U.S. Presidential Election 2016

[Saggy]

At this point it's kind of hard to think about what a Trump presidency would look like. I mean, he's all but alienated the entirety of the GOP so who would even comprise his cabinet? I mean, the position of president isn't really as powerful as people would like to tell themselves. Then again, our checks and balances have been pretty crappy at checking and haven't balanced sh*t in years, so I guess it's pretty damn likely that if he really wanted to throw is into war with someone he could do it. It's not exactly as if the entire quagmire in the middle east right now wasn't due to some asshole's circumvention of congress *cough*

[sivispacem]

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.

There's a couple of flaws with this line of reasoning. Firstly, the kind of people who doggedly reference WikiLeaks documents are those who want to believe their content is accurate and valid because it confirms to their preconceived cognitive biases. The accuracy and validity of the what the realise is of secondary importance to the narrative they're upholding; if it wasn't they'd release everything they obtain rather than a narrow sub-set of documents that serve their political interests.

 

Secondly, WikiLeaks don't typically perform a great deal of due diligence in verifying documents. In a case like this, where documents are being supplier to them, as far as we know, by a group of hackers operating at the behest if the Russian government, intruding into secure servers run by political organisations, there's little that could be done to verify the documents even if there was a pressing desire to do so. I could quite easily forge an email, with associated metadata, which could say whatever I wanted and without a digital signature would be absolutely indistinguishable from a legitimate email sent from the same user to the same recipient. WikiLesks lacks the capability to verify much of what it publishes and usually doesn't really bother anyway. Which is fine when they're releasing diplomatic cables allegedly stolen a hacktivist, but most problematic when they're releasing emails allegedly stolen by agents of a foreign government with a history of conducting false flag operations (see also- TV5Monde, WADA, Bellingcat and the Dutch Safety Board)

[Eutyphro]

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

Here is a clip of a Clinton campaign manager verifying @ 3:11 that the emails that show the large donation to the Clinton foundation by the king of Morocco are authentic (and then backpedaling at the end of the clip). Increasingly there seem to be indications that most of the emails are probably real. The emails give insight into how US politicians can be bought by donations, and how incredibly corrupt and dishonest US politics is. The emails also indicate that US politicians purposefully lie to and manipulate the public, and that their public statements and private ideas are seperate. Reading it makes me incredibly hateful towards professional politicians. They are all scum really.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Eutyphro

[ClaudeSpeed1911]

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.

The funniest thing is that since she is a woman and in their words "a woman shouldnt be president because they are not smart enought", Trump would have been seen as a loser losing to a woman. I heard the she can't be president mess a lot of times so there are definetly a group who believes this. Hopefully when she wins she proves them wrong and definetly don't go to a pointless war.

 

I also have to wonder how Clinton is a leftist? She is not even close to a leftist. Bernie is a leftist so where does that put Clinton?

 

I still wish Bernie won...

[Eutyphro]

Bernie is actually a centrist. He just seems a leftist in a country where the entire political spectrum is right wing. In the US you have two factions of the business party, and no left wing at all.

[ClaudeSpeed1911]

Bernie is actually a centrist. He just seems a leftist in a country where the entire political spectrum is right wing. In the US you have two factions of the business party, and no left wing at all.

That's true, Bernie would be right at the center in countries like Norway. Much of what he says is consindered normal over here. Not as radical as he is in USA.

Edited October 29, 2016 by ClaudeSpeed1911

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

The emails give insight into how US politicians can be bought by donations, and how incredibly corrupt and dishonest US politics is. The emails also indicate that US politicians purposefully lie to and manipulate the public, and that their public statements and private ideas are seperate. Reading it makes me incredibly hateful towards professional politicians. They are all scum really.

 

Who didn't know this already? No one with a straight face can put any of HRC's infidelities among the most striking cases of US political corruption and corporate subservience even in recent history. In fact, the shock value of these leaks is more reliant on fact that she's of a political dynasty than anything. Otherwise she's just another politician who refuses to be sidelined in a dirty male-dominated sport. She's crooked to a very typical extent tbh. At this point, it would be naive to think politicians would actually present their private policy ideas to the public in great detail. Democracy is a nice ideal. But at the end of day, you tell people what they want to hear, and then let whatever reality you create from office do the convincing.

 

 

I think it's laughable how those who supported the Citizens United ruling could even pretend to be taken aback by the general pay for play mentality in Washington.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Triple Vacuum Seal

[Clem Fandango]

 

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.

 

Sanders supporters and their frustration is kind of entitled tbh. It's was infuriating listening to progressives note that black people were indifferent to Sanders, they started scratching their heads wondering how they could not support someone who wanted to improve their economic conditions rather than changing or analysing their message at all to include and expanding list of black grievances. A black woman grabbed the mic from Bernie Sanders like "uhh this guy hasn't mentioned black people once, get a grip ya'll" and people cringed.

 

Of course, if the media had asked any questions at all she would have basically said she rejects any concessions and wants the police out of black communities, so that whites can't decide policy for black people anymore. This is a popular opinion, because to black people the police are not 'the police' the permanent defenders of the weak that are as natural as rain, they're an aggressive gang.

 

A prison is not the place bad people get sucked toward, it's a racist gulag. America's has once quarter of the world's prisoners, more than China and other societies where 'crime' is a much broader concept! It doesn't have an exceptionally high crime rate, they are literally just locking up loads of black people for bullsh*t reasons, especially in the South. Black organised crime- which only accounts for part of the mass incarceration phenomenon- is purposely ignored (this was the whole point of The Wire which rightists misinterpret as being about black politicians gone mad, because they're racist scum).

 

American's ears bleed when you point this out. This is an integral part of battered wife syndrome of American nationalism. On the plantations the slave drivers lived in a hut like the slaves, did grueling labour themselves and probably ate the same as the slaves did but got to abuse the slaves which made them think they were mates with the planters. This allowed the planters to mince around in a white suit to show off how they never work ever and live in a 'Big House' where only other planters could join them for brandy and cigars without white and black together storming the Big House and turning some suits red. It's one of the reasons American conservatives- despite being generally poor and living in communities which are as under-serviced as black urban neighbourhoods- are so easily mobilised against their own interests: the Republicans couple their sh*t policy with racism which makes poor white people feel like they're coming out on top. It's probably the reason people suspend their critical thinking skills when buying into this corporate-pushed conservative worldview.

 

Bloody Chomsky again

and I think this is why. Apparently labour activists in the South get physically attacked by blue collar conservatives. Smug urbaners obviously play a part but the left has never been as successful in rural America. Rural Australia has a similar settler-colonial mindset that created modern liberalism in the first place but the left has historically been able to tailor rhetoric to them. I do agree that the Conservatives are probably going to respond more to leftist arguments than urban liberals.

[Skeever]

Clinton is the choice of every political establishment on Earth.

My point exactly. The rest of the West wanting to see another weak globalist puppet become our next President and lead our country further down into a pit rather than someone going against the status quo should be telling enough.

 

Trump is the laughing stock. Are you even being serious?

He was months ago, when no one thought he had a serious chance of becoming the GOP nominee, let alone President of the United States. I don't hear very many people laughing about the prospect of a Trump presidency anymore, being terrified of that outcome more than anything else.

 

It is because Clinton is a woman.

You keep telling yourself that. I haven't seen one Trump supporter hate her for being a woman, and that includes time spent browsing /pol/. All you need to do is take a brief look into her dirty laundry to see why so many Americans abhor her.

 

Imagine Trump standing opposite Obama, while Obama slaughtered him with quips. Trump would commit suicide.

I'm the one who lives in a fantasy land? Obama couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag.

[Eutyphro]

Who didn't know this already? No one with a straight face can put any of HRC's infidelities among the most striking cases of US political corruption and corporate subservience even in recent history. In fact, the shock value of these leaks is more reliant on fact that she's of a political dynasty than anything. Otherwise she's just another politician who refuses to be sidelined in a dirty male-dominated sport. She's crooked to a very typical extent tbh. At this point, it would be naive to think politicians would actually present their private policy ideas to the public in great detail. Democracy is a nice ideal. But at the end of day, you tell people what they want to hear, and then let whatever reality you create from office do the convincing.

 

I think it's laughable how those who supported the Citizens United ruling could even pretend to be taken aback by the general pay for play mentality in Washington.

 

You open with "who didn't know this already?", but then conclude with a naive statement: "at the end of day, you tell people what they want to hear, and then let whatever reality you create from office do the convincing". The strategy isn't to tell the people lies and then help them with different policy than you promised which is the actual policy that will help them. The strategy is to lie to people and promise them the actual policy they want and would help them, but then when elected to make policy that will help the rich donors who fund your campaign.

 

I see how you are taking a partisan angle, because those most outraged currently are right wingers who support citizens united, who support politicians that are equally corrupt. But any decent person reading these emails that contain information on systematically deceiving the public, and being bought by wealthy domestic and foreign donors, should be outraged about it, even if we all knew it was true beforehand. The extent to which these people are being consciously opportunistic and immoral is disgusting. It's both disgusting and fascinating simultaneously..

 

And finally, I don't see why someone should have sympathy for Hillary purely because she's a "female in a 'dirty male-dominated sport". Gender shouldn't have anything to do with how you judge an individual's competence or integrity.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Eutyphro

[X S]

 

The emails give insight into how US politicians can be bought by donations, and how incredibly corrupt and dishonest US politics is. The emails also indicate that US politicians purposefully lie to and manipulate the public, and that their public statements and private ideas are seperate. Reading it makes me incredibly hateful towards professional politicians. They are all scum really.

 

Who didn't know this already? No one with a straight face can put any of HRC's infidelities among the most striking cases of US political corruption and corporate subservience even in recent history. In fact, the shock value of these leaks is more reliant on fact that she's of a political dynasty than anything. Otherwise she's just another politician who refuses to be sidelined in a dirty male-dominated sport. She's crooked to a very typical extent tbh. At this point, it would be naive to think politicians would actually present their private policy ideas to the public in great detail. Democracy is a nice ideal. But at the end of day, you tell people what they want to hear, and then let whatever reality you create from office do the convincing.

 

 

I think it's laughable how those who supported the Citizens United ruling could even pretend to be taken aback by the general pay for play mentality in Washington.

 

 

Second this. We know politicians do this. It's in the very nature of the political game itself.

 

What makes Clinton's situation so disturbing, however, is that her own Machiavellianism has it been hung out to dry in the public square. It's one thing to talk about nepotism and corruption in politics, but to actually witness it? This whole situation feels like the "Layla" scene at the end of Goodfellas.

 

Anyway, anyone catch CPG Grey's newest video? It's kind of relevant:

 

 

[Clem Fandango]

 

Clinton is the choice of every political establishment on Earth.

My point exactly. The rest of the West wanting to see another weak globalist puppet become our next President and lead our country further down into a pit rather than someone going against the status quo should be telling enough.

'Globalist puppet' okay and who are the puppeteers behind this Globalist agenda? Exactly who is Clinton the puppet of? Not the ruling class, you support their institutions with fervor.

 

Is it Jews is basically what I want to know.

 

 

 

He was months ago, when no one thought he had a serious chance of becoming the GOP nominee, let alone President of the United States. I don't hear very many people laughing about the prospect of a Trump presidency anymore, being terrified of that outcome more than anything else.

People are 'terrified' I agree but that's because of sh*t policy. Why do you think they're terrified, because the Jewish conspiracy will be exposed, or because they want America to lose its superpower status? Because I have to question why you want the latter if its a 'terrifying' prospect' for the rest of the world.

 

Have you considered that you might be a smirking contrarian? It's no surprise you frequent pol. Try listening to people that aren't lonely bitter white boys some time.

 

 

Obama couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag.

Clinton is slaughtering Trump in these debates, you just don't notice. The only reason he looked good next to the Republicans is because he was saying what they were all thinking, and they're all nervous weirdos. Trump is a WWE host. He had the apprentice. Everybody hated him before he came out with racist rhetoric. He may or may not be an orangutan.

 

If Trump accepted the debate with Sanders, it would have been the end of his campaign.

 

 

 

I'm the one who lives in a fantasy land?

Yeah a racist one.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

Sanders supporters and their frustration is kind of entitled tbh. It's was infuriating listening to progressives note that black people were indifferent to Sanders, they started scratching their heads wondering how they could not support someone who wanted to improve their economic conditions rather than changing or analysing their message at all to include and expanding list of black grievances. A black woman grabbed the mic from Bernie Sanders like "uhh this guy hasn't mentioned black people once, get a grip ya'll" and people cringed.

That one's complex too.

 

Most of the black vote was irredeemable for Bernie because there's a deeply ingrained sense of mistrust for the political processes within the black community. It's a major reason why voter turnout is low among blacks. I can't even call it disillusionment because the political process was never seen as legitimate through the eyes of black Americans even when the urge to vote was prevalent. The disaffection that's thrown white Trump supporters into frenzy has been the norm for blacks. There's a long running joke among blacks in response to modern American concerns about the state stepping on people's rights..."Y'all white folks are next, they're just practicing on us". This is also why Obama and HRC are the exception rather than the rule in terms of politicians being able to generate active support from the black community. Most candidates who win the black vote do so because the opposing candidate is too unacceptable to pose a threat. So for blacks, voting has traditionally been an exercise of damage control.

 

 

The main obstacle for Bernie with black voters was structural and very much out of his control from the beginning. Bernie's policy positions were irrelevant to many of the blacks who stood to benefit from them because their minds were already set on Hillary. Nonetheless, there are some idiots within the black community who still fault and even attack Bernie for his lack of support among blacks. Three more immediate factors that ruined his chances with black America.....

 

1.) Voters generally don't analyze policy

 

2.) Trust issues. He was an unfamiliar, yet old white male face. The Clintons on the other hand have more or less been knighted by the black community. Bill Clinton has honorary black status. No joke....even Chelsea Clinton could command the support of black voters.

 

3.) HRC leveraging this influence of the Clinton name with the Congressional Black Caucus for their endorsement.

 

 

The Dems seem to be taking the noble-appeasing approach to commanding the support of black voters. They satisfy the black landed upper crust instead of the community as a whole because it's much easier to do the former. Though I wouldn't characterize black America as being sufficiently unified by any stretch of the imagination, the political mobilization that exists within the community has been very unified despite being undersized. Elite blacks, almost exclusively supporting the Dems for obvious reasons, are unconditionally respected as pillars in the black community for their ability to attain wealth and status despite the clear headwinds....sticking it to the man if you will. As a consequence, they are seen as legitimate political agents for the black community. This makes votes fairly easy to whip together from the CBC all the way down to the street level even if that vote is counterintuitive to the interests of black America as we've seen with the Bill Clinton "tough on crime" initiative.

 

 

The CBC has an immense amount of credibility with well-fixed blacks especially. In fact, the CBC is still seen as more of a hybrid civil rights group. A vanguard of sorts. For one, both (CBC and the average black elite) are of the black baby boomer demographic and/or worldview. Though black elites are subservient to corporate America, it's seen as "all in the game" from the perspective of typical blacks who frankly aren't in the privileged position to bite the feeding hand of XYZ corp over ethical concerns. This is another reason why most black elites don't support Bernie. His anti-corporatism agenda doesn't resonate with the baby-boomer elites/CBC who, through a sometimes willful suppression of critical thinking, credit capitalism for their socioeconomic rise. After all, black Americans are probably the most conservative Dems in the US.

 

 

For the above reasons, Bernie could have made black reparations the centerpiece of his campaign and still fail to secure the black vote.

 

100% agree on getting rural America acquainted w/ the labor movement and the left in general. I cringe every time I hear my fellow Southerners call the region's anti-union policies "Right to Work Laws."

 

 

 

 

You open with "who didn't know this already?", but then conclude with a naive statement: "at the end of day, you tell people what they want to hear, and then let whatever reality you create from office do the convincing". The strategy isn't to tell the people lies and then help them with different policy than you promised which is the actual policy that will help them. The strategy is to lie to people and promise them the actual policy they want and would help them, but then when elected to make policy that will help the rich donors who fund your campaign.

 

I see how you are taking a partisan angle, because those most outraged currently are right wingers who support citizens united, who support politicians that are equally corrupt. But any decent person reading these emails that contain information on systematically deceiving the public, and being bought by wealthy domestic and foreign donors, should be outraged about it, even if we all knew it was true beforehand. The extent to which these people are being consciously opportunistic and immoral is disgusting. It's both disgusting and fascinating simultaneously..

 

And finally, I don't see why someone should have sympathy for Hillary purely because she's a "female in a 'dirty male-dominated sport". Gender shouldn't have anything to do with how you judge an individual's competence or integrity.

"Who didn't know this already" was a condensed way of saying...the only people likely to withdraw their support for HRC upon learning that she lies are those who don't really understand the workings of the US political system to begin with. I don't see what's so naive about expecting HRC to be just as dirty as the average politician. Nor am I giving her a pass for it.

 

I wanted to avoid taking a partisan angle initially. But pointing out the hypocrisy of right-wingers complaining about $ in politics was too tempting. I wasn't implying sympathy for Clinton either. Why sympathize with someone who's about to win and make history? I pointed out her gender because her so-called diabolical crookedness only looks exceptional next to the established images of docile, innocent, politically-disengaged women that we've come to expect. Meanwhile, Trump's would-be tyranny is encouraged by his supporters because they consider it to be consistent with all great leaders. Power-tripping women are typically called out for it quicker than men. At least that's my only explanation for why a voter could consider her any more crooked than Trump.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Triple Vacuum Seal

[Archer V.3]

Democrats are using 1.8 million dead people as active voters to vote for them

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/oct/18/us-presidential-election-rigged-donald-trump-wisconsin-video

 

During a rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin on Monday, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump says the 2016 presidential election is ‘rigged’. Trump says the media are colluding with Hillary Clinton’s campaign and that people who died 10 years ago are casting votes

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/18/donald-trump-rejects-election-result-before-the-votes-have-been-counted

Donald Trump has continued an unprecedented effort by a major presidential candidate to effectively declare the presidential election invalid before voters have even had their say. On Monday, just over three weeks before election day, the Republican nominee repeated his unsupported claim that voter fraud was rampant and specifically stated in a rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin that ballots cast by undocumented immigrants led to Barack Obama’s victory in North Carolina in 2008. “People who died 10 years ago are still voting,” he claimed. Trump’s Wisconsin appearance came after a series of provocative tweets culminating on Monday morning when he wrote: “Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naive!” Never before has a major presidential candidate in effect rejected the results before the election has been held. In remarks that were mostly scripted Trump spoke darkly about the election he has long described as “rigged” and made specific unfounded claims about in-person voter fraud. Previously Trump has only spoken in dogwhistles about voter fraud in “certain communities”.  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.

[sivispacem]

Here is a clip of a Clinton campaign manager verifying @ 3:11 that the emails that show the large donation to the Clinton foundation by the king of Morocco are authentic

This is a little bit of an aside from the main discussion, but I really don't understand the furore around foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation. It's a nonprofit entity primarily designed to address global issues such as healthcare access, international development and climate change. I understand the argument about it posing a distraction and potentially being a conflict of interest but the relevance of many of the attacks on it is totally lost on me. How is it any different to the million and one other public foundations run by politicians and other public figures ostensibly for philanthropy but really to network?

 

Increasingly there seem to be indications that most of the emails are probably real.

Which, again, I don't think anyone doubts. My point is that it's not prudent to assume that any particular revelation is factually accurate in the absence of any other evidence to support it merely because many of the documents probably are authentic. I can't remember who did a commentary piece on it; initially I thought it was Bruce Schneier but it might have been Jeffrey Carr- it basically posed the question "if a small number of particularly juicy documents inside the larger trove of predominantly pretty dull but real ones were forgeries, how could someone that knew they were not real convincingly prove as much"?

 

There are some anomalies, too. Documents which were allegedly stolen from the Clinton Foundation were actually stolen from the DNC. Metadata on some emails showed last modified dates several days after Crowdstrike claim to have completely removed the attackers from the DNC network. Some documents were reported to have been digitally manipulated by having protective markings grafted onto them. There's a pretty good article here on it- http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/23/are-clinton-wikileaks-emails-doctored-or-are-they-/

 

I would agree that the majority of the emails are probably real. But take any particular specific one and without looking at it in detail I don't think anyone can be confident in asserting that (well, unless it's digitally signed).

 

Democrats are using 1.8 million dead people as active voters to vote for them

Er...

 

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.

Also, don't double post and keep the video spam and huge text out of D&D.

[Eutyphro]

 

How is it any different to the million and one other public foundations run by politicians and other public figures ostensibly for philanthropy but really to network?

 

It's not, but when it is a foundation of the likely next president of the United States, then it becomes rather more interesting. Apart from that, it's not just about donations to her foundation either. The emails contain information on donations to her campaign by billionairs. I'm personally fascinated by the corruption within US politics. I think it's a very interesting subject to learn about.

 

 

 

My point is that it's not prudent to assume that any particular revelation is factually accurate in the absence of any other evidence to support it merely because many of the documents probably are authentic.

That's reasonable, but I rather learn from reading them eventhough there's a chance some information is false, than completely ignore them because there's a chance it is false. Even in the current scenario where there's a chance that emails may be fake, I still think they are interesting.

 

 

the only people likely to withdraw their support for HRC upon learning that she lies are those who don't really understand the workings of the US political system to begin with.

Well some people refuse to vote in a such a corrupt system, but I also don't think that's wise. But it's not impossible to argue in favor of that point.

 

 

I pointed out her gender because her so-called diabolical crookedness only looks exceptional next to the established images of docile, innocent, politically-disengaged women that we've come to expect. Meanwhile, Trump's would-be tyranny is encouraged by his supporters because they consider it to be consistent with all great leaders. Power-tripping women are typically called out for it quicker than men.

 

I agree that people judge one another's competence on arbitrary matters, like appearance, or the sound of someone's voice, and such arbitrary qualifications have a relation to gender. We all make such qualifications. To an extent it's human nature. It plays a role in how people judge Hillary, but it plays a role in how we judge anyone in general. It does seem to be a problem in politics that due to the fact that people are biased to recognize leadership as a masculine quality, that women who want to come across as leaders have to overcompensate, and come across as behaving unnaturally/artificially/unauthentically. In Western politics we look for a very specific stereotype of leadership, and it is very hard for women to live up to that stereotype properly.

 

Apart from that, the case that Hillary has been exceptionally opportunistic in her political career, that she doesn't have any genuine ideals or principles but judges based on what advanced her own interests, is pretty strong. It is exceptionally strong, even for a US politician. Hillary has changed her views too often in her political career, for anyone to believe she genuinely believes in them. Her opportunism and careerism make her a pretty scary and untrustworthy person. She's not the type of person that people would like as president, and the fact that she'll likely win is mainly due to the weakness of her opponent.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Eutyphro

[El Dildo]

I'm the one who lives in a fantasy land? Obama couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag.

lol are you blind?

 

Trump is nearly 71 years old.

Obama is over 15 years his junior and in great shape. the Don is pudgy and soft and bloated.

 

Obama would level him... but that's beside the point.

[Not A Nice Person]

Speaking of Obama... at a Nebraska v Wisconsin game.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/10/29/fan-at-wisconsin-game-dressed-in-obama-mask-with-noose/

Edited October 30, 2016 by Mion

[Tchuck]

Jill "Anti-science" Stein did an AMA on reddit and "answered" some questions.

 

The amount of conspiracy coming out of her answers is appalling, but expected. Her strategy seems to be "Vote for us so we can get those 5% we need for federal funding for 2020!" which is a misguided goal since even if by miracle they elect a president in 2020, what powers will that president have when there's no green presence at any other level?

 

I'm not an American and don't know much about the local levels, but are these third parties present at all? Do they hold important mayor/governor offices? It seems so clear to me that the place for either of those to start off is in the grassroots, building a reputation and a following at the local levels, aiming higher and higher each time, eventually being able to successfully run for president. Yet it doesn't seem like these third parties do that; it seems they just come on during presidential elections, try to make their hit, then fade into the shadows once more.

 

With her agenda and the garbage she's been spouting in her responses, I'm glad if that's the destination of the green party.

[Svip]

I think the Greens and Libertarian holds some council offices, but nothing major, no. Indeed, I wonder why they aren't going after a governor's office or focus on specific states' legislatures. Actually create a party rather than basically one person.

[sivispacem]

Apart from that, it's not just about donations to her foundation either. The emails contain information on donations to her campaign by billionairs.

Again, I don't really understand how this is s revelation. It's entirely normal in the political systems of most English speaking countries, and especially common in the US, for the wealthy to subsidise political campaigns.

[Svip]

 

Apart from that, it's not just about donations to her foundation either. The emails contain information on donations to her campaign by billionairs.

Again, I don't really understand how this is s revelation. It's entirely normal in the political systems of most English speaking countries, and especially common in the US, for the wealthy to subsidise political campaigns.

 

I should add, that it is also common in non-English speaking political systems, including continental European systems. Although, the restrictions on donations as well as the restrictions on campaigning makes it difficult to impact much with large political donations in these systems. But political parties still need money to run a campaign, so they still need donations.

[sivispacem]

I'm not entirely au fait with the funding mechanisms for political parties in the rest of Europe so didn't want to presume and be wrong, but had reasoned it was probably the case just about everywhere else too.

[Svip]

I'm not entirely au fait with the funding mechanisms for political parties in the rest of Europe so didn't want to presume and be wrong, but had reasoned it was probably the case just about everywhere else too.

It's less obvious in most of Europe, because of the campaign advertisement restrictions. Indeed, I do occasionally find people who are surprised to learn that major parties have large donors here. But they forget that the parties actually have rallies to hold, cross-country campaigning to do and - yes - regulation compliant ads to do. And that's expensive stuff.

 

So a social democratic party will have unions as big donors, while a more centre-right party will have corporate interest groups as donors, and so on. But private companies definitely also get involved. One example: Saxo Bank (Danish bank) is a big donor to Liberal Alliance, a Danish political party whose main issue is tax cuts (for the wealth).

[jatiger13]

He was months ago, when no one thought he had a serious chance of becoming the GOP nominee, let alone President of the United States. I don't hear very many people laughing about the prospect of a Trump presidency anymore, being terrified of that outcome more than anything else.

No, he's still a f*cking joke, unequivocally so.

The thing I'm terrified of is the stupidity of the Americans who even consider voting for Trump. It shows how utterly f*cking clueless they are and how uneducated they really are.

 

I'm the one who lives in a fantasy land? Obama couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag.

Well, Obama vs Trump in a debate.... Obama would completely humiliate Trump. Trump would literally piss his pants.

Trump couldn't even manage to even get close to beating Clinton in a debate.

 

So yeah, you're f*cking delusional. But, you're a Trump supporter, so the fact that you have a tenuous grasp of reality shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

 

I mean, you think Trump wouldn't go to war, even though he has said sh*t like "I love war" and that he would "bomb the hell" out of ISIS.

 

 

 

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?

Screw poor people, right? They clearly have only themselves to blame for not having mad stacks of cash, right?

Your stupidity and ineptitude to form a coherent argument has no bounds. Get educated on the subject, would ya please.

 

 

When I had an employee come to me and ask for an advanced paycheck to help pay medical bills, instead of paying all of it off for him, I should've said: "Sorry, it's your own fault for not having enough money to pay for all these overpaid assholes. Get a second job. I worked hard for this money and I don't care about my fellow citizens. Don't be a dirty parasite."

That would've been the right thing to do, I see that now. Thank you, sir Asshat, for convincing me. /sarcasm

 

Even you, our resident uneducated idiot, is a "parasite". If you reap no benefit from the government, then you can start talking.

 

You're a Trump supporter, right? I mean, your theories have no basis in the reality that the rest of us live in, so I can only assume that it's a fact. He's a "parasite", yet you support him. Bit of a hypocrite there, I see.

Edited October 30, 2016 by jatiger13

[Eutyphro]

Obama would absolutely destroy Trump in a debate. Clinton already defeated Trump because of her professionalism and experience. Obama would destroy Trump even more significantly, because Obama knows how to be witty. He'd be better able to ridicule Trump than Hillary.

Anyway, I know everybody wanted to conclude that the race was over after the gap widened after the grab em by the pussy tape, but the gap is increasingly tightening. It's at a little over 3 percent now, and with the FBI reopening the email case, I'm scared Trump has a genuine chance again. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

 

What a spectacle this presidential race is.

 

It's entirely normal in the political systems of most English speaking countries, and especially common in the US, for the wealthy to subsidise political campaigns.

 

But when a candidate needs a campaign of over a billion dollars to win, which makes her susceptible to being bought by corporate donors, then the money aspect of it becomes more interesting than your average European campaign.

Edited October 30, 2016 by Eutyphro

[sivispacem]

The outright gap is of significantly less importance than the distribution of voters. Clinton clearly has the advantage in the majority of the notable swing states at the moment- in fact the gap has widened further in Arizona. Last time I checked Trump was only leading in three swing states, and then there was only 4% in it.

[Eutyphro]

Arizona seems to actually be narrowing. Clinton is up 0.6 right now there on RCP. Clinton's advantage in general is narrowing, and that is reflected in polls that were taken before the reopening of the FBI investigation. Who knows what effect this FBI announcement can have on the current narrow lead of Clinton? It's definitely a very dramatic presidential race.

[X S]

The writing is on the wall. You don't break from precedent 11 days prior to election day unless it's substantial or disqualifying.

[Argonaut]

The writing is on the wall. You don't break from precedent 11 days prior to election day unless it's substantial or disqualifying.

 

This is why, apparently, the Trump campaign (or atleast a representative of it) have said they're going to keep quiet so this whole thing can get as much airtime and analysis as possible. Outside of calling it "the biggest scandal since Watergate" that is.