[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

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...

Now this is how you help watch the world burn, beautiful.

 

[DK]

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.

The funniest thing about Melania's attempted defence was her saying that Trump was "led on" by the rest of the guys on the bus.

You'd think le alpha males like what Trump is depicted as by his acolytes don't get "led on" in the first place!

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The funniest thing about Melania's attempted defence was her saying that Trump was "led on" by the rest of the guys on the bus.

You'd think le alpha males like what Trump is depicted as by his acolytes don't get "led on" in the first place!

They were baiting out his inner alpha, he didn't want to put them to shame that day.

 

[ryzno]

Welp, early voting started Monday in Georgia. I'm off tomorrow and I'm going to vote.

Good luck America.

 

[McLaren]

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.

Take a good guess who has done the same thing.

In an interview with NBC News, she blamed “this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."

“He is kind. He is friendly,” she said. “I love and believe my husband.”

 

[Biggles]

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?

The answer eran0004 is that Mr. Dastardly has no idea. He has implied HRC is alternatively either a fascist ... or a neo-Marxist - terms he doesn't really seem to understand. And then we get a link to another imbecilic alt-right website with another load of nonsense about Clinton.

Realistically: Hillary Clinton, like many thinking young people in the 1960's read & was influenced by Marxist & other left wing writing. As she grew older & became involved with Bill Clinton & the down & dirty of US politics her youthful idealism gradually faded & the pursuit of power went from being a means to an end, to more of an end in itself. It's a very familiar story.

It's pretty clear to anyone not irredeemably brainwashed by ridiculous right-wing websites that HRC is not a "Communist" (as some of the commentators on "Political Insider" insist), not even much of a "liberal progressive" but a centrist, with strong ties to moderate Democratic policy positions, cosy enough with Wall Street & the banking industry to earn big speaking fees, & moderately hawkish views on foreign policy.

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/

No, not really. That's just about exactly what I would expect & nothing like the "conspiracy theories". The US government under every single President has engaged in similar attempts to interfere in the domestic affairs of foreign countries. Attempts at "regime change" have been a constant: the overthrow of the Iranian government of Mohammed Mosadeq, the Bay of Pigs & decades of interference in Cuba, the Vietnam War; the overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile, the invasion of Grenada; arming & supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan; arming & supporting right-wing rebels in Nicaragua & Central America, arming & supporting Saddam Hussein against the Iranians, arming & supporting forces in Afghanistan fighting the mujahideen, a full-scale invasion of Iraq to throw out Saddam Hussein.

... and that's just scratching the surface.

I would not trust HRC to avoid more meddling in the Middle East, meddling which rarely seems to result in obviously positive outcomes, but I would rather have her in charge than an egotistical, narcissistic, thin-skinned quasi-fascist who has no foreign policy experience but still feels entitled to state: “I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me.” & believes a good solution would be to "bomb the **** out of them". With an attitude like that ... what could possibly go wrong?

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Jill Stein wieghs in.



We need to be working with the Russians, not picking a fight with them.

What the hell does any American care if Assad stays in charge?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

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.

It's also interesting that someone here thinks that it's entirely reasonable for a person to view a video posted at 1:31am and to have commented on it by 4:14am, or else be criticised for not watching it.

 

[McLaren]

It's also interesting that someone here thinks that it's entirely reasonable for a person to view a video posted at 1:31am and to have commented on it by 4:14am, or else be criticised for not watching it.

Whether you watch it or not is irrelevant; you've proven yourself guilty of finding situations acceptable for 1 side, but not the other.

Let's also ignore the fact I posted that same video in response to you in relation to someone trying to influence the outcome just a couple days ago in the Wikileaks thread; you posted a few times in it afterwards, but chose not address my post. You've had more than 3 hours to respond to that video, you just choose to ignore it per usual bc it points out your hypocrisy.

 

[DDastardly00]

@Biggles

I understand both terms just fine, and I only linked the political insider because it had copies of the actual letters from Saul Alinsky and Hillary Clinton. . I didn't bother reading the article (if you did then kudos for making it to the comments section, I would not have bothered). The letters themselves offer a window of insight in HRC's thought process in her college days, that is why they are interesting Furthermore the Alinksy influence is undeniable, even now. The other link in that post is from Real Clear Politics, definitely not a right wing news organization. What Hillary's campaign did, inciting violence at Trump rallies is truly deplorable (no pun intended) and completely contrary to the principle of free and fair elections. The collusion with Media organizations, having story drafts on Clinton pre-approved by the campaign before the stories came out is repugnant, a step towards state run media'.

Realistically: Hillary Clinton, like many thinking young people in the 1960's read & was influenced by Marxist & other left wing writing. As she grew older & became involved with Bill Clinton & the down & dirty of US politics her youthful idealism gradually faded & the pursuit of power went from being a means to an end, to more of an end in itself. It's a very familiar story.

It's pretty clear to anyone not irredeemably brainwashed by ridiculous right-wing websites that HRC is not a "Communist" (as some of the commentators on "Political Insider" insist), not even much of a "liberal progressive" but a centrist, with strong ties to moderate Democratic policy positions, cosy enough with Wall Street & the banking industry to earn big speaking fees, & moderately hawkish views on foreign policy.

In reality, Hillary Clinton and Rapist Bill are a corrupt opportunists above all else, that is evident by their numerous scandals and their innate inability to keep them quiet. If they are centrists then that is just window dressing and talking points to further their goals of obtaining more power by winning elections. Also, if you have been following the Podesta emails, there is nothing moderate about her foreign policy, but you got hawkish part right. Based on her record, one could very easily make the argument that Hillary really is just a Neocon in sheep's clothing.

With Hillary I'm sure we'll have 4 more wonderful years of war(s) when the current debt is 19.4 Trillion Dollars, wars we can't afford, which is just going to be lovely. But hey, who's counting.

 

[Robin]

We need to be working with the Russians, not picking a fight with them.

We are doing a fine job at making friends with the Russian's at the moment with Boris Johnson using every opportunity to say they are war criminals.

 

[CodeRedR51]

We seem to be able to hitch a ride with them to the space station with no issues...

 

[Robin]

We seem to be able to hitch a ride with them to the space station with no issues...

That's why space cooperation is a great example of how humanity can work together... than is until we find Oil on the moon or something

 

[samurai8juice]

I think we should seance James Madison, Ben Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Jefferson for their opinions.

Jill Stein wieghs in.

We need to be working with the Russians, not picking a fight with them.

What the hell does any American care if Assad stays in charge?

Well, from Hillary's point of view, clean energy is the way to go (I know you said nothing about energy, but it ties into Russia and Assad).

Clean energy means that we don't have to depend on the Middle East for oil, which means all the power that they currently possess is completely weakened. On top of that, if Hillary is somehow able to topple ISIS quickly and without troop deployment, than the Middle East is pretty much finished off. But, bringing down ISIS leaves potential for Assad to (potentially) start taking territory there, and with Russia's support, would be unstoppable. So toppling Assad would have to happen around the same time ISIS is toppled. But Russia stands between us and them, so we will probably end up confronting Russia. But chances are, Russia backs down (as shown by the numerous events in the Cold War), and we eventually bring down Assad, and the Middle-East-Hegemony scheme is completed.

Russia has a monopoly on Natural Gas in Eastern Europe and Germany, so clean energy will not just help us, it will help Europe, as they won't need to depend on Russia as much anymore. So potentially Russia's economy is severely damaged, and Russian 21st Century resurgence is brought to an abrupt end. Oil prices may have a steep drop around the world as well.

But to answer your question, no American really wants to take down Assad, because it doesn't affect us directly in any way, at least for now.

And I have no clue if anything that I just said makes any sense, but Hillary's attitudes towards Russia and the Middle East definitely makes it possible, but I doubt that clean energy will develop that quickly under Hillary, but you never know. Anything's possible with Government money.

That said, I still don't support either Hillary or Trump.

 

[Biggles]

Jill Stein wieghs in.



We need to be working with the Russians, not picking a fight with them.

What the hell does any American care if Assad stays in charge?

So you're throwing your support behind the Greens? Good for you Crunch! 👍

Well, from Hillary's point of view, clean energy is the way to go (I know you said nothing about energy, but it ties into Russia and Assad).

Clean energy means that we don't have to depend on the Middle East for oil, which means all the power that they currently possess is completely weakened. On top of that, if Hillary is somehow able to topple ISIS quickly and without troop deployment, than the Middle East is pretty much finished off. But, bringing down ISIS leaves potential for Assad to (potentially) start taking territory there, and with Russia's support, would be unstoppable. So toppling Assad would have to happen around the same time ISIS is toppled. But Russia stands between us and them, so we will probably end up confronting Russia. But chances are, Russia backs down (as shown by the numerous events in the Cold War), and we eventually bring down Assad, and the Middle-East-Hegemony scheme is completed.

Russia has a monopoly on Natural Gas in Eastern Europe and Germany, so clean energy will not just help us, it will help Europe, as they won't need to depend on Russia as much anymore. So potentially Russia's economy is severely damaged, and Russian 21st Century resurgence is brought to an abrupt end. Oil prices may have a steep drop around the world as well.
But to answer your question, no American really wants to take down Assad, because it doesn't affect us directly in any way, at least for now.

And I have no clue if anything that I just said makes any sense, but Hillary's attitudes towards Russia and the Middle East definitely makes it possible, but I doubt that clean energy will develop that quickly under Hillary, but you never know. Anything's possible with Government money.

That's some complex thinking there: Government money could be used to help develop clean energy resulting in reduced dependence on Middle East oil, diminished Russian power, less entanglement in overseas conflicts & ... can I throw in reducing the effects of climate change too? You sound like a regular liberal/progressive! 👍

That's both Crunch & Sumurai coming over to the good guys!

 

[Robin]

According to Twitter Hillary's outfit resembles anything from Doctor Evil, to Admiral Ackbar, to Kim Jong Un!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

you just choose to ignore it per usual

No, because I usually wake up in the morning with a dozen notifications from a dozen different threads, and I don't always reply to all of them.

 

[DDastardly00]

Once again Hillary is crushing Donald, he's marginally better than the last two but not nearly enough.

 

[Jahgee]

The fact that the only response I have to that debate is is a horrible sign

 

[Biggles]

Once again Hillary is crushing Donald, he's marginally better than the last two but not nearly enough.

Maybe, but he does do a great impression of Alec Baldwin.

 

[ukfan758]

Thankfully the moderator attempted to shut down any attempts of applause and cheering at this debate. The last two were ridiculous.

 

[McLaren]

No, because I usually wake up in the morning with a dozen notifications from a dozen different threads, and I don't always reply to all of them.

So we've gone from "I can't reply in 3 hours" to "I have too many notifications".

Your latest post after my reply was just 2 posts down from it, but I'm guessing you just "didn't see it." I'll help you out since you continued on your whole, "Assange is trying to influence the outcome" replying to @LMSCorvetteGT2.

2) To continue to support Assange's asylum claim and condone his actions in publishing the e-mails, which would therefore make them a foreign government openly trying to influence the outcome of the election.

Corruption that reveals the Saudi family has reportedly funded 20% of Hillary's campaign to become President, despite the fact a foreign countries are prohibited from influencing elections by funding candidates?

Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S. Please note, however, that "green card" holders (i.e., individuals lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S.) are not considered foreign nationals and, as a result, may contribute. For additional information, consult our "Foreign Nationals" brochure.

According to the Federal Election Commission, political candidates are not allowed to receive campaign donations from foreign nationals. Foreign nationals include: foreign governments, political parties, corporations, associations, partnerships, persons with foreign citizenship, and non-permanent resident immigrants. Permanent residents, or "green card" holders, may donate to political candidates.

Seems pretty much the same by your logic. Maybe 1 step further will do it.

Scott Foval was immediately removed following this video, but it's clear as day; Foval admits in the video he is linked to the DNC & Hillary's campaign team. The video reveals that not only does his group pay people to actively disrupt Trump rallies, but coordinate and train them how to do so. People in the video gleefully admitting, "Yeah, that was us!" Foval admits that they even pay homeless people to do whatever they want in exchange for dinner & a shower. There is a point where Foval says they have a double blind so the campaign/DNC can deny they knew anything about it. At another, he says they have a tactic called Birdogging to disrupt rallies; an e-mail leaked shows a Hillary's campaign manager suggests it might be a tactic to employ to gain support from Hispanics.

Once again, you point out 1 side as unacceptable, but conveniently somehow miss that the opposing side is just as guilty. What's more is that your claims are nothing but assumption against Ecudaor/Assange that you deem as "influencing", whilst there's a lot more evidence linked to the Dems doing the same.

Assange's e-mails are bringing forth the wrong doings of our current government, but you seem more worried about what he's doing, rather than what he's revealing.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Get ready for the onslaught of news reports about Trump not accepting a loss. Power has always been passed from administration to administration without violence. That is part of the miracle of America. It is a constitutional crises!

Does the name Al Gore ring a bell? He thought he was screwed over and he acted on it.

But when Trump leaves the door open for doing the same thing, he is instigating a civil war.

 

[TenEightyOne]

But when Trump leaves the door open for doing the same thing, he is instigating a civil war.

It's all a bit schoolboy... he whinged in 2012 that the election was rigged, he's doing the same in 2016. At the very least it's simple bad grace, at the worst he's readily engaging with a system of democracy that he just doesn't believe in.

He even used to tweet that the Emmys were rigged if he didn't win one.... Mommy! It's not fair!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So we've gone from "I can't reply in 3 hours" to "I have too many notifications".

No, we've gone from "I can't reply to Member X when I'm asleep" to "I don't reply to every notification, including one from Member Y". Do you see the difference?

 

[Liquid]

He even used to tweet that the Emmys were rigged if he didn't win one.... Mommy! It's not fair!

He went as petulant as pretty much saying "The Emmys are rigged, who cares about them.... but The Apprentice definitely should have won one!"

Y'know, you either want one or you don't. His thin skin is the standout for me. Amongst everything else going on, and there are a lot of things going on on both sides as we all know, the fact that he cannot let any little insult lie and has to make a big show of how he is the smartest person in the room and already knows all the answers and has this narcissistic desire to show off how healthy, sexy and attractive he is, is gobsmacking.

It's a really hard sell even before you get to his hypocrisy. All the time he has focused on stuff like the could have been much, much better spent. I hate to refer to a macro I saw but this is someone who claims he has the fortitude to tackle things like ISIS but can't stand a comedy sketch about him. Like... just let it go, there are more important things to bother about.

 

[Robin]

Thankfully the moderator attempted shut down any attempts of applause and cheering at this debate. The last two were ridiculous.

He did a great job both reigning them and the audience in. The previous hosts let the place descend into chaos. I think they didn't realise how stern they needed to be with such decisive candidates.

 

[Pillo-san]

I thought that Trump Owned Hillary but it seems I am wrong? Even Hillary thought so I think, I mean it looked as if she wanted to cry. I thought that she would faint or something.

But shiaaat, I love American Politics. But it has destroyed my "diurnal rhythm", I mean I must stay up and watch all that post talk and ****, but it is worth it

 

[TenEightyOne]

I thought that Trump Owned Hillary but it seems I am wrong?

The debate you watched must have been different from the one I watched...

 

[ryzno]

So now the hot line of the week is Donald not saying he will accept the results of the election.
After what happened to Mr. Sanders and the leaked emails, I wouldn't trust it either.
They also forgot about Mr. Gore questioning the election. But hey if the Democrats do it, it's okay right?

Oh and we can't forget the hambre line. They must be some hungry hombre's.