[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[Dotini]

Giuliani knew that the FBI were going to re-open the Clinton investigation days before it became public.

If you don't want to give CNN a click because "MAINSTREAM MEDIA GET OUT REEEEEEEE!", hear it straight from the horse's mouth:

This video is well worth watching. I have the full version, if anyone wants it.

 

[DDastardly00]

Surely if the insinuation (as I read it above) is that Clinton was involved in some kind of mid-air pedo-fest then, as it all happened within US jurisdiction, there would be a lot more made of it than has been?

By whom, the media? MSM is in Hillary's back pocket.

 

[Milouse]

Interesting article from Washington Post about Trump's voters profile:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...nd-journalists/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_2_na

 

[TenEightyOne]

By whom, the media? MSM is in Hillary's back pocket.

I was thinking more of law enforcement...

 

[DDastardly00]

Clinton is above the law unlike the rest of us underlings that have to abide by them.

 

[Milouse]

Clinton is above the law unlike the rest of us underlings that have to abide by them.

You are referring to what case(s) exactly?
Something that she would have done, and that one of "the rest of us" would have been jailed for?

 

[DDastardly00]

You are referring to what case(s) exactly?
Something that she would have done, and that one of "the rest of us" would have been jailed for?

We're not talking about Hillary, we're talking about Bill. And there is no case or cases. Though he has plenty of accuser that have gone on record, Bill has never been formerly charged with rape. Neither has Trump. We are mainly still discussing this fiction that exists about Trump that MSM won't even touch (unless you consider Huffpo MSM, I don't they are fringe).

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Looks like 50% of the voting public, or thereabouts, would prefer someone who doesn't pretend to be something they are not, even if they don't agree with everything he says, vs. a traditional style of politician who behaves one way in private and completely differently in public.

Do you mean 5%? Stein and Johnson are nowhere near getting 50.

Add them in and it might come to 55%

Alright, I'll bite.....do you really think Trump doesn't in any way pretend to be something he's not?

 

[Dotini]

You are referring to what case(s) exactly?
Something that she would have done, and that one of "the rest of us" would have been jailed for?

Chelsea Manning shared 20 classified memos with the media, and is in solitary confinement on suicide watch. Thousands of Hillary Clinton's top secret and/or classified State Department emails are on Anthony Weiner's laptop (and 5+ global intelligence agencies), and her unsecured server was administered by two administrators without a security clearance, and without encryption for months. Data was stored on two commercial firms with no security provisions.

Wikileaks 30




@ryzno The Giuliani interview is from 5:25 - 12:55, and the rest of it is pretty funny in parts.

 

[Milouse]

We are mainly still discussing this fiction that exists about Trump that MSM won't even touch (unless you consider Huffpo MSM, I don't they are fringe).

Ok. But i wonder why since @huskeR32 just give that exemple as an existing criminal case to answer on a factual point. We could close that discussion (for now) then

To give credits to the Huffington Post, that's one of their articles that pointed me toward an article that mostly discredit the claims.

 

[Joey D]

First off, Trump hasn't simply said racist things. As I pointed out he has insulted & belittled a whole variety of individuals & groups of people, even, somewhat bizarrely, POWs & the military, usually sacred cows of the Republican party. This is not a matter of opinion or interpretation, it's things he has publicly stated - it's on the record.

That makes him a jackass, not someone who is unfit to be president. Make no mistake, I think Trump is equally as bad as Clinton but to think Clinton is some sort of angel and Trump is literally Hitler is just being biased.

"Clinton failed as secretary of state" is not a statement of fact - it's an opinion. Failed compared to whom? It's like saying Trump failed as a businessman.

Yes, it's an opinion, but one that's backed up by Clinton's actions. Being the Secretary of State means being the President's chief adviser on foreign affairs and if you look at where we are now, it's clear she did not do a stellar job at it. Our relations with Russia are almost as bad as they were during the Cold War, the Middle East is more in shambles than when Bush went all 'Murica on it, North Korea is an ever growing issue, and she backed a nuclear deal with Iran that was questionable at best. The US isn't fairing so hot with other countries right now, and whether it's directly as a result of her actions or not, she is the one that's entrusted with that responsibility.

And no, Obama isn't fault free on this either, but given how the President's cabinet works, he was listening to Clinton on many of those issues.

And Trump failing as a businessman doesn't cause a conflict in the world, where Clinton failing as the SoS does.

"Clinton shown to have rigged the primaries". The DNC may have done its best to tilt the primaries in Clinton's favour - pretty much politics as usual. The system may be "rigged" because the DNC runs the system the way it sees fit. That's not the same thing as Clinton rigging the primaries.

Maybe she personally didn't rig it, but he camp certainly stacked the deck in her favor. All one has to do is look at any of the WikiLeaks documents to see that.

"Clinton got people killed in Libya by not doing her job". It was obviously a failure of the state department to properly anticipate the possibility of an attack & protect the US embassy personnel properly. Clinton shares some of the responsibility, but Clinton didn't "get people killed". If you're in a position in the US government that puts US personnel at risk there are going to be times where things go wrong - it's happened over & over again. Benghazi is insignificant compared to the debacle of the Iraq war that got thousands of US serviceman killed, or any number of other foreign policy disasters that resulted in the deaths of Americans.

It should have never happened in the first place, she repeatedly ignore requests to beef up security at embassies across the globe. And if it's a failure of the state department, then it's a failure on her shoulder since she runs that ship.

And while it was insignificant compared to the Iraq War, it doesn't excuse her actions. Leaders should be held accountable if their actions lead to the death of someone unnecessarily.

"Clinton misappropriates funds from her foundation". Actually, the Clinton Foundation has a pretty good record & has done a lot of good in the world. However, I don't doubt that the Clintons have benefited personally from it. It's the way things are.

WikiLeaks, which seems to be a pretty good source of truth, seems to disagree with that. They might have done some good, but it doesn't mean that funds weren't misappropriated.

I'm tired of appearing to defend HRC. It's not a question of her being a great candidate, it is, as Sam Harris articulates quite clearly, a question of Trump being much, much worse.

Then don't defend her. And I fail to see how Trump is any worse than Clinton, both are lack experience, knowledge, and trust of many of a Americans. Clinton is a lying, cheating, con artist and Trump is a loud mouth jackass with zero filter and only says things to appeal to some demographic. There are 31 candidates running for president this cycle, I'm sure you could find one that matches what you believe in. Even if they have no shot at winning, at least you can vote for someone you think is the right person for the job.

Regarding the Poll Attached to this Thread

If you previously voted for a (no chance to win) 3rd party candidate, but have since decided to actually participate in this election, please update your vote in this thread's poll.

I changed mine, but only because I couldn't bring myself to vote for Gary Johnson since he stopped actually being a Libertarian.

And it's a little condescending to suggest that casting a ballot for a third party candidate is not participating in the election. I went, stood in line for 45 minutes, and checked a bunch of boxes next to who I thought the best person was for the job...that's participation.

 

[Milouse]

@Dotini, unless "the rest of us" means "Secretary of States", that doesn't answer my question (in the hypothesis that the Clinton would have indeed been Hillary).

And i don't see how Chelsea Manning is linked to HRC, unless you're trying to make a fallacious comparison between an active act of treason (that could be a debate, but that not the point here) and a non-malevolent - security wise - questionable decision.
The Trump vote must really hurt the consciences for so many efforts to be devoted to make HRC that much worse than she already is (and it cost me to have to defend her).

 

[McLaren]

It's definitely not OK for the DNC or the RNC to try & rig the primaries, & the fact that one party does it does not excuse the other party. The RNC ended up with Trump in spite of its best efforts. The primary process is controlled by the parties - it's an important part of the democratic process in the US, but it's clearly not "neutral" & never has been ... but Clinton did not invent the system.

I'm assuming you have proof that the RNC has rigged primaries or tried to rig for another candidate instead of Trump? This is twice you've made the accusation that both parties do it, but so far, there's only strong evidence of the DNC through the e-mails.

Clinton may not have invented this "system", but her campaign manager slandering Bernie is not her just "taking advantage" of the DNC. She knows the DNC is supposed to remain neutral, but Podesta was more than happy to follow alongside the DNC tearing at Bernie's campaign. Her campaign becomes as corrupt as the DNC by choosing to partake in it.

I don't "find issue" with Cruz supporting Trump ... it's politics, it's a political calculation, but it is a bit "sad". I don't recall Hillary personally insulting Bernie Sanders or insulting his wife. Members of her campaign attacked him politically? Of course.

Where is there a political attack in Podesta calling Bernie a doofus, or figuratively speaking as, "beating him to a pulp" in the primary? Podesta's emails show a decent amount of aggression towards Bernie that appears to reveal a personal dislike of Sanders.

What Trump has said is on a completely different level - about women, about "the blacks', about Mexicans, Muslims, about Megyn Kelly, about Cruz's wife, about Rand Paul's appearance, Marco Rubio's stature - it goes on & on. I've been following politics a long time - I've never seen anything like it before ... ever.

Everyone here acknowledges Trump has said a lot of dumb things. Let me just refer to you back what Hillary said about half of Trump's supporters, though.

You know, just to be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call a basket of deplorables. Right? They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it.

Hillary at one point, branded a big chunk of America as a make up of multiple categories & then some, all in 1. Basically, she did what Trump is also branded as doing; insulting a group of people.

Basically, there's a lot of crap you've never seen before with this election like how these 2 even managed to come down to it.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I wasn't aware voting in a throwaway poll on a videogame forum is participating in a presidential election. Learn something new every day.

I'm sure that he wants the voting on this poll to reflect your vote in the polls, but you are right, this is a throwaway poll that shouldn't matter on how you actually voted.

The DNC rigged the primary, but it's ok because the RNC does it, too.

That's why the RNC ended up with Trump of all candidates?

The emails leaked flat out show immediate preference for her despite the fact the DNC is supposed to be neutral. Hillary would have raised hell on earth if she caught the DNC polling for Obama before a candidate was chosen.

You're right. The furthest the RNC went in actively stacking the deck is arranging when the primaries are by manipulating the number of delegates a specific state has or even recognizing a particular state's delegates becuase the candidate that won failed to win 8 or more states (as in the case of Ron Paul). But active manipulation by the Democrat party to see Hillary get elected is just mind boggling in today's politics.

WikiLeaks, which seems to be a pretty good source of truth, seems to disagree with that. They might have done some good, but it doesn't mean that funds weren't misappropriated.

Lest we forget all of the pay to play allegations. I'm certain that the money that was paid for Clinton's speeches by foreign governments ended up in her campaign through money laundering.

And i don't see how Chelsea Manning is linked to HRC, unless you're trying to make a fallacious comparison between an active act of treason (that could be a debate, but that not the point here) and a non-malevolent - security wise - questionable decision.

Please stop defending Hillary here. The comparison between the two is quite clear. Manning got diplomatic cables and sent them to Wikileaks while Hillary's server is just another layer in the process of getting government emails to Wikileaks. Suffice to say, she wants Assange to hang on both counts.

I'm assuming you have proof that the RNC has rigged primaries or tried to rig for another candidate instead of Trump? This is twice you've made the accusation that both parties do it, but so far, there's only strong evidence of the DNC through the e-mails.

See above.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

...it's a little condescending to suggest that casting a ballot for a third party candidate is not participating in the election.

Don't get so butt hurt.

My goal in that post was to get people who have changed their mind about the election, to reflect that in this thread's poll.

And, I do think voting for a third party candidate is copping out. "Look at me!, I vote my conscience!" (and nothing came of it.)

 

[Dotini]

One of my state's 12 electors says he will not vote for Clinton even she wins the popular vote in the state. He'd rather pay the $1000 fine.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/05/washington-state-elector-says-wont-vote-for-clinton.html
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...obert-satiacum-says-he-wont-vote-for-clinton/

Meanwhile, CBS news is warning of a 3 state al Qaeda terror attack on Monday.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sources-us-intel-warning-of-possible-al-qaeda-attacks-in-us-monday/

I personally expect some kind of cyber attack or communications disruption.

 

[Famine]

And, I do think voting for a third party candidate is copping out. "Look at me!, I vote my conscience!" (and nothing came of it.)

Whereas refusing to even consider it is just brain dead populism - people who think that only a vote for the winner counts, and if their candidate doesn't win at least they get to say "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos".

The USA had lurched from election to election with the two worst candidates so far each time, only to discover that there's two worse ones next time. Clinton and Trump are so awful that the best that even their supporters can say about either of them is that at least they aren't the other. It desperately needs a third party to get enough votes to qualify for the same level of funding and exposure for the next election, so that it's not faced with an almost wholly binary choice between two even worse candidates yet again.

 

[Dotini]

Whereas refusing to even consider it is just brain dead populism - people who think that only a vote for the winner counts, and if their candidate doesn't win at least they get to say "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos".

The USA had lurched from election to election with the two worst candidates so far each time, only to discover that there's two worse ones next time. Clinton and Trump are so awful that the best that even their supporters can say about either of them is that at least they aren't the other. It desperately needs a third party to get enough votes to qualify for the same level of funding and exposure for the next election, so that it's not faced with an almost wholly binary choice between two even worse candidates yet again.

Agreed, and that's why I've voted 3rd party for the past innumerable election cycles. Ros Perot came closest with 19% of the popular vote and zero electoral votes. Downhill for 3rd parties since then.

The main obstacle IMO is the congress. Very unpopular nationwide, yet its members keep getting reelected by their home constituencies. Lobbyists make them millionaires, and they enjoy cushy sinecures, and benefits for life. And Will Not Change the System.

If the current election does not shock the system into some kind of pervasive ongoing movement, revolution, reform or system reboot, I will be surprised disappointed.

 

[Dotini]

Surely if the insinuation (as I read it above) is that Clinton was involved in some kind of mid-air pedo-fest then, as it all happened within US jurisdiction, there would be a lot more made of it than has been?

Apparently Wikileaks 26 has caught Clinton campaign manager John Podesta using pedophile sex ring keywords in numerous emails.
http://yournewswire.com/wikileaks-pedophile-code-words-podesta/
As news emerges that FBI agents have uncovered a child sex ring connected to the Clinton Foundation, internet sleuths have discovered evidence of pedophile “code words” being used in emails from John Podesta released by WikiLeaks.

Numerous emails from the Chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign incongruously refer to food items such as pasta, cheese pizza, ice cream – which 4chan users say is a code language used by child sex ring participants:

“hotdog” = boy
“pizza” = girl
“cheese” = little girl
“pasta” = little boy
“ice cream” = male prostitute
“walnut” = person of colour
“map” = semen
“sauce” = orgy

Examples:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/19018

I consider ice cream, its purchase, and its consumption a rather serious business. We can’t just willy-nilly toss it out and about in casual references, especially linked with the word “free”.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/30613

Lo and behold, instead of pasta and wonderful sauces, it was a lovely, tempting assortment of cheeses, Yummy. I am awaiting the return of my children and grandchildren from their holiday travels so that we can demolish them.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/32795

Hi John, The realtor found a handkerchief (I think it has a map that seems pizza-related. Is it yours? They can send it if you want. I know you’re busy, so feel free not to respond if it’s not yours or you don’t want it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Apparently Wikileaks 26 has caught Clinton campaign manager John Podesta using pedophile sex ring keywords in numerous emails.

Interesting innuendos in otherwise-hard-to-explain email conversations. Irrelevant to "was Bill Clinton engaging in pedo-parties on a US jet in US airspace?".

 

[Scaff]

Interesting innuendos in otherwise-hard-to-explain email conversations. Irrelevant to "was Bill Clinton engaging in pedo-parties on a US jet in US airspace?".

Well they are until you bother to follow the links and read the entire email chain.

At which point the quote mining and total removal from context becomes rather clear.

That the source appears to be of the standard quality that @Dotini seems to be favouring undermines the credibility even further.

 

[Dotini]

Well they are until you bother to follow the links and read the entire email chain.

At which point the quote mining and total removal from context becomes rather clear.

That the source appears to be of the standard quality that @Dotini seems to be favouring undermines the credibility even further.

Agreed that mainstream media sources are few and far between, and I wish I could use them. Perhaps in the not too distant future the FBI will formally indict figures in the Clinton entourage, and then MSM coverage will be inescapable. Until then, we are caught in a web of leaks and propaganda from all players, high to low.

Edit:
There is a war going on inside our government, and our nation at large, over the best way to handle this thing.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/giuliani-theres-revolution-going-inside-180649770.html

 

[Milouse]

Could a moderator rename this thread "The Conspiracy Thread"?

---------------------------------

That makes him a jackass, not someone who is unfit to be president.

Hmmm... okay.

Please stop defending Hillary here. The comparison between the two is quite clear. Manning got diplomatic cables and sent them to Wikileaks while Hillary's server is just another layer in the process of getting government emails to Wikileaks. Suffice to say, she wants Assange to hang on both counts.

Sure. There is no Hillary's email Server, it's a Clinton email server, initially used by Bill's staff. She didn't use it for her own email during the first year (she was using a blackberry.net email instead).
How can you seriously think that HRC private server usage is an intention to being hacked in order to secretly provide informations to wikileaks. Do you genuinely believe this?

 

[Scaff]

Agreed that mainstream media sources are few and far between, and I wish I could use them. Perhaps in the not too distant future the FBI will formally indict figures in the Clinton entourage, and then MSM coverage will be inescapable. Until then, we are caught in a web of leaks and propaganda from all players, high to low.

Edit:
There is a war going on inside our government, and our nation at large, over the best way to handle this thing.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/giuliani-theres-revolution-going-inside-180649770.html

Few and far between?

That's a generous way of saying none at all.

It's a claim that is utter unsupported by the evidence in anyway or form, and akin to claiming that the Walmart website is a peadophile shopping site if you are willing to take it out of context and make **** up.

Oh and Rudi is a non partisan unbiased source these days?

 

[TRGTspecialist]

And, I do think voting for a third party candidate is copping out. "Look at me!, I vote my conscience!" (and nothing came of it.)

Yeah, gotta hate those attention grabbers, like the ones that go "Look at me! I'm clever for telling people they didn't take part in the election even though they voted!"

The fact that nothing comes of people voting third-party isn't because of them, it's because of attitudes like yours.

 

[Joey D]

Don't get so butt hurt.

My goal in that post was to get people who have changed their mind about the election, to reflect that in this thread's poll.

And, I do think voting for a third party candidate is copping out. "Look at me!, I vote my conscience!" (and nothing came of it.)

I'm not butt hurt, I'm merely pointing on that what you said was condescending, incorrect, and what's wrong with the election process as a whole. More people should vote third party if they think those candidates are better suited for the job. Most of the Bernie Sanders supporters I know are voting for Jill Stein and while she doesn't have a chance of winning, but if she gets 5% of the vote, the Green Party can get federal campaign funding.

And I often think voting for the "lesser of two evils" is a cop out and can't really respect anyone's decision to do so. As I mentioned earlier in this thread there are 31 candidates running (more not on the ballot in every state), you can find someone you agree with.

The US needs more than two candidates in an election cycle, it would at least force the Democrats and Republicans attempt to get someone worth while.

Could a moderator rename this thread "The Conspiracy Thread"?

You're not from the US so it's understandable that you aren't being bombarded with media of things going on. Anything WikiLeaks related isn't so much conspiracy but it's something that dominates out daily news.

 

[Milouse]

@Joey D , i was referring to Dotini's posts on this very same page, like this. His message has nothing to do with Wikileaks Vs mainstream medias, but is a disingenuous intent to induce credibility about nonsensical claims by linking to raw material on Wikileaks that actually contradict the claim.

 

[Dotini]

Instead of brickbats, I want some likes for this one.

NY Post article on Brunei, the Sultan and his underage sex harem.
http://nypost.com/2014/05/10/inside-the-wacky-sex-obsessed-world-of-brunei/

NY Times Op-ed in favor of recognizing pedophilia as a sexual orientation with civil rights
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opinion/pedophilia-a-disorder-not-a-crime.html?_r=0

Wikileaks reveals Podesta email discussing pedophilia accusations, Brunei, in new book
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/37446

Clinton Foundation reports Brunei donated between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...critique-combines-evidence-with-exaggerations
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122961863763818563

Pay for play? Sec'y Clinton visits Brunei

Secretary Clinton at Launch of Brunei-U.S. English Language Enrichment Project for ASEAN

 

[Liquid]

If we're talking US and dodgy allies, they wouldn't be the only ones buddy-buddy with horrible regimes like Saudi Arabia or Brunei.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Instead of brickbats, I want some likes for this one.

NY Post article on Brunei, the Sultan and his underage sex harem.

Fascinating sociology but irrelevant/

NY Times Op-ed in favor of recognizing pedophilia as a sexual orientation with civil rights

Paedophilia isn't illegal and is subject to protection of rights. So?

Wikileaks reveals Podesta email discussing pedophilia accusations, Brunei, in new book

No it doesn't, it's the ad-blurb in its entirety with the sardonic comment "This should be a fun read".

Clinton Foundation reports Brunei donated between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000.

Certainly the Clinton Foundation and the way it operates is a focus of much interest, so?

Pay for play? Sec'y Clinton visits Brunei

Secretary Clinton at Launch of Brunei-U.S. English Language Enrichment Project for ASEAN

Depends on what kind of "play" you're insinuating. Clearly you're trying to get at some central point - but what?