POTUS Election thread

[Fragony]

You have to be a psychopath to want the job anyway probably

[Sarmatian]

Let's face it, Trump is barely fit to be considered a human being, but his scandals with women are nothing compared to Bill Clinton's, which Hillary helped cover up. Using a position of power to force women to provide sexual favours to you, is, for all intents and purposes, rape.

[Fragony]

Let's face it, Trump is barely fit to be considered a human being, but his scandals with women are nothing compared to Bill Clinton's, which Hillary helped cover up. Using a position of power to force women to provide sexual favours to you, is, for all intents and purposes, rape.

Women aren't mindless, rape goes too far. But Bill Clinton certainly liked tons of it. Hillary's role in intimidating Bill's (probably very
eager) 'victims' is much more questionable. She pretends to for women yet gets funded by the most backward counties one could think off. How woman see any sense in that I can't grasp

[Husar]

You have to be a psychopath to want the job anyway probably

Sanders is actually close to Gandhi, and doesn't seem to have any traits in the psychopathic range.
Obviously the people preferred psychopathic Hillary and Trump. Don't forget that people vote for them based on preference.

Let's face it, Trump is barely fit to be considered a human being, but his scandals with women are nothing compared to Bill Clinton's, which Hillary helped cover up. Using a position of power to force women to provide sexual favours to you, is, for all intents and purposes, rape.

I've got to be running with outdated info, I thought his affair(s) were consensual, or is the abuse of power always implied when one person is a president and the other is not?

[Gilrandir]

Sanders is actually close to Gandhi, and doesn't seem to have any traits in the psychopathic range.

Gandhi was (allegedly) a racist:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ghana-remov...gandhi-1585365

[Sarmatian]

I've got to be running with outdated info, I thought his affair(s) were consensual, or is the abuse of power always implied when one person is a president and the other is not?

It doesn't appear to be that way. Monica Lewinsky maintains that the relationship was consensual, but at the same time she says Clinton took advantage of her.

At best, it is actually performing in practice what Trump was talking about.

Some other cases are in the grey area. Paula Jones for instance, filed a lawsuit against Clinton for sexual harassment. Clintons made a deal with her to withdraw in exchange of 850,000$.

Of course, it is not impossible that some malicious women were trying to take advantage and make money, but there's too much there to be just that.

[Husar]

It doesn't appear to be that way. Monica Lewinsky maintains that the relationship was consensual, but at the same time she says Clinton took advantage of her.

At best, it is actually performing in practice what Trump was talking about.

Some other cases are in the grey area. Paula Jones for instance, filed a lawsuit against Clinton for sexual harassment. Clintons made a deal with her to withdraw in exchange of 850,000$.

Of course, it is not impossible that some malicious women were trying to take advantage and make money, but there's too much there to be just that.

I just read up on some allegations, and it is in fact terrible if true.

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/09/497291...linton-of-rape
http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/bill-clin...-hillary-knew/

The sad thing is that I'd still prefer Clinton as POTUS than Trump, one might want to ask why that sort of thing only gets into the spotlight now and how the parties could end up nominating these two as candidates when there were so many other choices...

I mean Trump basically engaged in modern slavery: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...al-immigration

And even "imported" foreigners for that...
Not to forget that every third sentence he utters seems to include a lie and that even though his language is so very simple.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Harding, Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton were all notorious womanizers.
F. Roosevelt, while not notorious, had a mistress during his tenure and more or less died in her arms.
Fidelity, per se, is not a relevant concern to the office.

None of the aforementioned ever got themselves recorded bragging about it like a 16-year old high school footballer in a locker room d*** measuring discussion.

Man's got multiple billion dollars from an amazing business career and celebrity status to boot and feels he has to do that kind of locker-room bragging to impress....Billy Bush?

NOT a level of maturity I feel should be associated with the office.



22 Declared candidates among the two major parties and more than a $100m dollars spent and THESE TWO are the choices we are left with? [I would insert a 'screaming vomit' smiley here if we had one]

We've got a "big government cures all" self-serving liar whose BEST leadership characteristic is her Machiavellianism and an insecure narcissistic rich guy who demagogues for the benefit of the LOWEST common denominator while bragging about his penis.


I am voting for my wife. I will still be getting f**ked by the person for whom I a voting -- just like the rest of the country -- but unlike the other choices I actually respect her.

[Husar]

Diarrhea and constipation.

I also wonder why anyone would want to fly to a star.

[Greyblades]

So can we agree that this is now a choice between Göring and a female Himmler?

[Montmorency]

So can we agree that this is now a choice between Göring and a female Himmler?

Neither of them bear any resemblance to either of these individuals. Pick another two out of the Nazi hat. Maybe you can get a lucky draw.

[drone]

21 Declared candidates among the two major parties and more than a $100m dollars spent and THESE TWO are the choices we are left with? [I would insert a 'screaming vomit' smiley here if we had one]

We've got a "big government cures all" self-serving liar whose BEST leadership characteristic is her Machiavellianism and insecure narcissistic rich guy who demagogues for the benefit of the LOWEST common denominator while bragging about his penis.


I am voting for my wife. I will still be getting f**ked by the person for whom I a voting -- just like the rest of the country -- but unlike the other choices I actually respect her.

It's pretty funny, in a very sad, morbid, and depressing way. If the Democrats had done what the Republicans did (had a fair nomination process), and if the Republicans had done what the Democrats did (allow party insiders control over their nomination), we wouldn't be in this mess. Both parties should really be ashamed of themselves, and it may take decades before the GOP recovers from this debacle.

I will be writing in either Bernie or Cthulhu, depending on my nihilism level that day. My congressional vote is still up for grabs. The GOP really needs to get smacked down, but it's pretty much guaranteed at this point that Hillary will have the Senate. Giving her the House as well is a step too far.

[Sarmatian]

Harding, Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton were all notorious womanizers.

Womanizers I don't mind. Rapists on the other hand, belong in jail.

Bill is as bad and disrespectful to women as Trump, at least. At most, he's a rapist.

[Pannonian]

Harding, Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton were all notorious womanizers.
F. Roosevelt, while not notorious, had a mistress during his tenure and more or less died in her arms.
Fidelity, per se, is not a relevant concern to the office.

None of the aforementioned ever got themselves recorded bragging about it like a 16-year old high school footballer in a locker room d*** measuring discussion.

Man's got multiple billion dollars from an amazing business career and celebrity status to boot and feels he has to do that kind of locker-room bragging to impress....Billy Bush?

NOT a level of maturity I feel should be associated with the office.



22 Declared candidates among the two major parties and more than a $100m dollars spent and THESE TWO are the choices we are left with? [I would insert a 'screaming vomit' smiley here if we had one]

We've got a "big government cures all" self-serving liar whose BEST leadership characteristic is her Machiavellianism and an insecure narcissistic rich guy who demagogues for the benefit of the LOWEST common denominator while bragging about his penis.


I am voting for my wife. I will still be getting f**ked by the person for whom I a voting -- just like the rest of the country -- but unlike the other choices I actually respect her.

We have a government proposing fascist policies, while our leader of the opposition is a communist (and his chief of staff is someone whom even the Communists considered an extremist nutter). Are things worse on your side of the water?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We have a government proposing fascist policies, while our leader of the opposition is a communist (and his chief of staff is someone whom even the Communists considered an extremist nutter). Are things worse on your side of the water?

Worse, no. But I am not sure they are substantively better. The functional major party has a significant portion of their followership who want to repeat -- more or less completely -- the policies and approach to governance and society that is working so "well" for Sweden right now. The dysfunctional party has a candidate who is too narcissistic to be a fascist and the party has at least three major sub-components, maybe 4, none of whom are willing to comfortably hang out under that proverbial "big tent."

Our two-party system has been a source of stability since early in the Republic. Of course, the last time one of the two went belly up, we had a Civil War going within 5 years.

The GOP is living in "interesting times." [Chinese curse definition of that phrase]

[a completely inoffensive name]

Our two-party system has been a source of stability since early in the Republic. Of course, the last time one of the two went belly up, we had a Civil War going within 5 years.

And the first time one went belly up, we had the Era of Good Feelings. So your mileage may vary.

[Kralizec]

It doesn't appear to be that way. Monica Lewinsky maintains that the relationship was consensual, but at the same time she says Clinton took advantage of her.

At best, it is actually performing in practice what Trump was talking about.

Some other cases are in the grey area. Paula Jones for instance, filed a lawsuit against Clinton for sexual harassment. Clintons made a deal with her to withdraw in exchange of 850,000$.

Of course, it is not impossible that some malicious women were trying to take advantage and make money, but there's too much there to be just that.

Paula Jones case dragged on for a while, but only because Clinton argued at first that the case couldn't be brought against a sitting president. When it went forward, it was dismissed very quickly. Clinton settled to prevent it from going through the appeal process, and according to Bill himself it was only to move on with his life. Considering that Paula Jones' lawsuit was the trigger for the Lewinsky scandal I tend to believe that explanation.

The most serious allegation levelled against Clinton was by Juanita Broaddrick, who was allegedly raped. Her case is full of holes: she became active as a political volunteer for Bill Clinton after he supposedly raped her, she kept quite about it for 20 years, denied in a court proceeding there was any truth to rumours of rape...before making a 180 degree turn, claiming it took her so long because she was emotionally distressed. Granted, that is possible, but nevertheless the whole story is fairly dubious- and the onus is on the accusing side.

I'm sure there are others, and it's universally accepted that Bill is/was promiscuous, but saying "well, there's a lot of smoke, so there probably is a fire of some sort..." isn't going to cut it. The problem with Trump's attacks isn't just that all of these allegations are unproven, but also that there's absolutely no indication that Hillary covered up for him or threatened these women in any way. This whole angle of attack is an excercise in stupidity, especially considering Trump's own record of marital infidelity.

So can we agree that this is now a choice between Göring and a female Himmler?

It sounds like you're the only one who has changed his opinion. Every sane person has known for months that Trump is a complete sack of shit, what took you so long?

Hillary would probably not be my first choice if I were an American either. She has popularity issues for a reason. And yet, somehow, the alternative the Republicans are pushing is *Trump*? Hillary can at least be counted on to govern rationally, and to pursue policies that are liked by US democrats and liberals.

[Sarmatian]

Paula Jones case dragged on for a while, but only because Clinton argued at first that the case couldn't be brought against a sitting president. When it went forward, it was dismissed very quickly. Clinton settled to prevent it from going through the appeal process, and according to Bill himself it was only to move on with his life. Considering that Paula Jones' lawsuit was the trigger for the Lewinsky scandal I tend to believe that explanation.

The only thing missing from that explanation is ponies and rainbows.

If it were the only one, I might have agreed with you.

The most serious allegation levelled against Clinton was by Juanita Broaddrick, who was allegedly raped. Her case is full of holes: she became active as a political volunteer for Bill Clinton after he supposedly raped her, she kept quite about it for 20 years, denied in a court proceeding there was any truth to rumours of rape...before making a 180 degree turn, claiming it took her so long because she was emotionally distressed. Granted, that is possible, but nevertheless the whole story is fairly dubious- and the onus is on the accusing side.

I'm sure there are others, and it's universally accepted that Bill is/was promiscuous, but saying "well, there's a lot of smoke, so there probably is a fire of some sort..." isn't going to cut it.

Well, statistics tell us that only 2% of rapes are falsely reported and in many cases victims don't report it for a very long time, if ever. So, the odds of several women falsely accusing Bill Clinton are minute.

Is he a rapist in the true sense of the word? Maybe, I don't know, but he is definitely a scumbag who disrespected, objectified and sexualized women, and in that sense, he is at least as bad as Trump.

[Montmorency]

Well, statistics tell us that only 2% of rapes are falsely reported and in many cases victims don't report it for a very long time, if ever.

This argument is a non-starter. There is no reliable way to calculate a false-report rate. There isn't even a way to calculate a report rate.

[Kralizec]

Well, statistics tell us that only 2% of rapes are falsely reported and in many cases victims don't report it for a very long time, if ever. So, the odds of several women falsely accusing Bill Clinton are minute.

Is he a rapist in the true sense of the word? Maybe, I don't know, but he is definitely a scumbag who disrespected, objectified and sexualized women, and in that sense, he is at least as bad as Trump.

I'm not sure that there are other rape allegations against Bill except the Broadrick case. There are multiple stories of sexual harassment, though.

I can agree on Bill being a sexist pig.

[Fragony]

Forget about Bill Clinton being a sex-addict, let's talk about Hillary intimidating his victims instead. There is so much wrong with this woman, she is relentless, any humanity is completily lost to her. Why can't people see what kind of person she is. I only need a second