The US Election 2016, Part VIII

[Enoch]

Plus, still no proof that Russia leaked anything, just assertions from the same people who said that Iraq had deployable wmds, yellowcake, worked with Al Qaeda and a host of other politically mandated falsehoods.

You have to admit, though, that it does make perfect sense that the Putinistas would be doing everything they can to get the manifestly unprepared, intellectually and temperamentally unfit bad joke of a candidate who has publicly expressed doubts about NATO into the White House. 

Edited October 8, 2016 by Enoch

[HoonDing]

 

 

“I moved on her and I failed, I’ll admit it … I did try and f--- her. She was married. I moved on her like a b---- but I couldn’t get there and she was married …"

I thought Trump was a winner.

Edited October 8, 2016 by HoonDing

[Volourn]

"Since Monday night’s presidential debate, Donald Trump’s alleged sexism has predictably become a focal point of the Hillary Clinton campaign. The former secretary of state accused Mr. Trump of being a sexist fat-shamer whose acts have disqualified him from holding the highest office in the land. Trump, politicking horrifically, only deepened the wound by vocalizing Hillary’s claim in his and his surrogates’ subsequent interviews.

But, unlike Trump was able to point out, Hillary is no “saint girl” either. Mrs. Clinton has been accused of threatening, smearing and targeting women her husband has sexually assaulted or carried out consensual affairs with.

Here are seven of those instances:

1. Hillary smears Gennifer Flowers; calls her “trailer-trash.”

In an ABC News interview in 1992, Hillary smears Gennifer Flowers, a women Bill would later admit to having an affair with, as “some failed cabaret singer who doesn’t even have much of a résumé to fall back on.” Hillary also referred to Flowers as “trailer trash.”

2. Hillary slams former White House intern Monica Lewinsky as a “narcissistic loony toon” after she had consensual relations with her husband in the Oval Office.

CBS News reports: "According to the friend, Diane Blair -- a political science professor whose papers were donated to the University of Arkansas Special Collections library – Hillary Clinton credited Bill Clinton with trying to break away from Lewinsky, whom she called a 'narcissistic loony toon.'"

3. Hillary, defending an alleged rapist, smears his 12-year-old alleged rape victim, claiming the young girl had a "tendency to seek out older men." She also laughs on tape over the cunning way she had vital evidence dismissed, destroying the alleged rape victim's case.

“I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing,” Hillary wrote in the affidavit about the 12-year-old girl.

Hillary is even captured on tape laughing at the fact that she got the only piece of evidence against her client dismissed: “He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” Hillary says, audibly laughing.

The alleged rape victim told The Daily Beast what she would say to Hillary if she ever has the chance: "‘You took a case of mine in ’75, you lied on me… I realize the truth now, the heart of what you’ve done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that [being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing.'"

4. Hillary disparagingly refers to the numerous women her husband was involved with as “bimbos."

In 1991, Mrs. Clinton called the onslaught of women accusing her husband of sexual misconduct or consensual infidelity as the “bimbo eruption.”

 

 

5. Hillary reportedly threatens Juanita Broaddrick, Bill's alleged rape victim, into silence at a political fundraiser after the accused rape.

According to Broaddrick, Hillary threatened her while knowing her husband had raped her:

Hillary sought out Broaddrick at the political fundraiser after Bill had raped her; she grabbed her hand and “thanked her” for “everything” she had done for Bill. Feeling frightened, Broaddrick says she tried to turn around and leave, but Hillary allegedly squeezed her hand tighter and wouldn't let her go.

Broaddrick told The Daily Wire that there was "no way" Hillary did not intend for that interaction to be construed as a threat.

“So many people have said since then that, ‘Maybe she just knew that you had been with him, maybe he hadn’t told her the complete description of what he’d done to you,’” she said. “I still feel like she knew.”

6. “I mean, I would crucify her,” Hillary says of Gennifer Flowers.

Hillary "told Esquire magazine in 1992 that if she had the chance to cross-examine Flowers, 'I mean, I would crucify her,'" notes The Washington Post.

7. "[W]e have to destroy her story," Hillary allegedly said of one woman state troopers sought out for her husband to have a sexual encounter with.

As noted by National Review: "When a rock groupie alleged that a state trooper approached her on Governor Clinton’s behalf, Hillary said 'we have to destroy her story.'"

 

 K.

Edited October 9, 2016 by Volourn

[Barothmuk]

"Alleged sexism"?

[Volourn]

Love that is what you got out of that.

 

Again, it should be pointed out that Truimjp has said mean things about women. And, he has said mean things about men. The guy is trash. Hillary is trash. CAPICHE?

[IndiraLightfoot]

[Youtube]

[BruceVC]

 

Plus, still no proof that Russia leaked anything, just assertions from the same people who said that Iraq had deployable wmds, yellowcake, worked with Al Qaeda and a host of other politically mandated falsehoods.

You have to admit, though, that it does make perfect sense that the Putinistas would be doing everything they can to get the manifestly unprepared, intellectually and temperamentally unfit bad joke of a candidate who has publicly expressed doubts about NATO into the White House. 

 

This is absolutely a valid point and one that we should all be concerned about

 

The justification and motives for why Russia would want  a Trump presidency should be obvious. Trump weakens the West and its institutions. He doesn't destroy them, he weakens and undermines them and thats good enough for Russia

 

Russia has been hacking the USA and they want Trump to win, this point should be unequivocal. Anyone who denies this is being myopic or has an agenda 

 

Just the fact Russia wants a Trump victory should be another reason we should be opposed to him 

[BruceVC]

By the way, I heard a professor of politics in the USA say " this has  become the most embarrassing election in the history of the USA " 

 

Do you guys think its that bad? I dont think its that bad because only parts of the election campaigning is embarrassing, not all of it ?

[Meshugger]

By the way, I heard a professor of politics in the USA say " this has  become the most embarrassing election in the history of the USA " 

 

Do you guys think its that bad? I dont think its that bad because only parts of the election campaigning is embarrassing, not all of it ?

 

Was it this professor perhaps? 

 

 

But i have a request: A link to what the Russians think about the election and who they like more and why. 

[Raithe]

The Globe and Mail - He'll likely lose, but Trump is the final warning to the elites

[Longknife]

I can't be the only one that's sick of being reminded Donald Trump is terrible, can I? Find the past two weeks insanely frustrating because people act like Trump being sexist or tax dodging is somehow a "shocking" revelation, meanwhile we've possibly only scratched the surface of what Clinton's dirty laundry is, but no one shows interest.

 

Whole thing reminds me of how I felt watching Ramsay Bolton in season 6 of Game of Thrones. Yes yes, we get it, he kicks puppies and drowns kittens and he's pure evil. He doesn't need to kill off 7 more characters to drive that point home; that point was driven home two seasons ago. Would much rather watch another story unfold instead of seeing the same story repeat itself. But back then it was just a TV show, now it's real life politics with consequences and actual people involved in corruption.

[Hurlshort]

Eh, two weeks ago Clinton was dying of some lizard virus and Trump was going to win.

[Longknife]

Eh, two weeks ago Clinton was dying of some lizard virus and Trump was going to win.

 

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

[Leferd]

 

[licketysplit]

Eh, two weeks ago Clinton was dying of some lizard virus and Trump was going to win.

 

Her health is a whole other issue the press tries to sweep under the rug, and one she's clearly lied about. Even her supporters have to admit you don't pass out on a balmy summer day and have to be tossed into your medi-van like a sack of potatoes unless something is seriously wrong with you. 

[Volourn]

Clinton was always gonna win this election. I don't know why people are shocked about that still being likely.

[Longknife]

Clinton was always gonna win this election. I don't know why people are shocked about that still being likely.

 

Who's shocked?

[Enoch]

I can't be the only one that's sick of being reminded Donald Trump is terrible, can I? Find the past two weeks insanely frustrating because people act like Trump being sexist or tax dodging is somehow a "shocking" revelation, meanwhile we've possibly only scratched the surface of what Clinton's dirty laundry is, but no one shows interest.

 

Whole thing reminds me of how I felt watching Ramsay Bolton in season 6 of Game of Thrones. Yes yes, we get it, he kicks puppies and drowns kittens and he's pure evil. He doesn't need to kill off 7 more characters to drive that point home; that point was driven home two seasons ago. Would much rather watch another story unfold instead of seeing the same story repeat itself. But back then it was just a TV show, now it's real life politics with consequences and actual people involved in corruption.

Well, sure, reality isn't always scripted for maximum entertainment.

 

Anyhow, it is true that nobody should be shocked about this latest Trump video.  (Well, except for the bit about furniture shopping as a tool of seduction.  What the heck is up with that?!)  It still hurts a lot because it takes away plausible deniability. 

 

Think of the GOP electorate.  The electoral college deck is pretty heavily stacked against them.  To have a prayer of getting the Presidency this year, they need strong turnout from 3 (broadly speaking) groups of people.  First, the hard-core Deplorables.  That's easy-- they'll show up if Trump is on the ballot, and they might even support down-ticket Republicans, so long as those folks are also on the Trump Train.  Second, establishment-y types.  Some of these are steadfast never-Trumps, but most of them (including Congressional leadership) are willing to hold their nose and vote for  the guy because, more than anything else, they want a President who will sign the Slash Taxes, Gut the EPA, Punish Abortions, and Repeal Obamacare Act of 2017 that a Republican Congress will produce.  Third are the folks who usually vote Republican for social-issues-based reasons, the largest faction of which are Evangelical Christians.  In terms of actual votes, this is probably the biggest of the 3 groups.  Many of these folks are cool with Trump, but there are also a lot who are deeply skeeved by what a sleazeball he appears to be.  (Picture a stereotypical midwestern mom who drags her kids to Church every Sunday.  Plutocrats who are on their 3rd wife, after having cheated on the first 2 (at least) aren't generally their favorite people.) 

 

Up until now, Republican politicians who were willing to look past his manifest unfitness for any public office (i.e., most of them) could feel reasonably safe supporting Trump.  Sure, there was plenty of evidence that Trump has a personal history of treating women like crap, but they could plausibly say that they didn't think that was the "real" him, waving it off as a macho act for his TV persona.  Plus, they knew that the cost of opposing him would be high in the event that he managed to win.  Now, though, this video is pretty lethal to him among the "concerned mom" demographic.  With the likely incoming hit to evangelical-type turnout, the establishment is now quite convinced that he can't win.   Keep sticking with him, and they'll be questioned about his misogyny in every Town Hall meeting they have for the rest of their career, and the answers are not going to be as easy as they were without this in the public record.  So feigning surprise and using this as a justification for withdrawing their support starts to look like a smarter long-term move. 

Edited October 9, 2016 by Enoch

[Zoraptor]

 

Plus, still no proof that Russia leaked anything, just assertions from the same people who said that Iraq had deployable wmds, yellowcake, worked with Al Qaeda and a host of other politically mandated falsehoods.

You have to admit, though, that it does make perfect sense that the Putinistas would be doing everything they can to get the manifestly unprepared, intellectually and temperamentally unfit bad joke of a candidate who has publicly expressed doubts about NATO into the White House. 

 

 

Yes, it would, it would also be seen as payback for the US supported NGO interference/ 'interference' there has consistently been in Russian politics. But practically it just means that the suspect list is narrowed down to anyone with a grudge against Clinton (or the US) or a preference for Trump; which is essential common sense. That's a problem inherent to having terrible server security, a script kiddie could have hacked Clinton's server and obtaining people's email passwords does not require state level apparatus either- you just need phishing, password reuse or a weak password. And the complementary point is also true- it makes perfect sense for Clinton to blame Russia as it reduces focus on the contents of the leaks, the poor security and, uh, borderline illegality shall we say? of her private server and switches it to being a Vast Right Wing Russian Conspiracy so everyone should vote Clinton to stick it to Mad Vlad. Which also fits with claims that election machines are being hacked, for all people have said that Trump may refuse to accept the result he isn't the only one laying the groundwork for claims of electoral fraud should they lose.

 

(Slightly off the proximal topic, but I find the idea of not having a consistent physical voting method and having electronic machines to be a spectacularly bad idea in any case. Accusations of hacking/ fraud will just get more common.)

 

Also practically, there's the problem that near everyone expects Clinton to win and has always expected Clinton to win. Presumably the Russians can look at polls too, and make the same judgements as everyone else. It's actively counter productive to antagonise her if you expect her to win, and any 'dirt' would be better used for either blackmail or to derail her after the election if she's inevitably going to win anyway. The calculus there would change, if they have something really major to release, but while a lot of the stuff released does not paint Clinton or the DNC in a good light it isn't smoking gun level; and I don't think any reasonable analysis would calculate that what has been released (yet) is enough to change the election.

[Longknife]

I don't buy the Russian angle because it's one designed to trigger fear and anger. Back in the day if you wanted to discredit someone, you called them a communist. Today? "Russia did it." Same thing. To top is off, this is the same Russia where we caught some rather embarassingly bad spies of theirs a couple years ago, and Snowden went on record shortly after the initial accusation stating "if Russia were behind it, there wouldn't be any doubt in the US government's mind. They would know it for sure."

The thing is that let's say hypothetically that Russia was behind the leaks. Guess what? I don't care. If the leaks are legitimate, I don't care if Zombie Hitler was behind them. The thing is you'll notice that Hillary, the DNC and any other names involved never claimed the leaks were fake. Hell, Colin Powell vouched for them as legitimate. The thing is that not denying their legitimacy can more or less confirm them as true. Not quite, of course, but my point is that getting caught in a lie can have all sorts of negative implications, thus they're forced to never outright deny those leaked discussions took place. So for all intent and purposes, the leaks are legitimate.

If I were to, as an example analogy, expose damning evidence that OJ Simpson was behind those murders, and my motivation for doing so wasn't a desire to see justice served, but because I'm a petty, spiteful and hateful human being and OJ Simpson beat me in a spelling bee in high school and I've never gotten over it, does this make the evidence any less meaningful? No it does not. Sure it definitely distances me from the image of being some saint of a human being, but it doesn't change tangible evidence. Exact same case with Russia and these leaks; I would quickly doubt that the intentions are out of Russian concern for the American people rather than something more self-interested, but damning evidence is damning evidence.

 

To me, what's more alarming is the idea that Russia may not be behind it and the Clintons claim this despite knowing they've got nothing to do with it. Think about that possibility for a second. Think about if the Clintons are accusing Russia of being behind these leaks not because there's any merit to it, but because they know Russia is akin to the boogyman and can be used to distract from their own scandals. How would you feel if you discovered your president would willingly and wrongfully insinuate Russia is guilty of something if it helps that President meet their own goals? I would be pretty damned alarmed, that's for sure. That's someone gambling with peace for the sake of furthering their own political agenda. Putin already seems like someone lost in a fantasy world where he's the KGB version of James Bond; I'm sure if the chance arises, he'd love to knock us all back to the Cold War Era. To wrongfully accuse him would be like an open invitation, which I consider highly negligent on behalf of any leader.

[Zoraptor]

I don't buy the Russian angle because it's one designed to trigger fear and anger.

 

Yeah. Doesn't mean it isn't the Russians doing it, but it's what you'd say if you wanted someone else to blame that appeals to a knee jerk anti foreign stereotype (another facet of the Clinton campaign that is similar to Trump's, but hardly mentioned in their case) and couldn't blame your internal enemies because that could be tested in an actual court where you'd have to present actual evidence.

 

To me, what's more alarming is the idea that Russia may not be behind it and the Clintons claim this despite knowing they've got nothing to do with it.

 

That's actually the least alarming part to me, as it's part and parcel of politics. Our government regularly blames the old government for stuff despite being in power for 8 years and Putin blames the west for problems in Russia too. Blaming anyone else is par for the course in politics.

 

Putin already seems like someone lost in a fantasy world where he's the KGB version of James Bond; I'm sure if the chance arises, he'd love to knock us all back to the Cold War Era.

Nah, Putin doesn't want another Cold War- the USSR lost that one, with a whole lot more resources than Russia has now and he knows that. What he wants is no further encroachment and no further erosion of power.

[Malcador]

Oh, mercy. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-bill-clinton-accusers-229441

[redneckdevil]

Oh, mercy. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-bill-clinton-accusers-229441

Smart move, he says mean things but goes with victims who have been done wrong by her husband and her....

Let's see if SAYING and TALKING is worse than DOING.

[Enoch]

Oh, mercy. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-bill-clinton-accusers-229441

 

I think we've entered the realm of the hilariously sad here.  I mean, sure, if you're deeply immersed in right-wing media and have been hatin' on Hills for 30 years, this probably sounds like a good idea.  But, you know, Trump already has those votes, and they aren't enough.  This reminds me of when he mentioned Sid Blumenthal's name at the last debate, expecting that ordinary citizens would react like the folks who show up at his rallies do. 

 

Besides the whole "Bill isn't the one on the ballot" thing, has the stunningly obvious fact that spouses who have suffered through marital infidelity are sympathetic figures not occurred to them?  Hillary's likeability polling has never been higher than it was while the whole Lewinsky thing was going on. 

[Malcador]

 

Oh, mercy. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-bill-clinton-accusers-229441

Smart move, he says mean things but goes with victims who have been done wrong by her husband and her....

Let's see if SAYING and TALKING is worse than DOING.

 

Isn't all of this on Bill not Hillary ?