The US Election 2016, Part VI

[Malcador]

Actually on the topic of Bernie...

 

Reddit is lit up like a Christmas tree today about everything regarding Hillary, her health (concerns of brain damage, symptoms of Parkinson's, concern about hugging a child while allegedly having a contagious illness, you name it), and amongst those is the realization that Bernie never actually conceded. He agreed Hillary got more votes and should be the candidate as per democracy, but he did not concede and bow out. If two weeks from now she's hospitalized and incapable of running, Bernie can and will replace her as the runner-up candidate of the DNC.

 

I don't bring this up so much as wishful thinking it'll happen because I'm a cynic. However, I find it very interesting he had to remain rather concious of his word choice and he specifically chose to remain. Likewise, imagine if it were to actually happen. This would go down as the strangest, most dramatic election cycle in American history. Hands down.

How weird to mention Reddit as an indication of anything with that userbase it has

[Longknife]

Add to that fact that it was undoubtedly staged. It's like watching a TV with so many fourth wall breaks that not only the audience but the actors can't keep track of what's in the script and what's in seats. It's like Bokishi said up above about the Clintons during the big dog's administration, but it's more than just the interwebs. Bill Clinton is a happy liar. He smiles while he lies and you laugh even though you know he's lying. Even the happy lies would wear thin by now, especially with the 'net, but Hillary was never a happy liar, merely a habitual one.

 

And on that note, I actually know loads of people who'll vote for Hillary because they hope to get Bill back. They don't want her, they want Bill.

 

Whatever criticisms a person may have about Bill Clinton, give him this: that man is wildly intelligent and wildly charismatic. (or was) That man can run a country, that man can do some good. (if and when he wants) Look up any interview where a reporter attempts to throw a hardball at him, Bill always did his homework, always had a retort and could always tell the reporter EXACTLY why he did what he did and EXACTLY why he felt it was the right choice. Love him or hate him, he commanded a degree of respect. Fast forward and he's lost his touch a bit, and now it's clear some of his decisions were actually very detrimental to this country in the long term, and of course you question the intent of the Clintons, but that man is at least pretty brilliant and knows his stuff. Intelligent, charismatic, "responsible," (as in he educated himself on matters he should, not as in he neccesarily did things the way he should) and always on top of everything he should be on top of (whether you agree or disagree with his choices), including some things and some people he shouldn't be on top of. (HEYYY-YOOOOOOO!!)

 

Now compare Hillary. No charisma, no likeability, and honestly she just doesn't seem as intelligent. I'm sure she's plenty intelligent, there's no doubt about that, but just not as much as Bill. I can't recall a time Bill got caught in a question he lacked an answer for (besides the whole sex scandal thing), but with Hillary it's a regular occurence. And again, no charisma. Every speech she gives, you feel like someone had to coach her on how to talk like a human, and it shows. She's got all the downsides Bill tries to hide, but offering almost none of the upsides. She even fails at hiding some of her downsides too, as her answers to questions are oftentimes very direct and definitive, meaning lo and behold people easily have clips on-hand of her supporting unpopular stances simply because those stances were less controversial or unpopular back when she said them. I think any normal human would claim that times change and with it, our opinions become more refined, thus the change is understandable. Whether you truly mean that or not, that's a line that functions both as something spoken with honesty and integrity or as a pretty effective lie. Hillary, being of the lizard-men rather than of humans, will try to tell you she never said that while dawning the world's worst pokerface.

 

I think it's rather clear Hillary is only running because she's currently the only Clinton eligible to run. She's not a first pick, she's just the only pick that the Clintons and the establishment have got. Unfortunately for them (and for us), it's an abysmal pick.

 

 

How weird to mention Reddit as an indication of anything with that userbase it has

 

 

I'd be one of the first to criticize reddit for a number of reasons (hate their downvote button and how it inadvertedly "censors" unpopular opinion, hate people's tendencies to bandwagon onto upvoted opinions without thinking for themselves), but what do you mean by this? It's a huge website, very mainstream, and a rather good source of info. What's more, if your concern is that I reference one thread with people all jerking each other off as they all agree with each other in typical reddit fashion, this is not a one-off, but rather the entire tone of the website and subreddits all the way to the front page are suddenly speaking out against her, which hasn't happened since the DNC. It's a decent indication of the voter concern that's going on right now.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Longknife

[kgambit]

......   Bernie can and will replace her as the runner-up candidate of the DNC.

 

I don't bring this up so much as wishful thinking it'll happen because I'm a cynic. However, I find it very interesting he had to remain rather concious of his word choice and he specifically chose to remain. Likewise, imagine if it were to actually happen. This would go down as the strangest, most dramatic election cycle in American history. Hands down.

 

Sanders wouldn't automatically become the replacement if Hillary steps down.    According to the rules of the Democratic Party, the national committee is responsible for filling the position. Members of the DNC Leadership committee would each cast one vote at a special meeting and the winner is whoever gets a simple majority.  So theoretically, Biden could be selected as the new candidate.  (which would really frost Bernie's supporters).  Stranger still is that unless Kaine were selected as the replacement (highly improbable), he would remain the VP candidate unless he chose to withdraw.   

 

It's not a likely scenario in any case.  

Edited September 12, 2016 by kgambit

[Elerond]

 

 

 ..concern about hugging a child while allegedly having a contagious illness..

 

When I had pneumonia I specifically asked about that since I have 2 young nephews I see regularly and was told not to worry about it. One of them actually got pneumonia later (9 months later, and viral, so not from me) and while he had to go into hospital he didn't go into isolation or anything. So she was probably fine with that, corny/ fakeness etc notwithstanding.

 

 

 

It's a damned if she has it, damned if she doesn't situation. The jist of it is that pneumonia comes in various different forms, some less contagious than others, and the thing is that the less contagious forms happen to be very very common amongst people with Parkinson's. The video I linked on the last page will explain it for you quite well. If she had a "normal" pneumonia case, then it's contagious and hugging that child was a big no-no. If it's not contagious, it adds evidence to claims she's suffering from Parkinson's, which does indeed seem to be the case as it explains some of her oddball outbursts and actions in the past, not to mention her history of falling down.

 

Parkinson's is a serious disease. It will absolutely bother some voters to think that this candidate may not be capable of doing the job in a year's time. Sure enough, not even the bought-and-sold news outlets can do much to cover this story, because people are 1) Ticked off she's lying yet again, and 2) Legitimately questioning just how unhealthy she is.

 

 

People with Parkinson's disease suffer from more severe symptoms compared to other people that have pneumonia, so it is quite safe bet to say that Clinton don't have Parkison's disease as she was able to continue her campaign even after getting pneumonia.

 

Normal case of pneumomia regardless if it is bacterial or viral version has quite low contagious rate, as long as Clinton didn't cough directly towards child that she hugged, child's change to get pneumonia is nearly non-existent, as pneumonia bacteria and viruses are usually transmitted through droplet infection.

 

But anyway it is poor manners to touch and hug other people if you know that you are sick.

[Volourn]

"I'm irritated by these Sanders supporters, they were asked to vote for Hillary Clinton. It was explained to them ....nicely

 

They should be doing everything to ensure a Democratic victory.....why dont they understand they are weakening the Democrats possible win by voting for these smaller parties ?"

 

LMAO the guy who got all mad about people beingf orced to dos oemthing on the last pagel... now wants people to be foirced to do soemthing they don't want to do on this page. Bruce is anti demcoracy. Her doesn't believe people should be allowed to choose who they vote for but should be told who they vote for. That is evil.

[quidproquo]

Weird seeing people argue about whether Clinton should have let the little girl run up and give her a hug as if it's a spontaneous event. Weren't rudeness. Little girl was a prop, willing or unwilling. Clinton wants to become president. Hugging a little girl while hiding an alleged disease, which she had as yet not divulged at that moment if I reckon it right, is the least of her transgressions. That's normal politicking for the head of state in just about any western democracy. Mudding the waters so that people may in fairness wonder if every single thing she says is a lie is not normal politicking and doesn't even help her win.

[ShadySands]

Obama to veto 9/11 victims bill

 

President Barack Obama will veto a bill that would allow terror victims of the attacks on September 11, 2001, to sue Saudi Arabia, the White House said Monday.

 

"That's still the plan," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said when asked if the President planned to veto the bill.

 

The White House had previously suggested Obama would not sign the bill when it first passed the Senate in May saying it would complicate diplomatic relations.

 

Earnest defended the administration's stance against the bill saying it is not "an effective, forceful way for us to respond to terrorism."

 

Lawmakers are expected to attempt to override the veto, and if successful, would mark the first time in Obama's presidency.

 

Earnest said the bill -- which passed the House unanimously on Friday -- has not yet been presented to the President.

Not really relevant to anything but I'm just trying to break up the Clinton talk

[Bokishi]

"I'm irritated by these Sanders supporters, they were asked to vote for Hillary Clinton. It was explained to them ....nicely

 

They should be doing everything to ensure a Democratic victory.....why dont they understand they are weakening the Democrats possible win by voting for these smaller parties ?"

LMAO the guy who got all mad about people beingf orced to dos oemthing on the last pagel... now wants people to be foirced to do soemthing they don't want to do on this page. Bruce is anti demcoracy. Her doesn't believe people should be allowed to choose who they vote for but should be told who they vote for. That is evil.

Lol posting as a democracy hating Clinton fan does not help Clinton

[quidproquo]

Obama to veto 9/11 victims bill

 

President Barack Obama will veto a bill that would allow terror victims of the attacks on September 11, 2001, to sue Saudi Arabia, the White House said Monday.

 

"That's still the plan," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said when asked if the President planned to veto the bill.

 

The White House had previously suggested Obama would not sign the bill when it first passed the Senate in May saying it would complicate diplomatic relations.

 

Earnest defended the administration's stance against the bill saying it is not "an effective, forceful way for us to respond to terrorism."

 

Lawmakers are expected to attempt to override the veto, and if successful, would mark the first time in Obama's presidency.

 

Earnest said the bill -- which passed the House unanimously on Friday -- has not yet been presented to the President.

Not really relevant to anything but I'm just trying to break up the Clinton talk

Take your point, but the man can't run. To bite the hook, the man can't afford to alienate allies in the region than he's already.

[Malcador]

I'd be one of the first to criticize reddit for a number of reasons (hate their downvote button and how it inadvertedly "censors" unpopular opinion, hate people's tendencies to bandwagon onto upvoted opinions without thinking for themselves), but what do you mean by this? It's a huge website, very mainstream, and a rather good source of info. What's more, if your concern is that I reference one thread with people all jerking each other off as they all agree with each other in typical reddit fashion, this is not a one-off, but rather the entire tone of the website and subreddits all the way to the front page are suddenly speaking out against her, which hasn't happened since the DNC. It's a decent indication of the voter concern that's going on right now.

Hanging out there, the clientele there in the big subreddits are people too soft for 4chan, teenagers that think they're being badass by being edgy or sheep that get caught up in hype. r/politics is also laughably naive when it comes to the world (I guess it suits the suburban white guy stereotype, that way).

 

Not seeing the entire subreddit speaking out against her, in any case, most of the threads are about her health issue - talk about useless moderators...- and have Trump tools or supporters there, I guess.

[Zoraptor]

Obama to veto 9/11 victims bill

 

President Barack Obama will veto a bill that would allow terror victims of the attacks on September 11, 2001, to sue Saudi Arabia, the White House said Monday.

 

"That's still the plan," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said when asked if the President planned to veto the bill.

 

The White House had previously suggested Obama would not sign the bill when it first passed the Senate in May saying it would complicate diplomatic relations.

 

Earnest defended the administration's stance against the bill saying it is not "an effective, forceful way for us to respond to terrorism."

 

Lawmakers are expected to attempt to override the veto, and if successful, would mark the first time in Obama's presidency.

 

Earnest said the bill -- which passed the House unanimously on Friday -- has not yet been presented to the President.

Not really relevant to anything but I'm just trying to break up the Clinton talk

 

Didn't it pass with enough margin to override the veto anyway?

 

Lol no, voice vote so no one risks those lovely Saudi $$$ by making their vote official. I'd put money on them not voting again on it, but making sure to pass the TPPA during the lame duck session.

[Hurlshort]

It's not a good bill.  It's a tragic situation, but this is misplaced blame.  It's the same thing with victims of gun violence going after gun makers.

[quidproquo]

Yea opportunistic Republican fluff. Grandstanding of the worst sort. Sure some want to do it for genuine if misguided reasons.

 

Lol posting as a democracy hating Clinton fan does not help Clinton

You listen to the left and you'll see that they are not at all pro democracy. Neither is the right, really. Every time a man gets into power, the first thing he wants to do is take away someone else's rights. Most times seems that's the reason he went into government service in the first place. Edited September 13, 2016 by quidproquo

[Volourn]

"You listen to the left and you'll see that they are not at all pro democracy. Neither is the right, really. Every time a man gets into power, the first thing he wants to do is take away someone else's rights. Most times seems that's the reason he went into government service in the first place."

 

Yup. And, it's not just politicians. This is true for most everyone even people who claim they are for freedom. 99% of people couldn't handle real freedom. People want to ban anything they dislike or fear in some way. It could be guns, porn, violence in media, sports, words, soda, drugs, you name it there is someone who likely wants to ban it and they'll claim  their reasoning is sound and/or 'it's for the good of chidlren and everyone'. ie.  

Edited September 13, 2016 by Volourn

[kirottu]

Rare Pepe is a white supremacist. It is official now. This is the most entertaining election ever.

[Guard Dog]

Gary Johnson is leading in polls of active duty military 37% over Trump at 30% and Clinton at 24%: http://www.aol.com/article/2016/09/12/gary-johnson-tops-presidential-poll-of-military-community/21470498/

 

They agreed to sit down and talk with snopes.com which is certainly unusual: http://www.snopes.com/2016/09/12/gary-johnson-bill-weld-interview/

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Rare Pepe is a white supremacist. It is official now. This is the most entertaining election ever.

And they haven't even noticed wojak.

 

[Bokishi]

She wants to kill Pepe...

 

Popular Reddit Pepe Defense:

"So to break this all down, Hillary's campaign is pushing a narrative quoting a "journalist" from a company her daughter Chelsea sits on the board of directors for (Daily Beast), which is quoting a single, anonymous source on the internet and stating it as fact. I can't say I'm surprised, but it'd be nice if this wasn't the norm now."

Edited September 13, 2016 by Bokishi

[Pidesco]

Maybe it's a total coincidence but I have seen the frog drawing used by the alt-right all over the place. The Codex seems to love it, for example. I don't get the connection, but that deplorables photoshop Trump Jr posted really knocked me for a loop.

 

In any case, I don't see how anyone can state to be proud to be associated with someone like Alex Jones, and not be considered an idiot.

[Longknife]

Maybe it's a total coincidence but I have seen the frog drawing used by the alt-right all over the place. The Codex seems to love it, for example. I don't get the connection, but that deplorables photoshop Trump Jr posted really knocked me for a loop.

 

In any case, I don't see how anyone can state to be proud to be associated with someone like Alex Jones, and not be considered an idiot.

 

Thing is though:

 

1) No, it's not something that belongs to the alt-right, even if they use it a lot. A lot of people use it, so claiming it's theirs is a bit of a stretch.

 

2) Let's say for sake of argument it were a white supremacy meme used by racist people. It still seems rather odd to use a cartoon frog in your serious political statement about problematic people. It's kinda just an odd choice in general because for half their targets they have to introduce them to Pepe and then claim he's racist and people have to blindly trust him, and for the other half...? The internet is all around a ridiculous place. Like 4chan as an example? Constantly spouting racist stuff. I would instantly believe that a good chunk of 4channers actually aren't the least bit racist and are doing that stuff sort of "satirically," just it loses it's tone and message entirely in the context. Not endorsing it because since it does lose it's message, it means plenty of other 4channers DO become racist cause they think it's cool or sincerely believe all that crap, but my point is if you were to link me a post of someone else in this thread saying something racist on 4chan or posting a racist meme on 4chan, no, I would not immediately think they're racist. The internet does have this tone where I feel a lot of people will enjoy their anonymity to say something sinister not so much because they believe it, but just as a gag. That's why people tend to draw a **** or write the N word so frequently if you, say, give them a chance to draw something anonymously: because it's so rude and crude that there's a style of humor to it. Point is, I would not pick this fight cause I think a lot of people would have difficulty taking it seriously, even if it WERE a purely racist meme.

[Pidesco]

It's not a question of belonging. Symbols mean whatever people want them to mean. If a white dove with an olive branch suddenly was used systematically to represent the KKK, it could perfectly well become a symbol of racial hatred, even if before it wasn't ever used in that sense. An exetreme example of that would be the swastika but it's the same thing as what has happened over the to medical terms for the mentally impaired, for example.

 

I'm not saying that's what happened with Pepe, I really have no idea if that meme fits this bill.  I will say, however, that to my mind, he isn't keeping the best of company in that deplorables photoshop.

[Longknife]

It's not a question of belonging. Symbols mean whatever people want them to mean. If a white dove with an olive branch suddenly was used systematically to represent the KKK, it could perfectly well become a symbol of racial hatred, even if before it wasn't ever used in that sense. An exetreme example of that would be the swastika but it's the same thing as what has happened over the to medical terms for the mentally impaired, for example.

 

I'm not saying that's what happened with Pepe, I really have no idea if that meme fits this bill.  I will say, however, that to my mind, he isn't keeping the best of company in that deplorables photoshop.

 

 

I would argue the fact we're even having this discussion and debating it is a sign that no, no he doesn't. I fully believe you that some uncouth groups use him a lot, but did they redefine his usage...? I would think "the ends justifies the means" in this case, so the fact the Clinton camp made this claim and the internet is laughing at her rather than agreeing is more or less a sign that they definitely haven't redefined Pepe's usage as we know it.

 

I agree it's not the best of company, but for me? I see that (the post, not the photoshop) and I'm more curious what the HELL is going on with Clinton's campaign. They just seem notoriously bad at doing their job, and it's been like this all election season. You would think the establishment candidate would have all the funding and research neccesary to produce a campaign that knows exactly what to say, but they always come off as though they're from another country or something. It's like if I came up to you guys and told a joke about those crazy Bavarians (no I don't dislike Bavaria. Actually love the place, but northern germany mocks southern mocks Austria, etc etc) and then couldn't grasp why on earth that would fall flat amongst an audience that isn't German. I know plenty will claim the Clinton camp uses outdated politics, but again REALLY? They SHOULD be able to figure that out and correct it, yet they don't. They just keep on making a laughing stock of their candidate.

[BruceVC]

"You listen to the left and you'll see that they are not at all pro democracy. Neither is the right, really. Every time a man gets into power, the first thing he wants to do is take away someone else's rights. Most times seems that's the reason he went into government service in the first place."

 

Yup. And, it's not just politicians. This is true for most everyone even people who claim they are for freedom. 99% of people couldn't handle real freedom. People want to ban anything they dislike or fear in some way. It could be guns, porn, violence in media, sports, words, soda, drugs, you name it there is someone who likely wants to ban it and they'll claim  their reasoning is sound and/or 'it's for the good of chidlren and everyone'. ie.  

I am perfectly happy to say I believe in freedom but to achieve real freedom we need rules 

 

These would simply  be a few things that can or cannot be done in society...once these rules are followed we will achieve a happy and prosperous country 

[Guard Dog]

Don't forget Volo, Bruce has also called for imprisoning people for incorrect thinking.

[Guard Dog]

Wow, that State Department really has become quite an organization hasn't it? Pay-to-Play (a polite term for taking bribes) under Clinton: https://www.rt.com/usa/356782-clinton-emails-bahrain-prince/ And now outright nepotism and using taxpayer dollars to pay his daughter's lavish salary from Kerry: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/12/exclusive-john-kerrys-state-department-funneled-millions-to-his-daughters-nonprofit/   . It's not for nothing that the Democrats are so often compared to organized crime.

 

I'm reminded of a quote by a French politician and writer named Frederic Bastiat. “Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”