Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

US Election Thread 2016


Red Phoenix
 Share

Recommended Posts

There's quite a lot of us now who've been following the leaks to see that there's clearly been a media and Clinton campaign conspiracy, yes conspiracy, for months on end. There's evidence of it all over the DNC leaks, and it extends right up to earlier on, when Facebook and Twitter suppressed the Podesta email leaks from trending (Twitter was a lot worse I think.) and outlets like The Guardian and Reuters kept Wikileaks off their front pages.

 

They did hit front pages at one point, but eventually no sign anywhere amongst dozens of other stories and instead a lot of Trump stuff.

 

I can present plenty of evidence of this conspiracy, as can thousands of other Trump, Sanders, Stein and Johnson supporters who've not actively been against all of this, but do I really have to? It's an increasingly accepted fact, so accepted that I think it's a waste of time going through it again.

 

At first Clinton isn't a criminal, now there's not some big conspiracy. Well yes, there is a conspiracy to get her elected, and there's been one for months on end. And yes she's a criminal. She's likely to be impeached as well, if she makes it that far. Wikileaks might have some pretty damning stuff held back until we get closer to the election date so don't be so sure that she's going to make it to the presidency, she really might not. Especially if those 33,000 deleted emails happen to surface.

 

We might even see Kaine going against Pence if things escalate much further from this point, if that's what happens when both main candidates are either disqualified or they drop out.

The reason Wikileaks stuff has been kept off the front page isn't because of a conspiracy, it's because it's relatively minor stuff.

 

Likewise there's no twitter suppression it's just not that interesting, hence not trending.

 

This is not to say that the Clinton campaign does not have effective media managers who are able to craft the way news is released or presented though. But that is just the nature of politics.

 

However the echo chamber convince themselves of conspiracy but really they are as culpable of this stuff not being taken seriously by the crying of the wolf.

 

As is demonstrated, internet types goes on about the democratic nomination being rigged, yet Bernie Sanders endorsed and continues to make appearances and speeches supporting Clinton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking of starting a business selling voter nose pegs. There must be tens of millions of Democrats who do not want to vote for Clinton and Republicans who do not want to vote for Trump but who will reluctantly vote for their awful person to stop that other awful person becoming president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking of starting a business selling voter nose pegs. There must be tens of millions of Democrats who do not want to vote for Clinton and Republicans who do not want to vote for Trump but who will reluctantly vote for their awful person to stop that other awful person becoming president.

 

It seems fucking mad. A half competent Republican would have trounced Clinton, likewise Sanders would have done Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems fucking mad. A half competent Republican would have trounced Clinton, likewise Sanders would have done Trump.

Yet the DNC deliberately sabotaged Sanders campaign, even though it was obvious he would destroy Trump in an election. 

The DNC would rather lose with Clinton (policies that keep the status quo) than win with Sanders (progressive change).

 

Just like the Labour party here;

 

 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tony-blair-says-he-wouldn-t-want-a-left-wing-labour-party-to-win-an-election-10406928.html

 

Tony Blair has said he would not want a left-wing Labour party to win a general election.

The former prime minister said that even if he thought a left-wing programme was the route to victory, he would not adopt one.

 

 

 

 

It tells you everything you need to know about who these parties truly represent.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To abstain or not to abstain is a really interesting point. It once again shows how undemocratic the election process actually is. 

I get the argument is less people vote it will take away the legitimacy of the government and they will sit up and listen. However, in reality I don't believe this would happen. As we have seen from lower and lower turn outs at general elections here, politicians of all major parties completely (conveniently) miss the reasons for this.

 

Less us not forget, a major party have had a massive rise in membership and this is seen as a negative.

 

So abstaining and more chance of the other person winning and not giving a fuck that you did not vote. Or voting for one corrupt cunt elitist against another corrupt cunt elitist and feeling dirty.

 

Also due to the nature of the electoral college (or first past the post), the set up of the state you live in must also factor into how you vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few images and tweets to show a bit of the twitter manipulation of Wikileaks, seeing as it wasn't supposed to have existed.
 
"Not that interesting." From facebook :
 
jWgZSPU.jpg

Twitter later on after Trump released his response, and another example of facebook with 1mil :

B7GuALF.jpg

Hitting the trends slightly early on with over 80,000 tweets :

QRAlxyK.png

But woops, gone again shortly after :

tQwumhs.png

Manipulating the autocomplete from the original hashtag of #PodestaEmails to #PodestraEmails :

dVdJaJA.jpg

Or #PodestoEmails, or #PodestaMails : https://twitter.com/Cape_Cod_Jim/status/784647833378881536

"146k tweeting about it and its not even number 1 most trending." : https://twitter.com/X_XAli1Khalil/status/784593619894276097

"Reached 158k now but has gone down in the trending list" : https://twitter.com/X_XAli1Khalil/status/784598114334339073

 

I mainly saw Billy Bush trending for hours on end. Anything related to Podesta for maybe a few mins at one point.

You could probably do this every time there's a Wikileaks release related to Clinton before the election is over. If you're still not convinced maybe go and check yourself if you're around at the time. You might see it briefly here and there, then it'll be gone. Or they might leave it for a while then it'll disappear from trends, or they'll just manipulate it from the off.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be embarrassed to be American with the state of their politics but I'm British so it feels more like a familiarity.

Pretty much the same thing said yesterday in the local. General debate/chat about Trump, how big a bell he is and stupid the Yanks would be to elect him, there was a group "ye, the knobheads" then one one lad pipes up with "they probably said the same about us with Brexit" cue group silence and sipping of pint in embarrassed reflection. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, you and your crazy rants. She isn't an option silly. The choice is Clinton or Trump, not much of a choice to any sane person, yet you'd abstain.

 

An extract with a few points for you, so you can see why voting Green doesn't have to be a wasted vote :

 

Ballot Lines for Local Independent Political Action

 

Another goal of Stein is to secure state ballot lines for the next election cycle. About 30 state ballot lines are within reach of the Stein presidential campaign. 19 states can secure ballot lines for the next election cycle with presidential votes of between 0.5% and 3%. 12 more states require 5%. One requires 10% and another 20%. The other 17 states and D.C. have requirements unrelated to the presidential vote.

 

Ballot lines are essential institutional infrastructure for an independent political insurgency. Without ballot status in many states, the obstacles to ballot access for local, state, and congressional candidates are very difficult if not completely insurmountable. The Greens want ballot lines so they can focus back to local elections and base building, which has always been the Greens' primary political strategy. About 130 Greens currently hold elected office and many more Greens are the stalwart organizers and activists in grassroots movements (as opposed to the funded, staff-run nonprofits that work in the Democratic Party orbit). Running for president and governor in many states has always been for the Greens mainly about securing ballot lines to enable local candidacies.

 

5% Vote in 2016 = $10 Million Public Funding in 2020

 

5% of the vote nationally is another important threshold. If the Stein campaign reached it, the Green Party would qualify for general election public funding in 2020 that will be worth over $10 million.

 

...

 

Now there are proposals in Congress to eliminate the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, which funds both the primary matching funds system and the grants to qualified candidates in the general election. These proposals come at a time when liberal campaign finance reform advocates have retreated from full public funding of all qualified candidates based on equal public grants, which was adopted by Maine in 1996 and Arizona in 1998. The reformers have since made their peace with privately financed elections as long as there is a public financing add on, especially since advocates for these partial public campaign finance reforms have received major funding from billionaires. So partial public funding based on matching funds or voucher systems is on the legislative agenda in state houses and Congress. This retreat by liberal reformers makes seeking to qualify the Green Party for the 2020 general election funding all the more a worthy goal. If a minor party like the Greens does not qualify for it in 2016, the Presidential Election Campaign Fund programs may not survive until 2020.

 

From here : https://www.solidarity-us.org/steincampaign

 

Sure sounds crazy! Maybe US left-wing voters should just reward the corruption of the DNC and Clinton campaign instead by all lining up neatly together to vote for them! It does seem odd why anyone on the left would want a better option than a Wall Street owned woman implicated in all types of criminality, a destroyed Libya to show for some of her efforts, and who doesn't give a fuck about them unless they're being used to get her into office. Maybe they're just a bunch of freaks. The Dems can be trusted next time around too so no need for the Greens or any other party, Dems wouldn't try anything dodgy again, surely....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So leaks have been made of a Clinton speech saying the US couldn't carry out a no fly zone over Syria? Which is exactly what any sane person would think.

 

Plus an email stating that her campaign would be trying to get Trump as the Republican candidate. Which is again no news to anyone with a brain.

 

I think Wikileaks need to up their editorial work otherwise they're in danger of no-one ever reading anything else they turn up.

Probably a bit tricky with Assange under embassy arrest though to be fair.

I don't think it's surprising, per se. However, she's spent months explaining that Trump should not be near the presidency and poses a unique threat to the country and world at large; the documents prove that she deliberately and strategically promoted a candidate that could cause untold damage.

 

She consciously advanced the possibility of a Trump presidency, out of total self-interest.

 

At the very least, it makes her a massive hypocrite, and it means her campaign is not in a position to make moral judgements on people who don't support her.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's surprising, per se. However, she's spent months explaining that Trump should not be near the presidency and poses a unique threat to the country and world at large; the documents prove that she deliberately and strategically promoted a candidate that could cause untold damage.

 

She consciously advanced the possibility of a Trump presidency, out of total self-interest.

 

At the very least, it makes her a massive hypocrite, and it means her campaign is not in a position to make moral judgements on people who don't support her.

I'd agree with all that.

 

But it's hardly news is it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I got asked this :

 

 

RP - in one word, would you prefer Trump over Clinton?

(One word, one word)

 

Should've said Stein instead of abstain. If I was in a state with Stein on the ballot I'd vote. If she wasn't on the ballot I'd not vote. I support the Greens in the US, the UK, and anywhere else where they're a similar party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presumably if the choice was between Trump and someone to the right of him you'd vote for Trump?

I probably would, if he was going against someone who is that much worse than him as he is to Clinton and Trump was the only one who could prevent this person becoming the US president. I'd have a problem what to do if it was something like Trump vs. Cruz for the presidency, as I wouldn't see much difference between them so I would probably abstain.

 

It's all about where your vantage point is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I probably would, if he was going against someone who is that much worse than him as he is to Clinton and Trump was the only one who could prevent this person becoming the US president. I'd have a problem what to do if it was something like Trump vs. Cruz for the presidency, as I wouldn't see much difference between them so I would probably abstain.

 

It's all about where your vantage point is.

 

I was really just trying to establish if he had a line in the sand. Clinton is the wrong side of mine, and therefore there aren't any circumstances where I could vote for her. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely it is also about context? Hitler or Clinton, you'd abstain? The line in sand comes into play when you don't see enough difference to cross it.

 

Wouldn't really matter if I abstained or not in that contest, Hitler would wipe the floor with her. 

 

To be honest, I'd probably just leave the country (Clinton v Trump or Clinton v Hitler).

 

I disagree that there has to be a small difference for the line in the sand to have to come into play. I think it's perfectly reasonable to simply say that you despise the values of both candidates and simply won't vote for either. You can also, which I would, take the view that legitimising the Democratic Party when they put up a Republican candidate isn't something I would want to do. You can take a longer term view.

 

I wouldn't vote Labour if Kendall/Burnham/Cooper had won last year, or Smith this. The Tories becoming more right wing wouldn't have changed this view.

 

I don't think there is a correct answer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kevin D, on 09 Oct 2016 - 11:05 PM, said:

 

I don't think it's surprising, per se. However, she's spent months explaining that Trump should not be near the presidency and poses a unique threat to the country and world at large; the documents prove that she deliberately and strategically promoted a candidate that could cause untold damage.

 

She consciously advanced the possibility of a Trump presidency, out of total self-interest.

 

At the very least, it makes her a massive hypocrite, and it means her campaign is not in a position to make moral judgements on people who don't support her.

I think if there were examples of how the campaign had deliberately promoted Trump, then that would have been different and had a lot of cut through. However, there's just an email going "should we promote Trump if we get the chance?" "Yup". There's really nothing there.

And this is cut throat politics at the highest level, it's faux naivete to pretend that a candidate or political party isn't maneuvering to win power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...