POTUS Election thread [Archive] - Page 3

Seamus Fermanagh

06-12-2016, 17:16

Wouldn't the House of Reps be obliged, unofficially at least, to give the candidate with the biggest conventional share first dibs at forming a government? HM can theoretically dissolve and offer government at will, but in the event of a non-majority custom gives the party with the biggest share in the Commons first dibs at forming a coalition.

We don't really "form a government" in the sense you lot do. We don't even maintain anything resembling the "shadow government" system to smooth transitions in the event of a sudden change. The previous office holders stay on (or pass their tasks to a long-term bureaucrat not-party-affiliated) until the new ones are confirmed by the Senate. So far it has worked well enough....the bureaucracy, as a whole, doesn't care much about the "temps" brought in by an administration vis-a-vis normal day-to-day function anyway.

As to the HoR's sense of obligation, the scenario I describe would almost certainly NOT involve any of the three top electoral vote recipients receiving a majority, or even a commanding plurality, or the votes cast by the general electorate. If, by some concatenation of events, one of the top three electoral vote recipients had a majority of the popular vote and had fallen only a vote or two shy of the 270 electoral votes required, then maybe public pressure leading up to the start of the new Congressional session would sway them to fall in line with votes for the front-runner. Maybe.

On the other hand, all of America will have been reminded that the vote goes by State, not representative, in the HoR. This means that a state like Virginia (actually one of 4 commonwealths in the USA, to be picky), which delivered 51% of it's votes for Obama in 2012 and where Clinton leads Trump 45 to 41 would be thought, by many, to be likely to cast its vote for the the highest scoring democrat on the electoral college short list. However, only 3 of Virginia's 11 representatives to the House are democrats and the large bulk of those pro-democrat voters are strongly concentrated in the 3 "blue" districts. So the Commonwealth delegation would probably vote 8-3 or 7-4 to cast their ONE "state" vote on behalf of the GOP top electoral college (or party leadership first) choice. Any GOP rep who did NOT vote as preferred by the majority of folks in their district and who instead voted for the overall choice of the state would very likely face ouster two years down the road or even an immediate recall petition.

Despite public pressure, in other words, the pressure of the local district could well prove decisive and force a vote on almost exact party lines. Since the GOP controls a majority of many state representations BY STATE, in the HoR should it get there it is almost certainly likely to be the preferred choice of the GOP party leadership that would prevail. And they would certainly bypass Trump and Clinton if favor of electoral college choice number three unless Sanders were that number three.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-12-2016, 17:23

I'm holding out hope that both candidates lose. :sweatdrop:
Our two-party system (and their respective candidates) sucks... which is why I'll be settling on a third party to vote for in November.

I'm not quite so averse to the two-party system as a whole, but I must concur that this time around they have pushed up a couple of "ugh" choices as nominees.

One is an experienced pol whose primary concern is her own power while the other is a bombastic demagogue who might know a bit about economics but has no clue about foreign policy in practice or the degree to which an administration has to weigh in on social justice issues. I can well understand X-man's choice. I am currently planning to write in my wife's name on the Presidential ballot portion of things.

Xiahou

06-16-2016, 16:31

The import thing I would relate to all anti-Trump conservatives is that staying home is a poor solution. Even worse is the idea that you only have a binary choice between Hillary and Trump. You should still vote and you should vote for neither of them.

As to the two-party system... I think the parties and many voters seem to operate under the impression that they're somehow part of the Constitution. They most definitely are not. One change I'd love to see is stripping party affiliation from the ballots- stop blind, ignorant party-line voting. If you can't be bothered to actually find the name of your party's candidate before entering the voting booth, you're probably too ill-informed to be voting anyway.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-17-2016, 02:38

You know Vermin Supreme isn't a serious candidate right?

Which differs from the GOP and Dem presumptives how?

Kralizec

06-17-2016, 15:55

I hope that Clinton picks senator Warren (*), and that Trump finds some republican named "Mick" who's willing to risk his career on the VP slot. An election featuring Donald, 'Goofy' and a yet undetermined Mickey would be awesome.

(*)I actually like her, she would be a good choice.

Hooahguy

06-17-2016, 21:11

I dont think she would pick Warren. The governor of her state is a Republican, so he would be picking the replacement, who would undoubtedly be a Republican. Besides, I think she would do better work in Congress.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-18-2016, 05:08

HopAlongBunny

06-18-2016, 06:51

https://youtu.be/ZbM6WbUw7Bs

Gilrandir

06-18-2016, 13:16

One change I'd love to see is stripping party affiliation from the ballots- stop blind, ignorant party-line voting. If you can't be bothered to actually find the name of your party's candidate before entering the voting booth, you're probably too ill-informed to be voting anyway.

The thing that always surprised me about American voting is statements like "Iowa traditionally votes for democrats". It is like "In the morning I traditionally take a plate from the upper shelf of my fridge and eat anything I find on it." What about looking into the plate?

Hooahguy

06-18-2016, 14:00

I don't see Warren getting it. MA is a lock. I'd figure on Warner from Virginia or Brown from Ohio. Sanders would be the obvious choice for party unity, but I don't think she wants to deal with his inability to run to the center.
I would agree that Warner or Brown are the most likely options. No sense in picking Bernie, especially after all hes said against Clinton plus the huge amount of baggage he carries. Besides, the vast majority of his supporters are going to support Clinton anyways.

Husar

06-18-2016, 21:40

Just gonna leave this here... :creep:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbM6WbUw7Bs

Xiahou

06-19-2016, 03:54

I don't see Warren getting it. MA is a lock. I'd figure on Warner from Virginia or Brown from Ohio. Sanders would be the obvious choice for party unity, but I don't think she wants to deal with his inability to run to the center.
I think Warren would be a smart choice for Hillary. It gives a double-dose of her first woman, "it's time" shtick and Warren has the socialist cred to convince a good portion of Bernie's Free Stuff Army to come home to Hillary.

Something interesting I saw in a battleground county poll. Luzerne county, PA- where I used to live for a number of years had always been a reliably Democrat union, socialist conservative area. Anyhow, polling in the county currently has Trump up by 17(!) points over Hillary- that's astonishing. Unless she gets indicted, I think she'll still stomp Trump in the election- but Trump might show some surprising strength in the rust belt areas. I think his "They took our jerbs!" routine must be playing well in these areas....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWNho8g0lsU

Hooahguy

06-19-2016, 15:54

I think Warren would be a smart choice for Hillary. It gives a double-dose of her first woman, "it's time" shtick and Warren has the socialist cred to convince a good portion of Bernie's Free Stuff Army to come home to Hillary.
Besides the issue with her replacement being picked by a Republican governor, Hillary doesnt need to bring in the Bernie camp. The vast majority of them are going to vote for Hillary anyways, if just to stop Trump. Picking someone from one of the battleground states is much more important.

but Trump might show some surprising strength in the rust belt areas. I think his "They took our jerbs!" routine must be playing well in these areas....

It absolutely does. Thats why Bernie took Michigan.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-20-2016, 18:41

I think Warren would be a smart choice for Hillary. It gives a double-dose of her first woman, "it's time" shtick and Warren has the socialist cred to convince a good portion of Bernie's Free Stuff Army to come home to Hillary.

Something interesting I saw in a battleground county poll. Luzerne county, PA- where I used to live for a number of years had always been a reliably Democrat union, socialist conservative area. Anyhow, polling in the county currently has Trump up by 17(!) points over Hillary- that's astonishing. Unless she gets indicted, I think she'll still stomp Trump in the election- but Trump might show some surprising strength in the rust belt areas. I think his "They took our jerbs!" routine must be playing well in these areas....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWNho8g0lsU

It is almost a certainty that Trump will poll better in the old unionized "rust belt" states than any GOP candidate since Reagan. The real concern though, is can he poll ENOUGH stronger to eclipse the normal democrat margins in those states. As I have argued before, I just don't seen enough of a swing. In many of those states, Trump can poll a full 5% better....but end up losing the electoral votes to Clinton on a 49-47 loss instead of the usual 56 to 42.

Xiahou

06-21-2016, 02:04

Hooahguy

06-21-2016, 02:19

Also nobody seems to be mentioning much that Trump only has 30 paid staffers across the country (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3e0b835d1255450484415b0d20df2996/trump-battleground-plan-relies-skeptical-gop-leaders).

Beskar

06-21-2016, 17:53

Here you go, CupHead5998

CupHead5998

06-22-2016, 13:47

I think the race is pretty much Hillary's to lose- barring indictment. Trump won't be able to go after her with the personal attacks like he did against the GOP field because he'd get smothered with sexism accusations. He already polls terribly among women and now that he's the GOP nominee, I expect the media to take a much keener interest in his attacks now that it's against their preferred candidate.

With ad hominems out, He's left with a policy/idealogy debate and Trump has neither policies or idealogies(nor the ability to fake it)- all he has is ego. It will be interesting to see how much of the union 'jerbs' vote he can pull away though, but I don't see him winning with it.

This pretty much sums up how I feel watching this election cycle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6YMov3fYvs
Fiorina was the republican version of hillary.
Where is she now friend? he most certainly can beat hillary she's a fully fledged bush administration style politician an idology hated by any sane person along with all of the crooked deals she does i very much doubt hillary "crooked" clinton has any chance of getting in just based on what's between her legs, i think you neglect to know that donald does not care what you throw at him hes gonna hit it head on
Rosie O' donnel is another example of somebody he can despise and yet his poll numbers go UP every time he's attacked

Seamus Fermanagh

06-24-2016, 06:05

Fiorina was the republican version of hillary.
Where is she now friend? he most certainly can beat hillary she's a fully fledged bush administration style politician an idology hated by any sane person along with all of the crooked deals she does i very much doubt hillary "crooked" clinton has any chance of getting in just based on what's between her legs, i think you neglect to know that donald does not care what you throw at him hes gonna hit it head on
Rosie O' donnel is another example of somebody he can despise and yet his poll numbers go UP every time he's attacked

It is not a question of how "decisive" he is, or how much he "fights" the media and his opponent and tosses the usual political approach out the window. He can't get the needed plurality in the right states.

Dems will vote for Clinton solidly because they like her policies even though they are well aware she cares more about her own power than pretty much anything. It makes her predictable and a known quantity.

GOP voters mostly do not like Trump -- but singularly failed to settle on anyone else as an alternative choice. Trump will not hold the needed percentage of his own party's votes to win the general and while he will steal many from the dems, those votes will mostly be stolen in the wrong states and the whole effort will come up short.

Greyblades

06-24-2016, 10:38

Either way this year is set to be the most interesting to look back on since at least Obama's first election

Husar

06-24-2016, 13:19

Either way this year is set to be the most interesting to look back on since at least Obama's first election

So were the late 1920s and early 1930s, not sure I want a repetition of that though...

Gilrandir

06-24-2016, 14:10

So were the late 1920s and early 1930s, not sure I want a repetition of that though...

According to some estimates, we were through 1938 again.

HopAlongBunny

06-24-2016, 23:14

According to some estimates, we were through 1938 again.

So do we get to skip the war and go right to reconstruction?

a completely inoffensive name

06-25-2016, 05:09

Either way this year is set to be the most interesting to look back on since at least Obama's first election

This election lost most of its humor when Jeb! left.

Gilrandir

06-25-2016, 13:14

So do we get to skip the war and go right to reconstruction?

You may have failed to notice, but we (Ukraine) didn't skip war.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-25-2016, 14:59

So do we get to skip the war and go right to reconstruction?

Sure, just remember that Kerry is no George Marshall.

Pannonian

06-25-2016, 17:44

Sure, just remember that Kerry is no George Marshall.

But Kerry won't have to deal with Ernest King and Douglas MacArthur. Did Nimitz have an ego as well?

Seamus Fermanagh

06-25-2016, 21:46

But Kerry won't have to deal with Ernest King and Douglas MacArthur. Did Nimitz have an ego as well?

While it is fair to say that Nimitz was great commander who had the nerve (ego) to gamble, he was pretty straightforward according to most. King did NOT suffer fools gladly but was apparently persuadable with good arguments. MacArthur was a piece of work -- the SW Pacific was the only theater command to have a Supreme Headquarters and a Supreme Commander. Fortunately, MacArthur was a pretty decent strategic commander -- even if he never approached being as good as he thought he was.

Husar

06-26-2016, 01:05

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aFo_BV-UzI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tji1g0WrPw

Greyblades

06-26-2016, 03:01

This election lost most of its humor when Jeb! left.

Are you kidding? The last few weeks of his campaign was downright tragic, it's a miracle Jeb hasnt been found dangling from the rafters yet.

PROVOST

06-26-2016, 17:08

boris johnson + donald trump = owen wilson

https://s33.postimg.org/gwh36zvov/boris_johnson_donald_trump_owen_wilson.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

HopAlongBunny

07-03-2016, 00:56

Nate Silver blew the call on the primary and is trying to regain his mojo on the election:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-has-a-20-percent-chance-of-becoming-president/

a completely inoffensive name

07-06-2016, 03:56

Nate Silver got too invested in his own vision of how the primaries should look.

This is yet another lesson that the math is only as reliable as the judgement of the man behind it.

HopAlongBunny

07-06-2016, 08:23

The Trump has ascended to heights never dreamed!

Now a Marvel super villain:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/06/marvel-artist-who-made-a-trump-supervillain-thinks-donald-is-a-goddamn-idiot.html

Greyblades

07-06-2016, 08:44

I suppose it could be worse, it could be written by the idiot behind female thor.

Seamus Fermanagh

07-06-2016, 18:26

FBI report on Clinton's emails/classified information leaks has determined that she knowingly used a private email server to send/discuss/receive classified material and ended up compromising the emails of other government officials as well, including 110 separate messages that were found by the investigation but were not reported by Clinton in her earlier "final" release.

For similar negligence, my defense contractor employee wife would very likely have been prosecuted and would certainly have been immediately fired and black-listed from clearance-centric employment.

The FBI Director assures us that no reasonable prosecutor would pursue charges, so this can now just all go away. Back to the usual political bloodsport and media buy bonanza.

Greyblades

07-07-2016, 01:04

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/144/262/471.jpg

Strike For The South

07-07-2016, 03:12

The Clintons have cashed in on all their political favors. It's sad but not surprising. She was never going to be indited. I do admit, her tenacity is only matched by her lack of moral scruples.

Seamus Fermanagh

07-07-2016, 04:28

Greyblades

07-07-2016, 04:31

Just be glad you dont have the intertwining of millitary and governance as the Republic of Cicero's had.

See this is some of what I miss from the old days of this forum: the historical comparison to times before the colonial age.

Strike For The South

07-07-2016, 04:49

...Lucius Cornelius Sulla Dictator was too...wish it were still historical rather than current

4 more years of Obama won't be too bad. Her end game is getting there, not so much sweeping change. Which I suppose, or rather hope, will lead to pragmatic decision making.

Other than the extra judicial droning of foreign nationals without those sovereign states consent. It is funny what you can learn to live with.

Pannonian

07-07-2016, 09:40

The Clintons have cashed in on all their political favors. It's sad but not surprising. She was never going to be indited. I do admit, her tenacity is only matched by her lack of moral scruples.

Over time, you learn that the suitability of a national leader isn't ethics, but intelligence, or at least the ability to avoid the most stupid mistakes that can offer themselves. That was the lesson I learned from Iraq.

CrossLOPER

07-07-2016, 15:05

Over time, you learn that the suitability of a national leader isn't ethics, but intelligence, or at least the ability to avoid the most stupid mistakes that can offer themselves. That was the lesson I learned from Iraq.
Intelligence isn't really a guarantee, especially if pride is involved. Moreover, how would you measure this intelligence? Smarter than Drumpf?

Hooahguy

07-20-2016, 00:21

Well Trump is officially the GOP nominee. If you listen closely you can hear the weeping of the GOP establishment.

Also Melania Trump plagiarized (http://www.vox.com/2016/7/19/12222276/melania-trump-plagarism-clinton-rnc) a part of her speech from a speech Michelle Obama did in 2008. In a strange twist, the Trump campaign then blamed it on Hillary.

In an unexpected twist, there doesnt seem to be any real violence outside the convention hall like everyone (including me) was predicting. Not yet anyways.

Seamus Fermanagh

07-20-2016, 00:40

4 more years of Obama won't be too bad. Her end game is getting there, not so much sweeping change. Which I suppose, or rather hope, will lead to pragmatic decision making.

Other than the extra judicial droning of foreign nationals without those sovereign states consent. It is funny what you can learn to live with.

I'm minded to agree with you that she would not deviate far from the path followed by the current administration. She wants the power, not a "revolution." My problem with this is that I don't agree with the current administration's policies very often either, so more of the same is not appealing.

Strike For The South

07-20-2016, 02:17

I'm minded to agree with you that she would not deviate far from the path followed by the current administration. She wants the power, not a "revolution." My problem with this is that I don't agree with the current administration's policies very often either, so more of the same is not appealing.

I agree. If nukes weren't a thing, I may consider throwing Trump a bone. My greatest hope for this election cycle now is Hiliary getting so flustered, she self incriminates.

HopAlongBunny

07-20-2016, 15:35

What little I have caught of it has been in keeping with the Trump campaign.
Hate, Fear, the need for a Strong Leader; what little I have heard about the platform seems to follow the same lines.
Melania's speech, while obviously lifted from Michelle Obama, was a welcome break from the paranoia and rage of the other speakers.
Disappointing so far, in the sense that NASCAR w/o a truly spectacular crash is a waste of time :p

AE Bravo

07-20-2016, 17:46

Obviously she doesn't write anything on her own like she says. Watching that comparison video was like someone yelling to Europe and Europe yelling back.

A bit curious on what her cause would be as first lady.

HopAlongBunny

07-21-2016, 02:43

https://youtu.be/mzz_ZNUmXkA

https://youtu.be/vaimEVgnX-k

Strike For The South

07-21-2016, 02:55

Get out

Greyblades

07-21-2016, 03:01

Remember when I said Samantha Bee was doing good work? I choose not to.

God, I miss John Stewart.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-21-2016, 03:48

So - we have a choice between repeatedly Bankrupt Trump and totally unsafe Hilary?

Errr...

Can we have Bill back? of either of the Bushes?

Greyblades

07-21-2016, 03:52

I still dont get that, how is he a billionaire if he went bankrupt multiple times?

Hooahguy

07-21-2016, 05:43

I dont think he personally went bankrupt, just his business ventures.

Greyblades

07-21-2016, 06:00

Is that unusual for a billionaire to have failed ventures?

Hooahguy

07-21-2016, 15:49

No idea. I mean in all those motivational speeches you hear that those super successful businessmen have failed on their path to success so Im guessing its not that rare?

Also Cruz snubbing Trump last night was glorious. I dont like that guy very much but kudos on him.

Seamus Fermanagh

07-21-2016, 19:39

In a portfolio of business efforts totaling more than $1B, it is likely that there will be dozens of different business ventures. Some will fail, others succeed, a few no more than break even. The failures declare bankruptcy precisely so as to limit the financial impact of that "fail" on the rest of the portfolio.

So yeah, Ford had the Edsel and Trump had Trump Uni....

a completely inoffensive name

07-22-2016, 07:31

a completely inoffensive name

07-22-2016, 07:51

By the way, even if I don't agree on any issue with Ted Cruz, I will always love him to for walking to the lions den and undermining Trump at his big banana republic convention.

If you want to understand why it was Ted Cruz that lasted the longest and not Kasich or JEB!, try asking yourself what kind of politician decides to stay home and stay quiet when his party decides to pick a wanna be Mussolini?

HopAlongBunny

07-22-2016, 21:12

Jon Stewart surfaced on Colbert's show:

https://youtu.be/mNiqpBNE9ik

Husar

07-22-2016, 21:31

There was more:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GFVKMTJUos
After it came The Word (with Colbert still playing his old persona once more in a way), but you can look for that yourselves in the channel if you want.

What I liked though, despite not watching all of it, is this older interview:

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

Trump and Alex Jones getting along well? And that is the Republican nominee?
Will/Would he make David "The Queen is a Reptilian Shapeshifter" Icke the Minister of Foreign Affairs?

Strike For The South

07-23-2016, 04:24

Kaine

Hooahguy

07-23-2016, 22:59

Very smart choice for Hillary. He's safe, no real scandals, an overall good guy, a somewhat moderate Democrat who might bring in some disillusioned Republicans. Its angered some progressives but most are going to suck it up and vote for Hillary anyways. Also he is well liked in Virginia so that is important too.

a completely inoffensive name

07-24-2016, 00:42

If Clinton is able to carry Virgina because of Kaine, Trump would need to win Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and Colorado in order to win. Losing any of those is a loss for him unless he somehow wins Pennsylvania.

HopAlongBunny

07-24-2016, 00:42

Safe is the key perception.
The absence of a progressive as a fellow traveler might signal the electoral strategy ie: no need to "feel the bern" since they really have no choice.

Seamus Fermanagh

07-24-2016, 02:00

Finished listening to Trumps speech. I didn't know America was such a shit hole.

I'm going to buy a gun and invest all my savings in gold just in case Trump is defeated in his quest to restore law and order.

Wrong answer. Like my brother knight of Columbus up in Virginia (A TRUE anti-"guv'mint" survivalist), you should already HAVE the gun and should be stocking up on .228 ammo and un-hybridized seed. Gold will mean little when it all collapses.

Seamus Fermanagh

07-24-2016, 02:00

Strike For The South

07-24-2016, 03:49

Trump will win Penn.

Id bet on it

Hooahguy

07-24-2016, 14:50

Trump will win Penn.

Id bet on it
Ill take that bet, if just to make things interesting around here. How about if Hillary wins Penn, you make a thread about how Im the greatest. If Trump wins Penn, I will make a thread about you.

Strike For The South

07-24-2016, 14:58

Ill take that bet, if just to make things interesting around here. How about if Hillary wins Penn, you make a thread about how Im the greatest. If Trump wins Penn, I will make a thread about you.

deal. You're going to have to work at it though. I have had many threads dedicated to me.

Husar

07-24-2016, 15:25

If Trump wins Penn, I will make a thread about you.

It's a trap! No word on whether that thread will be praising you or not... ~;)

Strike For The South

07-25-2016, 03:21

Remember when the DNC rigging the election was pure conspiracy?

Hooahguy

07-25-2016, 03:34

Hating on a candidate in internal emails isnt rigging, especially when that candidate had been hating on the DNC publicly. The biggest "smoking gun" that people are pointing to is one person asking about using his heritage against him in a very religious area. No evidence it was actually done. There is no evidence of DNC resources being used against Bernie. So much straw grasping.

a completely inoffensive name

07-25-2016, 04:04

Hooahguy

07-25-2016, 04:13

Because obviously anyone who disagrees is a shill, right? :book2:

Strike For The South

07-25-2016, 04:16

Hooahguy

07-25-2016, 04:18

What a fantastic argument.

Strike For The South

07-25-2016, 04:29

What a fantastic argument.

A shill would try to rise above pettiness.

Hooahguy

07-25-2016, 04:50

Well, it's been established that the discourse around here has fallen to new lows so why even try?

AE Bravo

07-25-2016, 04:52

That attitude is why it will keep being as low as it is.

Hooahguy

07-25-2016, 04:55

It takes two to tango.

Edit: to clarify, my point is that it takes a group effort to raise the quality of discussion around here. Hard to raise the quality of discussion if one side refuses to cooperate. You can't force it either. So if Strike and co are willing to discuss these emails without resorting to calling me a shill, I would love to debate this.

Greyblades

07-25-2016, 05:29

What are you guys talking about?

Hooahguy

07-25-2016, 05:38

Basically the DNC got their email hacked, revealed that a bunch of DNC people were super mad about Bernie and his campaign. Some think that it's proof how the DNC was rigged for Hillary, others believe that it's nothing but people letting off steam in internal emails. And so far the debate here about this has deteriorated to calling people shills so there's that.

Greyblades

07-25-2016, 05:58

Yeah I gotta go with Hooahguy on this one, the DNC being pissed at Bernie is as obvious as the republicans mainstays being pissed at Trump and I dont think the DNC specifically rigged it for bernie because the super delegate system is so screwed up they dont need to.

Sarmatian

07-25-2016, 09:56

When you have people who are supposed to be neutral creating strategies to specifically discredit one candidate to the benefit of another, it is definitely not normal.

It's no wonder people in USA are so pissed off at the system. Even the sane ones might vote for Trump just to see it all burn to the ground.

Hooahguy

07-25-2016, 11:53

Political parties are allowed to have a preference for candidate. I would love to see what the RNC was saying about Trump during the primary. Considering that the head of the party was publicly against Trump during it, I would be shocked if behind the scenes strategies weren't being discussed to defeat him.

I also find it weird that Wikileaks is strangely pro-Russian, who seem to really like Trump. I mean doesn't Assange have his own show on RT? I wouldn't be surprised if he was being fed this data by the Russian government to sow discord among the democrats, considering that Trump seems to be friendlier to Putin than Hillary.

Greyblades

07-25-2016, 21:11

So I found another forum I frequent commenting on the leaks and I had a look at them.

Yeah hooahguy you are making excuses dude. I mean look at this:

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808

In the days before Hillary Clinton launched an unprecedented big-money fundraising vehicle with state parties last summer, she vowed “to rebuild our party<http://articles.philly.com/2015-08-29/news/66006747_1_o-malley-democratic-party-party-leaders> from the ground up,” because she proclaimed “when state parties are strong, we win.”
But less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by that effort has stayed in the state parties’ coffers, according to a POLITICO analysis of the latest Federal Election Commission filings.

The venture, the Hillary Victory Fund, is a so-called joint fundraising committee comprised of Clinton’s presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and 32 state party committees. The set-up allows Clinton to solicit checks of $350,000 or more from her super-rich supporters at extravagant fundraisers including a dinner at George Clooney’s house<http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/hillary-clinton-george-clooney-fundraiser-221207> and at a concert at Radio City Music Hall<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/katy-perry-elton-john-perform-hillary-clinton-fundraiser/story?id=37359679> featuring Katy Perry and Elton John.

The victory fund has transferred $3.8 million to the state parties, but almost all of that cash ($3.3 million, or 88 percent) was quickly transferred to the DNC usually within a day or two by the Clinton staffer who runs the committee, POLITICO’s analysis of the FEC records found.

By contrast, the victory fund has transferred $15.4 million to Clinton’s campaign and $5.7 million to the DNC. And most of the $23.3 spent directly by the victory fund has gone towards expenses that appear to have directly benefitted Clinton’s campaign, including $2.8 million for “salary and overhead” and $8.6 million for web advertising that mostly looks indistinguishable from Clinton campaign ads and that has helped Clinton build a network of small donors who will be critical in a general election expected to cost each side well in excess of $1 billion.

The arrangement has drawn protests from campaign finance reformers and allies of Clinton’s Democratic rival Bernie Sanders. They see it as a circumvention of campaign contribution limits by a national party apparatus intent on doing whatever it takes to help Clinton win the nomination and then the White House.

But it is perhaps more notable that the arrangement has prompted concerns among some participating state party officials and their allies. They grumble privately that Clinton is merely using them to subsidize her own operation, while her allies overstate her support for their parties and knock Sanders for not doing enough to help the party.

“It’s a one-sided benefit,” said an official with one participating state party official. The official, like those with several other state parties declined to talk about the arrangement on the record for fear of drawing the ire of the DNC and the campaign of the party’s likely nominee.

In fact, the DNC, which has pushed back aggressively on charges that it is boosting Clinton at the expense of other Democrats, has advised state party officials on how to answer media inquiries about the arrangement, multiple sources familiar with the interactions told POLITICO.

“The DNC has given us some guidance on what they’re saying, but it’s not clear what we should be saying,” said the official. “I don’t think anyone wants to get crosswise with the national party because we do need their resources. But everyone who entered into these agreements was doing it because they were asked to, not because there are immediately clear benefits.”

DNC’s CFO discusses possible ways to exploit Sander’s religion or lack thereof to sway Southern Baptists away from him. The DNC’s CEO responds with ‘AMEN.’ (https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11508) Marshall has subsequently said he was referring to a “surrogate” and not Sanders.

Re: No shit

From:DaceyA@dnc.org
To: MARSHALL@dnc.org, MirandaL@dnc.org, PaustenbachM@dnc.org
Date: 2016-05-05 12:23
Subject: Re: No shit

AMEN

Amy K. Dacey | Chief Executive Officer

Democratic National Committee

430 S. Capitol Street, SE Washington, D.C. 20003
202-528-7492 (c) | 202-314-2263 (o)
DaceyA@dnc.org

On 5/5/16, 1:33 AM, "Brad Marshall" <MARSHALL@dnc.org> wrote:

>It's these Jesus thing.
>
>> On May 5, 2016, at 1:31 AM, Brad Marshall <MARSHALL@dnc.org> wrote:
>>
>> It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to
>>ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he
>>has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could
>>make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps
>>would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.

Hooahguy

07-25-2016, 21:36

Im not excusing the DNC, not at all. The people involved in the Jewish heritage email should be fired. But theres no proof it was actually done. As for the Politico thing, I dont see how that has had any real impact at all, considering that Hillary has had the worst media coverage compared to anyone else. I simply dont think that its a smoking gun.

Greyblades

07-25-2016, 21:51

Worst, or least? The media coverage I've seen of her from anyone not right wing news has been pulling their punches.

Hooahguy

07-25-2016, 22:19

Anecdotal evidence is hardly enough. (http://www.vox.com/2016/4/15/11410160/hillary-clinton-media-bernie-sanders)

Greyblades

07-25-2016, 22:35

Social media is not mainstream media and this article using twitter stats and the like to disprove media bias is about as useful as using comic books to disprove a trend towards communist biases in mainstream literature.

The guy who wrote that article's history on the site has a lot of headlines hitting trump hard and pulling punches on hillary, that doesnt help his credibility though it does support my claim.

Hooahguy

07-25-2016, 22:50

Hooahguy

07-25-2016, 22:58

So the Bernie supporters at the convention are super angry, and people were shouting "lock her up" from the floor. So much for unity.

Sarmatian

07-25-2016, 23:05

Did you even read the article? I dont think you understand what its saying about how it collected data, or you just dont know that mainstream media is on social media nowadays. They werent counting some guy from Oklahoma ranting on his twitter page, nowadays media outlets will publish links to their articles on twitter. But if thats not good enough you have this study too (http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/).

The first link is anecdotal evidence, the other one is not.

BUT, you also forget the fact that a lot of Clinton's bad coverage came from some issues not related to her actual campaign, like emails and Benghazi.

Hooahguy

07-25-2016, 23:28

Bad press is bad press and it impacts a campaign all the same. The proceedings over Trump University is bad press for Trump and impacts his campaign as well.

Strike For The South

07-26-2016, 03:06

I suppose, as a private entity, the democratic party can do as it pleases. Clinton has been nothing if not a loyal solider. Sanders has basically held the party at arms length for his career, only associating with them when he has to.

There are a few problems with that. The party has created a perception that they are neutral arbiters in the race for the white house. They have denied that they were backing a horse on multiple occasions. Schnitzel doubled down and was basically forced to resign by the big dem power players. Hill dog then gave Schnitzel a job! How dense can one be?

The "optics" are wrong.

Not to mention the whole contributions for jobs, a point that Trump has been hammering.

Strike For The South

07-26-2016, 03:31

Also the damage control the big social media sites are trying to do is stunning. Playing right into the Dons hands.

Hooahguy

07-26-2016, 03:35

I will agree that DWS is a moron and should have resigned immediately. I read something earlier about how a while back Obama tried to force her out of her job and she threw a fit and was going to accuse him of antisemitism or something. I would imagine something similar happened here. Something else to consider is the fact that DWS is for some reason really well liked in her district in Florida. Since Florida is a crucial state, alienating her constituents would probably be a bad idea.

Honestly though, at this rate Hillary is going to stumble into the general election and I wouldnt be surprised if she fumbled this election which should be a slam dunk for her if she wasnt so scandal-prone. The GOP literally nominated the best candidate for her but I would bet that she still messes it up somehow. She might be an apt politician once in office but she seems to be terrible at the whole campaigning thing. The amateurism of the DNC doesnt help either. If Bernie wasnt such a terrible candidate he would have won the primary.

Pannonian

07-26-2016, 03:40

A bit of advice. If you're an American leftie and you're depressed about how the Democratic Party is going, hop over to the Labour leadership thread and have a read about the latest antics of Our Dear Leader and his Merry Men.

Strike For The South

07-26-2016, 03:43

She's well liked in her district because she plays the identity politics game like a champ. Railing against Jewish intermarriage while decrying the exclusion of minorities is some kind of balancing act.

Hooahguy

07-26-2016, 03:56

Strike For The South

07-26-2016, 04:04

Eh, I dont think that coming out against Jewish intermarriage is really a big deal as you seem to make it out to be. I mean its not really a political issue. At least it shouldnt be a political issue.

It's a political issue when you claim to be an inclusionist. You cant demand others shed a certain amount of what makes them "them" while carving out a special place for your own group.

It's very much a political issue. Being against intermarriage is laughably bigoted.

Hooahguy

07-26-2016, 04:20

I guess I kinda see your point. I just never really thought of the intermarriage debate as a political one, just as a religious one.

Sarmatian

07-26-2016, 08:19

Bad press is bad press and it impacts a campaign all the same. The proceedings over Trump University is bad press for Trump and impacts his campaign as well.

It's not the same. We were talking about how the deck was stacked in favour of one candidate.

Clinton's bad press is because she was under an FBI investigation.

HopAlongBunny

07-26-2016, 15:06

The Bernie or Bust crowd might be called a lot of things, but Quitters ain't one of them

The DNC lovefest has begun!

http://wonkette.com/604662/um-yeah-bernies-gonna-have-to-ask-you-to-stop-chanting-lock-her-up-thatd-be-great

and PS
Sarah Silverman kills it:

https://youtu.be/6RjF1ziPuIA

PPS
Might be the best speech by a first lady:

https://youtu.be/n7739moaapI

Seamus Fermanagh

07-26-2016, 18:18

I just don't see it....PA and FL have lots of undecided voters, but in both states the undecideds would have to go 2-1 in Trump's favor to give him the win in those states. And, as this map (http://www.270towin.com/polling-maps/clinton-trump-electoral-map) shows, of all the too close to call states Clinton need only win Florida to be President. Trump, by contrast, practically has to run the table in the "too close to call" states. With Kaine making VA a probable win for Hillary and his Spanish-speaking efforts to harden her support among Latino/a voters and Bernie doing such a strong endorsement (3/4 of Sanders folks were inclined to vote Hillary even before he spoke), I do not think Trump can get the steam up to make it happen.

Hooahguy

07-26-2016, 18:44

It's not the same. We were talking about how the deck was stacked in favour of one candidate.

And Trump is being sued for RICO violations. Maybe not visibly as bad as an FBI investigation but its still serious.

Im no fan of Clinton, but Im not seeing any hard evidence where the DNC actually rigged anything for her. Was she their preferred candidate? Of course. Did they bad mouth him in internal emails? Yup. Is the bias for Clinton troubling? Yes, but Im not seeing a reason to riot.

Seamus Fermanagh

07-26-2016, 18:53

There is no hard evidence of the DNC "rigging" anything in her favor because they did not have to do so. The entire set-up (super-delegates etc.) was in place well before Sanders declared with the precise intent of allowing the party leadership to implicitly designate a "leadership's preference" candidate and to thereby have a chilling effect on the open delegate selection process -- which was itself all set up proportionally so that a larger "establishment" candidate could garner 30-40% of the delegates in a state even when they lost -- and the establishment candidate could be presumed to have the greater funding and to be able to compete everywhere.

All of these factors were in place BEFORE Sanders even decided to run. It is, if anything, a testament to his ability to connect with the progressive wing of the Democrat party that he did as well as he did and actually posed a credible threat. Had he won a few more states and won them bigger he might have poached some super-delegates and changed the result.

DNC leadership is supposed to avoid the appearance of favoring one nomination candidate over another, but in practice that isn't really possible. At best you can hope that they do not actively attempt to trouble a candidate they dislike. These e-mails clearly reveal that the 'fig-leaf' of impartiality wasn't even being honored in the breach this time around. Fancy them not wanting to have a socialist heading the ticket with all of the fruitbat left wing of the party antagonizing middle America and the South. ~:rolleyes:

Hooahguy

07-26-2016, 19:18

Agreed to an extent. I support how they cut down the number of super-delegates but I do not support getting rid of them completely as I feel that the party itself should have a say who is nominated.

But its irrelevant, even if the super-delegate system was completely tossed out, Hillary would have won (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/25/donald-trump/no-donald-trump-bernie-sanders-wouldnt-have-won-ev/).

Seamus Fermanagh

07-26-2016, 21:00

...But its irrelevant, even if the super-delegate system was completely tossed out, Hillary would have won (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/25/donald-trump/no-donald-trump-bernie-sanders-wouldnt-have-won-ev/).

Possibly, even probably. However we cannot be certain since we do not know how many voters were discouraged from voting for Sanders or even who voted for here simply because that wad of superdelegates gave here a lead that seemed insurmountable.

Hooahguy

07-26-2016, 21:20

We also don't know how many primary voters would have stayed home if it wasn't for Sanders who, to his credit, has done a fantastic job in getting people excited about politics. I have friends on my Facebook page who not even a year ago didn't give a flying fig about politics. Now they are posting a lot about it, not just about Bernie but also other issues like climate change and the BLM movement.

Now the big issue is that the kind of politics that Sanders sold was a fantasy version where a wand can be waved and progress made. As these new people realize that politics is much harder than that some will become seriously disillusioned. We are already seeing that with the Bernie supporters who would rather see Trump elected than Hillary even though that would set back what Bernie stood for in a big way.

Husar

07-27-2016, 01:34

This is just so great:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXdn6yeAdPM

Hooahguy

07-27-2016, 03:37

If the DNC had any brains at all (besides the whole email scandal) they wouldnt be bringing out these actresses to talk at the convention, they would be bringing out retired generals to talk about the importance of NATO and stuff and how bad it would be for our national security if Trump was elected. But they arent, so its yet another fumble in a long line of fumbles. This election isnt focused on social issues. Its focused on the economy and security and Im not sure why the DNC isnt focusing more about that.

Fragony

07-27-2016, 06:28

Well Hillary vs Trump it is, not that I particulary like him but please whatever not Hillary as it affects us Europeans as well. Trump is pretty harmless I think, he doesn't need any money from anyone as he's got enough to not need lobby's and oilstates. Hillary is scary. No you creep from invasion of the body snatchers, there is no old friend in the crowd so stop pointing that finger. Fake and oh so corrupt.

Hooahguy

07-27-2016, 09:44

Interesting that you say that Trump is pretty harmless for Europe, especially when he would basically wreck NATO.

Fragony

07-27-2016, 13:22

Interesting that you say that Trump is pretty harmless for Europe, especially when he would basically wreck NATO.

That a problem, Trump isn't interested in pissing of Russia, wants better relationships. The Nato is nothing without America, if America isn't taken for granted then maybe it's a good idea to start giving the military acceptable stuff. No joke, even special forces here who are about to be send somewhere have no ammunition to train with, they have to say 'bang bang' in shooting excersises, all extremily modern tanks were sold because they happened to be worth a lot and the government needed money to safe banks.

We aren't keeping our promises to the Nato, only a marginal part of the deal is met, Trump saying 'you are on your own now' is good. Enough freeriding, not so unreasonable imo

Hooahguy

07-27-2016, 14:27

Fragony

07-27-2016, 14:57

Okay, so that's the problem with the Netherlands then. Trump said he would hesitate before defending the Baltic states, who are striving to meet the defense spending goal (one already meets that goal and the other two are on the path to meet it by 2020). I would say they are working hard to be good members of the alliance. Should they be able to count on a reliable America to help defend them in their time of need? With what Trump is saying I think not.

All the better if we can't rely on America imo, the Dutch army is so short of supplies that they can't do anything. There is is plenty of really high-tech stuff but something as simple as bullets just aren't in stock. Almost all Nato countries are heavily underfunded and pretty much useless, deserves at least a raised eyebrow from those who keep their promises. With the money we give to leftist hobby's of NGO's we could easily meet Nato's standards. Less private jets and dancing people on arival of course but NGO's officials will get overi it. A drug should be developed that makes leftists see dancing black tribes and feel really good about themselve.Same for eurocrats, there got to be a way to make them think they are constantly shaking hands.

Nah, Trump for prez

Hooahguy

07-27-2016, 15:05

We aren't talking about the Dutch army though. Russia has no plans (that we know of) to invade the Netherlands any time soon. What Russia might do though is invade the Baltics should NATO fall apart. The Baltic states cannot defend their land all by themselves, they are tiny and have no mountains or other natural boundaries to help them defend themselves. Recently the Rand Corp did a war game study and they found that even with a full strength military, the Baltic states have at most 60 hours to withstand a full on Russian invasion. The Baltic states have put a lot of money into their armies but they are small. No real tank force to speak of because they can't afford it even as they increase military spending. They need NATO.

Now while personally I think it was a mistake to add the Baltics to NATO for the above reasons (and a few more), they are in the alliance now and we can't change that or kick them out.

Seamus Fermanagh

07-27-2016, 16:08

Interesting that you say that Trump is pretty harmless for Europe, especially when he would basically wreck NATO.

He wrote "The Art of the Deal" not "Lafayette Go Eff Yourself."

What he wants is 1) votes from people who are tired of us paying for/bleeding most on the War on Terror, and 2) NATO to up its Funding for and troops deployed to the various NATO involved efforts including the anti- ISIL/ISIS/DASH/Whatever it is this week.

Threatening to wad it up and throw it away is his opening bargaining stance.

Strike For The South

07-27-2016, 16:28

Y'all seriously need to learn what "staking out a position" is. Read the art of the deal.

there are more Palestinian flags at the dnc than American ones. Why should any American vote democratic?

Husar

07-27-2016, 17:19

Yes, just like "Making America Great again", just wait for the final compromise... :tnt:

Fragony

07-27-2016, 17:37

As I see it Trump is really apolitical, and has very little patience with those who are not. Especially now that the truly scary Hillary, false, fake, backed and funded by really dubious people, is the democrat's choice I really hope that Trump is going to win

Hooahguy

07-27-2016, 17:52

He wrote "The Art of the Deal" not "Lafayette Go Eff Yourself."

What he wants is 1) votes from people who are tired of us paying for/bleeding most on the War on Terror, and 2) NATO to up its Funding for and troops deployed to the various NATO involved efforts including the anti- ISIL/ISIS/DASH/Whatever it is this week.

Threatening to wad it up and throw it away is his opening bargaining stance.

Threatening to wad it up and throw it away might work for his business deals, but international relations is a whole different ballgame that Trump doesnt have a clue what hes talking about. In the current NATO mission in Afghanistan, almost half of the forces in theater are European NATO allies or partner nations. The other half are US forces. NATO allies have lost over 1100 personnel in Afghanistan, with the Danes suffering the highest percentage of casualties of any ally, even the US. In Syria and Iraq, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, the United Kingdom (and soon the Czechs) are flying anti-ISIS missions. On the ground with advisers & trainers in Iraq preparing Iraqi & Kurdish forces, you have Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, and soon the Czechs as well. In the Libyan operation, it was NATO allies who were leading, not the US. Last I recall, the Danish actually flew more missions and dropped more ordnance than the US did. Yes, the US takes the lead in most of the NATO missions because we have the biggest military by far. But thinking that NATO allies dont do their part is just false.

Since 2014, NATO allies have agreed to halt defense cuts and now many NATO allies are in the process of rebuilding their defense budgets and forces, even the Germans (though apparently the Dutch have a ways to go). NATO is probably the most successful military alliance in history because there wasnt doubt about if allies would come to the aid of others allies when attacked. Threatening to walk because you dont get everything you want is not a recipe for a healthy alliance. Trump has said similar things about leaving the WTO which would also be disastrous.

Husar

07-27-2016, 20:40

Strike For The South

07-27-2016, 21:42

NATO is probably the most successful military alliance in history because there wasnt doubt about if allies would come to the aid of others allies when attacked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War

Don't bother quoting the articles, I know what they say.

Hooahguy

07-27-2016, 22:13

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War

Don't bother quoting the articles, I know what they say.
Do you?

Article 6 of the The North Atlantic Treaty:

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;

on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

This also means that if Hawaii was attacked it wouldnt trigger Article 5.

Seamus Fermanagh

07-27-2016, 23:56

Threatening to wad it up and throw it away might work for his business deals, but international relations is a whole different ballgame that Trump doesnt have a clue what hes talking about. In the current NATO mission in Afghanistan, almost half of the forces in theater are European NATO allies or partner nations. The other half are US forces. NATO allies have lost over 1100 personnel in Afghanistan, with the Danes suffering the highest percentage of casualties of any ally, even the US. In Syria and Iraq, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, the United Kingdom (and soon the Czechs) are flying anti-ISIS missions. On the ground with advisers & trainers in Iraq preparing Iraqi & Kurdish forces, you have Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, and soon the Czechs as well. In the Libyan operation, it was NATO allies who were leading, not the US. Last I recall, the Danish actually flew more missions and dropped more ordnance than the US did. Yes, the US takes the lead in most of the NATO missions because we have the biggest military by far. But thinking that NATO allies dont do their part is just false.

Since 2014, NATO allies have agreed to halt defense cuts and now many NATO allies are in the process of rebuilding their defense budgets and forces, even the Germans (though apparently the Dutch have a ways to go). NATO is probably the most successful military alliance in history because there wasnt doubt about if allies would come to the aid of others allies when attacked. Threatening to walk because you dont get everything you want is not a recipe for a healthy alliance. Trump has said similar things about leaving the WTO which would also be disastrous.

Preacher, meet choir.

Trump, as most folks with business backgrounds, think that diplomacy as practiced is a silly waste of time and think they CAN do better deals by using the strategies known and familiar to them.

I said that was WHAT Trump was doing, not that it was a good idea.

Greyblades

07-28-2016, 00:03

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/151/653/88a.png

Hooahguy

07-28-2016, 00:06

Preacher, meet choir.

Trump, as most folks with business backgrounds, think that diplomacy as practiced is a silly waste of time and think they CAN do better deals by using the strategies known and familiar to them.

I said that was WHAT Trump was doing, not that it was a good idea.
Sorry, couldnt tell what your position was... :sweatdrop:

Xiahou

07-28-2016, 00:34

Trump, as most folks with business backgrounds, think that diplomacy as practiced is a silly waste of time and think they CAN do better deals by using the strategies known and familiar to them. I would just add that I really don't think Trump is anywhere near (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-01-27/donald-trump-s-track-record-on-deals) the successful business man he makes himself out to be. What he got was a big inheritance from his dad and what he is is a brand. He licenses his name to anyone who'll pay for it- that's basically his business model in a nutshell. His finances may be even worse that we think, considering his refusal to release tax returns.

Also, 'The Art of the Deal' was ghost written- Trump didn't write it. :no:

Fragony

07-28-2016, 07:52

If he is succesful at being a brand he's a succesful businessman. It would be good to have an outsider for a change I think, I bet it makes a whole lot of people really nervous if someone relatively free of the interests of lobbyists gets a go.

Husar

07-28-2016, 11:31

18750

Also here's a "Sure she's bad, but you have to vote for her or else Trump will win" for you.

drone

07-28-2016, 16:56

It would be good to have an outsider for a change I think, I bet it makes a whole lot of people really nervous [b]if someone relatively free of the interests of lobbyists[\b] gets a go.

The current speculations on Trump's connections/dependency to the Russian oligarchy makes this a questionable statement.

Hooahguy

07-28-2016, 17:30

The current speculations on Trump's connections/dependency to the Russian oligarchy makes this a questionable statement.
Indeed. Carter Page, one Trump's foreign policy advisers has deep connections with Gazprom (and his campaign manager also used to work for Viktor Yanukovych), so its a little suspicious how the Trump camp insisted on softening the language on Russia in the GOP platform. Plus his recent comment on ending US sanctions on Russia and recognizing Crimea as being a part of Russia.

Strike For The South

07-28-2016, 17:39

Do you?
Article 6 of the The North Atlantic Treaty:
This also means that if Hawaii was attacked it wouldnt trigger Article 5.

Leaving our greatest ally of the last century out to dry over a bit legalese. SAD. I can see why the Europeans don't want to live up to their end of the bargain.

Not only will all of continental Europe cease to exist when the shooting match starts but we won't support you over your sovereign territory. We are truly the best ally.

This election is hard for me. I hate Hillary but I REALLY hate Russians. What's a boy to do?

Hooahguy

07-28-2016, 17:56

"Out to dry" is a bit extreme language is it not? The US might not have sent troops, but the US did give military equipment and weaponry to the UK. And a carrier was offered (https://news.usni.org/2012/06/27/reagan-readied-us-warship-82-falklands-war-0) should the UK lose theirs.

Xiahou

07-28-2016, 18:03

This election is hard for me. I hate Hillary but I REALLY hate Russians. What's a boy to do?I won't vote for either. I'll probably vote for Gary Johnson. I'm not a big fan of his, but he seems less slimy than Trump or Hillary and it'd be nice to see a viable 3rd party. I hope he gets into the debates at least....

I'm really tired of the notion that we only have Democrats or Republicans to choose from- like that's they way it has to be. The parties are not government entities nor are they defined in the Constitution. We don't need them. People tell me "By not voting for Trump, you're supporting Hillary!". Yes, but by not voting for Hillary, I'm also supporting Trump by the same logic- so they should cancel out. :laugh4:

Hooahguy

07-28-2016, 18:08

I won't vote for either. I'll probably vote for Gary Johnson. I'm not a big fan of his, but he seems less slimy than Trump or Hillary and it'd be nice to see a viable 3rd party. I hope he gets into the debates at least....

Unfortunately it will take more than just one or even two elections to make a third party viable, as we saw with Ross Perot. Right now it seems like the Libertarian party only has 4 state-level seats, and a party needs a strong state and local level base to remain viable in the long term.

drone

07-28-2016, 18:50

Indeed. Carter Page, one Trump's foreign policy advisers has deep connections with Gazprom (and his campaign manager also used to work for Viktor Yanukovych), so its a little suspicious how the Trump camp insisted on softening the language on Russia in the GOP platform. Plus his recent comment on ending US sanctions on Russia and recognizing Crimea as being a part of Russia.

Hopefully some journo is putting the finishing touches on a series that shows just how much of Trump's business financing is coming from Putin's cronies, since US banks won't lend to him any more.

AE Bravo

07-28-2016, 19:04

I dont understand why these third party candidates arent in the debates. It's one thing for them to be completely sidelined but not allowing them to see the light of day defeats the purpose of their existence altogether. Makes no sense.

Unfortunately that would give the two idiots that have a chance less time to talk.

Hooahguy

07-28-2016, 19:20

It makes sense how theres a minimum level of polling to be included in the debates, but I think 15% is too much. 5% seems much more reasonable. I doubt that would ever be changed though.

Xiahou

07-29-2016, 00:55

Wow... so Gary Johnson. The guy's an idiot (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gary-johnson-religious-freedom-as-a-category-is-a-black-hole/article/2598088), huh? A libertarian who says it's the job of the federal government to prevent discrimination in all cases. That's not.... libertarian.

Is Vermin Supreme running? :sweatdrop:

Hooahguy

07-29-2016, 03:13

I dont know why Vermin Supreme hasnt made more headway. Who doesnt want a free pony?

Also I love him for this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB3WH_-O8Uo

Supposedly Christie refused to get out of his bus until Vermin and his group was taken away. :laugh4:

Greyblades

07-29-2016, 03:31

I love this guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5nj_aex3QA

So, uh, what is this about:
https://twitter.com/sci_solar/status/758775713541394433

Greyblades

07-29-2016, 04:27

So what's going on at the DNC?

https://www.facebook.com/joshfoxintlwow/videos/10206912274261090/

Hooahguy

07-29-2016, 04:42

Thats pretty interesting. Would love to know more about it and how the DNC explains this one. I heard somewhere that a number of Bernie folks were blocked from entering after they threatened to disrupt the speeches, which might tie into the other video you posted. Or they are just bitter and didnt want to show up, which kinda ruins their whole "party unity" message. But tonight it seems like it was much more full (https://twitter.com/AriMelber/status/758859153020366848/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)? Either way this is a two-pronged failure: by the DNC for being terrible idiots and not being completely impartial, and by Bernie and his surrogates for fomenting (or at best not halting) the Bernie or Bust movement.

EDIT: yeah seems pretty full tonight: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4616042/hillary-clinton-accepts-democratic-partys-presidential-nomination

Greyblades

07-29-2016, 04:47

This fellow seems to think they are seat fillers.

https://twitter.com/Of_the_People7/status/758514034073231360

Hooahguy

07-29-2016, 05:03

Greyblades

07-29-2016, 10:55

Well there was this determined protestor:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CogIhgUVIAAF2OY.jpg

And this Jill Stein fan:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CogTPxXUkAERMZV.jpg

And this girl:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CofJ-30VUAAr7js.jpg

And these guys:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CogFyChVYAAVw44.jpg

And of course these guys were running around outside:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CogElstUEAEosfW.jpg

In other news:
https://i.gyazo.com/ceef848788f7d5881199ba283b5218e7.png

HopAlongBunny

07-29-2016, 12:14

Hillary
Hillarah
Hillary
Hillarah ah ah ah ahhhh

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN105101

Csargo

07-29-2016, 12:37

If true, that is hilarious and sad.

EDIT: Ive heard some people say on twitter how seat-fillers are actually common (apparently the RNC had a lot too) since its bad for optics or something? Anyone know anything more about this?

A TV camera panning across a half-empty auditorium doesn't look good, and I'd imagine that seat-fillers are common. It just doesn't look good for television, so I would be inclined to believe it's true. It's pretty common at awards shows as well, it's purely aesthetic thing for cameras.

HopAlongBunny

07-29-2016, 14:31

Hillary is just payin' it forward.
Job creation for the win!

Hooahguy

07-29-2016, 23:05

Apparently Hillary's speech was very well received, much more than Trump's speech was. Im curious to see how much of a bump Hillary gets in the polls, though Im most interested to see what the polling is in about two weeks as the polling then tends to be more predictive of the election results.

naut

07-30-2016, 02:01

Im curious to see how much of a bump Hillary gets in the polls, though Im most interested to see what the polling is in about two weeks as the polling then tends to be more predictive of the election results.

+6 right after.

probably +1 or +2 normalised after the two conventions have reached equilibrium.

:unitedstates: #Hillary4prison :unitedstates:

Veho Nex

07-31-2016, 01:15

Husar

07-31-2016, 01:46

Besides "Trump is Hitler!" why should I vote for Hillary?

You mean him being Hitler is something you could live with and not reason enough?

Veho Nex

07-31-2016, 02:32

The fact that we have checks and balances means he cannot ever be Hitler. Clinton on the other hand is doing so many back room deals that I wouldn't be surprised to see her win the election with 105% of the popular vote. Everything I have seen has shown Hillary as the worst possible choice. No Trump is not any better but she is being touted as great leader and a someone who is good for our country.

She isn't. This run has seen so much Clinton corruption aired publicly but people still think she is the greatest. I cannot fathom how we got stuck with these two penis potatoes.

spmetla

07-31-2016, 02:37

No desire to vote Gary Johnson of the libertarians in?

Veho Nex

07-31-2016, 02:42

No desire to vote Gary Johnson of the libertarians in?

Its between him or Stein. Both of them have stances that I strongly believe in but also take strong stances that are completely the opposite of what I believe in.

I would have voted for Paul or Gowdy in a heartbeat if either were on the ticket.

Hooahguy

07-31-2016, 03:28

Its between him or Stein. Both of them have stances that I strongly believe in but also take strong stances that are completely the opposite of what I believe in.

I would have voted for Paul or Gowdy in a heartbeat if either were on the ticket.
Between the two, Johnson is the better candidate because I think that Stein is a total charlatan worse than Trump or Clinton. And between Trump and Clinton, Trump is worse because he would wreck our international relations by trying to run it like a business. Not to mention his shady connections to the Russians.

spmetla

07-31-2016, 03:39

I will never vote for Trump or Clinton so Gary Johnson gets my vote. Agree with a lot of his social and financial policies but not his foreign policy. Shame that the lack of drama in the Libertarian race means they don't get airtime and therefore are not a 'viable' option.

Montmorency

07-31-2016, 08:22

nonsense

Stop :daisy: about with 3rd-party candidates for President. The President is chairperson for the (ie. their) Party apparatus. Elect some :daisy: 3rd-party blocs in Congress, and fill out the Executive offices with their vanguards if you care for a "3rd-party difference".

Montmorency

07-31-2016, 08:24

Seriously, stop babbling about Johnson/Stein policy platforms as though that has meaning for the political process in either principle or action.

HopAlongBunny

07-31-2016, 10:54

Largely agree.
It can have a significant effect though in dividing the vote.
Progressives who cannot stomach Hillary may well expend their votes for Stein; effectively helping Trump.
Johnson may draw protest votes from Trump and Hillary camps; Hillary would be the net loser I think; Trump base is largely a personality cult phenom.
Just my musings; I'm sure the number crunchers have examined the possible effects, who knows, maybe Trump is financing Stein.

Sarmatian

07-31-2016, 12:57

You mean him being Hitler is something you could live with and not reason enough?

Trump cannot ever be Hitler. He is a demagogue who follows no ideology and lacks principles and conviction. He can at best be a poor man's Mussolini.

Hillary supporters can really be crazy sometimes. They tried to discredit Sanders by saying he won't be able to achieve his goals because of opposition in the congress but have no problems believing that Trump could press the button at his whim.

Ironside

07-31-2016, 14:51

Besides "Trump is Hitler!" why should I vote for Hillary? Going over all her past shenanigans and watching the Benghazi and email trials she is literally the next Stalin. Her campaign has manipulated the media to blasting everyone else and portraying her as a paragon of virtue and trustworthiness.

The private email server is basically the same thing the Bush administration did. It becomes the situation of either prosecuting a lot of people or simply forcing that the practice is forbidden from now. Petraeus got two years’ probation plus a fine of $100,000 for a way more severe crime.

Is there anything substantial in Benghazi, outside poor judgement in retrospect and some early mail about not pinning it on islamist terrorists early on despite indication that it was true? The Republicans has demanded how many hearings and getting nothing substantial for how long now?

Trump is only as popular as he is now because he doesn't really seem to care how people perceives him. He shouts to the rooftops that as president we'll find out if the desert glows from radiation, that world wars are needed, and that Mexico is going to build us a wall then stay on the other side of it. All that is a load of shit. He won't be able to do any of that due to the way our political processes work. There is no magic red button that he can press to launch nukes. Congress has the authority to declare war. There is no way in hell Mexico is going to pay the USA for the opportunity to build a wall between our two countries and there is no way in a frozen hell that US citizens would foot the bill for something that historically hasn't worked. Looking at you Great Wall of China and Hadrian's wall.

There's been plenty of military conflicts without congress authorization and an elected Trump has the house and probably the senate. And they are in the same party whose people voted for Trump, aka they claim to want his policies. And there's a lot of things the President can do outside of that. There's plenty of damage he could do and unlike Hillary, he wouldn't need to do a sudden 180 and lose the support of the people who voted for him or supported him.

Clinton on the other hand has said that she will and won't continue our war in the middle east. She will and won't persecute the banks on wall street. Her supporters state that if anyone else did what she has done over the last few years they would be jailed but aggressively defend her when anyone tries to say she has broken the law.

Read her campaign promises. Expect her to hold most of them. She's basing her power on a diplomatic base, so any significant deviation would make her lose the support of the party. Unlike Trump, who has a strongman base.

And also: Come up with actual clear facts on what Hillary has done that is so horribly bad. Because starting out with that she's obviously guilty, so any reason why she's still not in prison is corruption might be a bit biased. Because it took about 10 minutes after someone came up with "there's no smoke without fire" for someone to come up with a smoke machine.

The fact that she's been extremely scrutinized and that there's not really more dirt than what you can expect from a high profile politician with a long career, might be a sign that there's no more dirt, rather than that she's a master manipulator. And by that time, if she is that high level master manipulator, she's certainly competent enough to be a good president.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/28/hillary-clinton-honest-transparency-jill-abramson
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/fact-checkers-confirm-hillary-clinton-is-more-honest-than-any-of-her-2016-opponents/24196/

Trump cannot ever be Hitler. He is a demagogue who follows no ideology and lacks principles and conviction. He can at best be a poor man's Mussolini.

Hillary supporters can really be crazy sometimes. They tried to discredit Sanders by saying he won't be able to achieve his goals because of opposition in the congress but have no problems believing that Trump could press the button at his whim.

While Trump can't get to the button by himself true. But he can start bombing Serbia without going through congress (Hi Bill!). And he could be giving signs to Russians that he might not support Estonia through NATO if Estonia is attacked. And he might change his mind when getting called a coward for it. And then we have America and Russia fighting each other. After that, all bets are off.

Sanders had some poorly thought out plans that would cause major changes if implemented. I'm not sure he would get his own party to support some of that.

Veho Nex

07-31-2016, 18:30

The private email server is basically the same thing the Bush administration did. It becomes the situation of either prosecuting a lot of people or simply forcing that the practice is forbidden from now. Petraeus got two years’ probation plus a fine of $100,000 for a way more severe crime.

Is there anything substantial in Benghazi, outside poor judgement in retrospect and some early mail about not pinning it on islamist terrorists early on despite indication that it was true? The Republicans has demanded how many hearings and getting nothing substantial for how long now?

Hillary broke the law keeping (c) emails on her private server. She really messed up when she lied to everyone about it and as time has gone on more and more internal corruption has been brought to light. Watch her trial videos or when they are questioning lynch or comey. They all beat around direct questions. "Is it illegal to go 65 in a 55? Lynch: well you'd have to ask the highway patrolman." "Is it legal or illegal to provide an unauthorized person access to confidential material? Lynch: There may be statutes for that buuuuuttt..."

The whole thing was a farce. Watch Clinton's face when she is getting questioned. She doesn't care, she looks annoyed and bored about being there, she looks like someone who is just going through the motions but knew the outcome before it happened.

There's plenty of damage he could do and unlike Hillary, he wouldn't need to do a sudden 180 and lose the support of the people who voted for him or supported him.

But Hillary has done over night 180's several times already. Pro Iraq against Iraq, against gay marriage for gay marriage, this list goes on. At least Trump is telling us what he wants to do. I also believe there are enough people in this country that if Trump tried to gear us for Nuclear war or WW3 then we would see a new assassinated president. If Hillary on the other hand did her back room dealing I see our country being sold down the river before anyone even knows whats going on.

The fact that she's been extremely scrutinized and that there's not really more dirt than what you can expect from a high profile politician with a long career, might be a sign that there's no more dirt, rather than that she's a master manipulator. And by that time, if she is that high level master manipulator, she's certainly competent enough to be a good president.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/28/hillary-clinton-honest-transparency-jill-abramson
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/fact-checkers-confirm-hillary-clinton-is-more-honest-than-any-of-her-2016-opponents/24196/

Have you watched her trials? If you havent just go watch them and stop reading biased news. Go directly to the source and actually come to your own conclusion rather than using propagandic pulp to give you a "clear" view on things. You honestly cannot trust anything written by a reporter. Integrity is a thing that died with the rise of Pulitzer and Hearst.

Kralizec

08-01-2016, 01:25

Hillary supporters can really be crazy sometimes. They tried to discredit Sanders by saying he won't be able to achieve his goals because of opposition in the congress but have no problems believing that Trump could press the button at his whim.

Trump and Sanders are both making promises that likely would not materialize. The difference is that Hillary supporters would generally be sypmathetic to Bernie's goals. Bernie would be underwhelming, while Trump would not quite be Hitler but still bad. Just saying that it's natural that Hillary's camp would counter them with different arguments.

Of course, there are Trump supporters who disagree with his anti-immigrant ideas but say he'll be a good president anyway. Because he'll fail to deliver on those promises. Or supporters who think that he's not serious about his anti-muslim rethoric to begin with, but still complain that Hillary is dishonest. I don't know where to begin, except....:rolleyes:

Montmorency

08-01-2016, 13:00

The whole thing was a farce. Watch Clinton's face when she is getting questioned. She doesn't care, she looks annoyed and bored about being there, she looks like someone who is just going through the motions but knew the outcome before it happened.

Shady dealings, or basic human reasoning skills? :thinking:

Fragony

08-01-2016, 13:17

Considering the Clinton's cv on shady dealings, what should one assume. Some Americans must be really bad in reading persons, she's dangerous

Montmorency

08-01-2016, 13:24

Let me put it this way:

If there is a terrorist attack or other violent incident involving Muslim perpetrators and Husar posts something like, 'We're about to see Fragony mention "childless Mutti's children" again', then would you assume that Husar has suddenly acquired secret mindreading technology = Illuminati confirmed? No.

You correctly understand that Husar has synthesized past experience with Fragony into the present conjecture.

This is learning on the level of rats and pigeons. Do not stoop below their level or soon you will reach the point of outright delusion.

Fragony

08-01-2016, 14:24

Thinking Hillary is a very dangerous person is an dillusion?

Husar

08-01-2016, 14:26

If there is a terrorist attack or other violent incident involving Muslim perpetrators and Husar posts something like, 'We're about to see Fragony mention "childless Mutti's children" again', [...]

I don't post that, but that is exactly what I expect, I'm a good rat.

Montmorency

08-01-2016, 15:27

Thinking Hillary is a very dangerous person is an dillusion?

Thinking Hillary is dangerous because she doesn't take a routine formality seriously is a - whatever a "dillusion" is.

Ironside

08-01-2016, 20:17

Hillary broke the law keeping (c) emails on her private server. She really messed up when she lied to everyone about it and as time has gone on more and more internal corruption has been brought to light. Watch her trial videos or when they are questioning lynch or comey. They all beat around direct questions. "Is it illegal to go 65 in a 55? Lynch: well you'd have to ask the highway patrolman." "Is it legal or illegal to provide an unauthorized person access to confidential material? Lynch: There may be statutes for that buuuuuttt..."

The problem is that she did the same thing as the previous government did (Bush and Cheney) with Obama knowing about it. Thus, you'll end up either prosecuting plenty of top politicians or you don't push too hard here despite knowing that there's some grey zone parts. The evidence is that she used the private server for non-classified information and private information, with like a dozen mistakes after you discount the over classification rivalry. Not enough to go deeper.

The whole thing was a farce. Watch Clinton's face when she is getting questioned. She doesn't care, she looks annoyed and bored about being there, she looks like someone who is just going through the motions but knew the outcome before it happened.

Yes? A political pre-trial of that caliber is going to be hinting about the outcome long before it's done, as the political impact is going to be much larger than any punishment (we're talking about less than 2 year probation and a 100,000 fine).

But Hillary has done over night 180's several times already. Pro Iraq against Iraq, against gay marriage for gay marriage, this list goes on. At least Trump is telling us what he wants to do. I also believe there are enough people in this country that if Trump tried to gear us for Nuclear war or WW3 then we would see a new assassinated president. If Hillary on the other hand did her back room dealing I see our country being sold down the river before anyone even knows whats going on.

In a time span of decades. I mean Iraq, seriously? You'll never allowed to claim that you did a bad call ever? That's not really doing 180. She is a political pragmatist, who'll probably won't state her own opinion on something if she knows its quite unpopular at the time and can change her mind. But that also means that you know she won't push for some really unpopular stuff.

Also, if I'm a master planner with 40 years of hidden agenda and are owning most of the political structure of the country, why am I running for president in the first place? I already own the country.

Trump is going to attack some muslim country, probably just bomb it, to avoid doing Iraq II. He's a bully, has called the US army weak and wants to make America strong and respected (read feared, because he'll never get respect). He's toying with the idea of trade wars and protectionism, which will do havoc to the US economy. He's going to be doing some nice "wink" stuff when some Trumpist does a racist crime.
He's petty, so he's going to use his position to go after people/countries who has hurt him.
He'll probably stamp BLM as terrorists, like he's already doing with muslims , which is going to be hell (the core of BLM is peaceful and has mostly reasonable (http://www.joincampaignzero.org/#vision) demands), as its how to signal that a peaceful solution is impossible...
That Russia thing is suspiciously good at sticking on him. Total denial doesn't work well when you have a record.

Have you watched her trials? If you havent just go watch them and stop reading biased news. Go directly to the source and actually come to your own conclusion rather than using propagandic pulp to give you a "clear" view on things. You honestly cannot trust anything written by a reporter. Integrity is a thing that died with the rise of Pulitzer and Hearst.

That gives an interesting question. How are you getting your news? I mean, you did consider Hillary to be a hidden evil long before the emails didn't you? Through some vague information osmosis without any big smoking guns...

Papewaio

08-02-2016, 01:29

Hooahguy

08-02-2016, 02:31

Trump disparaging the family of a fallen soldier might mark a new low in this campaign.

Graphic

08-02-2016, 02:58

I don't care about her email server, I don't care if she lied about it. I honestly don't care. The ironic aspect is that the entire democratic party infrastructure got hacked while they missed her server, probably because no one knew about it, including the Russians. When it was revealed that there were THREE out of 60,000 emails that had classified markings inside the body, without a classified header, this was ultimately revealed to be a fake controversy. Just another tool to try and destroy her career like the last 500 fake controversies that she was ultimately exonerated in.

I'm fairly confident, but not certain, that Clinton will win with a pretty comfortable electoral college margin. And I think she'll be a good president because she mirrors my own views more than any other politician around, let alone those running for president: more liberal than Obama on social issues but with a bit more forcefulness in foreign affairs. I'm voting for Clinton and not just against Trump.

I want the country to keep getting gayer and gayer and become a paradise of gay liberty, I want Obamacare to go further and insure the final 10% of uninsured and control costs, I want you to be able to prove your sanity to own a gun or at the very least set off alarm bells at the FBI when you buy an AR-15 if you've been investigated for terrorism before. Unlike Bernie Sanders (bless his heart), she's far more in tune with the issues the black community has with systemic racism and police brutality. It's not all the fault of the 1% and the billionaire class.

But I also want a slightly stronger backbone in regards to foreign policy. I feel like I'm alone on this in the internet these days, but no, I don't want to retreat from our endeavors in the middle east, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the world. I want them to be more successful. The USA has a part to play in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and Ukraine, and Clinton has the comfort with military force that Obama lacks in order to bring these conflicts to some kind of a conclusion. Retreating from these conflicts will create more death and danger, not less.

She will be as good as Obama was in terms of accomplishments, if not better. It just won't be that sexy because she has no charisma. But I don't need charisma. I don't need to be catered to to "earn" my vote like a special snowflake. I need a president that relatively represents my views. If that's a robot, a reptilian overlord, or a career politician with no panache, I could not care less. In other words, I'm a democrat, so I vote democrat. Every single democrat is automatically mostly compatible with my views, so there's no need to fuss or hissy fit about stupid details.

The next eight years will be great.

Greyblades

08-02-2016, 14:26

I'll hold you to that.

Trump disparaging the family of a fallen soldier might mark a new low in this campaign.

Depressing really because a less kneejerk mind could have turned it around by pointing out that the soldier's death is partially because of the people who invited the family to the stage.

Hooahguy

08-02-2016, 17:13

Yeah but that line of attack is partially dulled since his running mate voted for it too.

Seamus Fermanagh

08-02-2016, 17:58

...When it was revealed that there were THREE out of 60,000 emails that had classified markings inside the body, without a classified header, this was ultimately revealed to be a fake controversy....

One would have been sufficient to get my wife fired from her job and her company fined.

Greyblades

08-02-2016, 19:20

Yeah but that line of attack is partially dulled since his running mate voted for it too.

Only partially, especially if he had played on the fact that Obama as president and Clinton as secretary of state each have much more blood on thier hands than Pierce.

Ironside

08-02-2016, 20:10

Only partially, especially if he had played on the fact that Obama as president and Clinton as secretary of state each have much more blood on thier hands than Pierce.

Their son died in 2004, the Bush era... And Trump is a war hawk.

Not an avenue you can push as a Republican. Obama and Clinton didn't start the wars. And "You didn't run away fast enough!" is kind of a poor argument if you want to look tough.

Edit: Besides, the main point was to show muslims that are willing to risk their lives/die for America. It's a counter to "all muslims are evil!!".

Greyblades

08-02-2016, 20:17

Xiahou

08-03-2016, 00:56

Behold as the Republican nominee for president calls for 35% import tariffs. Such interesting times we live in. :dizzy2:

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

a completely inoffensive name

08-03-2016, 02:38

When it was revealed that there were THREE out of 60,000 emails that had classified markings inside the body, without a classified header, this was ultimately revealed to be a fake controversy.

Shill more.

@ 4 min 20 sec: 110 emails in 52 email chains determined to have classified information at the time. 8 of those chains had top secret information at the time, 36 chains with secret information at the time, 8 chains with confidential information at the time.

https://youtu.be/J3XvTonyUeg?t=4m20s

I want the country to keep getting gayer and gayer and become a paradise of gay liberty,

So do I, what a shame that Hillary couldn't be bothered to speak for gay marriage until 2013 when the polls told her to switch sides.

she's far more in tune with the issues the black community has with systemic racism and police brutality.

Right, I find that rich white women often find a deep understanding of the black community when their husbands pass Tough on Crime bills that imprison millions of young black men.

She will be as good as Obama was in terms of accomplishments

So she will get one big watered down bill passed in her first two years, then try to spend the next 6 years overriding congress with executive actions that get shot down by the Supreme Court?

Hooahguy

08-03-2016, 04:26

So do I, what a shame that Hillary couldn't be bothered to speak for gay marriage until 2013 when the polls told her to switch sides.
So did Obama. Hell, most of the country flipped on gay marriage (http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/) over the course of the past decade or so.

Right, I find that rich white women often find a deep understanding of the black community when their husbands pass Tough on Crime bills that imprison millions of young black men.
At the time the crime bill was widely supported by the black community.

Gilrandir

08-03-2016, 13:43

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLSy8Tl2bjs
Now I know how Trump grooms his hair.

Hooahguy

08-03-2016, 15:27

If true, this is slightly terrifying (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html): "Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump. And three times [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked at one point if we had them why can't we use them."

Ironside

08-03-2016, 18:22

Trump's not really a hawk compared to hillary and nor is he a republican, that's rather the point of him. His hands are clean so he's free to bash clinton and obama for contrbuting to the tradition of war mongering that bush started and got thier son killed.

Trump could have reflected it back and I am dissapointed he didnt, instead falling into yet another gaff.

Have you seen or red what Trump says? He's totally a hawk, probably worse.

"We're gonna beat ISIS very, very quickly folks. It's gonna be fast," Trump said at a Saturday morning rally in Waterbury, Conn. "I have a great plan. It's going to be great. They ask, 'What is it?' Well, I'd rather not say. I'd rather be unpredictable."

Trump said Saturday, without specifics, that he will make the American military so powerful that "no one is going to mess with us."

He's also ranting about China abusing trade deals and that he'll renegotiate them totally in USA:s favor.

Combine it with the info Hooahguy has about his opinion on nukes.

If we're lucky, it's mostly bullshit. If we're not, he's gotten this brilliant idea of "nukeboat diplomacy".

And even while he's contradicting himself about a lot, he's consistent about "making America powerful again".

Don't try to paint him into some ideals just because he's an outsider. He's really, really bad news if he would be president.

One would have been sufficient to get my wife fired from her job and her company fined.

Actually no, since the classified emails didn't leak. That's a very critical thing about this. But to be fair, it's probably your wife's CEO we would be talking about. Or a server your wife's CEO knew about.

Right, I find that rich white women often find a deep understanding of the black community when their husbands pass Tough on Crime bills that imprison millions of young black men.

You haven't red up on this much have you? Bill was fondly called "the first black president" (https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Bill-Clinton-fondly-referred-to-as-the-First-Black-President) and there's a reason why she crushingly won the black vote vs Sanders.

So she will get one big watered down bill passed in her first two years, then try to spend the next 6 years overriding congress with executive actions that get shot down by the Supreme Court?

Probably. The current Republican congress is throwing temper tantrums if they don't get everything they want, can't agree on what they want and considers everything touched by the letter D to be the spawn of Satan, including things they themselves have said.

Greyblades

08-03-2016, 18:40

Have you seen or red what Trump says? He's totally a hawk, probably worse.

He's also ranting about China abusing trade deals and that he'll renegotiate them totally in USA:s favor.

Combine it with the info Hooahguy has about his opinion on nukes.

If we're lucky, it's mostly bullshit. If we're not, he's gotten this brilliant idea of "nukeboat diplomacy".

And even while he's contradicting himself about a lot, he's consistent about "making America powerful again".

Don't try to paint him into some ideals just because he's an outsider. He's really, really bad news if he would be president.

"I'm going to win the war quickly" does not translate to "I'm going to start new wars", nor does complaining about chinese trade deals.

He didnt show any opinion on nukes in Hooahguy's article but an ignorance of nuclear strategy, one that is concerning but becomes somewhat less worrying knowing that the president cannot actually launch a nuke without the approval of the Secritary of Defense. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority)

None of these are exclusively hawkish behavior and past actions indicate otherwise. Now I do not think Trump is peaceful but I think he is an isolationist; he is not interested in stepping into another middle east quagmire for no real gain back home. On the other hand Hillary has been straining at the leash to jump in headfirst since Obama appointed her Secritary of State.

So in response I say: do not try to paint him into some villiany he is for once undeserving. In addition Hillary is really, really bad news if she is president.

HopAlongBunny

08-03-2016, 19:14

Behold as the Republican nominee for president calls for 35% import tariffs. Such interesting times we live in. :dizzy2:

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff all over again.
I suggest Trump knows history very well, he just absorbed different lessons from it.

Hooahguy

08-04-2016, 01:17

He didnt show any opinion on nukes in Hooahguy's article but an ignorance of nuclear strategy, one that is concerning but becomes somewhat less worrying knowing that the president cannot actually launch a nuke without the approval of the Secritary of Defense. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority)

Per the Wikipedia article you posted, the president can fire the Secretary of Defense if he doesnt agree with the use of nukes. So the Secretary of Defense doesnt have veto power over this. Cheney said basically this (http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/12/22/transcript-vice-president-cheney-on-fox-news-sunday.html) back in 2008:

He could launch a kind of devastating attack the world's never seen. He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.

And you are right about this showing an ignorance about nuclear strategy and not an expressed desire to use them. But its still very chilling because its seems like hes ignorant about the fact that ideally nukes should be a last resort measure, not a "use 'em if you got 'em" measure. Lets say things escalate in the South China Sea. Im not so sure Trump wouldnt order a nuclear strike off the bat if a Chinese warship takes a shot at an American one.

a completely inoffensive name

08-04-2016, 05:04

You haven't red up on this much have you? Bill was fondly called "the first black president" (https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Bill-Clinton-fondly-referred-to-as-the-First-Black-President) and there's a reason why she crushingly won the black vote vs Sanders.

You haven't thought about this much have you?

Just because Bill Clinton wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth like Bush 41, he is suddenly blacker than black. As if a lower class lifestyle is what defines black lives (hint: lower class whites still have privilege).

His presidency is a series of half measures and back room deals to pass politically rewarding but socially devastating polices like War on Drugs, Tough on Crime and Welfare Reform.

Fragony

08-04-2016, 06:08

Behold as the Republican nominee for president calls for 35% import tariffs. Such interesting times we live in. :dizzy2:

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

Can also see it as 'buy American', a very protective economy didn't exactly hurt Japan (although it's not all good news now)

Greyblades

08-04-2016, 11:11

Per the Wikipedia article you posted, the president can fire the Secretary of Defense if he doesnt agree with the use of nukes True he can fire them, but he has to then go through the deputy Secretary of defense and get them to agree. Going by the fact that pretty much every politician in the US is at best wary of him I believe that the worst case scenario is that Trump ends up firing an uncooperative Secretary of Defense and in response the heads of the executive departments use the 25th amendment to declare him incapacitated.

So the Secretary of Defense doesnt have veto power over this. Cheney said basically this (http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/12/22/transcript-vice-president-cheney-on-fox-news-sunday.html) back in 2008: I'm not sure what to make of this, did Cheyne not know about the two man system?

And you are right about this showing an ignorance about nuclear strategy and not an expressed desire to use them. But its still very chilling because its seems like hes ignorant about the fact that ideally nukes should be a last resort measure, not a "use 'em if you got 'em" measure. Lets say things escalate in the South China Sea. Im not so sure Trump wouldnt order a nuclear strike off the bat if a Chinese warship takes a shot at an American one. Like I said, concerning, hence why I'm hoping to god you "Checks and balances" guys can pull off this check, partially because I dont actually trust Hillary with the nuke either.

Hopefully someone took him aside and explained nuclear strategy to him when he asked, and that they do it again both when the republicans have this intervention and if he's sworn in. And maybe once a month once in office.

Graphic

08-04-2016, 11:29

One would have been sufficient to get my wife fired from her job and her company fined.

I'm sorry but appointed members of a president's cabinet don't get fired for the same things office staff do, even when they're not Hillary Clinton. This is the world we live in.

Graphic

08-04-2016, 11:36

Shill more.

Be an asshole more. Or be an adult.

@ 4 min 20 sec: 110 emails in 52 email chains determined to have classified information at the time. 8 of those chains had top secret information at the time, 36 chains with secret information at the time, 8 chains with confidential information at the time.

Watch his congressional testimony.

So do I, what a shame that Hillary couldn't be bothered to speak for gay marriage until 2013 when the polls told her to switch sides.

Bernie Sanders didn't even speak in favor of it until 2009. Obama didn't come out for it until around the same time as Clinton. It's almost like progressive causes become more acceptable as time progresses!

Large swathes of the public changed their mind on gay marriage over the last few decades, to where a majority are now in favor of it. Politicians took the same journey that their constituents did. Aren't politicians elected to represent their constituency, or am I missing something?

Right, I find that rich white women often find a deep understanding of the black community when their husbands pass Tough on Crime bills that imprison millions of young black men.

The crime bill was passed with full support of the congressional black caucus. But you already know that.

"Mass imprisonment" wasn't a social issue to black communities at the time. Ridiculously high crime rates was.

Being a rich white woman also doesn't prevent her from listening intently to the concerns of black communities. Her race, gender, and financial situation are irrelevant.

So she will get one big watered down bill passed in her first two years, then try to spend the next 6 years overriding congress with executive actions that get shot down by the Supreme Court?

That watered down bill insured tens of millions of Americans, including myself. Is this the "all or nothing" mentality from Bernie bros? That never achieves anything. Obama's big crime is that he got something but not everything. Wow, welcome to politics.

Obama has used less executive orders than almost every previous president.

Try again please.

Greyblades

08-04-2016, 11:37

I'm sorry but appointed members of a president's cabinet don't get fired for the same things office staff do, even when they're not Hillary Clinton. This is the world we live in.

I dont see a shouldnt. If there was anything worth beginning a tradition of enforcing accountability in politics this is it.

Kralizec

08-04-2016, 13:13

I dont see a shouldnt. If there was anything worth beginning a tradition of enforcing accountability in politics this is it.

"Well, from now on we should be more critical of our public servants. The important thing is we have to start with Clinton!1111!!!!!"

Plain opportunism.

He didnt show any opinion on nukes in Hooahguy's article but an ignorance of nuclear strategy, one that is concerning but becomes somewhat less worrying knowing that the president cannot actually launch a nuke without the approval of the Secritary of Defense. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority)

So you're willing to admit that Trump is unhinged or ignorant, but count on his staff and Congress to prevent him from being a total disaster. Counting on other people to filter out the lunacy, so that the residue will "make America great again". Because it's a given that the residue will be totally awesome, Trump has said so.

I'm sure that Congress and leaders of other countries will gladly work with Trump to implement the ~15% of his ideas that are not completely insane. Even when they, personally, have been repeatedly insulted by him. Afterall, if they wouldn't be able to look past those things then they'd just be immature :rolleyes:

Greyblades

08-04-2016, 16:14

Firstly it is not a matter of criticism, americans are critical as any towards politicians they dont like their system just doesnt allow enforcment of the law on those public servants, as long as they kiss the right asses.

Secondly. What do you suggest they do instead? Start acting on the revelations of illegal action of public servants, "just not right now 'cause it's clinton" or that they shouldnt act on such illegality at all?

Hooahguy

08-04-2016, 16:58

True he can fire them, but he has to then go through the deputy Secretary of defense and get them to agree. Going by the fact that pretty much every politician in the US is at best wary of him I believe that the worst case scenario is that Trump ends up firing an uncooperative Secretary of Defense and in response the heads of the executive departments use the 25th amendment to declare him incapacitated.
He can keep firing people until he gets an answer he likes. We can hope that his cabinet would enact the 25th but lets be real here, he will fill his cabinet with yes-men.

I'm not sure what to make of this, did Cheyne not know about the two man system?
Im sure he knows, but he would know better than any of us that the two man system is a formality at best.

Like I said, concerning, hence why I'm hoping to god you "Checks and balances" guys can pull off this check, partially because I dont actually trust Hillary with the nuke either.
That is one hell of a wager. I trust Hillary a lot more because she has shown that she doesnt make rash decisions, whether or not you actually like those decisions.

Hopefully someone took him aside and explained nuclear strategy to him when he asked, and that they do it again both when the republicans have this intervention and if he's sworn in. And maybe once a month once in office.
If the report is true, he asked three times, which means that the first two times he didnt seem to comprehend the answer. Do you think that the GOP and his campaign managers havent pulled him aside telling him to stop tweeting stupid stuff multiple times? Again, its one a huge wager that hes going to comprehend this basic fact of nuclear strategy when in office. If not, the results are catastrophic.

Greyblades

08-04-2016, 20:53

He can keep firing people until he gets an answer he likes. We can hope that his cabinet would enact the 25th but lets be real here, he will fill his cabinet with yes-men. I do not think there are that many men who both can do the job and would say yes to trump pressing the button.

That is one hell of a wager. I trust Hillary a lot more because she has shown that she doesnt make rash decisions, whether or not you actually like those decisions. I will grant hillary more patience than trump, but I do not trust her judgment is sound when it comes to strategy or proportionate response.

If the report is true, he asked three times, which means that the first two times he didnt seem to comprehend the answer. Do you think that the GOP and his campaign managers havent pulled him aside telling him to stop tweeting stupid stuff multiple times? Again, its one a huge wager that hes going to comprehend this basic fact of nuclear strategy when in office. If not, the results are catastrophic.
It wasnt multiple times it was thrice in the same hour long breifing (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-three-times-msnbc-why-cant-we-a7170166.html), which doesnt tell us anything beyond an idea that it had/would take at least an hour of conversation for nuclear strategy to sink into Trump's head.

CrossLOPER

08-04-2016, 21:02

which doesnt tell us anything beyond an idea that it had/would take at least an hour of conversation for nuclear strategy to sink into Trump's head.

This is what you sound like:

"HE'S A GOOD BOY! HE CAN FIGURE OUT ANYTHING!"

You sound like a father trying to get his NEET son to work at the IT department at his work because "he's good with computers". Trump is a business opportunist. The presidency is nothing more than a business opportunity. He will say anything to the tune of "making things work" to get an election. He has not presented a single comprehensive policy before or during this election cycle that can even be discredited due to the fact that it is retarded, much like everything that came out of Dr. Ben Carson's mouth.

Ironside

08-04-2016, 21:06

"I'm going to win the war quickly" does not translate to "I'm going to start new wars", nor does complaining about chinese trade deals.

He didnt show any opinion on nukes in Hooahguy's article but an ignorance of nuclear strategy, one that is concerning but becomes somewhat less worrying knowing that the president cannot actually launch a nuke without the approval of the Secritary of Defense. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority)

None of these are exclusively hawkish behavior and past actions indicate otherwise. Now I do not think Trump is peaceful but I think he is an isolationist; he is not interested in stepping into another middle east quagmire for no real gain back home. On the other hand Hillary has been straining at the leash to jump in headfirst since Obama appointed her Secritary of State.

So in response I say: do not try to paint him into some villiany he is for once undeserving. In addition Hillary is really, really bad news if she is president.

The Secretary of Defense is chosen by the president. The senate can reject or accept the choice. The Republic senate isn't that healthy right now and would be the majority if Trump wins.

He's not going for a long war with ground troops, true. The problem is that he's going to make America look like his definition of strong, aka a bully (see how he treats NATO or people) and make the army look strong again. That means that he has to win a war. In a way that doesn't creates a new Libya or Iraq. In a way that's threatening to other countries (you don't do a trade deal that threatens your economy, unless the other option is worse).

Nukes solves all those problems (not really, but some... and gives a ton of other problems). Buddy up with Russia and you won't start WWIII (probably, maybe).

Is the Hillary being really, really bad thing a feeling or do you have anything tangible that makes her so much worse than a normal politician?

A tip, if someone has been hiding their Skeletor face for 40 years, with 20 of those with the opposition throwing every dirt they got on that one, without any big result for it, you're probably picking up the dirt throwing, rather than the person behind it.

You haven't thought about this much have you?

Just because Bill Clinton wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth like Bush 41, he is suddenly blacker than black. As if a lower class lifestyle is what defines black lives (hint: lower class whites still have privilege).

His presidency is a series of half measures and back room deals to pass politically rewarding but socially devastating polices like War on Drugs, Tough on Crime and Welfare Reform.

Did you read the parts about it also being because he was (still is) popular among the black community? Let me put it this way. Whatever he did, he's still remembered as the second best president for blacks (Obama being the first of course). That might be because of lack being given anything else, but it still means that laws requested at the time and turning sour with time is the best anyone has ever offered them without it being empty platitudes.

Like I said, concerning, hence why I'm hoping to god you "Checks and balances" guys can pull off this check, partially because I dont actually trust Hillary with the nuke either.

She knows the political consequences of using one and has no reason using them. Her hawkishness is very much in the form of intended benign intervention (success rate is another matter).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNA_IDX0qnM

He's starting to loose his mind by the looks of it. That's some massive incoherent ranting.

Greyblades

08-04-2016, 21:33

This is what you sound like:

"HE'S A GOOD BOY! HE CAN FIGURE OUT ANYTHING!"

You sound like a father trying to get his NEET son to work at the IT department at his work because "he's good with computers". Trump is a business opportunist. The presidency is nothing more than a business opportunity. He will say anything to the tune of "making things work" to get an election. He has not presented a single comprehensive policy before or during this election cycle that can even be discredited due to the fact that it is retarded, much like everything that came out of Dr. Ben Carson's mouth.
If this is what you believe I am saying I think you need to turn off the internet and take a break.

Hooahguy

08-05-2016, 00:41

I do not think there are that many men who both can do the job and would say yes to trump pressing the button.
It seems like the only people who Trump keeps around for any length of time who arent yes-men are his kids. Look at the huge turnover in staff in his campaign, that should give you a pretty clear indication how he would run his cabinet.

It wasnt multiple times it was thrice in the same hour long breifing (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-three-times-msnbc-why-cant-we-a7170166.html), which doesnt tell us anything beyond an idea that it had/would take at least an hour of conversation for nuclear strategy to sink into Trump's head.
More than once = multiple times. Even if it was in the same conversation. If anything this is worse because because it means he didnt comprehend the answer the first two times in such a short time span. Makes sense though, his mind does seem to wander considering how often he goes off message in his speeches.

Greyblades

08-05-2016, 00:55

He's not going for a long war with ground troops, true. The problem is that he's going to make America look like his definition of strong, aka a bully (see how he treats NATO or people) and make the army look strong again. That means that he has to win a war. In a way that doesn't creates a new Libya or Iraq. In a way that's threatening to other countries (you don't do a trade deal that threatens your economy, unless the other option is worse).

Nukes solves all those problems (not really, but some... and gives a ton of other problems). Buddy up with Russia and you won't start WWIII (probably, maybe).

The Secretary of Defense is chosen by the president. The senate can reject or accept the choice. The Republic senate isn't that healthy right now and would be the majority if Trump wins. And the Republican party hates him and thus will not give him a bunch of yes man who wont stop him nuking, in both circumstances of republican and democrat majority senates Donald trump he will be incapable of using nukes outside of approved circumstances.

As for a conventional war, it seems inevitable for both but Trump's is the most optimistic; he wants to win the war so he wont attack china and he likes russia so that rules out triggering a potential world ending nuclear war. He's going to go after whichever tin pot tyrant who looks at him funny, he's going to kick him in the teeth with the US Army Boot and then leave. If we are lucky it will be a falkands or desert storm.

With Clinton however she's stuck in the bush/obama mindset where she wants to go into the middle east again and do Iraq right this time. There the best you can hope for is a Lybia.

When the choice appears to be between Donald's quick war and Hillary's quagmire the choice seems one sided.

Is the Hillary being really, really bad thing a feeling or do you have anything tangible that makes her so much worse than a normal politician?

A tip, if someone has been hiding their Skeletor face for 40 years, with 20 of those with the opposition throwing every dirt they got on that one, without any big result for it, you're probably picking up the dirt throwing, rather than the person behind it.

She knows the political consequences of using one and has no reason using them. Her hawkishness is very much in the form of intended benign intervention (success rate is another matter).

He's starting to loose his mind by the looks of it. That's some massive incoherent ranting.
Which makes it all the sadder that the american left failed to nominate a better person.

Mrs Clinton is worse for several reasons; firstly she is a liar, not only major lies in the email scandal or in the benghazi matter, but also minor lies such as the landing under fire in bosnia or being named after Sir Edmund Hillary, lies with no benefit that was easily disproven and at a rate far beyond the pale of a normal politician and giving the impression of compulsion. Hillary's numerous lies exhibited here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI

Do I need to tell you how having a bad liar both in application and believability as head of state is a detriment? This feeds into my general dislike of her character, a dislike based on stories such as this (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/20/exclusive-hillary-clinton-took-me-through-hell-rape-victim-says.html) where she assassinated a twelve year old girl's character, stating she was "emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing" and had "made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body" without actually stating who had told her that. Along with exploiting the reputation of an expert to intimidate the prosecution into abandoning a piece of physical evidence, all to help a paedophile she knew was guilty reduce his sentence to a year in prison.

Transcript of that trial here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/229667084/State-of-Arkansas-V-Thomas-Alfred-Taylor?keyword=4417&content=10079&ad_group=Online+Tracking+Link&campaign=Skimbit%2C+Ltd.&source=impactradius&medium=affiliate&irgwc=1

Now I would admit that there is an argument that a competent evil is preferable to an incompetent good (let alone the dubious buffon that is trump) but she isnt competent; her previous job was stained with incompetence.

Russia and Ukraine, Lybia and Syria all notches under the sub par reaction tab but the highlights of incompetence is that which couldnt be blamed on uncontrollable circumstances, namely that she implicitly allowed the first US ambassador in thirty years to be killed overseas after denying 600 requests for security upgrades, even after the neighbouring british ambassador had evacuated:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSZtlT6Xsqk

Oh and she put classified information in the secrity equivalent of a sock under the bed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV6q9LOubfc

Here's the thing, I dont think Trump is a good idea but I see him as the best choice america is left with. You have a decision between a blustering angry idiot and a lying evil screwup. The "skeletor face" has been hovering in the american vision for a good 8 years and saying otherwise is just denial.

She's deplorable, a liar with dubious morals and worst of all bad at her job and the sad thing is that so many wont see it because of the grand spectre of Trump.

Greyblades

08-05-2016, 01:06

It seems like the only people who Trump keeps around for any length of time who arent yes-men are his kids. Look at the huge turnover in staff in his campaign, that should give you a pretty clear indication how he would run his cabinet. When his options are limited by both qualification and senate approval I think that turnover rate with drop sharply.

More than once = multiple times. Even if it was in the same conversation. If anything this is worse because because it means he didnt comprehend the answer the first two times in such a short time span. Makes sense though, his mind does seem to wander considering how often he goes off message in his speeches.

In my country 1 in 5 of our politicians think giving up nuclear weapons while everyone else keeps thiers is a good idea. I talked to a fellow recently who had come to the conclusion that, because the 2000 test detonations in remote locations over 65 years since 1945 hadnt made the world less habitable, all out nuclear war couldnt actually do more long term damage than a conventional war.

It does not surprise me that trying to explain the multitude of complex reasons the United States of America generally doesn't nuke people who cannot fire back, in under an hour, resulted in trump repeating the question three times in confusion. I will become suitably worried if this such conversations become a habit.

Hooahguy

08-05-2016, 02:15

When his options are limited by both qualification and senate approval I think that turnover rate with drop sharply.
So you are placing all your faith in the Senate then? That's gutsy.

In my country 1 in 5 of our politicians think giving up nuclear weapons while everyone else keeps thiers is a good idea. I talked to a fellow recently who had come to the conclusion that, because the 2000 test detonations in remote locations over 65 years since 1945 hadnt made the world less habitable, all out nuclear war couldnt actually do more long term damage than a conventional war.
That fellow sounds quite daft.

It does not surprise me that trying to explain the multitude of complex reasons the United States of America generally doesn't nuke people who cannot fire back, in under an hour, resulted in trump repeating the question three times in confusion. I will become suitably worried if this such conversations become a habit.
What? He is not a child nor does he have a learning disability that we know of. I've had classes in university which went three times as long where I had to comprehend just as difficult material as this and my classmates and I were fine. This shouldn't be an issue for a normal person. Plus a president needs to learn and comprehend information quickly so he can made effective and rational decisions about a situation. Its part of the job and he might not even have an hour. Carson had this same issue and it torpedoed him.

Pannonian

08-05-2016, 02:16

:laugh4:

Earlier, I referred Greyblades to the documentary The Wilderness Years, with the recommendation that it's extremely highly rated. My guess is he's not taken time to watch it, and looking at Idaho's comment, Idaho certainly hasn't taken time to watch it, as anyone who's done so would know exactly why it's highly rated (it's a collection of primary sources from the people closest to the subject). Contrast with the video Beskar posted just a few posts back, which is an opinion, not even an open opinion at that, but from a comedian in character. While the former, classically respected historical source is dismissed by Corbyn supporters, the latter, which would hardly rate as a source by historiographical standards, is used by the same to support their man.

FYI, one of the sources in The Wilderness Years is Jeremy Corbyn, who explains what he and others did at council level to support his mentor, Tony Benn, who's another of the sources. Just about every significant Labour figure in the 1979-95 period, with the exception of John Smith (dead), gets to explain their actions and reasoning. As well as lesser figures like Corbyn.

Here's (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00z9mxj) the first episode. Note the list of participants: 6 Labour leaders including 3 PMs, and a dozen other cabinet and shadow cabinet ministers.

Not a good sign when you need videos to make your point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSZtlT6Xsqk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV6q9LOubfc

Pannonian

08-05-2016, 02:26

So you are placing all your faith in the Senate then? That's gutsy.

Not so much gutsy, as an instinctive turn to anti-establishment politics without any need for evidence-based argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-truth_politics).

Post-truth politics is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy and by the repeated assertion of talking points, to which factual rebuttals are ignored. While post-truth political techniques have long played a role in campaigns worldwide, the term itself was coined in 2010,[1][2] and became widespread during campaigning for the 2016 US presidential election and the UK EU membership referendum.[3][4] Political commentators have identified post-truth politics as ascendant in American, Australian, British and Indian politics, as well as in other areas of debate, driven by a combination of the 24-hour news cycle, false balance in news reporting, and the increasing ubiquity of social media.
...
An early use of the phrase in British politics was in March 2012 by Scottish Labour MSP Iain Gray in criticizing the difference between Scottish National Party's claims and official statistics.[27] Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy also described an undercurrent of post-truth politics in which people "cheerfully shot the messenger" when presented with facts that didn't support their viewpoint, seeing it among pro-independence campaigners in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, Jeremy Corbyn supporters in the 2015 Labour leadership election, and Leave campaigners in the then-upcoming EU membership referendum

2016 US presidential election, UK EU membership referendum, UK Labour leadership contest, Greyblades has the whole 2016 set.

Montmorency

08-05-2016, 02:58

A Trump or Hillary presidency would precisely continue the trend towards the decline of the power of the American chief executive to 19th-century levels. The US executive moves increasingly towards the style of 1980s Chinese party-consensus politics. Except with less consensus and more confusion.

It might even be working out, too, if the legislature and the parties themselves hadn't in turn become so palsied.

CrossLOPER

08-05-2016, 05:25

If this is what you believe I am saying I think you need to turn off the internet and take a break.
You're right, it's much worse. You are using the tired logic that "Hillary is worse" and "everything will work out" if Trump is elected. Everything regarding Trump with you is an endless string of ifs. None of them will come to pass because the man involved is incapable of accepting criticism, or even disagreement, of any kind.

HopAlongBunny

08-05-2016, 10:21

This pretty much sums up my take on Trump ie: I wish I had done this:

https://youtu.be/Eh_GFkdxwbQ

Beskar

08-05-2016, 14:44

https://i.imgur.com/0agkJJx.jpg

Hooahguy

08-05-2016, 16:25

Former CIA director Michael Morell endorsed Clinton with a rather scathing op-ed (for Trump anyways) (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/opinion/campaign-stops/i-ran-the-cia-now-im-endorsing-hillary-clinton.html?_r=1).

Some highlights:

Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important colleagues on the National Security Council. During the early debates about how we should respond to the Syrian civil war, she was a strong proponent of a more aggressive approach, one that might have prevented the Islamic State from gaining a foothold in Syria.

I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, “Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner.”

In sharp contrast to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump has no experience on national security. Even more important, the character traits he has exhibited during the primary season suggest he would be a poor, even dangerous, commander in chief.

These traits include his obvious need for self-aggrandizement, his overreaction to perceived slights, his tendency to make decisions based on intuition, his refusal to change his views based on new information, his routine carelessness with the facts, his unwillingness to listen to others and his lack of respect for the rule of law.

Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States.

In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.

Fragony

08-05-2016, 16:39

I kinda wonder, violence is my trade I have to so be like that sometimes. It's not a real consideration but I hurt people for a living, I work
as a entrance-demon and that can suck

Sarmatian

08-05-2016, 16:46

Greyblades

08-05-2016, 17:56

You're right, it's much worse. You are using the tired logic that "Hillary is worse" and "everything will work out" if Trump is elected. Everything regarding Trump with you is an endless string of ifs. None of them will come to pass because the man involved is incapable of accepting criticism, or even disagreement, of any kind.
So you cant call it bad logic, just tired? Everything regarding Hillary is it'self underlined by the grand if: "If hillary turns out to not actually be the Ceasare Borgia, without talent, the last 20 years showed her to be"

Worst case scenario is that trump is exactly as unpleasant as his outward appearance is making himself out to be and because he will never have the support in the rest of government he physically cannot become a Bush level disaster. With Hillary that is the best case scenario, because if the democrats win she will have the support, and signs point to being worse than Bush.

:laugh4:

"Make your point". I made my argument on this forum and used the videos to put weight behind each point I made, you kept referring to a video, apparantly thinking it would magically change people's minds, but wouldnt even link to it. Your behavior gave the appearance that you lacked of confidence in your ability to make the argument and wanted us to see the same thing that made you think that way, while simultaniously not having the confidence in the video to link it.

See whenever I see say lizardo putting videos without even giving context I dont expect good things, when you make allusions to a video you couldnt be bothered to link to I expect even less.

So you are placing all your faith in the Senate then? That's gutsy. Not exactly, see the way I see it I'm putting my faith in eery politician on capitol hill mistrusting trump enough to never risk putting the red button in his hands, that is a sure bet. With hillary I'd have to put my faith in the senate not switching democrat and becoming hillary's lapdog, kinda more risky

That fellow sounds quite daft. No that fellow had been given bad/simple information.

He had gotten into his head that nukes were like global warming, "the more nukes we set off the worse the world gets and after a point it becomes uninhabitable, forever" Whereas the truth was "the simultanious explosions of thousands of nuclear devices over America, Europe and Russia would put so much dust and debris into the atmosphere as to blot out sunlight over a majority of the world's surface for a long period of time that combined with the radiation that would poison farmland means that anyone who survived the initial detonations and subsesquent widespread radiation poisoning would likely starve as clean food production becomes nigh impossible. The World's ecosystem might recover but it would take far, far longer than humanity could reasonably be expected to last with agriculture being practically impossible."

What? He is not a child nor does he have a learning disability that we know of. I've had classes in university which went three times as long where I had to comprehend just as difficult material as this and my classmates and I were fine. This shouldn't be an issue for a normal person. Plus a president needs to learn and comprehend information quickly so he can made effective and rational decisions about a situation. Its part of the job and he might not even have an hour. Carson had this same issue and it torpedoed him.
This is the issue of not having an actual record of the conversation, was he having problems comprehending or was he, say, going through a list of scenarios.
eg:
"Allright it is clear I have some misconceptions on nuclear strategy, Let's start with you explaining why we cant use nukes on china or russia."
"Because China and Russia's capacity to fire back makes that too risky, calling the bluff."
"Ok so I do have that right, now explain cant we use nukes on one of thier puppets like north korea."
"Because It's so close to China that they might take issue with us using nukes right next to it and intervene"
"Ok making sense, now explain why cant we use nukes on a non nuclear state with no nuclear protector like argentina"
Etc

Obviously Trump wouldnt be so polite/coherent.

Now if you wanna talk about what a mess of his campaign he's been making making over the last week, I'll gladly join in. Dude needs that intervention desperately.

CrossLOPER

08-05-2016, 20:06

So you cant call it bad logic, just tired? Everything regarding Hillary is it'self underlined by the grand if: "If hillary turns out to not actually be the Ceasare Borgia, without talent, the last 20 years showed her to be"

Worst case scenario is that trump is exactly as unpleasant as his outward appearance is making himself out to be and because he will never have the support in the rest of government he physically cannot become a Bush level disaster. With Hillary that is the best case scenario, because if the democrats win she will have the support, and signs point to being worse than Bush.
"It's not bad logic if I think that way."

Strike For The South

08-05-2016, 23:53

More and more, it seems like I was right when I said Trump was a HRC plant.

Bill Clinton is "The first black president" only in the sense that he has high blood pressure. Workfare and NAFTA bludgeoned a working class that had (and has) a disproportionate amount of minorities in it. Clinton expanded the war on drugs and the militarization of the police. Let us also not forget the whole thinly veiled dog whistle known as "super predators".

The Clintons got the black vote because black voters vote democrat. The Clintons got a high turnout of the black vote because they courted a black upper class. It was a very smart move. They are very smart people. Good for them.

Bill Clinton is a probable rapist who uses legal obfuscation and intimidation to silence his literal legion of accusers. It also wont surprise to finally find some of the bodies in about 20 years.

The Clintons were incubated in a cold war driven world where all the power brokers were driven by foreign policy concerns. So they cherry picked a few liberal causes from the 60s and started on their path to power. From healthcare in the 80s and 90s to TTP now, the Clintons have only used these causes to further themselves up the ladder.

We see this divide clearly when she tries to connect with these post cold war millennials who aren't from the same head space. Her entire internet campaign is astroturfing, paid shills, and Hooahguy. Sanders is a crotchety old man from Vermont who gets elected by tinfoil hat free soilers every cycle and it took an inordinate amount of time to defeat him. She has this disconnect with the youth.

Truth be told, I don't really care about the rapes and the killings. Plenty of presidents have raped and killed. The chief executive of the USA does not need to be a paragon of morality. It just rubs me the wrong way when they claim the care.

Greyblades

08-06-2016, 01:55

Not so much gutsy, as an instinctive turn to anti-establishment politics without any need for evidence-based argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-truth_politics).

2016 US presidential election, UK EU membership referendum, UK Labour leadership contest, Greyblades has the whole 2016 set.
You replied to a post where I used video evidence and court records to make my points... and 10 minutes later you're accusing me of not using evidence in this thread?

Hooahguy

08-06-2016, 02:10

Her entire internet campaign is astroturfing, paid shills, and Hooahguy.
Aww, thanks for the shout out buddy! Though Im still waiting for my payment from CTR for all the shilling I do.

Xiahou

08-06-2016, 02:57

AE Bravo

08-06-2016, 04:17

Greyblades

08-06-2016, 15:26

They're both terrible candidates- really. No matter who wins, America loses. Between the two, I honestly can't decide which would be worse. The only thing I'm sure of is that I won't be voting for either one. :no:

Hillary is a pathological liar- anyone who thinks otherwise is divorced from reality.

This is why I think the democrats should be wanting hillary disqualified; with Trump in a death spiral they have the wiggle room to escape this better of two evils scenario and put someone less toxic in the whitehouse like Biden.

a completely inoffensive name

08-06-2016, 18:42

Watch his congressional testimony.

Why? Could you watch the video I linked where he just detailed the official findings of the investigation?

Bernie Sanders didn't even speak in favor of it until 2009. Obama didn't come out for it until around the same time as Clinton. It's almost like progressive causes become more acceptable as time progresses!

It's almost like those 4 years make a big difference to the millions of gays and lesbians who needed political support against the Mormon's and Evangelicals trying to shove Constitutional Amendments across the country to deny gay marriage!

Where was Hillary and Obama when we needed to fight Prop 8 here in California?

The story of Gay Marriage is the story of courts following the Constitution while politicians tried to join the bandwagon at the eleventh hour to celebrate the inevitable SCOTUS ruling.

Large swathes of the public changed their mind on gay marriage over the last few decades, to where a majority are now in favor of it. Politicians took the same journey that their constituents did. Aren't politicians elected to represent their constituency, or am I missing something?

Politicians are duty obligated to uphold the Constitution. I don't care if there are still rural Southerns that want to segregate schools and ban gays from public life, their representative should know better than to spend their time in Congress simply parroting their voice.

The crime bill was passed with full support of the congressional black caucus. But you already know that.
Political reality of a Republican controlled Congress equipped with the next generation of PR tactics. Either join, or look weak by Frank Lutz.

"Mass imprisonment" wasn't a social issue to black communities at the time. Ridiculously high crime rates was.
No, drugs were the issue and I highly doubt the answer blacks were looking for was more cops on their streets given the Rodney King Riots showed how little they already trusted the system...

Being a rich white woman also doesn't prevent her from listening intently to the concerns of black communities. Her race, gender, and financial situation are irrelevant.
Actual people of color would disagree with that. There is no escaping privilege.

That watered down bill insured tens of millions of Americans, including myself. Is this the "all or nothing" mentality from Bernie bros? That never achieves anything. Obama's big crime is that he got something but not everything. Wow, welcome to politics.

No, it's the reform mentality that says you got those people insured not from improving the system but by making it illegal to not enter it.

Obama has used less executive orders than almost every previous president.

And? That's a talking point that doesn't refute my issue. It's not the number, it's why he is making them and what he is using them for...

Try again please.

Viking

08-06-2016, 19:03

^
What is interesting about this is that he finds US soldiers in Pakistan a positive thing while Russian soldiers in Ukraine are negative.

It is this dissonance with reality that makes all US presidents dangerous.

Which US soldiers exactly; which equivalent situations?

Politicians are duty obligated to uphold the Constitution.

What does the US constitution say on (gay) marriage?

Edit: after doing some digging, it appears that marriage is not mentioned in the US constitution at all.

The Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage. It is not mentioned [...]

http://www.jurist.org/forum/2014/10/richard-kelsey-samesex-marriage.php

Hooahguy

08-06-2016, 19:05

Not exactly, see the way I see it I'm putting my faith in eery politician on capitol hill mistrusting trump enough to never risk putting the red button in his hands, that is a sure bet. With hillary I'd have to put my faith in the senate not switching democrat and becoming hillary's lapdog, kinda more risky
Politicians in Washington couldnt even pass a clean emergency bill to combat the Zika virus. They managed to get the clean bill through the Senate but the House Republicans torpedoed it and presented their own bill that had poison pills attached to it. And now Zika has been found in Florida so my faith in Congress doing anything for the benefit of the country is pretty much shot.

This is the issue of not having an actual record of the conversation, was he having problems comprehending or was he, say, going through a list of scenarios.
This is true, but Trump doesnt exactly have a great track record of using facts and new information to inform or change his opinions.

Now if you wanna talk about what a mess of his campaign he's been making making over the last week, I'll gladly join in. Dude needs that intervention desperately.
Considering pretty much all of the current polling has Hillary ahead and some polls have her even 15 points ahead, I would have to agree with you. Its like a slow moving trainwreck. Part of me thinks that someone in the GOP will rise up and toss Trump on his butt before the election. A pipe dream probably but we can hope.

Sarmatian

08-06-2016, 19:49

Which US soldiers exactly; which equivalent situations?

In this case, those that crossed the border to off Bin Laden.

Yes, I understand that a small strike team crossing a border to eliminate one of the most dangerous criminals in the world is not the same as actively supporting an armed insurrection - it wasn't supposed to be taken literally. US soldiers go over into Pakistan illegally on a daily basis. Drone strikes (confirmed) number in the hundreds, with around 200 children being killed.

And that's just Pakistan.

The entire system in America sees nothing wrong with that. The exceptionalism has reached unbelievable levels, and the politicians, the entire political system is encouraging that. Biden almost lost it on that podium during DNC "we're 'murica, we're second to none, we're the best, smartest..." and so on.

The people buy into that surprisingly easy. Yes, we're best. Of course we are. But, wait if the results don't show that, it certainly isn't our fault. It must be those Muslims or Mexicans or the rest of the world holding us back, which leads to even worse behaviour both domestic and abroad.

Incidentally, that's what creates Trumps. Luckily for America and the rest of the world, Trump is a narcissistic buffoon who can't tie his own shoelaces. Even Hillary should be able to beat him.

But, next one might be a little more charismatic, and little smarter and much more dangerous.

a completely inoffensive name

08-06-2016, 20:26

Which US soldiers exactly; which equivalent situations?

What does the US constitution say on (gay) marriage?

Edit: after doing some digging, it appears that marriage is not mentioned in the US constitution at all.

http://www.jurist.org/forum/2014/10/richard-kelsey-samesex-marriage.php

Just because you contol+F the word "marriage" and it doesn't appear, doesn't mean it isn't in there.

Guess there is no right to privacy either...

EDIT: Also your column is from 2014, pick something from the past year, you know....after SCOTUS ruled on gay marriage so you actually get to read on why it is in there.

Viking

08-06-2016, 22:14

In this case, those that crossed the border to off Bin Laden.

Yes, I understand that a small strike team crossing a border to eliminate one of the most dangerous criminals in the world is not the same as actively supporting an armed insurrection - it wasn't supposed to be taken literally. US soldiers go over into Pakistan illegally on a daily basis. Drone strikes (confirmed) number in the hundreds, with around 200 children being killed.

And that's just Pakistan.

If Russia had been bombing or raiding groups holing up in Ukraine that were launching terrorist attacks in Russia or elsewhere, I expect that the language from the US government apparatus would be significantly different.

Just because you contol+F the word "marriage" and it doesn't appear, doesn't mean it isn't in there.

Guess there is no right to privacy either...

What do you mean, exactly?

EDIT: Also your column is from 2014, pick something from the past year, you know....after SCOTUS ruled on gay marriage so you actually get to read on why it is in there.

If it was all along an obvious interpretation of the constitution, a few self-written sentences should presumably suffice - and be easy to write. It's not a requirement for US politicians to be experts in law.

At any rate, legal conclusions tend to involve a lot of interpretation; and I doubt it would be much harder to argue against the relevant supreme court decision than for.