[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

The party nominees are named. Now who do you support?

  • Total voters
    278
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.


Part 3 from Veritas, this one reporting that the Donald Duck costumes seen at Trump events are linked to Hillary directly. It claims that the idea of a mascot following Trump was thought up by another party, and originally proposed as Uncle Sam saying, "Release your tax returns". Word got to Hillary about using Donald Duck instead who "loooved it", and Creamer says, if that's what the future president wants, that's what she'll get ("Don't repeat that to anybody"). At first, the DNC originally takes credit, but Donna Brazille runs into trademark issues with ABC, who is owned by Disney. So, Creamer's group takes credit (he even accepts a lawsuit from Disney). A DNC employee however, says they still have say over the idea.

The big, "juicy" detail of the video is the claim that all this involvement directly with Hillary violates Federal Election Commission rules.
 
Speaking of rigged elections:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-dnc-co-chairman-firmly-hillarys-corner-2015/

Wikilinks link to email

One of the emails to Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta disclosed byWikiLeaks was sent by Democratic National Committee co-chairman Frank White on August 24, 2015, assuring Podesta that White and his wife, Sylvia, were “firmly in Hillary’s corner, and happy to help communicate how passionate Obama bundlers like us are about making sure Hillary is President in 2016.” This email may be taken as further evidence the Democratic primary was “rigged” in Clinton’s favor, to use the popular term of the moment. It also offers a flashback to the days when Clinton supporters were nervous about the possibility of Vice President Joe Biden tossing his hat into the ring and blowing a gasket on the Democrat money machine:
Click to expand...

Turns out Donna Brazile may not have been chosen for her resume or skillset, but maybe more of a token.

The black is obvious super critical. Im hearing the same complaint in political circles that i continue to hear while fundraising. "The campaign doesnt value black folks and takes us for granted". Can I make a suggestion? A black campaign vice chair or Sr advisor would go a long way during the primary and send the message that, Hillary puts her actions where her mouth is, and actually does appreciate the black vote.
Click to expand...

 
Johnnypenso
Turns out Donna Brazile may not have been chosen for her resume or skillset, but maybe more of a token.
Click to expand...
Donna Brazile does a fine enough job proving that, just by the way she addresses controversy by either deflecting, or claiming WikiLeaks doctored her e-mails and she has the real ones. IIRC, she would release them later on, at best. WikiLeaks had made a few Tweets saying she & another man are the next to have their batch of e-mails due for release, that will prove she is lying.
 
prisonermonkeys
I wonder what Trump would qualify as a success ...
Click to expand...
A success would be actually liberating Mosul with a minimum of civilian casualties. But that difficult sounding task might have to wait in order to fight off counterattacks in far-afield locales.


http://news.antiwar.com/2016/10/24/isis-launches-growing-counterattacks-as-offensive-nears-mosul/
As Iraqi and Kurdish forces overrun empty villages on the outskirts of Mosul, drawing ever closer to ISIS’ largest city, the Islamists look to be launching a growing number of counterattacks against different areas around the country, trying to force some of the invading force to redeploy for defensive operations.

iraq1.jpg
The counterattacks began Friday with surprising moves by ISIS forces against the area around Kirkuk. Since then, attacks have also been reported in Rutba, along the key highway from Baghdad leading east into Jordan and Syria, and in Sinjar, the Yazidi city west of Mosul.

This has been ISIS’ reaction to attacks in the past, trying to force the other side to divide its forces and engage in more advantageous fights from their perspective. The three targets so far are notably in three different directions, with Sinjar and Kirkuk clearly aimed at distracting the Kurdish Peshmerga.

Most believe it will be another week or more until troops are actually ready to enter Mosul itself, and the counterattacks are likely to continue to escalate through that time, with Iraq’s security forces pushed to their limits trying to sustain such a large offensive.
 
Dotini
A success would be actually liberating Mosul with a minimum of civilian casualties.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen anything to suggest that therr have already been unacceptable numbers of civilian casualties. Rather, Trump's problem seems to be that the coalition telegraphed the attack on Mosul, which is broken logic to me; if you're going to drive ISIS out of Iraq, there's always going to be one place that they remain before they're completely out.
 
prisonermonkeys
I if you're going to drive ISIS out of Iraq...
Click to expand...
ISIS is synonymous with unhappy Sunnis. Therefore, they will NEVER be out of Iraq. The place is an intractable mess. We're supposed be out altogether -but we have ~6000 troops on the ground with no authorization from congress, and some are getting killed. What a hole. :grumpy:
 
Dotini
ISIS is synonymous with unhappy Sunnis. Therefore, they will NEVER be out of Iraq.
Click to expand...
I think that's far too big a generalisation to be making. You're implying that any Sunni who is mildly discontent is automatically a part of a radical ideology.
 
BobK
Not to be confused with Hillary actually accepting foreign donations.
Click to expand...

The Clinton Foundation and Hillary For America are not the same thing. Do you have any corroboration that the former is illegally funneling money to the latter?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DK
huskeR32
The Clinton Foundation and Hillary For America are not the same thing. Do you have any corroboration that the former is illegally funneling money to the latter?
Click to expand...

O... M... G....

Yup, the Clinton Foundation is an unimpeachable lock box of perfection. Noteworthy for its slavish attention to detail regarding any notion of impropriety. That's why there's never any talk of scandal.
 
huskeR32
The Clinton Foundation and Hillary For America are not the same thing. Do you have any corroboration that the former is illegally funneling money to the latter?
Click to expand...

Accept for that time when the Clinton Foundation and the office Clinton held weren't suppose to intermingle and did...like I appreciate you standing up for some of the asinine rhetoric I've seen you argue from right wingers/trump supporters. But don't match said asinine rhetoric because of your rose tint for Hillary.
 
Danoff
O... M... G....

Yup, the Clinton Foundation is an unimpeachable lock box of perfection. Noteworthy for its slavish attention to detail regarding any notion of impropriety. That's why there's never any talk of scandal.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the problem. The "The Clintons are bad, m'kay" narrative is now so widely accepted that, despite the fact at most of their "scandals" have never moved past the realm of conspiracy theory and innuendo, we're all supposed to just accept accusations against them as true by default.

Talk of scandal does not equal real scandal. I don't care how much someone is disliked, accusations still need to be proven.
 
I take the polls with a grain of salt.
I'll quote a guy I heard on the radio, "Where are they getting these numbers from, I've voted for almost 40 years and never been contacted by a single polling agency.

I finally got the opportunity to go vote. There was about 15 other offices and about 10 bills up for vote. This was in my saved draft from yesterday, I'll add a pick later with my sticker.
huskeR32
This is exactly the problem. The "The Clintons are bad, m'kay" narrative is now so widely accepted that, despite the fact at most of their "scandals" have never moved past the realm of conspiracy theory and innuendo, we're all supposed to just accept accusations against them as true by default.

Talk of scandal does not equal real scandal. I don't care how much someone is disliked, accusations still need to be proven.
Click to expand...
The reason nothing came from the allegations or charges being filed. Is cause the FBI and DOJ said nothing was criminal at the same time saying some things were. But of course any reasonable prosecutor would not file anything if they know what's good for them.
 
huskeR32
This is exactly the problem. The "The Clintons are bad, m'kay" narrative is now so widely accepted that, despite the fact at most of their "scandals" have never moved past the realm of conspiracy theory and innuendo, we're all supposed to just accept accusations against them as true by default.

Talk of scandal does not equal real scandal. I don't care how much someone is disliked, accusations still need to be proven.
Click to expand...

Well.. when I say "talk of scandal" I'm really referring to reactions to emails released by wikileaks. When you say "proven" do you mean she needs to be convicted of a crime? She's slippery, the Clintons are. That's why they attempted to bribe the FBI to reclassify the emails that she deleted. I don't know how they get away with it. Scandal after scandal, they seem to get off the hook. They got started early with Whitewater and never quit.
 
huskeR32
This is exactly the problem. The "The Clintons are bad, m'kay" narrative is now so widely accepted that, despite the fact at most of their "scandals" have never moved past the realm of conspiracy theory and innuendo, we're all supposed to just accept accusations against them as true by default.

Talk of scandal does not equal real scandal. I don't care how much someone is disliked, accusations still need to be proven.
Click to expand...

Okay I have some time before I have to get back to work.

  • Vince Foster can be claimed as innuendo/paranoia/conspiracy. Though two to the back of the head is only done by the best of suicides by handgun.
  • Travel-gate, people were actually fired for talking about the inter working of money allocations and questioning misappropriation. Clinton was later found to have lied (surprise) about statements made, the conclusion similar to the recent FBI investigation is that while she lied, it wasn't enough to tie her in with actually being the central reason for firing and hiring of Clinton friends. However, there is enough on this one for the public to see smoke where a fire was.
  • Paula Jones, while you claimed that no evidence proved Clinton, it's hard when damages are settled out of court, that usually spells a few things for both parties none of which are good. The part of if Hillary actually covered for her husband is suggestive and while there is argument to this, I'd file it under innuendo for Hillary. I think Bill did something damaging enough that if it had gone all the way he'd be less of the person we know today, does that mean he went all out and harassed her, perhaps not, but there is something to the claim that justified not wanting it to go to court and paying the accuser out of court.
  • Bosnia lies, which have been proven as lies, even though Hillary claims it was a misunderstanding or she'd forgotten that exact details to a story that for years she'd told the same way. Not sure how you can BS this as anything other. If so make sure you do the same for recent famous reporters that haven't gotten the same sympathy for proven lies.
  • Monica Lewinsky...yeah this shouldn't have to be reiterated, Bill did it, Hillary vehemently claimed nope, right wingers made it up. And guess what Bill did it...was impeached.
  • White water, the land investment deal that went bust and was found to have done illegal things such as fraud, also saw Clinton nearly see trial for impeachment on this case. Was one of the central reasons the administration was seen as a misuse of power and circumvent of it's limits. And while Clinton wasn't charged, I always find it ironic that he did pardon some of the key figures in relation to him and his wife in unison with the Rose Law firm finding.
This is just the 90s and I didn't even put in file gate, and this is before we even get into the modern scandals that have unfolded found validation that yes a Clinton lied, but the lie wasn't enough to prove a conviction. Yes Clinton knew she had tons of classified documents passing through her personal servers, and yes she lied about it, and yes the FBI did say she was grossly careless, but no not at all enough to convict. Thus why should we as voters be angry or not vote her in, and see her confidante rejoin her in the white house. Why shouldn't people at a minimum want four more years of this....

Or documents showing a pay to play scheme or potential problem between her seat within the State Department and the foundation she's co-chair on.

The problem is, you seem to imply that if not found 100% guilty there is no fire, as if Washington isn't a host to political corruption or at least not nearly to the extent we think it. That's the failure I see within your defense, I mean ignore the fact that Clinton has been proven and caught in multiple lies over decades involving some heavy criminal acts, where friends of theirs were sent to prison, but never them. They just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, very many times over the course of their political careers.

Let's also not forget that the reason Hillary comes under the most fire, is her central role in these issues, going to bat and speaking on behalf of the President's administration in regard. Something that I'd say at that time was unheard of for a first lady, then further compounding the issue in a new decade as an actual politician with a new list of problems/scandals.

No, there's no reason at all people should be worried. Trumps BS is easy to put down on paper, but you actually have to read the BS the Clinton's have caused, and that's before we get into their actual politics. That to me is the most disturbing factor.
 
Last edited:
Dotini
I excel at truth flavored with simplicity and salt. Please add side dishes du jour.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes. "I'm just telling it like it is", the last - and flimsiest - resort of an insecure man trying to impose some kind of order upon a world that he's terrified of. So keep it up; you're only making it easier for the terrorists. The more you hate them, the more they'll use that to spread their ideology.

But hey, you're safe and secure in your own home; they couldn't possibly hurt you, could they?
 
prisonermonkeys
Ah, yes. "I'm just telling it like it is", the last - and flimsiest - resort of an insecure man trying to impose some kind of order upon a world that he's terrified of. So keep it up; you're only making it easier for the terrorists. The more you hate them, the more they'll use that to spread their ideology.

But hey, you're safe and secure in your own home; they couldn't possibly hurt you, could they?
Click to expand...
Because loving terrorists is a proven method of getting them to lay down their suicide vests and rocket launchers amiright?
 
Johnnypenso
Because loving terrorists is a proven method of getting them to lay down their suicide vests and rocket launchers amiright?
Click to expand...
Huh. See, I'm reading my post over and over and over and again, and do you know what strikes me as odd? Nowhere do I say that. So quite where you're getting it from is a mystery to me.

It's funny that you should accuse me of "loving terrorists", considering that you like what terrorists represent: a vague, amorphous, but nevertheless omnipresent threat whose existence means that you never have to critically examine your own choices, because so long as they exist, you can do whatever you want and never feel guilty about what you do because you'll never reach their level.

Comservatives could very well end the threat posed by terrorism. But instead, they only do enough to appear to be doing something about it because it's politically-convenient for them to have terrorists exist.
 
prisonermonkeys
Huh. See, I'm reading my post over and over and over and again, and do you know what strikes me as odd? Nowhere do I say that. So quite where you're getting it from is a mystery to me.

It's funny that you should accuse me of "loving terrorists", considering that you like what terrorists represent: a vague, amorphous, but nevertheless omnipresent threat whose existence means that you never have to critically examine your own choices, because so long as they exist, you can do whatever you want and never feel guilty about what you do because you'll never reach their level.
Click to expand...
Huh. See, I'm reading @Johnnypenso's post over and over and over and again, and do you know what strikes me as odd? Nowhere does he say that. So quite where you're getting it from is a mystery to me.
 
BobK
Huh. See, I'm reading @Johnnypenso's post over and over and over and again, and do you know what strikes me as odd? Nowhere does he say that. So quite where you're getting it from is a mystery to me.
Click to expand...
I know that you think you're being clever, but as a general rule, you're rarely half as clever as you think you are; case in point, the way that you interpreted my post simply points out how hollow his statement was despite your obvious intention of trying to throw it back in my face.
 
prisonermonkeys
I know that you think you're being clever, but as a general rule, you're rarely half as clever as you think you are; case in point, the way that you interpreted my post simply points out how hollow his statement was despite your obvious intention of trying to throw it back in my face.
Click to expand...
You're ducking the issue. Specifically, you're calling him out for putting words in your mouth then immediately put words in his.

But no. You'd rather launch yet another ad hominem.
 
prisonermonkeys
Ah, yes. "I'm just telling it like it is", the last - and flimsiest - resort of an insecure man trying to impose some kind of order upon a world that he's terrified of. So keep it up; you're only making it easier for the terrorists. The more you hate them, the more they'll use that to spread their ideology.

But hey, you're safe and secure in your own home; they couldn't possibly hurt you, could they?
Click to expand...

Uh, how about we stop instigating wars in countries in the middle east in an attempt to destabilize Russia's closest allies (Syria, Iran)? And while we're at it, we should stop bombing them too, I think that would make them hate us a lot less, how about you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

wfooshee
Electoral College: Discuss!
3 4 5
Replies
120
Views
7K
TheCracker
TheCracker
Sanji Himura
  • Poll
The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread
316 317 318
Replies
10K
Views
385K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Sanji Himura
The 2018 US Mid-Term Elections Thread
8 9 10
Replies
277
Views
11K
PocketZeven
PocketZeven
Sanji Himura
US Midterm Elections 2014
2 3 4
Replies
100
Views
3K
prisonermonkeys
prisonermonkeys
DK
US Congress Elections, 2016
Replies
1
Views
504
ryzno
ryzno

Latest Posts

Back