U.S. Presidential Election 2016

[Eutyphro]

Here is an entire NYT piece confirming the NYT 'veto' email leaked was real. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-media-conspiracy.html?_r=1&register=facebook

 

And again, if it were fake I don't think Hillary would respond in the debate to one of the statements in the speeches that were leaked as if it was hers, when it was fake. We know John Podesta has been hacked, and it seems incredibly unlikely, pretty much impossible, that these emails are entirely made up and are not at minimum based on material acquired in those hacks. Could they have been tampered with? That's possible. Sure.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Eutyphro

[jatiger13]

I guess some new emails recovered have come to light that might change that perspective. I doubt the FBI director announces a supplement just to tell Congress that they've found more emails and they are not interesting. Agents have already been probing these emails.

Apparently it has something to do with emails found during the Anthony Weiner investigation.

They said it may be pertinent, so we'll see if it actually turns out to be pertinent. Nothing remarkable, I'm sure.

 

 

Any opinions on the polls themselves? Clinton was ahead by 12 points last weekend, now she's leading by roughly 5-7 points (it depends on the source). At times I have trouble believing the authenticity of the polls, especially if they're manipulating them just to draw in more attention and create suspense. Every election, they like to bring the numbers closer together than they really are just to call it a "tight race". CNN is always seems to inflate Clinton's lead, and Fox always seems to inflate Trump's, due to them being Democratic and Republican networks, respectively.

I don't pay too much attention to national polls. I look more at the battleground states.

Even if Trump wins all the battleground states, he still wouldn't have enough to get to 270.

Edited October 28, 2016 by jatiger13

[sivispacem]

You've kinda highlighted the problem there. The fact we know that some of the document releases are authentic leads people to conclude that all documents released are authentic, which isn't supported by evidence. Therefore, if a fabricated or manipulated document or set of documents did exist as part of the releases, then most observers woukd assume that they were authentic and that attempts to refute that were furious backpedaling. It's actually very clever.

[jatiger13]

Latino outreach is "taco bowl engagement"

 

"Attached is a script for a new video wed like to use to mop up some more taco bowl engagement, and demonstrate the Trump actually isnt trying."

Context. Very important to know where that term (taco bowl engagement) comes from.

Trump's Latino outreach quite a while back was a picture of him eating a taco bowl.

It was a weak try from him, trying to show that he cares about latinos and that he's not a racist bigot.

He can't be racist towards latinos if he enjoys a taco bowl, right?

Luckily, Latinos aren't as easy to trick as republican voters are, so they didn't fall for it.

 

The Clinton campaign probably wanted to make a video to show all the bigoted sh*t he has been saying.

Edited October 28, 2016 by jatiger13

[Eutyphro]

 

Context. Very important to know where that term (taco bowl engagement) comes from.

Trump's Latino outreach quite a while back was a picture of him eating a taco bowl.

Yeah, it seems that's right.

 

Anyway, this is pretty funny:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6TLeg6_d9M

[make total destroy]

So you're saying that nonwhites have nothing of value

 

 

 

No, I'm saying you're white as f*ck

[jatiger13]

To be fair, Clinton is a war monger. Of course, that doesn't mean Trump is somehow 'anti-war'.

"I love war." - Donald Trump

 

That's an actual quote that I've heard many times this year. So he's definitely not anti-war. Anyone who thinks otherwise are only kidding themselves.

[Chiarii]

 

So you're saying that nonwhites have nothing of value

 

 

 

No, I'm saying you're white as f*ck

... and that is bad? Wrong? I'm saying that you are not really ancom. I'm saying that if you are it is because you want people to be forced to give you their possessions and earnings because you've failed to accumulate your own assets. Are you comfortable with being a parasite?

[make total destroy]

 

I'm saying that you are not really ancom.

 

 

 

 

Okay?

 

 

I'm saying that if you are it is because you want people to be forced to give you their possessions and earnings because you've failed to accumulate your own assets.

Is it?

 

 

Are you comfortable with being a parasite?

 

Well, I wouldn't say I'm a 'parasite', nor am I comfortable with 'parasites', and that's largely why I'm anti-capitalist.

 

EDIT:

Also, for the record, I don't like being referred to as an 'ancom', because I feel like that subtly implies "anarcho"-capitalism ('ancap') is an actual development in anarchist theory, rather than a contradictory, vulgar ideology--which developed entirely outside of the anarchist milieu--and exists nowhere but on the internet, and only as an attempt by the far-right to appropriate anarchism--much like they did with 'libertarianism'.

 

You can just call me an anarchist.

Edited October 28, 2016 by make total destroy

[Twang.]

 

 

So you're saying that nonwhites have nothing of value

 

 

 

No, I'm saying you're white as f*ck

... and that is bad? Wrong? I'm saying that you are not really ancom. I'm saying that if you are it is because you want people to be forced to give you their possessions and earnings because you've failed to accumulate your own assets. Are you comfortable with being a parasite?

 

Private property does not equal personal property.

[make total destroy]

Communism is clearly the radical idea that everyone should share a toothbrush.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

There are quite a few idiots in the Democratic camp too. Primarily all the black people who voted for Hillary instead of Bernie Sanders in the primaries. They have no choice now of course, because Trump is worse. But when they had a choice they chose like morons. Clintons are behind the three strikes law which has ruined many a black lives. Meanwhile Bernie Sanders has a history of being a civil rights activist. But it takes a special kind of idiot to deny that Trump supporters are mostly idiots.

 

This point comes up a lot in regards to the Clinton legacy. It's really not that black and white though.

 

 

Clinton may have been pegged to the “tough on crime” agenda. But the general trend of disproportionately incarcerating black men was already firmly in place. Let’s not forget the Republicans had already introduced the infamous mandatory minimums and the War On Drugs prior to Bill Clinton’s administration. He had to prove that Dems could be tough on crime in a time when doing otherwise was political suicide. He certainly didn’t help reverse the mass incarceration trend among blacks. But at least it was aligned with the will (albeit misguided) of the black voters at the time.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Triple Vacuum Seal

[Clem Fandango]

 

 

Your system (capitalism) is strange and derided and mine (communism) is sensible even though yours exists to a degree in every prosperous society and mine is wholly rejected by... just about every society on the planet. This is the part where I suggest that the world should strive to be like a region that is the product of terrorism or a failing state. Here is where I use historical events that ended badly and hope no one notices; also I am only capable of understanding static subjects like history. I conclude my post by defending my arm chair activism and belittling those who do not attend the protests that I do where me and my comrades demand that society at large take care of us.

 

-Melchior

-Interpreted by Chiari

 

lmao this is the worst response I've ever seen. 'Anarcho'-Capitalism is an inconsistent and unpopular offshoot of socialist theory, and it is widely mocked by everybody, including Capitalists who rightly see it as a threat to their interests. You unite the world in laughter.

 

Stop using the prevalence of Capitalism to support your views. Capitalism is held together by states, and Capitalism would collapse under your system.

 

I don't belittle you for not being an awesome dedicated activist, I'm just pointing out that if you don't even hold protests, you can't overthrow a government and are in no place to deride an ideology which has overthrown even expansive, imperial states. Your minuscule, faux-social movement has no ability to affect anything, because you have no organisations to represent you and your members- present company included- are physically weak and socially isolated. We'll see a Georgist revolution before we see a revolution of fedora clad nigels seizing power.

 

Social change is usually the product of a failing state. How do you overthrow a successful state? Pull your head in. Also the legitimate government of Kurdistan are not 'terrorists.' You're so anti-status quo, so anarchist, railing against the state's enemies. Fascist.

 

Hilarious that you reject history and think you have nothing to learn from it. Saying these revolutions- about which you know less than nothing- 'ended badly' is unnuanced garbage. History is a 'static' subject whatever that means.

 

At any rate these present and historical societies demonstrate the popularity of anarchism and I was expressing incredulity at you thinking your neoliberal bullsh*t was the norm, and that you were in a position to doubt the sincerity of your parent ideology. Do these societies exist to troll ignorant Westerners? lmao

 

 

 

Oh yeah you replied to my post and then replied to it again 7 hours later. That's some heart-felt, emotional sh*t right there. Melchior/Menarche.

Those were different posts lad.

 

 

 

"If you're really ancom why don't you liquidate all your assets and distribute equally among the members here? Or are you just ancom for shock value?"

Erm, that's got nothing to do with anarchism. Liquidating (read:pawning) your boot collection and walking around barefoot does nothing to advance the struggle for economic democracy. Also you would uhh need at least $60,000 to give every member 1c. I'd also have to track down $600,000 Aus pennies, which are worthless anyway.

 

If you're really a neoliberal fake radical, why don't you move to Guatemala and work in a sweatshop? Checkm8 nigel.

[ClaudeSpeed1911]

People really think that Trump wouldn't go to war?

 

An idiot like Trump wouldn't even care about using a nuke if it meant less headach.

[Skeever]

You can do a simple google search and find out that this is the case for most recent Republican candidates, like Romney, Huckabee, Santorum, Scott Walker. If you do your best you can find out almost all recent Republican candidates have pledged some kind of explicit aggression against Iran.

Saying that all Republicans would immediately go to war and send missiles towards Iran as soon as they win the election (so much for inauguration day) is a very gross overgeneralization. I'm not sure how anyone could seriously stand by that assertion.

 

referencing John Oliver is a pretty stupid non response.

I won't argue with that; I was giving a sarcastic response to a nonsensical claim.

 

"We have to go after their families".

Sounds like a good plan to me. Omar Mateen's wife ran off without a trace thanks to our government's incompetence.

[Clem Fandango]

Re-opening the investigation, eh? Happy belated birthday.

 

It's hilarious that you Skeever, a fanatical American conservative, deride Clinton as a 'war-mongering' candidate.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather not continue the aggressive foreign policy of Obama and GWB in the Middle East, implement a No-Fly Zone over Syria and have Clinton drag us into a 'conflict' (that's putting it lightly) with Russia, thank you very much.

Then why vote for a Republican administration? You realise that the American state has offices besides the Glorious Leader of the Free World? Trump's administration would be staffed by 'establishment Republicans' who would create policy.

 

 

 

Did I miss John Oliver's latest segment?

It seems you haven't bothered to look into the policy put forth by your own party, since you support some fantasy version of them that are anti-military, that opposes the corporate, government, media elite. I don't get my news from some pop culture war comedian.

 

The news I follow is often just a reprinting of policy proposals and internal memos. Unlike you lot, who can't interpret the words and actions of politicians without filtering it through a laughable, childish American exceptionalist ideology. Materialist analysis > living in a story book.

 

 

 

"Nobody has bothered to tell him"? Right... I think you need to educate yourself on Trump and his foreign policy proposals, as he certainly has spoken about the matter.

The American state is huge and the President- while a strong executive position- is not the elected king Americans think they are. The sh*t he makes up as he goes along is not going to be turned into policy, not by the people tasked with creating and implementing it.

[GTA_stu]

The thing about the validity of the emails, is that it's massively in Wikileaks' interest to make sure they don't release fake stuff, because then their credibility goes down the drain. Without that they're nothing. Now maybe not every single thing in the huge dumps is credible, but if Wikileaks are highlighting certain things in particular, then it's probably safe to say those are legit, since they're essentially staking their entire reputation on them each time they do that.

[Clem Fandango]

Does anyone actually not believe Clinton would say that?

[Skeever]

Then why vote for a Republican administration? You realise that the American state has offices besides the Glorious Leader of the Free World? Trump's administration would be staffed by 'establishment Republicans' who would create policy.

It's better than the alternative. Hell, one of the things I look forward to most in a Trump administration are his SCOTUS picks -- establishment Republicans.

 

It seems you haven't bothered to look into the policy put forth by your own party, since you support some fantasy version of them that are anti-military, that opposes the corporate, government, media elite.

So not wanting to throw away American lives by starting petty wars in the Middle East somehow means he's anti-military? What?

 

Obviously, most of Trump's proposals will be blocked (and he won't be able to accomplish nearly as much as he wants to as a result of that) but, as I said before, the GOP are far better than the alternative.

[Twang.]

If you're voting for a president with the hope that his proposals will be blocked, you might want to reconsider whether or not participating in democracy is for you.

[Skeever]

Nowhere did I suggest that I wanted Trump's proposals blocked... I'm curious where you got that from.

Admitting that a President may not be able to accomplish as much as they hope for due to obstacles in their path is a reality that I and many others would have to come to terms with, should Trump be elected (which is looking more and more likely by the day). A lot of the people who voted for Obama in '08 and '12 should know where I'm coming from when I say this.

[Clem Fandango]

 

Then why vote for a Republican administration? You realise that the American state has offices besides the Glorious Leader of the Free World? Trump's administration would be staffed by 'establishment Republicans' who would create policy.

It's better than the alternative. Hell, one of the things I look forward to most in a Trump administration are his SCOTUS picks -- establishment Republicans.

You are ridiculous. You've just conceded my entire point: that a Trump administration will be more militarily aggressive than a Clinton one.

 

 

 

So not wanting to throw away American lives by starting petty wars in the Middle East somehow means he's anti-military? What?

Anti-militarism, whatever. You support a fantasy version of the Republicans that are not staunchly militarist.

 

 

 

Obviously, most of Trump's proposals will be blocked (and he won't be able to accomplish nearly as much as he wants to as a result of that) but, as I said before, the GOP are far better than the alternative.

It's not that they will be blocked by the corporate, government media elite he's leading a revolution against, it's that he will get into office as part of a broader Republican administration and will work within it. You aren't voting for the REBIRTH OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE you're voting for the Republican party: militarism, neoliberalism and crazy Christian bullsh*t included.

 

I am to no end amused by the idea of you reading Trump's policy- which is generally pub rant gibberish- and stroking your beard like 'hmm hmm this is meaty policy.'

[Skeever]

You are ridiculous. You've just conceded my entire point: that a Trump administration will be more militarily aggressive than a Clinton one.

Trump? More militarily aggressive than Hillary "Why don't we just drone strike [Julian Assange]" Clinton? The woman who hurls insults, slanderous accusations and threats at a superpower on a weekly basis?

 

Whatever you say, Melc. I can't really be all that surprised by you and numerous other leftists wanting the US to elect another international laughing stock who'd further reduce our status as a superpower.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Skeever

[make total destroy]

 

"We have to go after their families".

Sounds like a good plan to me.

I guess it isn't really war if you support it.

[Clem Fandango]

 

You are ridiculous. You've just conceded my entire point: that a Trump administration will be more militarily aggressive than a Clinton one.

Trump? More militarily aggressive than Hillary "Why don't we just drone strike [Julian Assange]" Clinton?

Republican policy is more militarist than Democratic policy. Were you in the lou when they made a tentative peace with Iran and the Republicans screeched liked chimps as their fantasies of a smoldering Tehran receded towards the horizon?

 

 

 

The woman who hurls insults, slandrous accusations and threats at a superpower on a weekly basis?

Every politician in the Western world is anti-Russian. Trump's personal admiration for the fascist Putin not withstanding, his administration will be necessarily anti-Russian because the rest of the American establishment understands that Russia's imperial ambitions conflict with their own.

 

 

 

Whatever you say, Melc. If memory serves me right, you're an Aussie, so I can't really be all that surprised by you wanting the US to elect another international laughing stock.

The US and Australia share the same military and intelligence services. America's status extends to Australia. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

 

Also, Clinton is the choice of every political establishment on Earth. Trump is the laughing stock. Are you even being serious?

[make total destroy]

Imagine living in a world where Trump is internationally seen as the serious candidate.

 

 

This is your brain on /pol/.

Also, imagine telling yourself that Clinton is a 'leftist', and that the bulk of her supporters are 'leftists'.

[Clem Fandango]

It is because Clinton is a woman. Imagine Trump standing opposite Obama, while Obama slaughtered him with quips. Trump would commit suicide. When its Clinton Trump and his supporters seem able to delude themselves into thinking Clinton is embarrassing herself while Trump- a WWE host and a man who went to great lengths to prove to Bill Maher that he wasn't a literal Orangutan- is owning the stage.

[Saggy]

One thing that I don't really understand is that if Trump says it's rigged, and his supporters believe it, why bother voting? Just stay home if you think it's rigged, please, do us a favor.

[xxxtentacion]

Imagine living in a world where Trump is internationally seen as the serious candidate.

 

 

This is your brain on /pol/.

 

Also, imagine telling yourself that Clinton is a 'leftist', and that the bulk of her supporters are 'leftists'.

Can confirm this is completely the rhetoric seen on /pol/. Except they refer to anyone who is slightly to the left of them as 'liberals' because they live in their little world that is over saturated by American politics.

 

I had a Trump supporting, /pol/ browsing, Nazi saluting student in one of my university classes say that Breitbart is a reliable and unbiased source.

 

 

 

Let that sink in for a moment.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Pyroshox

[Craigsters]

So the 8th is either business as usual HC winning or the end of the world as we know it?DT winning and i feel fine