The US Election 2016, Part VIII

[Pidesco]

Find out in this thread why a billionaire who made a career out of screwing over the little guy is now the only hope the little guy has of getting rid of the terrible establishment.

 

 

[Bokishi]

Lets debate guys

[BruceVC]

Find out in this thread why a billionaire who made a career out of screwing over the little guy is now the only hope the little guy has of getting rid of the terrible establishment.

 You buddy

[Meshugger]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtU2Efaj0xs

 

This election, man.

[Bokishi]

Feels bad man

[Guard Dog]

No doubt about it, the long knives are out now:

 

http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/09/29/dems-new-strategy-discredit-gary-johnson-win-millennials/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/29/politics/gary-johnson-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/2016/09/bill_weld_clinton_camp_planted_rumors_of_libertarian_collapse

 

Well, I look at it this way. A man may be judged by the quality if his enemies. The love of liberty and human freedom does not abide in the hearts of the American Left. And the policy of the US Democrat party is to look at American citizens as nothing more than livestock to be managed with no free will of their own. If they are trying to tear Gary Johnson down then he is doing something right.

 

And this argument is wearing really thin: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/09/28/obama_a_vote_for_a_third-party_candidate_is_a_vote_for_trump_if_you_dont_vote_thats_a_vote_for_trump.html

 

Barack Obama says a vote for Johnson or Stein is really a vote for Trump. Newsweek agrees: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-09-28/a-vote-for-gary-johnson-or-jill-stein-is-a-vote-for-donald-trump. Curiously Sean Hannity tells us the opposite, Why is it so hard to fathom why so many people find either choice equally intolerable? If it all came down to me right now and I was asked to choose between the Orange Cloud of Death or the Tyrant in a Pantsuit I honestly could not tell you which I'd choose. I'd probably ask to think about it for the next four years.

 

Anyway speaking of charities this is my new pet cause (no pun intended) : http://ofsds.org/index.html.

 

I made a donation to them yesterday. If you are looking for a cause worthy of your hard earned I recommend this one. I'd send the link to Trump but he does not do charity apparently.

[Enoch]

Enoch, on 29 Sept 2016 - 10:21 PM, said:

The latest in David Fahrenthold's continuing investigation into the supposedly-charitable "Trump Foundation". 

 

Previously, he's turned up the fact that Trump himself hasn't donated a dime since 2008, illegal self-dealing, an illegal political gift, and testimonial evidence that some donations were actually payments for services.  This report adds that the "charity" hasn't completed the necessary certifications under NY law to solicit donations, despite having received over $4.3M from non-Trump donors.  Notably, this certification requires an annual independent audit that would likely have turned up many of these other issues, and maybe more-- auditors get more access than journalists do.

 

Still not as bad as what Hillary may have done. Negligent with national security info, possibly covering up the president's (her husband's) illegal behavior, blatantly lying about her health, etc. One has to ask why she wants to be president. Is it legacy? Ego? Does she feel she's owed this? Or does she really have the passion to change this country? I seriously doubt the latter.

 

Need I point out the difference between "did" and "what right-wing media fantasizes that she may have done"?

 

The "why try to become President" question is equally applicable to every candidate.  If anything, it's a bigger question for the candidate who has never worked in public service before-- where's the evidence that Trump gives a **** about anything beyond his ego and wealth?  Anyhow, Clinton's answered this one before pretty effectively:

 

 

Aside, can you imagine how badly Trump would botch this question if he were asked?  "Humility??!  That's for losers!  I'm a winner!"

 

(Also, note that the next debate will feature the same "Town Hall" format as in the above clip.  This... does not play to Donald's strengths, to say the least.  Topics will be less predictable, favoring the candidate who prepares more rigorously, and the candidates will be judged heavily on their ability to empathize (or, at least, appear to empathize) with the ordinary citizens asking them questions.)

Edited September 30, 2016 by Enoch

[redneckdevil]

Sigh it was a very good episode

 

 

I about died when Garrison was talking about Putin lmfao

Edited September 30, 2016 by redneckdevil

[Guard Dog]

I'd agree there has been a lot of speculation on what she might have done over the years but she DID lie about her e-mail server to Congress & the FBI and everyone else. She DID lie about the attack on the embassy in Libya. She DID lie about numerous career achievements over the years. As for the e-mail sever we do not an cannot know her motive but either she was, as the FBI says "extremely reckless", or was hiding things from Congress and FOI. It can only be one of those two and either way is bad.

 

Even if I were not philosophically opposed to her in nearly everything all of that would be enough for me to not vote for her.

[Pidesco]

No doubt about it, the long knives are out now:

 

http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/09/29/dems-new-strategy-discredit-gary-johnson-win-millennials/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/29/politics/gary-johnson-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/2016/09/bill_weld_clinton_camp_planted_rumors_of_libertarian_collapse

 

Well, I look at it this way. A man may be judged by the quality if his enemies. The love of liberty and human freedom does not abide in the hearts of the American Left. And the policy of the US Democrat party is to look at American citizens as nothing more than livestock to be managed with no free will of their own. If they are trying to tear Gary Johnson down then he is doing something right.

 

And this argument is wearing really thin: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/09/28/obama_a_vote_for_a_third-party_candidate_is_a_vote_for_trump_if_you_dont_vote_thats_a_vote_for_trump.html

 

Barack Obama says a vote for Johnson or Stein is really a vote for Trump. Newsweek agrees: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-09-28/a-vote-for-gary-johnson-or-jill-stein-is-a-vote-for-donald-trump. Curiously Sean Hannity tells us the opposite, Why is it so hard to fathom why so many people find either choice equally intolerable? If it all came down to me right now and I was asked to choose between the Orange Cloud of Death or the Tyrant in a Pantsuit I honestly could not tell you which I'd choose. I'd probably ask to think about it for the next four years.

 

Anyway speaking of charities this is my new pet cause (no pun intended) : http://ofsds.org/index.html.

 

I made a donation to them yesterday. If you are looking for a cause worthy of your hard earned I recommend this one. I'd send the link to Trump but he does not do charity apparently.

 

US's electoral system is what it is. There are very good reasons to hate a two party system, but you are not getting a relevant third party unless the system is changed. The only way the libertarian party gets a place at the table is if one of the main parties chokes and dies so that the Libertarians take its place. But of course, if that happens, the libertarian party will be quickly morphed into a moderate, bastardized version of itself which I have to assume you'd hate.

 

Lose first-past-the-post, gerrymandering and the electoral college and then, maybe, diverse points of views will be somewhat represented in the US's political system.

[Guard Dog]

I'm not an ideological purist. I could live with a "Liberpublican" party as long as is was at least 60-70% libertarian. As Reagan said I'd rather get most of what I want than none of it. But I disagree that a third party cannot become viable. It's been said that every face on Mt. Rushmore was a third party candidate and it's basically true. But what third parties have failed to do is capitalize on success. Far too many of the "third" parties rely on "hail mary" passes. Meaning they run for President and that is it. There are some 3k Libertarians in elected office in the US. There are less than 100 Green Party and none of any other. Johnson had done a  lot to advance the brand this time. He should hit the magic number of 5% of the vote to set up a 2020 bid. But what MUST happen is to get LP candidates in Congress. That should be the primary focus of the party for the next four years now that ballot access is assured (hopefully). It is not necessary to win to advance the cause. A viable candidate in the center would pull the Republicans and Democrats away from the partisan fringes they live on now. The USA would be better off if the religious right and socialist left had less influence and a viable third party can do that. We have had the same electoral system since 1788 and we have had third party Presidents and a number of credible bids. We can do it again now.

[Pidesco]

Yeah, 60-70% is way, way too optimistic. I mean which Libertarian principles would be the first out the door? Would you be okay with a libertarian party that kept the Fed and the IRS mostly as they are, for example?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The only difference between Johnson and Trump or Hillary is that he'll do dumb **** after hits on a bong instead of yelling about walls or getting pneumonia. The TPP will still pass, freedom will evaporate to benefit the ruling class, and the economic situation will continue to deteriorate as population increases while need for labor decreases. We're heading to the iceberg and the ship ain't turning around.

[Meshugger]

The only difference between Johnson and Trump or Hillary is that he'll do dumb **** after hits on a bong instead of yelling about walls or getting pneumonia. The TPP will still pass, freedom will evaporate to benefit the ruling class, and the economic situation will continue to deteriorate as population increases while need for labor decreases. We're heading to the iceberg and the ship ain't turning around.

 

Everything is fine, perfectly fine.

 

[Hurlshort]

 

 

 

Geez, why can't she talk like that in the debates?  I mean, there were a few moments when she went off the rails talking about faith and her daily spirit guide, but she handled the talk about self consciousness and the struggle with ego with incredible grace.  Great question and great response.  

[BruceVC]

I'd agree there has been a lot of speculation on what she might have done over the years but she DID lie about her e-mail server to Congress & the FBI and everyone else. She DID lie about the attack on the embassy in Libya. She DID lie about numerous career achievements over the years. As for the e-mail sever we do not an cannot know her motive but either she was, as the FBI says "extremely reckless", or was hiding things from Congress and FOI. It can only be one of those two and either way is bad.

 

Even if I were not philosophically opposed to her in nearly everything all of that would be enough for me to not vote for her.gd

GD you cant say " she lied about e-mail server  ? Yes arguably you could say her staff and her were reckless.....fine that can be said 

 

But as we discussed at length and I am happy to rehash the argument again with links ( and please remember I do this for a living so I can honestly give  much more detail if you really require it but I would rather not go through it again unless you insist    )

 

• She used a private email server for a period of time because of  a private email address. Everyone in the White house and secret service seemed fine with this and they would have noticed her different email  address
• Then she was required to hand over large amounts of email data
• She didnt have to hand over private emails so she told her staff to delete these
• Then she was accused of hiding vital information in the deleted emails. It was now obvious she was the victim of right wing witch hunt 
• However the FBI forensics got involved and they were able to find all  relevent deleted emails 
• She was deemed reckless but it was not criminal

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3245735/The-FBI-recovered-Hillary-Clinton-s-secret-emails-private-computer-server-source-reveals.html

 

Please can we bury this now, there must be other things you can accuse her of because I am genuinely concerned that if she does become president you guys will still be accusing her of this  for the whole 4 years. Lets be fair,  we must respect the office of the  president of the USA 

 

And I will also stop anti-Trump posts if he becomes president unless he starts doing new offensive things as president. So I will also bury the past in the interest of respecting the office of the president 

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

Geez, why can't she talk like that in the debates?  I mean, there were a few moments when she went off the rails talking about faith and her daily spirit guide, but she handled the talk about self consciousness and the struggle with ego with incredible grace.  Great question and great response.  

 

This is a good debate, she was very candid and sincere

 

But I'll be honest she is often very similar to this in numerous debates. This is how I think of her generally 

[BruceVC]

 

 

Aside, can you imagine how badly Trump would botch this question if he were asked?  "Humility??!  That's for losers!  I'm a winner!"

 

(Also, note that the next debate will feature the same "Town Hall" format as in the above clip.  This... does not play to Donald's strengths, to say the least.  Topics will be less predictable, favoring the candidate who prepares more rigorously, and the candidates will be judged heavily on their ability to empathize (or, at least, appear to empathize) with the ordinary citizens asking them questions.)

 

 

This Trump prediction made me laugh....this is exactly what you would expect him to say 

 

Enoch are you voting for Hilary?

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

I'd agree there has been a lot of speculation on what she might have done over the years but she DID lie about her e-mail server to Congress & the FBI and everyone else. She DID lie about the attack on the embassy in Libya. She DID lie about numerous career achievements over the years. As for the e-mail sever we do not an cannot know her motive but either she was, as the FBI says "extremely reckless", or was hiding things from Congress and FOI. It can only be one of those two and either way is bad.

 

Even if I were not philosophically opposed to her in nearly everything all of that would be enough for me to not vote for her.gd

GD you cant say " she lied about e-mail server  ? Yes arguably you could say her staff and her were reckless.....fine that can be said 

 

But as we discussed at length and I am happy to rehash the argument again with links ( and please remember I do this for a living so I can honestly give  much more detail if you really require it but I would rather not go through it again unless you insist    )

• She used a private email server for a period of time because of  a private email address. Everyone in the White house and secret service seemed fine with this and they would have noticed her different email  address
• Then she was required to hand over large amounts of email data
• She didnt have to hand over private emails so she told her staff to delete these
• Then she was accused of hiding vital information in the deleted emails. It was now obvious she was the victim of right wing witch hunt 
• However the FBI forensics got involved and they were able to find all  relevent deleted emails 
• She was deemed reckless but it was not criminal

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3245735/The-FBI-recovered-Hillary-Clinton-s-secret-emails-private-computer-server-source-reveals.html

 

Please can we bury this now, there must be other things you can accuse her of because I am genuinely concerned that if she does become president you guys will still be accusing her of this  for the whole 4 years. Lets be fair,  we must respect the office of the  president of the USA 

 

And I will also stop anti-Trump posts if he becomes president unless he starts doing new offensive things as president. So I will also bury the past in the interest of respecting the office of the president

 

You keep relying on out-of-date and incorrect stories. FBI couldn't recover the emails from her server because she used Bleachbit on them. They did recover some of the same emails from other people's computers. Conveniently Obola's Justice Department gave immunity to the people involved in deleting those emails, i.e. destroying evidence.

 

Edit: More on Comey's congressional testimony: http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/28/nothing-james-comey-says-about-hillary-investigation-makes-sense/

 

That guy must be either really corrupt or really stupid to let himself be used like that.

Edited September 30, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[BruceVC]

 

 

I'd agree there has been a lot of speculation on what she might have done over the years but she DID lie about her e-mail server to Congress & the FBI and everyone else. She DID lie about the attack on the embassy in Libya. She DID lie about numerous career achievements over the years. As for the e-mail sever we do not an cannot know her motive but either she was, as the FBI says "extremely reckless", or was hiding things from Congress and FOI. It can only be one of those two and either way is bad.

 

Even if I were not philosophically opposed to her in nearly everything all of that would be enough for me to not vote for her.gd

GD you cant say " she lied about e-mail server  ? Yes arguably you could say her staff and her were reckless.....fine that can be said 

 

But as we discussed at length and I am happy to rehash the argument again with links ( and please remember I do this for a living so I can honestly give  much more detail if you really require it but I would rather not go through it again unless you insist    )

• She used a private email server for a period of time because of  a private email address. Everyone in the White house and secret service seemed fine with this and they would have noticed her different email  address
• Then she was required to hand over large amounts of email data
• She didnt have to hand over private emails so she told her staff to delete these
• Then she was accused of hiding vital information in the deleted emails. It was now obvious she was the victim of right wing witch hunt 
• However the FBI forensics got involved and they were able to find all  relevent deleted emails 
• She was deemed reckless but it was not criminal

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3245735/The-FBI-recovered-Hillary-Clinton-s-secret-emails-private-computer-server-source-reveals.html

 

Please can we bury this now, there must be other things you can accuse her of because I am genuinely concerned that if she does become president you guys will still be accusing her of this  for the whole 4 years. Lets be fair,  we must respect the office of the  president of the USA 

 

And I will also stop anti-Trump posts if he becomes president unless he starts doing new offensive things as president. So I will also bury the past in the interest of respecting the office of the president

 

You keep relying on out-of-date and incorrect stories. FBI couldn't recover the emails from her server because she used Bleachbit on them. They did recover some of the same emails from other people's computers. Conveniently Obola's Justice Department gave immunity to the people involved in deleting those emails, i.e. destroying evidence.

 

Edit: More on Comey's congressional testimony: http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/28/nothing-james-comey-says-about-hillary-investigation-makes-sense/

 

That guy must be either really corrupt or really stupid to let himself be used like that.

 

And you keep telling me that yet you cant produce a link....so we at an impasse

 

And dont say " I must find the link"  because its your theory so you need to produce the link. I will read it

[Wrath of Dagon]

I just gave you a link. Are you also blind?

 

Btw, in response to Enoch's claim that's it's all a vast right wing conspiracy, the liberal press that he reads would far rather dig up dirt on Trump than cover anything that could be damaging to Hilzilla, no matter how newsworthy: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-curious-case-of-alicia-machado/

[Malcador]

Trump cedes initiative far too easily with his attitude.

[BruceVC]

I just gave you a link. Are you also blind?

 

Btw, in response to Enoch's claim that's it's all a vast right wing conspiracy, the liberal press that he reads would far rather dig up dirt on Trump than cover anything that could be damaging to Hilzilla, no matter how newsworthy: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-curious-case-of-alicia-machado/

It is a right wing conspiracy WOD, everyone who doesnt have an agenda against her knows this

 

Also your link didnt mention " Bleachbit " which is the key issue here. But I did find my own link, I dont like having to do other members work for them WOD. Please put effort into your posts and actually provide evidence if you have such a contriversial point to make

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-emails-bleachbit-227425

 

But this Bleachbit accusation doesn't convince me either, I need to do some research on it before I will acknowledge it is effective and was used 

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

I just gave you a link. Are you also blind?

 

Btw, in response to Enoch's claim that's it's all a vast right wing conspiracy, the liberal press that he reads would far rather dig up dirt on Trump than cover anything that could be damaging to Hilzilla, no matter how newsworthy: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-curious-case-of-alicia-machado/

It is a right wing conspiracy WOD, everyone who doesnt have an agenda against her knows this

 

Also your link didnt mention " Bleachbit " which is the key issue here. But I did find my own link, I dont like having to do other members work for them WOD. Please put effort into your posts and actually provide evidence if you have such a contriversial point to make

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-emails-bleachbit-227425

 

But this Bleachbit accusation doesn't convince me either, I need to do some research on it before I will acknowledge it is effective and was used

 

I just knew if you thought hard enough, you could type "bleachbit" and "Clinton" into Google. Good job!

 

Edit:

Trump cedes initiative far too easily with his attitude.

I'd prefer a better candidate with a similar agenda, but beggars can't be choosers. Edited September 30, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[BruceVC]

 

 

I just gave you a link. Are you also blind?

 

Btw, in response to Enoch's claim that's it's all a vast right wing conspiracy, the liberal press that he reads would far rather dig up dirt on Trump than cover anything that could be damaging to Hilzilla, no matter how newsworthy: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-curious-case-of-alicia-machado/

It is a right wing conspiracy WOD, everyone who doesnt have an agenda against her knows this

 

Also your link didnt mention " Bleachbit " which is the key issue here. But I did find my own link, I dont like having to do other members work for them WOD. Please put effort into your posts and actually provide evidence if you have such a contriversial point to make

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-emails-bleachbit-227425

 

But this Bleachbit accusation doesn't convince me either, I need to do some research on it before I will acknowledge it is effective and was used

 

I just knew if you thought hard enough, you could type "bleachbit" and "Clinton" into Google. Good job!

 

 dont get cheeky now.....you aren't too old for me to put you over my knee and give you a good spanking