US Election 2016, part III

[Malcador]

My question is, given that Trump has repeated sexist, racist, and fascist statements to his name, and he is a cartoon example of an evil 1 percenter, who the hell doesn't hate him, and why?

People who have a rather simplistic view of the world or are racists for a good chunk.

[Hurlshort]

 

I think the electoral college has some good points, but it has the net result of putting some very large states out of play.  People might fundraise in California, but no one cares about campaigning here that much.  The state is going to the Democrats.  If California goes for a Republican in our current climate, the Democrats lost before they got here.  Kind of the same with Texas in reverse.  It's always fun to debate presidential politics with people in a state where you truly get the feeling that it doesn't matter anyway.  Might just look into the Guard Dog candidate just for the hell of it.  ...Or maybe even write in Hurlshot.  My vote won't make or break anything.  Hurlshot as a protest vote could work.  As long as the dude doesn't keep government secrets on his home server, isn't being audited by the IRS (conveniently), and has an authentic birth certificate.

 

After wasting all of my campaign funds on hookers and blow, I regret to inform my supporters that I am ending my candidacy for PotUS.  I urge all of my constituents to vote for Johnson.

 

Edited July 24, 2016 by Hurlshot

[HoonDing]

I'd vote Green tbh.

 

[Guard Dog]

Nothing wrong with that either. 

[Guard Dog]

Johnson ad for the Bernie Sanders voters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DZiw3dDT_g

[Hastur]

I actually took a gander at that ad for Johnson.  I like the understated nature of it.  One of the things I hate about this cycle is that it's all about talking loud and nasty.  ...And, while Trump might have started it, it's not like Hillary didn't follow suit.  That's not a parity argument, by the way.  I think the reason our politics right now are even more noise than substance is because of Trump, but his success at capturing attention with the tactic has brought out the worst in everyone.

 

As far as my feelings about Trump, it's simple.  While he might be unhinged, I think of his disorders as being personality oriented.  There's some evidence that policy-wise he'll be a lot less flamboyant.  I'm not sure what he'll do, but I don't think his policies will be as crazy as he talks.  I am, however, sure he'll try to do at least something about the border.  I'm hoping it's something more pragmatic and effective than the wall idea, but who knows?  Otherwise, I think he'll probably pan out a hell of a lot less mad cap gonzo bat**** crazy than he appears.

 

The Gromnir guy up top said something about not having a lot of info on Trump and that's why we should see his taxes.  (Also, it's simply because it's convention for some decades now)  I agree that Trump should, but it's marginal in this election.  We should see them, but there are too many competing issues and taxes are not sexy enough in this cycle.  That, and enough people think the IRS is corrupt and incompetent that it muddies the issue.  Sure, before anyone says it, the IRS corruption doesn't change the fact that Trump should yield his tax information.  It does, however, allow him to muddy the waters.  The reason people use parity arguments, which I despise whole heartedly, is because they sometimes work really well to distract voters.  This whole campaign on both sides has come down to who can pile on the other candidate better.  That's all either of them have.

 

I'd rather have Trump not because I'm convinced his policies will be better and not because I like listening to him talk more but because I firmly believe his Supreme Court nominees will be less dangerous than Hillary Clinton.  That's it.  If it weren't for that one ​issue, I'd just wash my hands of the whole thing.  ...And Guard Dog is right.  I probably will vote for Johnson.  Why not?  It's not like my vote will put Trump over the top or bury Clinton.  I'll still tell people I'm voting for Trump, though.  I think people try to bully Trump supporters and they can kiss my ass.  I recently had some bozo query a room full of people about their votes and I raised my hand for Trump just to see if anyone wanted to be nasty about it.  heh  The guy next to me looked around and slowly raised his hand too.  Comedy.  Turns out that we all still got along pretty well, so there's hope for humanity yet.

[Bartimaeus]

In other news, the corrupt DNC chair, Debbie Wesserman Schultz, will be resigning...but not before the convention. And Hillary immediately announced that it would hire her as "honorary chair" of her campaign. What, she wasn't already?

[Zoraptor]

Ahahaha.

 

hahaha

 

ha.

 

I really don't know what you can sensibly say about that. I might have thought she'd get some kind of minor cabinet post or similar once the dust had settled but that completely undoes any small amount of good her resigning might have done towards reconciling wavering Bernie voters. She's simply not a positive with anyone who isn't already voting Hillary and it looks terrible. It's just so utterly tone deaf.

 

If you wrote this election cycle as a TV drama it would get panned for being unrealistic; even if you wrote it as a black satire people would think you'd gone too far into the ridiculous.

[Bartimaeus]

It's my impression that while the DNC cares at least a little about Sanders supporters come election-time, it really seems like Hillary just does not give even, like, the slightest crap - not even the tiniest inkling that maybe she should have been working to unite the two different sets of voters, to unite the party. She just doesn't seem to care. It's a 'bold' strategy...

Edited July 25, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Guard Dog]

I believe Hillary & the DNC figure the Sanders supporters will end up checking her name on election day no matter how poorly they are treated. After all, where are they going to go? To Trump? It's actually pretty woolly thinking. They probably won't go to Trump but they may cast protest votes or worse for the Dems, stay home all together. The Democrat Party needs to realize something. A Trump presidency is not the worst possible outcome of this election for them. A Trump Presidency AND a Republican Congress is a real possibility if they continue to deliberately marginalize those who might have supported them. As it is the damage may e done. Wasserman-Shutz's scalp may not be enough to mollify them after seeing there was real collusion between the media, the DNC, and the Clinton campaign to sabotage their guy. And they may not even have her scalp if she goes from the DNC chair to a job in the Clinton Admin or a Committee chair in Congress is she is reelected and the House changes hands. The old Potomac Two Step.... on and on it goes.

[Hastur]

Yeah, but this stuff is small potatoes.  In fact, I suspect that this election will be won or lost on some of these side issues that congeal into big ugly furballs.  Every time Hillary Clinton does something that reeks of corruption or every time Trump does something that sounds crazy, they're reinforcing ideas that might get through to the very thin marginal voters.  With Hillary, she's hurt by her boring and overly scripted message and clearly cynical message.  With Trump, he's hurt by his lack of discipline and appeal to our baser instincts.  Frankly, it's gotten so bad I've gone from dismayed to a sort of peculiar fascination.  We're going to hell in a lady's handbag, my friend, and the flames will look pretty right up until the moment they engulf us.  The best thing is to laugh maniacally as we finally go off the rails into all 9 circles of hell combined into one two sided coin with Trump on one side and Clinton on the other.  hehe How's that for imagery.

 

I'm telling you, Guard Dog, Johnson might have been a great governor of... New Mexico?  I think?  But he's not going to win.  Nevertheless, he might scare enough people in the two big tent parties to rethink some of their strategy.

[BruceVC]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/23/politics/who-is-tim-kaine-spanish-harmonica-catholic/index.html

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/23/tim-kaine-just-killed-it-in-his-first-speech-with-clinton.html

 

 

Tim Kaine has been very impressive, very few people on this forum seem to be recognizing his selection as a positive decision for the Democrats . But I think it is, I didnt know much about Tim Kaine but what I now know I really like

 

The Clinton\Kaine Democratic ticket is a good one for sure 

[BruceVC]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-campaign--and-some-cyber-experts--say-russia-is-behind-email-release/2016/07/24/5b5428e6-51a8-11e6-bbf5-957ad17b4385_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_dnchack-315pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

 

 

Guys its appears Russia could be behind the release of DNC emails....if this is true  then an important question needs to be asked to all Trump supporters and Americans

 

" Why would  Russia want Trump to win "  ?

Edited July 25, 2016 by BruceVC

[Longknife]

Guys, this is getting EXTREMELY serious. Wikileaks just did another leak, and there were plans to reward top donors with federal positions, which has the potential to violate not one, but two seperate federal laws.

 

I'm even seeing the resurfacing of a story about an alleged assassination conspiracy involving the death of a DNC staff; this is a conspiracy that spawned like a week ago, I only mention it to say the fact that people are talking about it again speaks volumes of how much people's faith in the DNC and the Clinton campaign has absolutely tanked.

 

The DNC rally is today. The DNC rally is today and not only is there crystal clear evidence of some INSANELY questionable tactics with decent odds of being downright illegal, but now even conspiracy theories about potential assassinations are being deemed worth of review. Top it all off, protests have been going on in Philedelphia for ~4 hours now. How the HELL does the DNC honestly expect to elect her? Hell, even if they did (by fixing the damned election, at this rate), the federal positions scandal has potential to haunt her well into her presidency; hell no the Republicans would not be silent about that and hell no the Democrats would not be upset with the Republicans for doing so. How on earth is anyone supposed to follow a leader that's involved in shady business constantly? She is no longer electable, and while I fully expect rigged elections, she's no longer electable in the sense she gives the Republicans faaaaaaaaar too much firepower to truly be profitable for any parties involved with this.

 

Something is going to happen, it'll be interesting to see what.

[Namutree]

Guys, this is getting EXTREMELY serious. Wikileaks just did another leak, and there were plans to reward top donors with federal positions, which has the potential to violate not one, but two seperate federal laws.

 

I'm even seeing the resurfacing of a story about an alleged assassination conspiracy involving the death of a DNC staff; this is a conspiracy that spawned like a week ago, I only mention it to say the fact that people are talking about it again speaks volumes of how much people's faith in the DNC and the Clinton campaign has absolutely tanked.

 

The DNC rally is today. The DNC rally is today and not only is there crystal clear evidence of some INSANELY questionable tactics with decent odds of being downright illegal, but now even conspiracy theories about potential assassinations are being deemed worth of review. Top it all off, protests have been going on in Philedelphia for ~4 hours now. How the HELL does the DNC honestly expect to elect her? Hell, even if they did (by fixing the damned election, at this rate), the federal positions scandal has potential to haunt her well into her presidency; hell no the Republicans would not be silent about that and hell no the Democrats would not be upset with the Republicans for doing so. How on earth is anyone supposed to follow a leader that's involved in shady business constantly? She is no longer electable, and while I fully expect rigged elections, she's no longer electable in the sense she gives the Republicans faaaaaaaaar too much firepower to truly be profitable for any parties involved with this.

 

Something is going to happen, it'll be interesting to see what.

Hillary for prison 2016.

[Longknife]

 

Guys, this is getting EXTREMELY serious. Wikileaks just did another leak, and there were plans to reward top donors with federal positions, which has the potential to violate not one, but two seperate federal laws.

 

I'm even seeing the resurfacing of a story about an alleged assassination conspiracy involving the death of a DNC staff; this is a conspiracy that spawned like a week ago, I only mention it to say the fact that people are talking about it again speaks volumes of how much people's faith in the DNC and the Clinton campaign has absolutely tanked.

 

The DNC rally is today. The DNC rally is today and not only is there crystal clear evidence of some INSANELY questionable tactics with decent odds of being downright illegal, but now even conspiracy theories about potential assassinations are being deemed worth of review. Top it all off, protests have been going on in Philedelphia for ~4 hours now. How the HELL does the DNC honestly expect to elect her? Hell, even if they did (by fixing the damned election, at this rate), the federal positions scandal has potential to haunt her well into her presidency; hell no the Republicans would not be silent about that and hell no the Democrats would not be upset with the Republicans for doing so. How on earth is anyone supposed to follow a leader that's involved in shady business constantly? She is no longer electable, and while I fully expect rigged elections, she's no longer electable in the sense she gives the Republicans faaaaaaaaar too much firepower to truly be profitable for any parties involved with this.

 

Something is going to happen, it'll be interesting to see what.

Hillary for prison 2016.

 

 

They are legitimately ****ing crazy if they go through with picking her. It's no longer a question of "can they rig the election in November?" Even if they did, it wouldn't matter, because there's simply too much firepower for the Republicans to use against her.

 

I've also heard that the woman that was to replaced Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (who btw is now on the Clinton Campaign. Good job Hillary) is allegedly already implicated in the emails aswell and set to be replaced.

 

This is turning into a joke. It's like Hillary is a rotting carcass at this point, but everyone from the media to the DNC to many of the richest corporations in America insist on propping her corpse up and insisting "Nah guys don't worry! She's FIIIIIINE!" They are playing a game of chicken with this election, let alone the stability of the United States.

 

I mean this guy says it best. For those unfamiliar, he himself is a well known hacker, and if you were to ask him? This and this. Look at the date of that second one, that's pretty important. Do they REALLY want to take chances that he is bluffing with the initial tweet I linked?

 

At some point, surely....surely these wealthy billionaires and investors have to show the capacity to cut their losses, because at this point, Hillary is a liability. Supporting her any further runs a very high risk of exposing corruption even further in great, fine detail, because we have every reason to believe these leaks are just gonna continue, and if this pattern continues, no, they do not get less damning, they get more damning.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Longknife

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

What a string of disasters

[Longknife]

 

 

What a string of disasters

 

At least the little one has a couple decades before she tries to kill us all.

[Oerwinde]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-campaign--and-some-cyber-experts--say-russia-is-behind-email-release/2016/07/24/5b5428e6-51a8-11e6-bbf5-957ad17b4385_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_dnchack-315pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

 

 

Guys its appears Russia could be behind the release of DNC emails....if this is true  then an important question needs to be asked to all Trump supporters and Americans

 

" Why would  Russia want Trump to win "  ?

 

He already said why he wanted trump to win, because Trump said he wanted better relations with Russia, and a good relationship with the US is a win for Russia.

[Elerond]

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-campaign--and-some-cyber-experts--say-russia-is-behind-email-release/2016/07/24/5b5428e6-51a8-11e6-bbf5-957ad17b4385_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_dnchack-315pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

 

 

Guys its appears Russia could be behind the release of DNC emails....if this is true  then an important question needs to be asked to all Trump supporters and Americans

 

" Why would  Russia want Trump to win "  ?

 

He already said why he wanted trump to win, because Trump said he wanted better relations with Russia, and a good relationship with the US is a win for Russia.

 

 

Or it maybe because Trump said that USA will not protect Baltic states or other smaller Nato countries during his presidency, which would be quite deathblow for Nato's expansion endeavors in Eastern Europe.

[Fighter]

So I see Russia ate America's homework.

 

Is the evidence in? Do these "security experts" have names and facts from which they base their allegations against Darth Putin?

 

As for Trump being friendly to Putin. I would question how reliable a character like Trump is.

[Zoraptor]

There's no evidence beyond 'trust us'. Then again, short of conducting your own investigation there cannot be any actual evidence other than 'trust us'. Certainly there was no evidence that Guccifer 2.0 was Russian in how they wrote and wordpress is a slightly odd medium for the SVR (?, no idea which branch cyber stuff would be under) to use for initial leaks. Given that even the best case scenario has two hacker groups fossicking around in the servers for months additional hacks seem very likely even if the two identified groups were actually russian government.

 

 

 

Or it maybe because Trump said that USA will not protect Baltic states or other smaller Nato countries during his presidency, which would be quite deathblow for Nato's expansion endeavors in Eastern Europe.

 

 

Won't automatically protect the Baltic States, not won't protect them at all. And since Estonia does spend more than 2% of GDP on defence it's presumably only the two Ls that need to worry. NATOs eastwards expansion is dead anyway, and good riddance to it.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Well the Green Party convention is in Houston in a week, maybe I'll go to that and report here so GD won't be the only guy here running at windmills. Assuming I don't get distracted by a switch who is into spanking.

 

So I see Russia ate America's homework.

 

Is the evidence in? Do these "security experts" have names and facts from which they base their allegations against Darth Putin?

The evidence is pretty much how they feel, facts are always secondary to that. The qualifications for "expert" in US media aren't particularly high and Russia is an easy target because of leftover cold war paranoia.

[Malcador]

Context of an alliance means those are the same.

 

Silly people gotta remember to not use emails for anything shady

[Elerond]

 

 

 

Or it maybe because Trump said that USA will not protect Baltic states or other smaller Nato countries during his presidency, which would be quite deathblow for Nato's expansion endeavors in Eastern Europe.

 

 

Won't automatically protect the Baltic States, not won't protect them at all. And since Estonia does spend more than 2% of GDP on defence it's presumably only the two Ls that need to worry. NATOs eastwards expansion is dead anyway, and good riddance to it.

 

Which is probably why Finland's delegates are constantly invited to Nato's summits and why we have increasing number of military exercises with USA and other Nato countries. Although I personally would prefer if we (Finland) would distance itself from Nato and increase our own defense forces. So Trump becoming president would actually help my own political agenda as it would undermine our Nato supporters claims that we can decrease our defense forces if we join in Nato.