The 2016 Presidential Campaign

[Khampelf]

Originally Posted by Slate

Equating the two is absolutely ridiculous. Trump is an unstable unknown.

Love her, hate her, feel completely indifferent, it doesn't matter, everyone knows exactly what Hillary Clinton would be like as the president. A cautious, moderate, centrist caretaker who wouldn't start any wars but would probably carry on the the more questionable aspects of the War on Terra.

Trump? After getting played badly by Putin (and I think we all know that would happen), he would probably get so frustrated without his Twitter account at 3 AM he'd bomb Red Square.

This, exactly. And stated much better than I could.

Hillary is all "You're hired."
Trump is all "You're fired."

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by Khampelf

Hillary is all "You're hired."
Trump is all "Bomb them, bomb their families, bomb their pets, bomb their graveyards!"

Fixed that for you.

[SmartAleq]

Moribund Democracy--read it and weep. One of the things that keeps striking me (like a million pound shithammer right between the eyes, usually) is just how fucking casual everyone is over the fact that we have two goddamned FELONS running for president. Seriously, John Oliver points out about six flatly illegal things Trump has done and backs them up with news stories and you can do the same with Clinton without even batting an eye--they're BOTH manifestly unqualified to be president but here we are, expected to vote for one or the other. It's insane, but it's flatly true that the laws only apply to those the rich and powerful want them to apply to and their fawning lickspittles can do literally ANYTHING and they are in absolutely no danger of even being charged with their crimes, let alone convicted. And yet nobody seems to be in any way upset about this and keeps carrying on as though this is a normal part of American life.

But hey, football is on, so it doesn't matter, right? And we have always been, and apparently always will be, at war with Eastasia. Nothing to see here, move along. Here's your ballot, you can choose one of these two carefully chosen assholes to vote for.

Fuck.

[SmartAleq]

And Hillary is about ten times the warhawk Trump is because she's actually been in place to start shit and has done it over and over. Ask Syria how they feel about whether or not Clinton is a good choice for Keeper of the Drones. Shit, she jokes about sending a drone strike at Julian Assange, just because he inconveniently reveals her truth and makes her have to spend more money to cover her shit. Yeah, so fucking presidential and non-warlike, that.

Fuck.

[Clockwork Jackal]

Mike Pence won that debate for Team Pence, not Team Trump.

[AuntiePam]

The game has been rigged since forever, I get that, but Trump is such a loose cannon -- and such a despicable human being -- that even if you guaranteed me that a vote for Stein, or Johnson, or not voting at all would miraculously bring on the revolution, I'd still vote for HRC.

Four years is a long time. Hell, a week with Trump in office is a long time. Look at the damage he's done by just campaigning!

[Lungfish]

Pence is a better debater and liar than Trump is.

[JackieLikesVariety]

Four years is a long time. Hell, a week with Trump in office is a long time. Look at the damage he's done by just campaigning!

god, yes

[BrickaBracka]

Welp...Kaine accomplished his mission.

Make Pence look like a damn fool.

[Veb]

I don't view Hillary and Trump as even remotely equivalent. She's borderline dishonest at best and so insanely secretive there's no way she'll ever get the American public behind her. I don't expect to like politicians--which is handy because I really don't like Hillary. The Prez is just an executive so the most I want is competence, with a modicum of honesty thrown in whenever feasible.

The main problem with Trump, out of the many, is he genuinely hasn't the faintest idea of how the government is structured. Worse, he doesn't give a shit. He keeps promising all these wild things he's a-gonna do, many of them blatantly unconstitutional, and he's the only one who can solve problems. The arrogant asshole is running for Czar, not President. Even Ryan had to issue a careful reminder to him that, uh, Congress--remember them?--passes laws, not the President. And laws deemed unconstitutional still are still no-go, no matter how much shit Trump throws at the judges.

No, the ensuing shitstorm, even if Hillary is elected, will come because she might win the office but she sure won't have a mandate. Let's face it: she's wildly unpopular. The government has been gridlocked for 8 years because the GOP was determined to stonewall Obama as a matter of policy. There ain't an ice cube's chance in hell Trump and his brainless minions will ever accept if he loses. He's ranted endlessly about how the entire electoral system is "rigged", and has already rumbled about backtracking on his pledge to accept the outcome. Add an arrogant, tone-deaf Hillary on top of the already steaming shit pile we're in for a mess, no matter what.

I consider a Trump win as catastrophic while a Clinton win would just be damned distasteful. Maybe in four years...

[SmartAleq]

Hillary is running center right precisely to give the obstructionist GOP the face saving option of "deciding" to "do the right thing" and cooperate with her "for the good of the country." Whereupon she and the suddenly complaisant Congress embark on a corporate giveaway of monumental proportions. Fuck, Kaine won't even sign a Senate resolution for a public option and everybody's being ominously quiet on the subject of Social Security, which has been deemed by both parties to be "on the table." Let's not even think about all the oil pipelines to be approved, the "clean coal" to be dug out of the tops of mountains and the methane spewing fracking wells that are pretty much a slam dunk under a Hillary presidency.

Nope, we fucked either way.

[Clockwork Jackal]

Trump is taking credit for Mike Pence's win. Because if there's one thing that voters love to see, it's a boss taking the credit for an employee's success.

[SmartAleq]

How a Syrian Kurd views a possible Clinton presidency. That would leave a mark on anyone with a soul.

[Khampelf]

With Trump, the bombs will be nukes.

[Nonny J. Nonnington III]

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

I have seen precisely, exactly, and without exaggeration - 1. ONE. Uno. A single solitary Clinton/Kaine yard sign. For the past year.

My take on this. While there are a vast number of honest law-abiding citizens that will vote for Trump, a small but vehement group have demonstrated violence against anyone that would dare to protest their demigod.* If I supported Clinton and lived in an area of strong Trump support, I don't know if I would want to antagonize these knuckleheads to take some form of violent aggression.** And a lot of people don't support Clinton - they just hate Trump more.

*That's what Clinton should have focused on, not her dumbshit "basket of deplorables" comment that will only serve to alienate.

** “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Yeah, I know. And it's shit like this where worriers like me see the seeds of nationalism that gave rise to the Nazis. It's troubling, to be sure.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by Nonny J. Nonnington III

My take on this. While there are a vast number of honest law-abiding citizens that will vote for Trump, a small but vehement group have demonstrated violence against anyone that would dare to protest their demigod.* If I supported Clinton and lived in an area of strong Trump support, I don't know if I would want to antagonize these knuckleheads to take some form of violent aggression.** And a lot of people don't support Clinton - they just hate Trump more.

*That's what Clinton should have focused on, not her dumbshit "basket of deplorables" comment that will only serve to alienate.

** “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Yeah, I know. And it's shit like this where worriers like me see the seeds of nationalism that gave rise to the Nazis. It's troubling, to be sure.

A cogent point...all you have to do is talk to one of them in the wild to know you're not dealing with someone who is concerned with respecting the freedom of your opposing opinion...and they're advocating for a guy who is clearly insane.

[JackieLikesVariety]

With Trump, the bombs will be nukes.

if this isn't on ads and yards signs, it should be

That's what Clinton should have focused on, not her dumbshit "basket of deplorables" comment that will only serve to alienate

no matter what she says or doesn't say, Hillary Clinton will be criticized for it. she LITERALLY cannot escape it, no matter what.

that has to suck, frankly

[AuntiePam]

It won't deter his supporters -- hell, it will probably strengthen some of them -- but Donald is telling Nevadans how to pronounce the name of their state -- it's Ne-VAH-da, he says.

Also, he pronounces acumen "a-KEW-men".

[The Devil's Grandmother]

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

Welp...Kaine accomplished his mission.

Make Pence look like a damn fool.

Oooo, that was lovely. You'd think modern people who talk into microphones ALL THE DAMN TIME would be used to the idea that everything is recorded nowadays.

[Pencil]

The Atlantic - of no party or clique - has endorsed Hillary Clinton. This is only the third time in its 159 years of publishing they've made an endorsement in a presidential election.

Actually, endorsement is maybe the wrong word. Indictment of Trump is more like it:

Donald Trump, on the other hand, has no record of public service and no qualifications for public office. His affect is that of an infomercial huckster; he traffics in conspiracy theories and racist invective; he is appallingly sexist; he is erratic, secretive, and xenophobic; he expresses admiration for authoritarian rulers, and evinces authoritarian tendencies himself. He is easily goaded, a poor quality for someone seeking control of America’s nuclear arsenal. He is an enemy of fact-based discourse; he is ignorant of, and indifferent to, the Constitution; he appears not to read.

And later in the text:

In its founding statement, The Atlantic promised that it would be “the organ of no party or clique,” and our interest here is not to advance the prospects of the Democratic Party, nor to damage those of the Republican Party. If Hillary Clinton were facing Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or George W. Bush, or, for that matter, any of the leading candidates Trump vanquished in the Republican primaries, we would not have contemplated making this endorsement. We believe in American democracy, in which individuals from various parties of different ideological stripes can advance their ideas and compete for the affection of voters. But Trump is not a man of ideas. He is a demagogue, a xenophobe, a sexist, a know-nothing, and a liar. He is spectacularly unfit for office, and voters—the statesmen and thinkers of the ballot box—should act in defense of American democracy and elect his opponent.

This will not sway the Trumpistas, of course, but it's a beautiful burn anyway.

[Flying Saucerian]

Good news and bad news in the local paper.

Good news: Read a story about a recent immigrant who became a US citizen but never bothered to register to vote... Until now. He's registering specifically to vote against Trump.

Bad news: A letter to the editor indicates Trump's boorish ignorance and idiotic fits are precisely WHY some people support him. They see him as the antidote to slick, professional politicians.

[AuntiePam]

Originally Posted by Flying Saucerian

Bad news: A letter to the editor indicates Trump's boorish ignorance and idiotic fits are precisely WHY some people support him. They see him as the antidote to slick, professional politicians.

It's the politicians' own damn fault. They've forgotten the 'public service' part of their jobs.

Chuck Grassley (R. Iowa) is running an effective ad saying that he's never missed a vote and that he visits all of Iowa's 99 counties every year. I can appreciate that he takes the job seriously, but I have to overlook the way he votes.

He claims his opponent (Patty Judge) has missed 70+% of votes and 80% of meetings on her committees. But I like the way she votes, so WTF are we supposed to do?

[SmartAleq]

One really has to ask oneself where exactly does data massage turn into actual propaganda? This is beyond reprehensible--how can you call yourself a news outlet when you ignore the actual news sitting in front of you and literally demand the story change itself into something different? If this story is accurate, CNN literally ignored the fact that almost twice as many members of their VP debate focus group intend to vote third party as were willing to admit they were going to vote either D or R. Apparently they believe if they just stick their fingers in their ears and holler "LA LA LA I CANNOT HEAR YOU!!!" loudly enough they can stop people from voting third party. Here's hoping they all get a great big surprise.

[Chacoguy]

I was reading an article about Trump's lawyers in his bankruptcies got so fed up with his lying that they would only meet with him in pairs, so as to keep the record straight. Bear in mind that's his own lawyers, not the opponents.

[JackieLikesVariety]

here is that story

[AuntiePam]

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

One really has to ask oneself where exactly does data massage turn into actual propaganda? This is beyond reprehensible--how can you call yourself a news outlet when you ignore the actual news sitting in front of you and literally demand the story change itself into something different? If this story is accurate, CNN literally ignored the fact that almost twice as many members of their VP debate focus group intend to vote third party as were willing to admit they were going to vote either D or R. Apparently they believe if they just stick their fingers in their ears and holler "LA LA LA I CANNOT HEAR YOU!!!" loudly enough they can stop people from voting third party. Here's hoping they all get a great big surprise.

I'm okay with this. I think CNN is so ashamed of itself for giving Trump so much media coverage -- helping propel him to the nomination -- that they're gonna do whatever they can to help him lose.

[SmartAleq]

Originally Posted by AuntiePam

I'm okay with this. I think CNN is so ashamed of itself for giving Trump so much media coverage -- helping propel him to the nomination -- that they're gonna do whatever they can to help him lose.

Where in that article are you getting anything about CNN working against Trump? They have a focus group of 28 people who watch the VP debate. Afterward they ask, "How many of you are gonna vote for Trump?" Two people raise their hands. They then ask, "How many of you are gonna vote for Clinton?" and five people raise their hands. They ask "How many are gonna vote third party?" TWELVE people raise their hands, at which point they decide they don't LIKE that answer and change the question to "How many of you are undecided?" How is that anything other than trying like hell to cloak how badly both the major candidates are tanking? No matter how they asked the question, the number of people committed to voting either D or R remained at a total of seven. Out of 28 people. If you take the question as originally posed, only ten of the group were actually undecided--but when they kept changing the parameters more of the original group who didn't raise a hand for any of the possible outcomes eventually raised a hand on "undecided" up to the point where enough of them got pissed off and 20 out of 28 indicated they had no intention of voting for EITHER Trump or Clinton.

This is an epic shitshow, the "news" outlets are trying like fucking hell to change the outcome to their predesignated results and we the people are apparently not buying it--which is making the "news" outlets frantic. Of course, they couldn't possibly just report the facts as they are, that would be too much like journalism and we can't have that now, can we?

[AuntiePam]

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

Where in that article are you getting anything about CNN working against Trump?

What I got was that CNN doesn't want us to think that a third party has a chance because third party votes hurt HRC and help Trump. Ergo anti-Trump.

If enough people think that a third party vote won't be a wasted vote -- which could be inferred by the 12 of 28 in this group -- if you can extrapolate that to the rest of the country -- HRC could lose.

[SmartAleq]

What in the world makes you think a third party vote only adversely affects Clinton? A third party vote is a third party vote, nothing more or less. In the unlikely event that a third party candidate wins a state (most likely scenario would be Bernie winning VT as a write in, since he got 85% of the primary votes and has an 84% approval rating in his state--which allows write in votes with no restrictions) and denies 270 electoral votes to any candidate, then the presidency is decided by the incoming House between January 3rd and January 20th, and they have to decide between the three candidates with the most electoral votes. Outside of a third party candidate winning a state and forcing the House selection process, a third party vote increases the likelihood of third or fourth parties getting federal matching funds in future elections.

Millenials are staying away from Clinton in droves and aren't all that jazzed about Trump either--if they, and the independents (which comprise THE largest voting bloc in the country) decide to go for Johnson or Stein and split the vote three or four ways there's an actual chance to break this artificially imposed duopoly and get at least a little closer to a democracy that actually represents its constituents--something we absolutely do not have at this time.

If nothing else, a third party vote withholds any possible claim of a popular mandate from whichever person ends up in the Oval Office. Their claim to power will be tenuous at best and likely contentious, especially if the downballot races are also predominantly decided by the independents. All this crap about "wasted" votes is pure propaganda put in place by those who have a vested interest in maintaining their carefully crafted status quo.

[SmartAleq]

And Hillary uses a child actor planted in a town hall to make sure she gets her softball question. FFS, could someone tell her campaign that Wag The Dog is NOT an instruction manual?

[AuntiePam]

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

What in the world makes you think a third party vote only adversely affects Clinton?

Because no Trump supporter -- or someone even considering Trump as an option -- will vote for Sanders, Johnson, or Stein.

ETA: Unless it's spelled out for them that a third party vote will have the effect you describe, I don't see it happening. There are too many people -- like me, who aren't deep thinkers -- who will remember 2000.

[SmartAleq]

Actually, not a few Sanders supporters initially were planning on saying fuckit and going for Trump, many of us have been talking them off the ledge and pointing at Jill Stein. Who, BTW, is the only progressive choice on the ballot. Remember when the DNC jiggery-pokery started becoming pretty evident? Jill Stein offered to relinquish her spot on the top of the Green ticket and was all in favor of Bernie taking her place since the Green convention took place after the DNC convention. She and Bernie are extremely close in views and platform and she is the ONLY candidate who has even had a word to say about climate change and clean energy.

As for spelling it out--trust me, it's being done. Not on mainstream media, who are very carefully leaving out the Green party and Jill Stein on polls and news, but the word is out there. As for "remembering 2000" it's been disproven over and over and over and over and over and OVER that Nader had any effect on the outcome whatsoever. Gore didn't even carry his own home state, FFS, and there were a lot of other factors that made that shit happen--Nader just got the blame but it's all bullshit.

Because of the electoral college, your third party vote has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the eventual outcome, unless you live in VT and plan on writing Bernie in. Other than that, your third party vote CAN count in a very real and tangible way, by securing federal matching funds for the Green (or Libertarian, if you simply MUST ) party in the next election. If you really want to make a difference, vote using ONLY an absentee paper ballot (avoiding voting machines is critical if you want your vote to have a snowball's chance in a cyclotron of being counted accurately) and vote third party. You can't hurt a damned thing but you could help set up a win next time around.

[BJMoose]

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

They have a focus group of 28 people who watch the VP debate. Afterward they ask, "How many of you are gonna vote for Trump?" Two people raise their hands. They then ask, "How many of you are gonna vote for Clinton?" and five people raise their hands. They ask "How many are gonna vote third party?" TWELVE people raise their hands, at which point they decide they don't LIKE that answer and change the question to "How many of you are undecided?"

Good. God. After the first three questions, the only category left was "undecided".

Get a grip. I'm starting to worry about you.

[Slate]

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

As for spelling it out--trust me, it's being done. Not on mainstream media, who are very carefully leaving out the Green party and Jill Stein on polls and news, but the word is out there. As for "remembering 2000" it's been disproven over and over and over and over and over and OVER that Nader had any effect on the outcome whatsoever. Gore didn't even carry his own home state, FFS, and there were a lot of other factors that made that shit happen--Nader just got the blame but it's all bullshit.

Had Nader not run, Gore wins Florida and is elected president. So what if he lost Tennessee?

Nader got nearly 100,000 votes in Florida. Exit polls indicated that in a two-man race, Nader voters preferred Gore over Bush by a better than 2 to 1 margin. No Nader, No Bush. Nader had every right to seek the office, but let's not pretend he didn't have a profound impact on the election.

These "cult of personality" third party runs are pointless, and only serve to shgw that parties are started from the ground up and not the other way around. Their supporters are just too lazy to do it.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by BJMoose

Good. God. After the first three questions, the only category left was "undecided".

Get a grip. I'm starting to worry about you.

It was reported that the only options presented were "Are you voting Trump, Clinton, or Undecided" instead of "Are you voting Trump, Clinton, Third Party, or Undecided"

They only aired the answers that looked like nobody was voting third party, and that there was a sizable chunk available for either clinton or trump to sway with the debate.

if there's no undecideds, then the debate is pointless, and ratings would presumably suffer. the networks don't want that. they want undecideds. even if you're not undecided.

so they asked the question multiples times, then phrased it a particular way, got the results that they liked, and aired only that one single interaction.

[BrickaBracka]

Futhermore...

[Paul in Qatar]

There, I drove to the county courthouse and voted. The rest of you can now stay home.

[SmartAleq]

Originally Posted by BJMoose

Good. God. After the first three questions, the only category left was "undecided".

Get a grip. I'm starting to worry about you.

So, you don't have a problem with a "news" organization deciding they don't like the facts so they're gonna keep on forcing the apparent response to fit their precut narrative and refilm a segment until the optics fit their preconceptions? I don't think I'm the one you should be worrying about. There's a word for what they're doing, and that word is "propaganda."

[SmartAleq]

FBI agents are mightily pissed at the kid glove mollycoddling "investigation" Clinton received. "Federal Bureau of Immunity" indeed. J Edgar must be doing about 7500rpm over this bullshit. Too bad most of the agents involved in the case have been required to sign nondisclosure agreements, it'd be interesting to hear their take on it.

[hatesfreedom]

Getting your news from opinion pieces now eh?

[Lungfish]

The New York Post owned by Rupert Murdoch. 'nuff said.

[hatesfreedom]

Originally Posted by Lungfish

The New York Post owned by Rupert Murdoch. 'nuff said.

I wrote an opinion piece too


The mood inside the situation room was tense, Agent Don Markles had lost his left contact lens and his fellow agents were laughingly searching the room inch by inch. "It's a grid search, we're trained for that sort of thing", said Agent Bill Baxil after a polite chuckle.

The festive mood hid the stress and anger they'd felt over the FBI not being allowed to assassinate Donald Trump. "It's that asshole president of ours, Obama.. he believes attaching a magnetic bomb to Trumps car is a rude way to solve problems. I don't necessarily disagree with him, but the Israel's gave us a box of em.. so.. ", Agent Baxil shrugged and sighed. "I just really wish we'd been able to blow him up. His wife crying, his children crying.. I really get hard thinking about." The other agents in the room nodded respectfully.

[BrickaBracka]

"Opinion Piece"

You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[hatesfreedom]

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

"Opinion Piece"

You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Perhaps not, do inform me

I am using hyperbole of course, so don't judge my masterpiece of writing too harshly.

[Khampelf]

I'd call it 'Satire'. I enjoyed reading it, it gave me a chuckle.

[SmartAleq]

Originally Posted by Lungfish

The New York Post owned by Rupert Murdoch. 'nuff said.

Seriously, is that all you have? You don't like the place it's published? Experienced FBI veterans of no minor rank commented on the record in that piece, putting their reputations on the line to express an unpopular opinion that could result in real world consequences and that means nothing because you don't like the publisher? I bet you get pissed on Facebook when your right wing uncle dismisses your source as a "libtard rag" though. Do better.

[loshan]

"former FBI agent..." "retired FBI agent..." --- Those are the ones on the record. There are not too many consequences to expressing an opinion about an organization when you are no longer a member.


And, speaking of "libtard rags", I give you this: We’ve been totally wrong about Hillary Clinton’s young voter problem from Vox.

[AuntiePam]

I did roll my eyes at the hand-wringing about damage to the FBI's reputation. The FBI hasn't had a good reputation since Hoover.

She was careless with classified information. We can assume that information is now secure. Secure servers are breached all the time. We're living in a dream world if we believe that our government can achieve 100% cyber security.

I know, I'm making excuses and rationalizations, but I'll keep making them until there's evidence of actual harm.

[JackieLikesVariety]

Loshan, did you watch the video "Democrats are in trouble, even if Clinton wins" at the end of the page?

depressing and what I believe we will get - a Democratic President who is completely obstructed by congress. again.

[loshan]

I didn't. I try to avoid videos longer than a minute or so. Satellite internet sucks.

It would certainly help if Dems, as an organization, would quit focusing just on the presidency and put a little effort into House seats, governorships and every elected official down to dog-catcher and coroner.