[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[TenEightyOne]

I was referring to the time prior to Oct. 2, meaning that all of the data prior to that date is irrelevant because Wikileaks wasn't in the news cycle. That is when the Wikileaks term started its uptick, climbing to 100 on the 4th when the Podesta emails were starting to be released.

And that's the time when the tape became known. The climb to that peak is 75% if you remove the Wikileaks data... because it's a proportional graph.

He is not talking about voter fraud. He is talking about the news media.

Wrong. Gingrich is one of the senior Republicans he seems to be disagreeing with, no?

Voter Fraud!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Amen!

You know perfectly well that I disagree with you, so please don't try and insinuate that I've had a change of heart. I still think that Trump is a dangerous lunatic and that putting him in the White House is one of the worst ideas in human history. When the future history of the world is written and historians ask "when did it all go so badly wrong?", we'll be able to answer "November 8, 2016 - the day we gave a temperamental man-child access to a nuclear arsenal".

 

[mustafur]

Wouldn't he need approval from congress to do anything with that Arsenal?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

And that's the time when the tape became known. The climb to that peak is 75% if you remove the Wikileaks data... because it's a proportional graph.



Wrong. Gingrich is one of the senior Republicans he seems to be disagreeing with, no?

He keeps using that term, I don't think it means what he thinks it means. In all seriousness, he keeps using a term to define rigged elections via media and party lines, not actual voters taking it upon themselves to cross state or city lines and skew the results in favor of a candidate.

For example we analyze what he says here, he claims voter fraud it seems in the sense that people voting for Clinton or against him do so on a false narrative thus creating a fraudulent/rigged election. He uses the notion that Hillary cheated and CNN got caught as an example and how that isn't being talked about, as well as him being cut at the knees (attempted) by the Republican party. Basically he should just use corruption or the same tag Bernie did, rather than claim voters are fraudulently rigging elections.

Wouldn't he need approval from congress to do anything with that Arsenal?

He keeps touting a lot of things about our politics and how it's so easy to cause this narrative of chaos by picking this guy...when it would have to be systematic. For some reason any time he explains this stuff it seems as if the man somehow circumvents the basic notion of checks and balances. I myself have asked him to further explain but he sounds about as peeved and paranoid as the click bait articles he's been using since June. Though it should be noted there was interesting stuff from politico on the very topic, so I can see why PM is somewhat worried on the matter, but it seems not as clear cut as those against Trump have claimed.

EDIT: Also no @mustafur he wouldn't, launching nukes pretty much is all on the President, there is no red tape to get through.

 

[eran0004]

facist hands

Reality check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

 

[TRGTspecialist]

He keeps using that term, I don't think it means what he thinks it means. In all seriousness, he keeps using a term to define rigged elections via media and party lines, not actual voters taking it upon themselves to cross state or city lines and skew the results in favor of a candidate.

For example we analyze what he says here, he claims voter fraud it seems in the sense that people voting for Clinton or against him do so on a false narrative thus creating a fraudulent/rigged election.

Sadly it doesn't seem to be just a case of misunderstanding definitions - he really has reffered to actual voter fraud with some of this comments.

......specifically stated in a rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin that ballots cast by illegal immigrants led to Barack Obama’s victory in North Carolina in 2008. “People who died 10 years ago are still voting,” he claimed.

....

On Monday he specifically said that 1.8 million dead people would vote – and for “somebody else”. The statement was apparently a reference to the fact that one 2012 study found up to 1.8 million active voter registrations from deceased voters. In reality the study it found no evidence of fraud or that any illegitimate ballots were cast – it simply meant state voter databases were out of date.

Trump also insisted without evidence: “We have voters all over the country where they’re not even citizens of the country and they’re voting.”

 

[Dotini]

Wouldn't he need approval from congress to do anything with that Arsenal?

Long ago Congress was required to declare (and provide funds for) war. In theory, it still is according to the Constitution. But in practice the Constitution is a dead letter and the Congress has abdicated its authority and responsibility while the executive branch increased its authorities. It's strong evidence for the gathering decline of our republic.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Sadly it doesn't seem to be just a case of misunderstanding definitions - he really has reffered to actual voter fraud with some of this comments.

That's not what I was disputing, what I am disputing is the actual evidence proposed, through his twitter and recent suggestions. He talked about actual voter fraud during the primaries when Hillary was against Sanders. Which were valid discussion, now it's a mixing of terms which is not valid.

Also the suggestion perpetuated by PM on the situation of Trump and nukes was something else I was refuting.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

That's not what I was disputing, what I am disputing is the actual evidence proposed, through his twitter and recent suggestions.

Ah sorry, I thought you were talking about Trump generally with this

He keeps using that term, I don't think it means what he thinks it means.

If not then no problem.

In any case my point stands that when he says voter fraud he really means voter fraud - at least some of the time, anyway..........

 

[doblocruiser]

Came across this today. A nice insight in Hillary's practice if true.

 

[huskeR32]

And so it begins.... the Democrats have the dirtiest ground game around, they will rig whatever they can get their pudgy little facist hands on. If past elections provide a window into the current one, then you can expect a lot of this is going on:

http://www.empowertexans.com/around...-in-texas-history-underway-in-tarrant-county/

And so it begins.... the Republicans have the dirtiest ground game around, they will rig whatever they can get their pudgy little facist hands on. If past elections provide a window into the current one, then you can expect a lot of this is going on:

 

[Danoff]

Man that's funny. Any mention of Hillary in the context of the election is assumed a vote for her. Great image.

Also, it's like those waterproof/microwave iphone videos. If you can convince Hillary supporters that their tweets constitute a vote maybe they won't bother showing up. Man this election is just non-stop entertainment.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Ah sorry, I thought you were talking about Trump generally with this



If not then no problem.

In any case my point stands that when he says voter fraud he really means voter fraud - at least some of the time, anyway..........

I'm sure he does, as I put in my post in response to you I make it apparent he uses it correctly from time to time, does that mean he actually knows what it means on a consistent basis...perhaps not when you read into what he's actually prescribing to.

 

[McLaren]

Came across this today. A nice insight in Hillary's practice if true.

It's definitely interesting that someone here claims Assange is trying to influence the outcome of the election and that's bad, but completely ignores video of folks on Hillarys side doing the same.

 

[DDastardly00]

Reality check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Bad choice of words, I should've used Neo-Marxist Progressive instead (because that's so much better.....yeah no..). Hillary Clinton was heavily influenced by Alinsky who was a neo-Marxist and you can fact check that all you like.

 

[eran0004]

Bad choice of words, I should've used Neo-Marxist Progressive instead (because that's so much better.....yeah no..). Hillary Clinton was heavily influenced by Alinsky who was a neo-Marxist and you can fact check that all you like.

What parts of Hillary's policies would you say are neo-Marxist? And what makes them comparable to fascist dictatorship?

 

[DDastardly00]

What parts of Hillary's policies would you say are neo-Marxist? And what makes them comparable to fascist dictatorship?

What part of "bad choice of words" didn't you understand? Those two sentences are completely contradictory of each other. As for policies, you're going to have to be more specific than that, you're generalizing.

 

[eran0004]

What part of "bad choice of words" didn't you understand? Those two sentences are completely contradictory of each other. As for policies, you're going to have to be more specific than that, you're generalizing.

You said that her being neo-Marxist was no better than being a fascist. I'm asking you to explain what makes her comparable to people like Franco and Mussolini.

You should also explain what makes her a neo-Marxist. How does her neo-Marxism manifest itself? Does it show in her policy? If not, then where and how? What parts of Alinsky's work was she influenced by?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Hillary Clinton was heavily influenced by Alinsky who was a neo-Marxist and you can fact check that all you like.

Despite the fact that she split with his thinking on the fundamental basis of agitation... that's really a hallmark of neo-Marxism. She also found him "inconsistent", or so she wrote at the time.

Anyway, you could answer @eran0004's questions and that might give us a better view of your thinking

 

[Sanji Himura]

Despite the fact that she split with his thinking on the fundamental basis of agitation... that's really a hallmark of neo-Marxism. She also found him "inconsistent", or so she wrote at the time.

Anyway, you could answer @eran0004's questions and that might give us a better view of your thinking

Maybe if people would stop thinking Alinsky and start thinking Ayers, then this conversation would make a lot more sense. If you really want background into the comment's true intentions, people should read, "You Don't Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows" from The Weather Underground Organization.

 

[DDastardly00]

. I'm asking you to explain what makes her comparable to people like Franco and Mussolini.

Why would I do that, you seem to be missing that I agreed with your fact check and admitted it was a bad choice of words. This is getting redundant now.

You should also explain what makes her a neo-Marxist. How does her neo-Marxism manifest itself? Does it show in her policy? If not, then where and how? What parts of Alinsky's work was she influenced by?

If you are honestly interested in these answers (which I highly suspect you are not) Read her 92 page thesis on Saul Alinksy which can be found here: http://www.hillaryclintonquarterly.com/documents/HillaryClintonThesis.pdf

She is a liberal progressive that borrows elements from Marxism, For the record, I never said she was a Neo Marxist, I said and I quote, " Hillary Clinton was heavily influenced by Alinsky who was a Neo-Marxist" which is clearly not the same thing. Hillary mostly agreed but she also disagreed with Saul Alinksy that some of his guerilla tactics could not be replicated. One main point of contention was Saul's anti-establishment views; Hillary believed that progressive change should come within the establishment rather than rising up against it.

 

[huskeR32]

If you are honestly interested in these answers (which I highly suspect you are not) Read her 92 page thesis on Saul Alinksy

It's pretty irritating watching you try and do everyone else's thinking for them.

For the record, I never said she was a Neo Marxist, I said and I quote, " Hillary Clinton was heavily influenced by Alinsky who was a Neo-Marxist" which is clearly not the same thing.

If you don't think she's a Neo-Marxist, then don't strongly compare her to one.

If you do think she's a Neo-Marxist, then say it outright.

That way, you won't need to make silly disclaimers and twist around in your pile of insinuations, searching for the "what I actually said was..." shield.

As for that thesis, it reads much like what its title clearly states that it is: an analysis of Alinsky, not necessarily an endorsement of him.

As such, @eran0004's question remains unanswered: What, if any, Neo-Marxist policies has Clinton proposed? Voted for? Spoken in favor of?

 

[Dotini]

IMO Hillary, "the last true hawk", is more linked to Marxism through the chain of anti-Stalinists, Trotskyites, Scoop Jackson Democrats and now the ruling neocons, or neoconservatives, than she is linked through neo-marxists.

Most pertinently, her foreign policy staff advisors are heavily loaded with neocons, and she has shown her colors in the invasion of Iraq, serial regime changes and attempts to impose democracy in the middle east. Some may call her policy that of permanent revolution or permanent war, a concept traced back through Marx to Napoleon. Instructively, there are many neocons in the Obama administration, i.e., Victoria Nuland, architect of the revolution in Ukraine. And some have attached themselves to Trump. They are a real force, thoroughly embedded in our politics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/25/robert-kagan-and-other-neocons-back-hillary-clinton/
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/10/ano...ervative_and_the_candidate_of_the_status_quo/
http://original.antiwar.com/jp-sottile/2016/08/08/whats-a-neocon-to-do/

 

[mustafur]

It's like every conspiracy you know about Clinton is not as bad as what she actually does.
http://www.salon.com/2016/10/11/lea...allies-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-supported-isis/

 

[Touring Mars]

For a racist, misogynistic, xenophobic bigot like Trump, it must be rather galling to have to send his trophy wife out to defend him in public in a prime-time news interview, where she inadvertently mangles her words and says that Trump's words were "unappropriate" (Did you mean: inappropriate) and that she "expects" (oops... pause) "accepts" his apology. Jesus wept.

 

[DDastardly00]

It's pretty irritating watching you try and do everyone else's thinking for them.

So you are irritated that I highly suspect a member is wasting my time and isn't interested in what I have to say anyway (unless it fits with their agenda), sorry but my care meter is registering an absolute ZERO.

If you don't think she's a Neo-Marxist, then don't strongly compare her to one.

If you do think she's a Neo-Marxist, then say it outright.

That way, you won't need to make silly disclaimers and twist around in your pile of insinuations, searching for the "what I actually said was..." shield.

So quoting my own post and pointing out that my words are being twisted is a "silly disclaimer" in your book, okay, got it, I don't agree with you, but it has been noted. Again for the last time (I will not revisit this), I said she was influenced by a Neo-Marxist, which is very clearly not the same thing as saying: You know that Hillary? She is a Neo-Marxist.

Here is the link the letter that Hillary wrote to Saul Alinksy commenting on her dream for a free and open society, comments on how Left wing politicos are finally taking his lessons on organizing very seriously, tactics which her campaign and modern day progressives still use:

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/...ton-saul-alinsky-marxist-community-organizer/

But here's the thing, Hillary Clinton is nothing like the actual Saul Alinksy, as in the person he was, the causes he championed and so on; she is far too much of an Elitist for that. Saul Alinksy once said about the have-nots "they are my kind people". I can't envision Hillary ever saying the same thing and meaning it. But if you want to see the influence of Saul Alinksy, just look at the way she has run her campaign, did you even bother to watch the Foval video? You probably won't bother, but here is the link anyway.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ganizations_to_beat_up_trump_supporters.html?

That's classic Saul Alinksy. From Rules for Radicals: "Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic)."

These same tactics were used at Trump rallies to incite violence to make the general public sympathize with the Democratic party and candidates and the Foval video proves it. Scott Foval was just fired from the campaign, other heads will roll soon. The best part was when they blamed the Bernie camp for these Hilllary-hired goons, I mean instigators. And it was all genius up until they got caught.

 

[Joel]

Man that's funny. Any mention of Hillary in the context of the election is assumed a vote for her. Great image.

Also, it's like those waterproof/microwave iphone videos. If you can convince Hillary supporters that their tweets constitute a vote maybe they won't bother showing up. Man this election is just non-stop entertainment.

Somewhat similar trolling went on yesterday:


Drudge report and Rush Limbaugh (and the Ohio Secretary of State) took the bait. The USPS twitter feed all day was them responding to people that they've concluded it's a joke and the guy doesn't work at the post office

Rush Limbaugh on his radio show responded to the tweet with...

“If a postal worker went on social media, don't care whether it was Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit, you name it, and was bragging about destroying Hillary absentee ballots, do you think they'd be trying to hunt this guy down and put him in jail with the guy who made the video that started Benghazi?” Limbaugh said. “They wouldn't be stopping. They'd find this guy, they'd hunt him down, give him to Marilyn Mosby and say, 'Have at him.' Charge him here, charge him there, put him in the back of a Baltimore police van and let's see what he looks like when he comes out. Whatever it takes. They would be unearthing everything to find out who this guy is. What Trump is talking about with rigged election is without doubt completely in the tank for Hillary media, which isn't media, again, and it's not even journalism anymore.”

 

[Dotini]

Politics is an extension of war. Anything and everything is justified in order to win. Example, the 1960 election voter fraud in Texas and Illinois which stole the election for Kennedy.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2000/10/was_nixon_robbed.html

 

[Dotini]

It's like every conspiracy you know about Clinton is not as bad as what she actually does.
http://www.salon.com/2016/10/11/lea...allies-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-supported-isis/

Good find. You can now certainly tie the many thousands dead and millions displaced (to Europe, etc) to the policy of regime change and revolution practiced by HRC and the neocons at the US State Department.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Politics is an extension of war. Anything and everything is justified in order to win. Example, the 1960 election voter fraud in Texas and Illinois which stole the election for Kennedy.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2000/10/was_nixon_robbed.html

Or nearly stole it for Nixon, when you consider the overcount of his votes that was uncovered in the investigations demanded by the 'Pubs