The US Election 2016, Part IV

[Volourn]

Except the people who voted for didn't get the chance to base their votes strictly on facts but on lies.

 

Think of it this way.. if Trump had played the PC game throughout the elction and say all the 'right' things and people elected him on that.. then proceeded with his wall nonsense AFTER he was elected would it not be right to complain about that kind of bull****z politicz?

 

People have the right to know what and who they are voting on.

[Longknife]

 

 

He always said he would back her if/when she got the nomination

 

Just like some of us said we wouldn't support her at such a time

 

We both kept our word. I don't see a problem

The problem is that if he lost he was supposed to lose fair and square. The DNC giving Clinton an advantage nullifies any obligation he had to support Clinton.

 

But irrespective of the favoritism shown towards Clinton from some in the DNC, Hilary still won the popular vote amongst Democrat supporters

 

 

I'm not sure why this is ignored, the members of the DNC didnt tell or force Democrats to vote a certain way....we can see from the Trump victory if the political message resonates with people it doesnt matter what the established political  institutions think

 

 

 

1) I believe there are two seperate studies showing that from a purely mathematical, statistical standpoint, the odds of the margin-of-error with exit polls being exceeded this frequently, ALWAYS in states that lack a paper trail and ALWAYS to the favor of Clinton rather than a mix of both, are stupidly, stupidly low. It wreaks of fraud.

 

2) The DNC is confirmed to have basically acted as an "editor in chief" of sorts for news sources like TIME, CNN, MSNBC and several others. The DNC simultaneously conspired ways to help the Clinton camp receive more funding than what's legally acceptable. All this means that the negatives of the Clinton campaign (for example that she was almost indicted) were downplayed while the campaign was constantly presented as powerful. People like to fancy themselves impervious to influence from the media, but any stats or data will tell you that media sways a significant portion of people.

 

3) The election is still under investigation and legal action from various different states. This is not a one-off for the state of California or Rhode Island for example. No, all across the country you can find ongoing investigations/litigation based on questionable election practices. California saw a steady pattern of votes after official reports and tallies slowly closing the gap between Bernie and Clinton, though this was not reported on, and hell, in the case of the Nevada caucus, we have clear footage of how ridiculous that got.

 

4) This study suggests all the corruption and bias cost Bernie Sanders up to 184 delegates. Go grab 184 delegates off of Clinton's total, then put them onto Bernie's, see what happens. Which brings us to the next point...

 

5) Superdelegates overwhelmingly voted for Clinton, often supressing the election results themselves. Go rewatch the roll call footage when Clinton got the nomination. Every time a state tells you it's delegate totals, google for example "Alaska 2016 Democratic Primary." Google will show you how many of those delegates are from the people. Any excess named on the floor are superdelegates. Regularly, the superdelegates turn ties into wins for Hillary, losses for Hillary into ties, and perhaps the most damning state results of all, Michigan voted for Bernie, but once Superdelegates are factored in, Clinton wins Michigan by a WIDE margin, far larger than Bernie's actual victory margin. How can these superdelegates claim to represent the people when they consistently go against the actual voters? Without the superdelegate system, Clinton's campaign begins to crumble.

 

 

This election was bought. There is no debate on this anymore. And to potentially add icing on the cake, wikileaks claims to have even more damning info coming. I recently saw an article interviewing Kim Dotcom back in May 2015 where Kim said Julian Assange was going to be Clinton's worst nightmare during the 2016 election. Realize that May 2015 is long before things like the email scandal came to light with the general public. Why would Kim Dotcom needlessly bluff on behalf of another person/organization regarding an issue that was not yet widespread? We have every reason to believe Wikileaks when they claim the worst is yet to come.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Longknife

[ShadySands]

 

 

He always said he would back her if/when she got the nomination

 

Just like some of us said we wouldn't support her at such a time

 

We both kept our word. I don't see a problem

The problem is that if he lost he was supposed to lose fair and square. The DNC giving Clinton an advantage nullifies any obligation he had to support Clinton.

But irrespective of the favoritism shown towards Clinton from some in the DNC, Hilary still won the popular vote amongst Democrat supporters

 

 

I'm not sure why this is ignored, the members of the DNC didnt tell or force Democrats to vote a certain way....we can see from the Trump victory if the political message resonates with people it doesnt matter what the established political  institutions think

And there were a lot of people crying foul about either not being able to vote or having their votes not counted in the Dem primary. There were several posts about it in previous incarnations of this thread

[Pidesco]

Apparently Trump just asked Putin for help with Clinton's emails, during a press conference. We're not in Kansas anymore?

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

He always said he would back her if/when she got the nomination

 

Just like some of us said we wouldn't support her at such a time

 

We both kept our word. I don't see a problem

The problem is that if he lost he was supposed to lose fair and square. The DNC giving Clinton an advantage nullifies any obligation he had to support Clinton.

But irrespective of the favoritism shown towards Clinton from some in the DNC, Hilary still won the popular vote amongst Democrat supporters

 

 

I'm not sure why this is ignored, the members of the DNC didnt tell or force Democrats to vote a certain way....we can see from the Trump victory if the political message resonates with people it doesnt matter what the established political  institutions think

And there were a lot of people crying foul about either not being able to vote or having their votes not counted in the Dem primary. There were several posts about it in previous incarnations of this thread

 

Yes I am aware of this

 

Can I ask you a question, do you think Hilary won the popular vote because more people voted for her or do you think she won because the DNC cheated to make her win?

[ShadySands]

I think she would have won it anyway but by a very narrow margin simply because the core party people do indeed support her. I believe it would have been a contested convention and that the superdelegates would have been the deciding vote in her favor... more than they already were since I don't think she ever hit the number of pledged delegates needed to secure the nomination

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

He always said he would back her if/when she got the nomination

 

Just like some of us said we wouldn't support her at such a time

 

We both kept our word. I don't see a problem

The problem is that if he lost he was supposed to lose fair and square. The DNC giving Clinton an advantage nullifies any obligation he had to support Clinton.

 

But irrespective of the favoritism shown towards Clinton from some in the DNC, Hilary still won the popular vote amongst Democrat supporters

 

 

I'm not sure why this is ignored, the members of the DNC didnt tell or force Democrats to vote a certain way....we can see from the Trump victory if the political message resonates with people it doesnt matter what the established political  institutions think

 

 

 

This election was bought. There is no debate on this anymore. And to potentially add icing on the cake, wikileaks claims to have even more damning info coming. I recently saw an article interviewing Kim Dotcom back in May 2015 where Kim said Julian Assange was going to be Clinton's worst nightmare during the 2016 election. Realize that May 2015 is long before things like the email scandal came to light with the general public. Why would Kim Dotcom needlessly bluff on behalf of another person/organization regarding an issue that was not yet widespread? We have every reason to believe Wikileaks when they claim the worst is yet to come.

 

But LK you cannot say with absolute certainty "  the election was bought "  ....this is your opinion.  There are things about this election we can say with certainty but thats not one of them

 

Also why do you still think Julian Assange is an objective observer when it comes to the USA? Let me frame the question a different way "  what is Julian Assange's reasons or motives around the USA " ?

[Longknife]

Apparently Trump just asked Putin for help with Clinton's emails, during a press conference. We're not in Kansas anymore?

 

Hilarious.

Snowden actually commented and stated that if Russia were responsible, the US government would know and it wouldn't be "speculation," suggesting (big surprise) Russia isn't behind this. Trump believing the very media rigged in Hillary's favor is priceless though.

[Longknife]

I think she would have won it anyway but by a very narrow margin simply because the core party people do indeed support her. I believe it would have been a contested convention and that the superdelegates would have been the deciding vote in her favor... more than they already were since I don't think she ever hit the number of pledged delegates needed to secure the nomination

 

This seems like a rather reasonable assessment.

 

 

 

 

 

He always said he would back her if/when she got the nomination

 

Just like some of us said we wouldn't support her at such a time

 

We both kept our word. I don't see a problem

The problem is that if he lost he was supposed to lose fair and square. The DNC giving Clinton an advantage nullifies any obligation he had to support Clinton.

 

But irrespective of the favoritism shown towards Clinton from some in the DNC, Hilary still won the popular vote amongst Democrat supporters

 

 

I'm not sure why this is ignored, the members of the DNC didnt tell or force Democrats to vote a certain way....we can see from the Trump victory if the political message resonates with people it doesnt matter what the established political  institutions think

 

 

 

This election was bought. There is no debate on this anymore. And to potentially add icing on the cake, wikileaks claims to have even more damning info coming. I recently saw an article interviewing Kim Dotcom back in May 2015 where Kim said Julian Assange was going to be Clinton's worst nightmare during the 2016 election. Realize that May 2015 is long before things like the email scandal came to light with the general public. Why would Kim Dotcom needlessly bluff on behalf of another person/organization regarding an issue that was not yet widespread? We have every reason to believe Wikileaks when they claim the worst is yet to come.

 

But LK you cannot say with absolute certainty "  the election was bought "  ....this is your opinion.  There are things about this election we can say with certainty but thats not one of them

 

Also why do you still think Julian Assange is an objective observer when it comes to the USA? Let me frame the question a different way "  what is Julian Assange's reasons or motives around the USA " ?

 

 

This is not, as once again you stand in blatant denial of evidence in front of you if it stands opposite to your own stances.

 

And this:

 

 

Let me frame the question a different way "  what is Julian Assange's reasons or motives around the USA " ?

 

Imagine you want to buy a home in a nice neighborhood. It comes to your attention that the other prospective buyer is a pedophile and a sex offender. Your heart goes out to both the Real Estate Agent and the neighborhood, because whether the sex offender does any further crimes or no, there's already damage the moment he moves in in that investments and property values will drop, nevermind the horrors that would befall the neighborhood if he still partakes in criminal activity. You decide to inform the real estate agent of this and show her the police report about the other buyer, not so much in your own self-interest, but because you feel that she has a right to know.

 

The Real Estate Agent then becomes highly suspicious and paranoid and asks "what are your motivations in showing me this? Why do you not want him to live in this neighborhood? Is there something you're not telling me...!?" The Real Estate Agent then - off of her wild suspicions alone and completely devoid of evidence - determines it's best to sell the home to the pedophile and not to you, out of fear that there's more to your story and your motivations.

 

That's you. That's how crazy you sound.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Longknife

[Hurlshort]

Every election is bought.  It just comes down to how much money you have to throw at it and how effectively you use it.

[Raithe]

[BruceVC]

 

I think she would have won it anyway but by a very narrow margin simply because the core party people do indeed support her. I believe it would have been a contested convention and that the superdelegates would have been the deciding vote in her favor... more than they already were since I don't think she ever hit the number of pledged delegates needed to secure the nomination

 

This seems like a rather reasonable assessment.

 

 

 

 

Let me frame the question a different way "  what is Julian Assange's reasons or motives around the USA " ?

Imagine you want to buy a home in a nice neighborhood. It comes to your attention that the other prospective buyer is a pedophile and a sex offender. Your heart goes out to both the Real Estate Agent and the neighborhood, because whether the sex offender does any further crimes or no, there's already damage the moment he moves in in that investments and property values will drop, nevermind the horrors that would befall the neighborhood if he still partakes in criminal activity. You decide to inform the real estate agent of this and show her the police report about the other buyer, not so much in your own self-interest, but because you feel that she has a right to know.

 

The Real Estate Agent then becomes highly suspicious and paranoid and asks "what are your motivations in showing me this? Why do you not want him to live in this neighborhood? Is there something you're not telling me...!?" The Real Estate Agent then - off of her wild suspicions alone and completely devoid of evidence - determines it's best to sell the home to the pedophile and not to you, out of fear that there's more to your story and your motivations.

 

That's you. That's how crazy you sound.

 

I'm not sure I understand your analogy

 

Are you saying Assange is the person alerting the real estate agent about the USA? Is the USA suppose to be the pedophile?

 

Can you not just answer the question simply " what do you think motivates Assange in his view of the USA " ?

Edited July 27, 2016 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

Every election is bought.  It just comes down to how much money you have to throw at it and how effectively you use it.

So the average voter in the USA wont decide who to vote for based on the policies of the various political parties....somehow there vote is bought ?

[Longknife]

 

 

I think she would have won it anyway but by a very narrow margin simply because the core party people do indeed support her. I believe it would have been a contested convention and that the superdelegates would have been the deciding vote in her favor... more than they already were since I don't think she ever hit the number of pledged delegates needed to secure the nomination

 

This seems like a rather reasonable assessment.

 

 

 

 

Let me frame the question a different way "  what is Julian Assange's reasons or motives around the USA " ?

Imagine you want to buy a home in a nice neighborhood. It comes to your attention that the other prospective buyer is a pedophile and a sex offender. Your heart goes out to both the Real Estate Agent and the neighborhood, because whether the sex offender does any further crimes or no, there's already damage the moment he moves in in that investments and property values will drop, nevermind the horrors that would befall the neighborhood if he still partakes in criminal activity. You decide to inform the real estate agent of this and show her the police report about the other buyer, not so much in your own self-interest, but because you feel that she has a right to know.

 

The Real Estate Agent then becomes highly suspicious and paranoid and asks "what are your motivations in showing me this? Why do you not want him to live in this neighborhood? Is there something you're not telling me...!?" The Real Estate Agent then - off of her wild suspicions alone and completely devoid of evidence - determines it's best to sell the home to the pedophile and not to you, out of fear that there's more to your story and your motivations.

 

That's you. That's how crazy you sound.

 

I'm not sure I understand your analogy

 

Are you saying Assange is the person alerting the real estate agent about the USA? Is the USA suppose to be the pedophile?

 

Can you not just answer the question simply " what do you think motivates Assange in his view of the USA " ?

 

 

 

...

 

You are both failing to understand the analogy, and you are instead insisting to me that it is far better if I needlessly speculate without any evidence whatsoever about what Assange's motivations may be.

 

Some people were dropped on their heads as children, then there's you. Dude your head must've been mistaken for a football and thrown to the ground during an enthusiastic touchdown celebration.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

I think she would have won it anyway but by a very narrow margin simply because the core party people do indeed support her. I believe it would have been a contested convention and that the superdelegates would have been the deciding vote in her favor... more than they already were since I don't think she ever hit the number of pledged delegates needed to secure the nomination

 

This seems like a rather reasonable assessment.

 

 

 

 

Let me frame the question a different way "  what is Julian Assange's reasons or motives around the USA " ?

Imagine you want to buy a home in a nice neighborhood. It comes to your attention that the other prospective buyer is a pedophile and a sex offender. Your heart goes out to both the Real Estate Agent and the neighborhood, because whether the sex offender does any further crimes or no, there's already damage the moment he moves in in that investments and property values will drop, nevermind the horrors that would befall the neighborhood if he still partakes in criminal activity. You decide to inform the real estate agent of this and show her the police report about the other buyer, not so much in your own self-interest, but because you feel that she has a right to know.

 

The Real Estate Agent then becomes highly suspicious and paranoid and asks "what are your motivations in showing me this? Why do you not want him to live in this neighborhood? Is there something you're not telling me...!?" The Real Estate Agent then - off of her wild suspicions alone and completely devoid of evidence - determines it's best to sell the home to the pedophile and not to you, out of fear that there's more to your story and your motivations.

 

That's you. That's how crazy you sound.

 

I'm not sure I understand your analogy

 

Are you saying Assange is the person alerting the real estate agent about the USA? Is the USA suppose to be the pedophile?

 

Can you not just answer the question simply " what do you think motivates Assange in his view of the USA " ?

 

 

 

...

 

You are both failing to understand the analogy, and you are instead insisting to me that it is far better if I needlessly speculate without any evidence whatsoever about what Assange's motivations may be.

 

Some people were dropped on their heads as children, then there's you. Dude your head must've been mistaken for a football and thrown to the ground during an enthusiastic touchdown celebration.

 

Why are you now objecting to speculating, you happily speculate on other topics ?

 

But your response was predictable. you cant answer my question and instead of admitting that you feel the need to make personal attacks on me...as usual....

 

And you think I debate in bad faith 

[Longknife]

 

 

 

 

I think she would have won it anyway but by a very narrow margin simply because the core party people do indeed support her. I believe it would have been a contested convention and that the superdelegates would have been the deciding vote in her favor... more than they already were since I don't think she ever hit the number of pledged delegates needed to secure the nomination

 

This seems like a rather reasonable assessment.

 

 

 

 

Let me frame the question a different way "  what is Julian Assange's reasons or motives around the USA " ?

Imagine you want to buy a home in a nice neighborhood. It comes to your attention that the other prospective buyer is a pedophile and a sex offender. Your heart goes out to both the Real Estate Agent and the neighborhood, because whether the sex offender does any further crimes or no, there's already damage the moment he moves in in that investments and property values will drop, nevermind the horrors that would befall the neighborhood if he still partakes in criminal activity. You decide to inform the real estate agent of this and show her the police report about the other buyer, not so much in your own self-interest, but because you feel that she has a right to know.

 

The Real Estate Agent then becomes highly suspicious and paranoid and asks "what are your motivations in showing me this? Why do you not want him to live in this neighborhood? Is there something you're not telling me...!?" The Real Estate Agent then - off of her wild suspicions alone and completely devoid of evidence - determines it's best to sell the home to the pedophile and not to you, out of fear that there's more to your story and your motivations.

 

That's you. That's how crazy you sound.

 

I'm not sure I understand your analogy

 

Are you saying Assange is the person alerting the real estate agent about the USA? Is the USA suppose to be the pedophile?

 

Can you not just answer the question simply " what do you think motivates Assange in his view of the USA " ?

 

 

 

...

 

You are both failing to understand the analogy, and you are instead insisting to me that it is far better if I needlessly speculate without any evidence whatsoever about what Assange's motivations may be.

 

Some people were dropped on their heads as children, then there's you. Dude your head must've been mistaken for a football and thrown to the ground during an enthusiastic touchdown celebration.

 

Why are you now objecting to speculating, you happily speculate on other topics ?

 

But your response was predictable. you cant answer my question and instead of admitting that you feel the need to make personal attacks on me...as usual....

 

And you think I debate in bad faith 

 

 

 

Ok Bruce, here you go, gonna drop a bombshell for you:

 

Maybe Assange genuinely cares about the American people and feels we have a right to know when we're being cheated, because he believes in the principles of Democracy. Yknow, like all those people that are upset with Clinton for the exact same reason? Like Snowden's motivations for what he did?

 

What do *you* think Assange's motivations are?

 

 

Likewise, to a small degree, I can understand why you would want to classify my belief the election was bought as "speculation." However, there is a key difference between my speculation and yours. My speculation is built upon circumstantial evidence. It's built upon evidence that isn't quite enough to function fully as evidence, but definitely raises red flags. What's more, I have loads of circumstantial evidence from multiple different topics and sources. If you asked me - legally speaking - if it is a sure-win to try and take legal actions against the election, the DNC etc, yes, I would advise you that it's not exactly a sure-win. If you asked me if there was cause to investigate however, or cause to be suspicious? Absolutely. The law and common sense do not always align.

 

 But while I use circumstantial evidence (in 20 different cases all surrounding the same shady individuals) to speculate, you use zero evidence whatsoever to speculate about Assange. See the difference? See how I let circumstantial evidence point me in the right direction and get me questioning things? See how you just spin in a circle and start walking around with a blindfold tied around your eyes?

Edited July 27, 2016 by Longknife

[Bartimaeus]

 

He always said he would back her if/when she got the nomination

 

Just like some of us said we wouldn't support her at such a time

 

We both kept our word. I don't see a problem

The problem is that if he lost he was supposed to lose fair and square. The DNC giving Clinton an advantage nullifies any obligation he had to support Clinton.

 

 

I don't see how this changes anything from his point of view, though. Sure, it makes us go, "Yeah, screw all that," but from his perspective, he still lost and it's clear the DNC isn't going to do anything about their own corruption, and in his mind Hillary is still the better option out Hillary and Trump, and he knows that if he tried to run third party he would just act as a spoiler for Hillary, which he's said from the very beginning, like so many other things he's said, that he would refuse to do. So I know you didn't say this, but I don't see how this really makes him a sellout as per Volourn.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

I think she would have won it anyway but by a very narrow margin simply because the core party people do indeed support her. I believe it would have been a contested convention and that the superdelegates would have been the deciding vote in her favor... more than they already were since I don't think she ever hit the number of pledged delegates needed to secure the nomination

 

This seems like a rather reasonable assessment.

 

 

 

 

Let me frame the question a different way "  what is Julian Assange's reasons or motives around the USA " ?

Imagine you want to buy a home in a nice neighborhood. It comes to your attention that the other prospective buyer is a pedophile and a sex offender. Your heart goes out to both the Real Estate Agent and the neighborhood, because whether the sex offender does any further crimes or no, there's already damage the moment he moves in in that investments and property values will drop, nevermind the horrors that would befall the neighborhood if he still partakes in criminal activity. You decide to inform the real estate agent of this and show her the police report about the other buyer, not so much in your own self-interest, but because you feel that she has a right to know.

 

The Real Estate Agent then becomes highly suspicious and paranoid and asks "what are your motivations in showing me this? Why do you not want him to live in this neighborhood? Is there something you're not telling me...!?" The Real Estate Agent then - off of her wild suspicions alone and completely devoid of evidence - determines it's best to sell the home to the pedophile and not to you, out of fear that there's more to your story and your motivations.

 

That's you. That's how crazy you sound.

 

I'm not sure I understand your analogy

 

Are you saying Assange is the person alerting the real estate agent about the USA? Is the USA suppose to be the pedophile?

 

Can you not just answer the question simply " what do you think motivates Assange in his view of the USA " ?

 

 

 

...

 

You are both failing to understand the analogy, and you are instead insisting to me that it is far better if I needlessly speculate without any evidence whatsoever about what Assange's motivations may be.

 

Some people were dropped on their heads as children, then there's you. Dude your head must've been mistaken for a football and thrown to the ground during an enthusiastic touchdown celebration.

 

Why are you now objecting to speculating, you happily speculate on other topics ?

 

But your response was predictable. you cant answer my question and instead of admitting that you feel the need to make personal attacks on me...as usual....

 

And you think I debate in bad faith 

 

 

 

Ok Bruce, here you go, gonna drop a bombshell for you:

 

Maybe Assange genuinely cares about the American people and feels we have a right to know when we're being cheated, because he believes in the principles of Democracy. Yknow, like all those people that are upset with Clinton for the exact same reason? Like Snowden's motivations for what he did?

 

What do *you* think Assange's motivations are?

 

Assange has a definite anti-USA agenda, the whole way he uses Wikileaks in an attempt to embarass and undermine the USA is patently obvious 

 

 

So he is very biased towards the USA which makes him biased towards what the West stands for

 

This is not uncommon but lets not think he represents this paradigm of truth about what is best for the USA 

Edited July 27, 2016 by BruceVC

[Longknife]

Assange has a definite anti-USA agenda, the whole way he uses Wikileaks in an attempt to embarass and undermine the USA is patently obvious 

 

 

 

So he is very biased towards the USA which makes him biased towards what the West stands for

 

This is not uncommon but lets not think he represents this paradigm of truth about what is best for the USA 

 

 

Do you know what objective thinking is? It's that thing you never do. There's so many problems with this post I don't even know where to start. Your logic - summarized - is "Assange did something that hurts someone in the USA and therefore he MUST BE AGAINST ALL OF WESTERN IDEALS AND PHILOSOPHIES AS WE KNOW IT and no it is not possible to be critical of one's faults in hopes that helps them improve."

[HoonDing]

American continent for Trump

 

Africa for Mugabe

 

Europe + Russia for Putin

 

Asia for Xi Jinping

 

Oceania... who cares lol

 

make the world great again

[Wrath of Dagon]

David Burge @iowahawkblog

New #DavePoll: which watchdog do you trust more to uncover political and governmental corruption in the US?

 

The New York Times

Putin-controlled hackers

[Guard Dog]

If anyone really wants to damage the USA they don't need to interfere with this election. Damage is nearly assured not matter the outcome. The only way that will be avoided is if Congress (at least half of it) is firmly in the control of the opposite party of the winner. Then we can weather four years of impotent drama by President whoever and unf--k things in 2020. 

[Guard Dog]

This is good. A Trump super pac is running an ad with video of Hillary Clinton is speaking in India to Indian workers lauding their work in outsourced American jobs. She received millions of dollars in donations from Indian Companies who were getting outsourced work. She is trying to get the ad pulled because "the donations came in a year 'after' the speech".

 

And we have descended further into parody.

 

http://nypost.com/2016/07/27/clinton-campaigns-move-to-force-trump-super-pac-ad-off-tv/ 

[Hastur]

So the problem is the quo pro quid rather than quid pro quo? hehe It doesn't matter the case 'what' is in, damn it, nor the which hand washed the other first! lol Comedy. I get a real kick out of that.

[Wrath of Dagon]

If anyone really wants to damage the USA they don't need to interfere with this election. Damage is nearly assured not matter the outcome. The only way that will be avoided is if Congress (at least half of it) is firmly in the control of the opposite party of the winner. Then we can weather four years of impotent drama by President whoever and unf--k things in 2020.

So you want the Dems to control the Senate in case Trump tries to appoint someone to the Supreme Court who might actually defend the Constitution? OK.