but damning evidence is damning evidence. To me, what's more alarming is the idea that Russia may not be behind it and the Clintons claim this despite knowing they've got nothing to do with it. Think about that possibility for a second. Think about if the Clintons are accusing Russia of being behind these leaks not because there's any merit to it, but because they know Russia is akin to the boogyman and can be used to distract from their own scandals. How would you feel if you discovered your president would willingly and wrongfully insinuate Russia is guilty of something if it helps that President meet their own goals? I would be pretty damned alarmed, that's for sure. That's someone gambling with peace for the sake of furthering their own political agenda. Putin already seems like someone lost in a fantasy world where he's the KGB version of James Bond; I'm sure if the chance arises, he'd love to knock us all back to the Cold War Era. To wrongfully accuse him would be like an open invitation, which I consider highly negligent on behalf of any leader.

Who's shocked?

Yeah and I know it could change again, I just really prefer the weeks where Clinton is under fire since wtf Trump's already as terrible as he's gonna get. Using Game of Thrones as an analogy again, Trump is Ramsay (obviously terrible) and Clinton is Littlefinger (conniving and cunning). Yes, I'd much rather just keep my distance from the ass hat while learning as much as I can about the chronic liar.

I can't be the only one that's sick of being reminded Donald Trump is terrible, can I? Find the past two weeks insanely frustrating because people act like Trump being sexist or tax dodging is somehow a "shocking" revelation, meanwhile we've possibly only scratched the surface of what Clinton's dirty laundry is, but no one shows interest. Whole thing reminds me of how I felt watching Ramsay Bolton in season 6 of Game of Thrones. Yes yes, we get it, he kicks puppies and drowns kittens and he's pure evil. He doesn't need to kill off 7 more characters to drive that point home; that point was driven home two seasons ago. Would much rather watch another story unfold instead of seeing the same story repeat itself. But back then it was just a TV show, now it's real life politics with consequences and actual people involved in corruption.

Bruce is your reading comprehension abysmal, do you cling to minute details without recognizing context, or do you just not read your own sources beyond the headlines? The article you link explicitly asserts the Clinton campaign was the first to make that accusation, and slowly the entire administration adjusted their narrative to match. The article is cautioning you to not believe that claim and implying it's shady business.

No male candidate would get this type of criticism in this way ...." I dont like what she says because she is aesthetically displeasing to me " I'm sorry, didn't we spend a little under a decade comparing George Dubya Bush to a monkey and suggesting that's another tip-off he's just not that bright...?

And then she'll fall over Don't worry, it's just a mild case of dysentery!

Meshugger is obviously saying Trump's skills on the guitar are akin to a rockstar and when Trump gives his inaugaration speech it won't be a speech, but rather something like this: Hillary on the other hand would only manage Mary Had a Little Lamb, which would immediately embarass us in front of our allies and tank our trade deals.

I, for one, thoroughly enjoyed the irony of all those idiots cheering on Trump's idea of building a wall and making Mexico pay for it, calling him a patriot for the idea, when infact our country was largely founded because another country (or rather our "country" at the time) wrongfully expected to tax us for things we saw no benefit from.