US Election Thread 2016

[Red Phoenix]

The NY Times fact checking of the debate. The only things Trump got right was the emails and Bill's fine.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/09/us/elections/fact-check-debate.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

 

Non US viewers everywhere wonder if the US can just detach itself from the planet and float off into space...

 

NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, Guardian, etc, will be in the bag for Hillary. They'll say Trump lied more and she won, etc. They both lie regularly. I'd say Trump landed some serious attacks on her from early on and Clinton supporters will be in denial about that. The way she smiled often as he did so also made her look false, I don't think she was happy at all.

 

When Trump told Clinton she'd be in jail if he won, that was pretty devastating, even over the top really. Then the crowd cheered and clapped, and CIA Anderson Cooper outed himself by saying : "Please do not applaud, please do not talk out loud, you're just wasting time." Fucking shocking. He'd never have said that if they were cheering and clapping for something that Clinton said.

 

Trump might start doing better in the polls for a while now, I still think Clinton will win though. Her campaign machine and the establishment lined up behind her are probably too powerful. It could be that the polls don't even change, Trump has reached demon status to many Americans now and the media will keep pushing it.

[Anubis]

They'll say it because it's true. Even during the debate he was lying about things that could be immediately checked - such as saying he never tweeted about checking out a sex tape. Within minutes his tweet saying exactly that was being retweeted.

[Red Phoenix]

They'll say it because it's true. Even during the debate he was lying about things that could be immediately checked - such as saying he never tweeted about checking out a sex tape. Within minutes his tweet saying exactly that was being retweeted.

 

Of course he lied, he often lies. So does Clinton though. They'll also avoid speaking about how he attacked her so well on wikileaks, her destroyed emails, etc. Clinton is the savior, Trump is the devil. Standard media propaganda for the establishment choice.

[Red Phoenix]

Jeremy Scahill at The Intercept :

Trump may go away, but the people he has empowered will not

These presidential debates — certainly this one — serve as the most stark commentary on how bankrupt the U.S. electoral system is.
 
This is the choice the system produces for “viable” candidates.
 
The cartoonish villainy of Donald Trump is a major factor in distracting attention from the hawkish, neoliberal policies of Hillary Clinton. Hillary’s best selling point for a lot of people — Democrats and, increasingly Republicans—is: I’m not batshit crazy like Trump. There is rarely a focus on Clinton’s embrace of regime change, her role in creating the conditions, as Secretary of State, for the horror show currently unfolding in Yemen, or her paramilitarization of the State Department. Clinton has never been asked about her role in the secret drone “kill chain” the Obama administration has now codified as a parallel justice system where there are no trials, indictments or convictions, but a whole lot of death sentences. Just as Clinton avoided real questions about Libya thanks to the clownfuck Republicans’ carnival over Benghazi, she emerges as the only choice for many sane people. That she is buddy-buddy with Wall Street, speaks one way to them and another in public, becomes a footnote. She is the empire candidate and that is why the John Negropontes and Max Boots and George H.W. Bushes of the world have embraced her.
 
Here is the thing, though: both Clinton and Trump’s candidacies’ have fucked us — albeit in different ways. Hillary represents more of the same bipartisan warmongering. And, under Obama, that has been met with a lot of silence and complicity from liberals. Depressing.
 
Whether Trump wins, loses or loses big, he has empowered fascists, racists and bigots. He did not create them, but he has legitimized them by becoming the nominee and openly expressing their heinous, hateful beliefs. This, to me, is one of the most frightening developments on a domestic level in the U.S. this election cycle. Trump may go away, but the people he has empowered will not.

 

https://theintercept.com/liveblogs/seconddebate/trump-may-go-away-but-the-people-he-has-empowered-will-not/

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Of course he lied, he often lies. So does Clinton though. They'll also avoid speaking about how he attacked her so well on wikileaks, her destroyed emails, etc. Clinton is the savior, Trump is the devil. Standard media propaganda for the establishment choice.

Saying "they both lie" is a bit like saying that Israel and Hamas both kill civilians: there are significant differences in scale and motives which it would be disingenuous to ignore.

[JohnnyH]

Worst 2 candidates ever. It really is a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

It's not. And that's the very important thing.

 

Yes, Clinton is unlikeable ad has a somewhat checkered past, like a lot of politicians. But Trump is the most dangerously ignorant, despot like, and dangerous person to ever run for US President. Even by saying he'd lock up his opponent he shows exactly how terrifying a choice he is. He's a racist, misogynistic, sectarian, thug. The world would be in an even more dangerous place with him in charge.

 

They are both unlikeable people in their own ways, but there is no comparison in ability to govern between the two. It is imperative that Trump doesn't win.

[JohnnyH]

"And then you go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like I loooooove you"

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

It's not. And that's the very important thing.

 

Yes, Clinton is unlikeable ad has a somewhat checkered past, like a lot of politicians. But Trump is the most dangerously ignorant, despot like, and dangerous person to ever run for US President. Even by saying he'd lock up his opponent he shows exactly how terrifying a choice he is. He's a racist, misogynistic, sectarian, thug. The world would be in an even more dangerous place with him in charge.

 

They are both unlikeable people in their own ways, but there is no comparison in ability to govern between the two. It is imperative that Trump doesn't win.

A choice between a turd sandwich and a depleted uranium enema, then.

[Red Phoenix]

Saying "they both lie" is a bit like saying that Israel and Hamas both kill civilians: there are significant differences in scale and motives which it would be disingenuous to ignore.

 

Not really. Clinton could be a genuine threat to the world with her stance on Iran, Syria and Russia. There's no scale higher than that. Trump said he'd work with them against ISIS. People are talking about how Trump has to be the worst, but he could actually represent less chance of global conflict than Clinton. That's why I refuse to side with her. She's lying about something that could lead to war. I've not seen any of her supporters even tackle this question either, it's like the most serious problem about her isn't even an issue.

[Red Phoenix]

One more from The Intercept by Lee Fang :

Hillary Clinton should release the full transcripts of her speeches, to clear everything up

Over the weekend, Hillary Clinton’s campaign responded to the disclosure of excerpts of her paid speech transcripts  by vaguely suggesting that the emails could have been doctored or manipulated in some way.

But responding to a question tonight about one of the remarks she was said to have made, Clinton effectively confirmed its authenticity. Martha Raddatz asked Clinton about one of the quotes released by Wikileaks on Friday, that Clinton told a housing trade group that she maintains a “public and private position on certain issues.”

First, Clinton asserted that she was simply discussing Abraham Lincoln, and how the Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln showed how the tactic of deceiving the public about a policy position is sometimes “strategic.” She continued: “I was making the point that it is hard sometimes to get the Congress to do what you want to do and you have to keep working at it,” Clinton said.

If she wants to clear that up, there’s an easy way to do it: release the full transcripts of the paid speeches.

Moments later, she pivoted and attacked the source of the emails, suggesting that the emails were from the Russian government and that “we don’t even know it’s accurate information.”

Well, which is it? Why defend transcript remarks if they’re fake? One incredibly simple way to clear the air about this: release the full transcripts of the paid speeches.

https://theintercept.com/liveblogs/seconddebate/hillary-clinton-should-release-the-full-transcripts-of-her-speeches-to-clear-everything-up/

 

Wikileaks from twitter :

 

@wikileaks 8 hours ago

Editorial: Reporters should not let themselves be gamed by the Clinton campaign. There is no denial and we have a 100% record for accuracy.

 

[Rico1304]

Not really. Clinton could be a genuine threat to the world with her stance on Iran, Syria and Russia. There's no scale higher than that. Trump said he'd work with them against ISIS. People are talking about how Trump has to be the worst, but he could actually represent less chance of global conflict than Clinton. That's why I refuse to side with her. She's lying about something that could lead to war. I've not seen any of her supporters even tackle this question either, it's like the most serious problem about her isn't even an issue.

You honestly think that having a man with the IQ temperament and attention span of a toddler in charge of the nuclear codes is less risky than Clinton?

 

He's reacted to Di Niro calling him out, how would he react to Putin threatening the USA?

 

You are truly fucking crazy.

[JohnnyH]

A choice between a turd sandwich and a depleted uranium enema, then.

Sounds about right.

[Red Phoenix]

You honestly think that having a man with the IQ temperament and attention span of a toddler in charge of the nuclear codes is less risky than Clinton?

 

He's reacted to Di Niro calling him out, how would he react to Putin threatening the USA?

 

You are truly fucking crazy.

 

Why would Putin threaten the USA if he finally has someone who won't act like a complete prick in the White House? You could say that anyone ignoring what a no fly zone could mean is truly fucking crazy as well. I don't think there's any way of properly defending Clinton's stance on Russia, Iran and Syria, it's simply insane.

 

One good thing about Obama so far is that he seems to have kept this in check (the idea of attacking the Syrian gov), if Clinton is elected though that could end quickly. Kind of ironic that Trump could be the safer option for the world, although you'd never get that from most people on the left. He might not be, I get that. Something could make him flip, but when there's no sign that Clinton will ease tensions with Russia, it makes her at least an equal threat to me.

[Karl_b]

So you don't think Trump would act "a complete prick in the white house"? Because I reckon it's the most likely thing to ever happen.

[Jairzinho]

I think he'd be put in a room with some toys and whatever he said people would just nod and smile. They wouldn't let him change anything.

[Red Phoenix]

So you don't think Trump would act "a complete prick in the white house"? Because I reckon it's the most likely thing to ever happen.

Of course he will! He'll be an absolute cunt. But he's not given any indication that he'd want to do anything else regarding somewhere like Syria than work with Russia, Syria and Iran to defeat ISIS (as far as I know.) Clinton on the other hand is threatening to cause more problems in Syria with her idea of a no fly zone. How much more do you think Russia are going to take when it comes to Syria? Tensions need to be wound down, Clinton seems hell bent on making things worse.

 

She's probably more bothered about Al-Qaeda losing than she is about any Syrian people, and what they can do if Assad is forced from power. Why do people carry on ignoring this? Trump said she doesn't even know who the rebels are (iirc, one of his biggest weak points. He should call her out on it but I'm not sure if he even has any idea himself.), well she does, but she won't be going into detail on that because the whole western narrative could collapse if she told the truth.

 

Anyway they're both bad. I think Clinton could be a bigger threat to the world, but that could make it look like I actually support Trump, and that makes me feel ill. So I'm going to try and fuck off from this whole thing for a while, it's doing my head in now.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Not really. Clinton could be a genuine threat to the world with her stance on Iran, Syria and Russia. There's no scale higher than that. Trump said he'd work with them against ISIS. People are talking about how Trump has to be the worst, but he could actually represent less chance of global conflict than Clinton. That's why I refuse to side with her. She's lying about something that could lead to war. I've not seen any of her supporters even tackle this question either, it's like the most serious problem about her isn't even an issue.

War with Russia, China, Iran or any strong nation would be bad for business. However amoral Clinton is, she is intelligent, astute and calculating enough not to do that. (Obviously, that's cold comfort for whichever less powerful nations she ends up bombing.)

 

Trump, on the other hand, is a dangerously unstable narcissistic bigot; a compulsive liar, who has hardly ever made a statement without contradicting it; and the leader of a Fascist movement.

 

Clinton will be the kind of bad President we are accustomed to. Trump would be by far the worst ever.

[Pureblood]

When Trump told Clinton she'd be in jail if he won, that was pretty devastating, even over the top really. Then the crowd cheered and clapped, and CIA Anderson Cooper outed himself by saying : "Please do not applaud, please do not talk out loud, you're just wasting time." Fucking shocking. He'd never have said that if they were cheering and clapping for something that Clinton said.

 

Both of the moderators and the university staff repeatedly told the audience at the start not to clap and cheer so that the rest of the world could hear the debate properly.  Anderson Cooper was following up on that, not outing himself as CIA.

[JohnnyH]

Not really. Clinton could be a genuine threat to the world with her stance on Iran, Syria and Russia. There's no scale higher than that. Trump said he'd work with them against ISIS. People are talking about how Trump has to be the worst, but he could actually represent less chance of global conflict than Clinton. That's why I refuse to side with her. She's lying about something that could lead to war. I've not seen any of her supporters even tackle this question either, it's like the most serious problem about her isn't even an issue.

Hang on? Tackle what question? Her views on Syria and Assad are clear for all to see. She's said them enough times.

 

Trump wants to cozy up to Putin. A relationship with Russia is "possible" according to Trump and he "intends to find out", so it's just guess work. Putin would run Trump around his little finger. An incredibly strong Russia with the US President their puppet on a string?

 

Hillary has dealt with Putin many times. Knows exactly what he's like and knows a very wary alliance may be needed. But has the sense to not trust him. She's alledgly said in a yet undisclosed memo that Russian/US relations are at their lowest point (and that's saying something) and that memo is what Trump wanted Russian hackers to find when he said they should hack some more. Trump actively wanted to worsen relations between the US and Russia. And that's the person less likely to send the world to war?

 

Trump wants to heighten the military presence in the China sea. Clinton accepts the US and China both want to export but wants to find common ground.

 

Trump supports Brexit. Hillary does not.

 

Clinton doesn't believe all Mexicans coming across the boarder are murderers and rapists. (It's amazing that comparison is even required)

 

Trump has no clear view in Iran. Even his own people can't spell it out. He's hinted to being against a nuclear deal, but his people say he'd look to refine it, suggesting he's know idea what the deal actually is. I think trumps only comment has been "when I'm president I'll deal with it". Top, inspiring stuff.

 

Trumps says he'd heighten sanctions. Clinton already has. But she's said she'd support the deal but that they are contravening security council resolutions with their testing. And guess what; they are.

 

Trump has again said sod all on Syria other than he won't give a detailed plan of how he'll defeat ISIS. And if that doesn't tell you something.... but he's stated he will change rules on torture and has said he'll "kill terrorists family members" live on television, in contravention of all human rights acts. He's said it'll need 30,000 groups to beat IS but then said he wouldn't commit to sending groups in.

 

Clinton feels an attack may be needed too. But Clinton has spoken of the no fly zone over Syria which would piss of the Russians hugely and cause big tension. But of you look at the humanitarian crisis in Syria then I just can't figure out how this tension could not be seen as warranted.

 

Only last night Trump said he doesn't agree with his running mate on whether or not US military strikes are needed in Syria. To quote Trump "He and I haven't spoken and we don't agree". So he hasn't spoken with his proposed VP. And to you that's a less dangerous threat?

 

If, in all that you think Clinton is a bigger danger to world peace then Trump then I think you need to give your head a massive wobble.

[Jairzinho]

You her campaign manager, Johnny?

[skend04]

RP for a Jill Stein supporter seems to spend a lot of energy on Clinton rather than extolling the virtues of Jill.

[JohnnyH]

You her campaign manager, Johnny?

Looks that way doesn't it.

 

I'm actually not that fond of her either. But when compared to Trump. She's Roosevelt, to his Berlusconi.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Damn!

 

The CIA have got to Johnny too!

[dennis tooth]

 

War with Russia, China, Iran or any strong nation would be bad for business. However amoral Clinton is, she is intelligent, astute and calculating enough not to do that. (Obviously, that's cold comfort for whichever less powerful nations she ends up bombing.)

 

Trump, on the other hand, is a dangerously unstable narcissistic bigot; a compulsive liar, who has hardly ever made a statement without contradicting it; and the leader of a Fascist movement.

 

Clinton will be the kind of bad President we are accustomed to. Trump would be by far the worst ever.[/quote

 

Hilary is proven incompetent and clearly on drugs. She isn't intelligent at all.

[dennis tooth]

 

War with Russia, China, Iran or any strong nation would be bad for business. However amoral Clinton is, she is intelligent, astute and calculating enough not to do that. (Obviously, that's cold comfort for whichever less powerful nations she ends up bombing.)

 

Trump, on the other hand, is a dangerously unstable narcissistic bigot; a compulsive liar, who has hardly ever made a statement without contradicting it; and the leader of a Fascist movement.

 

Clinton will be the kind of bad President we are accustomed to. Trump would be by far the worst ever.[/quote

 

Hilary is proven incompetent and clearly on drugs. She isn't intelligent at all.