US Election Thread 2016

[Jose Jones]

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.

[Red Phoenix]

Which is again no news to anyone with a brain.

 

Not much is news to Clinton supporters, even evidence of her breaking the law repeatedly, because Trump.

 

I think you forgot the part about there being more evidence of her campaign breaking the law by coordinating with David Brock's Super PAC. Maybe if you go back and read again you might see it.

 

More on that here :

 

 

FEC Complaint Accuses Clinton Campaign of Illegally Working With David Brock’s Super PAC

 

A legal complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission on Thursday accuses the Hillary Clinton campaign of illegally coordinating with David Brock’s super PAC.

 

The Campaign Legal Center charges that Brock’s PAC Correct the Record contributed nearly $6 million in in-kind donations to the Clinton campaign in the form of coordinated expenditures, Law Newz reported. Such donations are prohibited by federal law, according to the complaint.

 

Brock launched Correct the Record in 2015 to serve as a rapid response team for Clinton’s presidential bid. The PAC pledged to spend $1 million to “push back” against users posting negative comments about the Democratic nominee on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and Instagram.

 

The PAC boasted in April that its “Barrier Breakers” project had already “addressed more than 5,000 people that have personally attacked Hillary Clinton on Twitter.”

 

The Campaign Legal Center said in its complaint the PAC publicly acknowledges its coordination with the Clinton campaign and charged that its multi-million-dollar operation is more extensive than a volunteer blogging movement.

 

“Correct the Record is a $6 million Washington D.C.-based political committee that spends millions on opposition research, message development, surrogate training and booking, professional video production, and press outreach for the benefit of the Clinton campaign—and by its own admission, does so in full coordination with the Clinton campaign,” the Campaign Legal Center said in the complaint.

 

“Because Correct the Record is effectively an arm of the Clinton campaign, million-dollar-plus contributions to the super PAC are indistinguishable from contributions directly to Clinton–and pose the same risk of corruption,” the group said in a statement.

 

Sen. Bernie Sanders criticized Clinton for hiring Brock as her lead super PAC operative in May, calling him “the scum of the Earth.”

 

http://freebeacon.com/politics/fec-complaint-accuses-clinton-campaign-illegally-working-david-brocks-super-pac/

 

If Trump pulled shit like this we'd never hear the end of it.

 

One of the worst things I've seen in this whole election is the complete ignorance of Clinton supporters as wave after wave of evidence comes forward that she's a complete criminal. A lot of Clinton supporters in many ways are actually worse than a lot of Trumps.

 

It's the same old bullshit being trotted out against all of his supporters that they're uneducated white racists, etc, that we got with Brexit. There's actually a lot of decent people supporting him by the looks of it, even if he does attract a bunch of idiots as well.

 

Sanders was the best man for president and Clinton along with her mob rigged it against him. Schultz used to be Clinton's campaign manager then became head of the DNC, how lucky for her. And who did Schultz replace? Tim Kaine. How odd!

 

I hope if she's elected she's quickly impeached. She's a fraud and a psychopath.

[Jose Jones]

No way man. There is obviously multitudes of evidence that Clinton and her campaign are ruthless political operators.

There is a lot to suggest they have been toeing the margins of legality but really nothing that isn't easily explained away.

 

I think there is an echo chamber on the internet media which gets itself into a lather over every scrap of circumstantial evidence which then never progresses into actually finding irrefutable proof. That then waters down any reporting that comes out. It's the boy who cried wolf effect.

[Red Phoenix]

One more then I'm having a rest from this for a bit :

 

MEANWHILE: Hillary’s Campaign May Have Illegally Coordinated With a Super PAC

 

There's a reason that the Trump Tape dropped yesterday. There's a reason that the single most damaging thing yet to the Trump campaign was released on a Friday evening. That reason? Wikileaks dropped a bomb on Hillary's campaign, so Team Clinton had to scramble and release a payload early. But what was that bomb?

 

Hacked emails showing that her campaign coordinated with a super PAC. Which, to reiterate, is illegal. But, hey, "Illegal" is like her middle name at this point, right? Either that or "Homebrew Server" or "Benghazi." Anyway, we've got John Podesta of the Clinton campaign emailing someone else, looking to coordinate with David Brock. Brock runs a pro-Hillary super PAC.

 

This is not something you are actually allowed to do.

 

This is stupid. John Podesta knows good and well that if he's working for Hillary's campaign, he is not allowed to coordinate anything with David Brock, who is not a part of the campaign because he runs organizations that boost her. The only reason this probably won't get investigated by the FEC is because the email in question is technically from before Hillary Clinton announced her run. The email is from March, and she announced in April.

 

Here's the thing. It's not about whether it was technically illegal or not. It's the fact that no one has thus far claimed anything is fake. Given that we've seen evidence of faked documents from Wikileaks already, you think they'd just jump on that. But, that's what's so damaging about the Clinton Machine. It's not at all that they feel remorse for what they have done or will do. They think they are above it, and it's a mentality that permeates down into the lower ranks.

 

It's infuriating that someone can live so far above the law, and that the law has enabled her to do so. Yes, what Trump said and did was awful, but if you look at anything Wikileaks dropped yesterday, you see that she and the people around her really don't care at all about the rules. Transcripts of her Wall Street speeches, including one where she advocated having public and private policies when you run for office.

 

She is advocating having hidden agendas.

 

This is the type of woman who is going to win the presidency. We have allowed the most corrupt, dishonest person to win the presidency. And it's not because we here at RedState opposed the nominee. We pushed actual, talented politicians with good ideas. The media and the rest of the country said "Screw that" and nominated a side show act. This is on them. This is on Reince Priebus. This is on Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham. This is on Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the Talky Class.

 

Every single enabler of Donald Trump has gotten us to this point.

 

http://www.redstate.com/joesquire/2016/10/08/meanwhile-hillarys-campaign-may-illegally-coordinated-super-pac/

[Jose Jones]

There is also this line of bollocks about how Trump is hated by "the establishment" because he's not in thrall to the military industrial complex. He's already said that the first thing he'd do as president is start a land war against ISIS!

 

 

Also that his supporters have been smeared as stupid racists. They don't need any smearing because Trump is a massively stupid racist!

 

This kind of argument from the left just makes people look divorced from reality and ruins any cogent points they might also make.

[Red Phoenix]

No way man. There is obviously multitudes of evidence that Clinton and her campaign are ruthless political operators.

There is a lot to suggest they have been toeing the margins of legality but really nothing that isn't easily explained away.

 

There's plenty of evidence of illegality. From what's happened with the DNC rigging it against Sanders, Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, the Brock stuff I've just been posting. The law doesn't apply to her though by the looks of it.

[Red Phoenix]

This kind of argument from the left just makes people look divorced from reality and ruins any cogent points they might also make.

 

Outright supporting Trump is kind of divorced from reality in many ways, agreed, but so is ignoring the crap that Clinton has been involved in.

 

Anyway I'm off! Am going to try and leave the thread until the debate later.

[Jose Jones]

There's plenty of evidence of illegality. From what's happened with the DNC rigging it against Sanders, Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, the Brock stuff I've just been posting. The law doesn't apply to her though by the looks of it.

 

The DNC didn't rig it against Sanders though, there were some dodgy shenanigans.

Look at it this way; Bernie was an independent senator who wasn't even a member of the party 4 years ago. Yet still managed to get 47% of the vote or whatever. That is some pretty poor "rigging". Then since the nomination he has consistently has endorsed Clinton, even last week he was doing it.

Would Bernie really be doing that if the nomination had been rigged against him? Or is it that there was some minor murky political shit that has been overhyped by the echo chamber?

And is that by claiming a rigged election that even the candidate whom they claim was rigged against seems to not be so worried about actually counterproductive?

 

Similarly with the SuperPAC stuff. SuperPACs are hideously undemocratic ideas created by the ridiculous Republican Supreme Court, but look at what is being claimed as "illegal".

 

Before Clinton declared as a candidate her campaign manager contacted and maybe attempted to co-ordinate some activities with a SuperPAC set up to support Clinton. I mean, the whole thing is horribly ridiculous, but what do people think SuperPAC's actually do? It's the very nature of them!

 

 

By focusing on the player, they are losing their focus on the game.

[Jose Jones]

It's almost the same on the right in the US as well by the way.

The media have become a Fox News echo chamber so latch on, hype up (and basically lie) about every scenario possible. In the case of Benghazi for example there was room for a sober examination of the facts that may well have better illuminated Clinton's shit decision making and after the fact manipulating.

 

But they exaggerate facts, normally with the excuse that the "mainstream media" are just as bad, shout about crimes and impeachment without actually nailing down any proof.

Eventually they lose credibility so everyone tunes out except for the true believers.

 

I am more left of centre so it annoys me more when that kind of shoddy reporting and shortsightedness comes from that side. But it's the same thing really.

[Red Phoenix]

Would've left it but came back to post this because it looks like it's over for Trump if this is right :

 

[Red Phoenix]

It's almost the same on the right in the US as well by the way.

The media have become a Fox News echo chamber so latch on, hype up (and basically lie) about every scenario possible. In the case of Benghazi for example there was room for a sober examination of the facts that may well have better illuminated Clinton's shit decision making and after the fact manipulating.

 

But they exaggerate facts, normally with the excuse that the "mainstream media" are just as bad, shout about crimes and impeachment without actually nailing down any proof.

Eventually they lose credibility so everyone tunes out except for the true believers.

 

I am more left of centre so it annoys me more when that kind of shoddy reporting and shortsightedness comes from that side. But it's the same thing really.

 

I don't think it's worth arguing it, I think there's criminality all over the place connected to her, probably along with millions of others. You can't get away with what she did with her emails for a start, and the destroying of evidence if you're not someone like her. It's fairly widely accepted now and those that think she's done nothing wrong are probably becoming more of a minority.

[Red Phoenix]

Seriously Clinton supporters, it's pointless trying to make out that she's never done anything criminal. She's going to win anyway by the looks of it, so you're still getting what you wanted.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JEYSggzReo

[Jose Jones]

This is the thing though RP, very few people actually like Clinton.

 

It isn't some media conspiracy that this stuff isn't known, or is being swept under the carpet.

 

Any credible Republican would have beaten her easily. Likewise can you imagine the electoral carnage of Bill Clinton or Obama versus Trump.

[Rico1304]

It's clear Clinton is the 'least shit option' she's calculated, cold and completely lacks charisma. She's also clever and has a decent handle on world affairs. Things are likely to be a little bit better or a little bit worse if she wins but nothing dramatic.

 

Trump is plain mad.

 

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

(One word, one word)

[Red Phoenix]

It's clear Clinton is the 'least shit option' she's calculated, cold and completely lacks charisma. She's also clever and has a decent handle on world affairs. Things are likely to be a little bit better or a little bit worse if she wins but nothing dramatic.

 

Trump is plain mad.

 

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

(One word, one word)

 

Abstain!

[Rico1304]

Abstain!

That's just fucking crazy.

[Rico1304]

So;

 

The wall

Deporting illegals

Banning Muslims

Ground war v ISIS

The rape

The misogyny

 

Arent worse that Hillary having her own servers, fiddling her nomination?

[Red Phoenix]

This is the thing though RP, very few people actually like Clinton.

 

It isn't some media conspiracy that this stuff isn't known, or is being swept under the carpet.

 

Any credible Republican would have beaten her easily. Likewise can you imagine the electoral carnage of Bill Clinton or Obama versus Trump.

 

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.

[Frankenhooker]

Rico is spot on here. Clinton is untrustworthy, so is Trump, but at least she has the qualifications to take office. Trump is dangerous and those wanting him to be elected either have a vested interest or aren't right in the head.

 

I don't see how there a debate to be had. A sneaky, untrustworthy career politician or a certifiable racist ?

[Red Phoenix]

So;

 

The wall

Deporting illegals

Banning Muslims

Ground war v ISIS

The rape

The misogyny

 

Arent worse that Hillary having her own servers, fiddling her nomination?

 

I'm thinking more of a war with Russia, or other countries being destroyed when it comes to Clinton. The problem is that there's no idea of what Trump will do in other countries, even if he is friendly with Russia. So yes, abstain. Fuck choosing either of them.

[Red Phoenix]

Rico is spot on here. Clinton is untrustworthy, so is Trump, but at least she has the qualifications to take office. Trump is dangerous and those wanting him to be elected either have a vested interest or aren't right in the head.

 

I don't see how there a debate to be had. A sneaky, untrustworthy career politician or a certifiable racist ?

 

Or : certifiable war hawk with the American military under her command, or certifiable racist with the American military under his command? I still abstain from choosing either of them.

[Frankenhooker]

Or : certifiable war hawk with the American military under her command, or certifiable racist with the American military under his command? I still abstain from choosing either of them.

Thank fuck you haven't got a vote.

[Red Phoenix]

Thank fuck you haven't got a vote.

 

Yeah, voting for Jill Stein would be a real crime if I could. You'd think it was the way Clinton supporters go apeshit at her and those that support her. Stein is far more like Sanders than Clinton ever will be, and a lot less criminal than Clinton as well. And a lot more democratic. She hasn't played a big part in destroying a country like Libya either, isn't owned by Wall Street, and she doesn't have a huge foundation that takes cash from countries like Saudi Arabia in return for favours.

 

She did put some spray paint on a bulldozer in Dakota a short while back though during a protest, so you should definitely keep an eye on her. She could advance to major league crime at any point.

[Ginny]

The US election is a soap opera on television. You know what's gong to happen but you still tune in for the entertainment. There is no way in the world that Donald Trump will end up in the White House. That will never be allowed to happen. I've asked the question to myself and others around could it actually happen? But then it dawned on me that I was been pulled into the mindless drama that only has one outcome. He can't win, he will never win - it's impossible for him to win. It will never be allowed. Forget all the numbers and intellectual debate. The winner has been chosen from ths start.

[Frankenhooker]

Yeah, voting for Jill Stein would be a real crime if I could. You'd think it was the way Clinton supporters go apeshit at her and those that support her. Stein is far more like Sanders than Clinton ever will be, and a lot less criminal than Clinton as well. And a lot more democratic. She hasn't played a big part in destroying a country like Libya either, isn't owned by Wall Street, and she doesn't have a huge foundation that takes cash from countries like Saudi Arabia in return for favours.

 

She did put some spray paint on a bulldozer in Dakota a short while back though during a protest, so you should definitely keep an eye on her. She could advance to major league crime at any point.

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.