PDA

View Full Version : 2016 Presidential Election



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

implanted_microchip
09-16-2016, 05:20 PM
I'm not saying that every NYC resident loves her, but that I know several people who do.

Oh hey, nuance and non-hyperbolic "my opinion is universal truth" statements; what are you doing with this kind of sense and level-headed attitude in here?

Jinsai
09-16-2016, 06:35 PM
god it's like the idea of progress is limited to our stupidly short life spans... the "third party" idea is some kind of solipsistic bullshit that doesn't have an understanding of history, or how things ACTUALLY progress.

Fuck being a stalwart champion for an idea, and realize that the reality is much easier to grasp.

I hate hearing this horseshit about "every election they're telling me to vote against the lesser evil" nonsense... yes, they are, but that's what you get when the majority of the people who vote don't give a fuck until up to the last minute.

Right now, you don't want President Donald Trump, so shut the fuck up about everything else for a minute and figure out how to be a hippy who wants to change the world later.... right now shit matters, so fucking don't vote for Trump, and vote for the person who might beat him. Jesus.

Your agenda can fucking wait.

sick among the pure
09-16-2016, 07:25 PM
How about instead of you asking for proof of your point, you provide some proof of your point. Yes/No?

I'm sorry I don't record conversations with my fellow statesmen, take photos and videos as I drive through city after city and countryside across the state daily of the signs everyone has up, bumperstickers, shirts, petitions, etc.
Oh my god people know people in NYC who like her. How many know people from the rest of the goddamn state who like her? Again, the only counties who voted for Hillary were the NYC area (Manhattan, Bronx, etc) and even those she won by a slim margin. In her "home state".
But I'll remember every day as I travel around the state to stop and pull over and take pictures and interview people on camera rather than have a discussion with them about it. Just because some people on a fucking Nine Inch Nails forum think "well nobody could possibly hate Hillary for REAL reasons, they must just hate her for being a woman" bullshit.


But yeah, I'm sorry that when someone replies to my comment with a post that has zero to do with what I said, that I ask for clarification. God damn you people are fucking dense, and I don't have time working two jobs daily to explain shit multiple times per page.

sick among the pure
09-16-2016, 07:31 PM
Strange, I have several friends who live in NYC and they all LOVE Hillary.

I'm not saying that every NYC resident loves her, but that I know several people who do. Of course I'm liberal so I KNOW that my group of friends is NOT a randomly selected group that somehow reflects the population. They will be mostly liberals. But it tells me that there are people out there who love her, who don't think that she's the lesser of the two evils, and in fact she was their first choice!


I also have friends on NYC who, while don't ~love~ her, are happy to vote for her. And I'm happy for them. But I noticed a while back that only my friends in the NYC area are the ones who feel this way.
Mind you, I'm a liberal and know my group of friends all are as well (aside from one who is only republican for fiscal policy, but god she hates Trump with a passion, lol). Both online and off. Nobodies friends reflect the population of an area, especially one as big as an entire state. Which is why I've been basing my observation off of a combination of the primaries results for the state coupled with first hand observation of the entirety of the state (not to be read as literally every single town in the state, which I could see some members here making the argument that I haven't discussed politics with every resident of the state) but rather a good 75-80% of the state for the last 30 years.

DigitalChaos
09-16-2016, 08:29 PM
Aaaaaand Gary Johnson is officially NOT in the debates. We are all fucked by that one. Now Trump and Hillary will slide deeper into neocon territory without something to pull them elsewhere.

DigitalChaos
09-16-2016, 08:40 PM
Which is why I've been basing my observation off of a combination of the primaries results for the state coupled with first hand observation of the entirety of the state (not to be read as literally every single town in the state, which I could see some members here making the argument that I haven't discussed politics with every resident of the state) but rather a good 75-80% of the state for the last 30 years.

This was blatantly obvious in your prior posts. It seems like that was lost on everyone responding to you.

I was cracking up when kleiner supported the one post that was based on a few friends someone has... as a way to oppose you. poetic. But it really doesn't matter in the end, even if you had irrefutable data.


This election is causing people to lose their goddamned minds. Reflexive emotional responses to everything. What a horrific statement on democracy.

implanted_microchip
09-16-2016, 08:53 PM
This election is causing people to lose their goddamned minds. Reflexive emotional responses to everything. What a horrific statement on democracy.

Yeah you're just so above all the rest of us, congrats on your transcendence allowing you to, instead of changing the world with your amazingly perfect ways, just go and be an asshole in your free time to strangers on the internet

So

Much

Holier

Than

Thou

DigitalChaos
09-16-2016, 08:57 PM
I dunno man. You might want to ask someone what their 5 friends think before you solidify your opinion on what I do with my free time :p

implanted_microchip
09-16-2016, 09:05 PM
I dunno man. You might want to ask someone what their 5 friends think before you solidify your opinion on what I do with my free time :p

Oh fuckin' yeah 'cause a WSJ poll about 60-something percent of Americans approving of her as Secretary of State is totally me just running off of nothing but anecdotes. Then again I guess I'm just arguing with someone who's an asshole in his free time, so I guess I'm the real loser here. It's just so insanely frustrating watching someone who makes it their hobby to take cheap shots at the world and at people who are actually trying to do something, anything to hopefully make things better while that person offers a whole zero actual solutions or alternatives and just down-talks, condescends, criticizes, delights and giggles as they're roadblocking the rest of the world and acting like they're somehow better.

You're no better than anyone and at least the rest of us actually try to work within the systems that suck rather than just standing around, pointing at them, saying they suck and then doing nothing else. Stop making fun of me. Stop talking about me. Stop mentioning me. For fuck's sake, leave me alone. It's not the first time I've asked and yet you still mention me just to say how I make you laugh, and not because I tell jokes but because you make fun of people and find it enjoyable to sit back and go "Aw shucks, what did I ever do wrong?!"

You're not someone I'm capable of having any constructive conversation with and we both know it and you still talk about me. Fucking quit it. Quit it already. I like it here; I get along with people here; I like talking about things with people here. Stop ruining that and be a full-of-yourself asshat to somebody else for a change while you defend guns after mass shootings and claim that I can't be upset about police shootings if I don't think Hillary's email scandal means she deserves jailtime. You revoked any ability to be taken seriously by me the moment you said that to me and I am so fucking tired of your bullshit. Leave me alone, dude.

allegro
09-16-2016, 10:32 PM
kleiner352, this is a really good time to start using the "ignore user" function on this board. I do it with certain users, and I am going to start doing it a LOT more. Really, it's not worth elevating your blood pressure. Some people are never going to change their minds about this shit. It's not worth bothering with an attempted discussion, but sarcasm etc. just makes things worse. Ignore. Especially the people who, when we don't automatically agree with opinions not supported by actual data, say we are all "dense." Not worth it. Neither are the Trump people. Just walk away. November will come and go soon enough, and this thread will be dead. (This is my third Presidential election on this board.)

(No you can't use the "ignore user" function to block DC but you'll have to do it with your mind, heh. That's what I do.)

sick among the pure
09-16-2016, 10:35 PM
Some people are never going to change their minds about this shit. It's not worth bothering with an attempted discussion

Yeah, I'm noticing that...

allegro
09-16-2016, 10:42 PM
What a horrific statement on democracy.

And the Academy Award goes to ...

Sebek
09-16-2016, 10:47 PM
She was voted in mostly due to her name (she was seen favorably as the former first lady, at the time) and due to NYC and Albany big-money politics (which is why, if you look at county-by-county voting, the ENTIRE STATE voted against her minus long island and the county Albany is in).

I'm also from NY (not NYC or L.I.) and this is flat out wrong. In 2000 Hillary carried 7 counties that were nowhere near Albany or NYC, and in 2006 when she ran again she won every single county in the state except for 4 (it was a landslide victory). People who hate her may hate her strongly, such as yourself, but you're being hyperbolic when you say the whole state hates her.

DigitalChaos
09-16-2016, 11:01 PM
kleiner352 tried that "leave me alone" shit before. I actually didn't interact with him for a while as a test. End result is he pulls shit like this (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/3669-2016-Presidential-Election?p=315927#post315927)... so I stopped taking him seriously. I don't think I even need to explain the character that is evident there.

Anyway, election!

Sanders talks about the protest vote this year, and why you should think about it.
http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/sanders-think-hard-about-a-protest-vote-this-year-766719555728

hellospaceboy
09-16-2016, 11:03 PM
Ok, before anyone jumps on me, I know googling something for 1 minute is not real research and wikipedia is not 100% reliable, because it can be edited by anyone and there are many things on the site that are not accurate.

That said, this is looks like most of the state.

I'm not trying to pick fights, but I also believe that conversation about politics can only benefit from facts. If somebody wants to dig up a screenshot of any other reporting that shows that only 4 counties voted for her I honestly welcome it, as I said, I didn't do real research. But it looks like ALL but 4 counties to me!

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/J7RQHlOu2EtPVQ13yHdODlY4V1hzr8fPuH5y1PtcJeRtyXxQe3 p0Cs_5KPhH_Z5sMl0lhSHmTw=w1920-h1080-rw-no

allegro
09-16-2016, 11:13 PM
He tried that "leave me alone" shit before. I actually didn't interact with him for a while as a test. End result is he pulls shit like this (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/3669-2016-Presidential-Election?p=315927#post315927)... so I stopped taking him seriously. I don't think I even need to explain the character that is evident there.

Anyway, election!

Sanders talks about the protest vote this year, and why you should think about it.
http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/sanders-think-hard-about-a-protest-vote-this-year-766719555728

He asked / told you to leave him alone. As an Admin, you are held to a higher standard and I suspect that Leviathant would think you should stop pestering him?

Yes, Sanders is cautioning people FROM using a protest vote.

hellospaceboy
09-16-2016, 11:15 PM
Ok, with all fairness, this is the 2000 elections, and it does look like she picked up the state with a lot fewer counties (not quite 4), but our argument was specifically why and how she was REELECTED if she was so hated by New York residents... so to me, these two maps only show that she won the trust of the people during her first term. At least as far as reading election results go.


https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/8zD9JiFcX2ELFkc-hJ9SJQzYSKHDMo70KGDttLbCBC_Pc6r92ZWpM2ZxqRO7Bbw520 0EWBMALw=w1920-h1080-rw-no

DigitalChaos
09-16-2016, 11:20 PM
He asked / told you to leave him alone. As an Admin, you are held to a higher standard and I suspect that @Leviathant (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=1) would think you should stop pestering him?

Yes, Sanders is cautioning people FROM using a protest vote.

Kleiner made the same request via PM... and then proceeded to do what I linked to (that was but one example) after I did ignore him. Thus, I don't take him seriously.
Leviathant is well aware. We discussed the logistics of changes for ignore function, whether it fits ETS, etc. Happy to discuss further, but I'd suggest moving over to the appropriate forum for it.

allegro
09-16-2016, 11:31 PM
Kleiner made the same request via PM... and then proceeded to do what I linked to (that was but one example) after I did ignore him.
He was calling you out for something you were doing on the board to others. Just stop. Stop. Quit being so fucking adversarial and saying it's in the name of "Democracy" when you're no better than Hazekiah in the Manson thread. You've already admitted that you love playing "Devil's Advocate" and you often do it for no reason other than stirring up shit.

DigitalChaos
09-16-2016, 11:37 PM
Ok, with all fairness, this is the 2000 elections, and it does look like she picked up the state with a lot fewer states (not quite 4), but our argument was specifically why and how she was REELECTED if she was so hated by New York residents... so to me, these two maps only show that she won the trust of the people during her first term. At least as far as reading election results go.


You guys realize that its not uncommon to hate someone but still vote them in, right? Partisan politics tends to ride higher in priority. The fact that someone gets re-elected doesn't mean anything in the fucked up electoral system we have. It's not a free market where someone just goes and chooses a different product because this year's model sucks.


I don't have data around Clinton, but I do have some around similarly disliked CA politicians.
This bit from a 2014 article (https://news.usc.edu/70781/usc-dornsifelos-angeles-times-poll-californians-say-they-want-change-but-still-approve-of-sens-boxer-and-feinstein/) sums up the issue:

"Californians say they want change but still approve of Sens. Boxer and Feinstein

California voters also were asked — in a question that did not specifically name Feinstein or Boxer — whether the state would be better off if California’s two U.S. senators who have served for 22 years continued to run for re-election or if new candidates became senators.

Nearly six in 10 voters said the state would be better off with new candidates, as opposed to 29 percent who said California would be better off if the long-serving senators continued to run. Forty-eight percent of voters said they felt “strongly” that the state would be better off with new candidates, according to the poll.

“Both Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer can get re-elected in California for as long as they want. No Republican is going to beat them and no plausible Democrat is going to be foolish enough to challenge them,” said Dan Schnur, director of the USC "

allegro
09-16-2016, 11:46 PM
Okay, granted, I am in Law so I pay a lot of attention to facts and actual language, and not to emotion or non-expert opinion, and there is a huge difference between "voters desiring change" and "HATE."

In the case of politicians who have served multiple terms, forever (like Illinois has seen with Madigan in the State House), absolutely. But nobody "HATES" him. A child hates spinach, but a mature and intelligent adult? They can stop whining and do something about it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Madigan

hellospaceboy
09-16-2016, 11:54 PM
You guys realize that its not uncommon to hate someone but still vote them in, right? Partisan politics tends to ride higher in priority. The fact that someone gets re-elected doesn't mean anything in the fucked up electoral system we have. It's not a free market where someone just goes and chooses a different product because this year's model sucks.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I'm saying that nobody pointed at any real source of information of Hillary being hated in the vast majority of New York state other than personal/anecdotal observation. (which I don't even mean to dismiss, because I think real life experience sometimes cuts through the bullshit). Her "shady" election/reelection in the state was specifically raised as part of the argument, and the data (as far as my very brief online search shows) doesn't back it up.

hellospaceboy
09-17-2016, 12:06 AM
Guys, we're arguing over how disliked Hillary is, and we're missing out on the good stuff:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/17/trump-says-clinton-bodyguards-should-lose-their-guns-and-lets-see-what-happens-to-her.html

DigitalChaos
09-17-2016, 12:10 AM
i'll defer sick among the pure for data to back it up. I don't know much about Hillary's approval ratings (and similar) from her time in NY. Some initial googling did show a decline over her time there.

I just want people to realize that reelection of a local politician isn't evidence that the citizens actually like them in any form. There is this trap that forms when a state is so far blue (or red) that really hurts the citizens thanks to how the system is built. It also tends to produce the really bad candidates that survive thanks to the trap. The best we had was back when Jello Biafra ran against Feinstein.

theimage13
09-17-2016, 07:25 AM
Here's another one that runs all the time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR4L6rJ-MV0

Please tell me that was done by a college student as their "Generic Cliche Political Ad 101" midterm.

sick among the pure
09-17-2016, 11:33 AM
I'm also from NY (not NYC or L.I.) and this is flat out wrong. In 2000 Hillary carried 7 counties that were nowhere near Albany or NYC, and in 2006 when she ran again she won every single county in the state except for 4 (it was a landslide victory). People who hate her may hate her strongly, such as yourself, but you're being hyperbolic when you say the whole state hates her.

I was talking about the primaries voting, not her time as a senator. Her time as a senator is what lead to her polling terribly across the state, minus the NYC/LI area and Albany. A while back I had a county-by-county map of the primaries (what I watched live that night) but can't find it anymore.

Jinsai
09-17-2016, 12:01 PM
Aaaaaand Gary Johnson is officially NOT in the debates. We are all fucked by that one. Now Trump and Hillary will slide deeper into neocon territory without something to pull them elsewhere.


NO, we aren't "fucked" because Gary Johnson isn't in the debates. He isn't going to win. He is a figurehead, a symbol, he's nothing and I don't "feel the Johnson." I wish he was in the debates, because he'd distract some libertarian leaning Republicans away from supporting Trump, but those guys are already on that boat, and it's sailed, and more than anything else I'm just glad Johnson isn't in the debates because then I'd have to hear people arguing that Jill should be there too, and I cannot think of a single politician I hate more right now than Jill Fucking Stein. (trump is not a politician)

Libertarians get like this... everything is symbolic and indicative of a bigger thing.... I do not give a fuck. It's about reality, and the reality is do NOT give me Trump. Not Trump. Give me a fucking weird blue alien creature that doesn't speak any languages. I want that desperately more than Trump. Fuck YOU if whatever you want politically might give me Trump as president.

allegro
09-17-2016, 12:35 PM
I was talking about the primaries voting, not her time as a senator. Her time as a senator is what lead to her polling terribly across the state, minus the NYC/LI area and Albany. A while back I had a county-by-county map of the primaries (what I watched live that night) but can't find it anymore.

That's faulty logic; in the states where she lost to Sanders, she lost simply because Sanders appealed to those voters more strongly than Clinton. It wasn't necessarily because of her tenure as Senator in the state of NY; she wasn't Senator in Michigan, or Wisconsin, or Washington, or Oregon, etc. etc. Those states preferred Sanders' message and platform to Clinton. However, Clinton DID win the NY state primary.

Here is a map: HERE (http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/new-york), though, is an actual breakdown in what in what is reported to be 100% of the polls.

http://untappedcities.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/New-York-State-Democratic-Primary-Election-Results-Map-Hillary-Clinton-Votes.jpg.jpg

DigitalChaos
09-17-2016, 12:41 PM
He isn't going to win.

congrats on missing the point. I've explained why more people in the debates is a positive for everyone. It's the same reason Sanders was a positive even though he didn't win.

You Dems have an incredibly narrow view of the political playing field.

allegro
09-17-2016, 01:11 PM
I agree that Johnson should be allowed to debate; it opens the doors to better and wider conversation relating to fiscal conservancy, and marijuana. I don't want to see two sparring heads, it's just too frustrating and gets nowhere. Especially since Trump has ZERO debate experience and refuses to play by debate rules.

edit: Meanwhile, a young woman just knocked on my door handing out flyers for Dem State Senator Julie Morrison who has been in office for one term and is running for re-election. Look at the bottom of her handout. The SPEAKER? DEMOCRAT MIKE MADIGAN, WHO HAS BEEN SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE SINCE FUCKING 1983.

http://i.imgur.com/pnQ5kEh.jpg?1

sick among the pure
09-17-2016, 04:39 PM
That's faulty logic

Reasons why I agreed when you said


Some people are never going to change their minds about this shit. It's not worth bothering with an attempted discussion

It's obvious that you're going to continue to misinterpret my posts, disregard anything I say, and continue your stance of "but nobody hates her" no matter what. Which is why you'll notice I've been replying to only other people on this page. But you have to but in no matter what and keep going at it, so here, I'm paying attention to you again.

https://lintvwivb.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/clinton-sanders-map.png?w=650

I was mistaken that the county Buffalo is in flipped overnight (by a small margin).

You can believe that something like 50 out of the 63 counties voted against her "because Bernie appealed to those voters more" rather than they voted against her because, I don't know, we don't like her?

I just had to deal with covering a fucking Trump rally in god damn city I grew up in today. And yeah it pissed me off. Not because there were Trump supporters, but because the majority of the people there "just hate Hillary" so much that they want to vote for anyone else. These aren't republican people in a back woods hick town. This is one of the biggest fucking cities in this state. And while here and there a person would cheer for a speaker saying something about Trump, EVERYONE reacted anytime Hillary's name was brought up. Some people had pro-trump shirts and what have you. More than 5 times more people were specifically "anyone but Hillary". Like not I just assumed it because they were at a Trump rally. My job was to literally talk to these people. They weren't there because they like Trump's ideas. Some joked that they're down for Giant Meteor 2016, and that at the end of the day their hate for Hillary is strong enough that they're leaning for Trump.
This isn't "in my town, some people are Trump supporters, therefore NY hates Hillary."

This is literally "YES, THIS STATE DOES NOT LIKE HER."

And if you think I'm just somehow misinterpreting things, like you said before, I can't bother with attempting a discussion with you anyhow.

allegro
09-17-2016, 05:51 PM
It's obvious that you're going to continue to misinterpret my posts, disregard anything I say, and continue your stance of "but nobody hates her" no matter what.
I was actually reading all of your posts, I was saying that "hate" was an awfully dramatic term, and was arguing that your statement that "most of New York State hates her" (those were your words, honest) (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/3669-2016-Presidential-Election?p=316551#post316551) was probably an exaggeration or was likely to be faulty logic. This isn't pointing at you personally or disregarding you, personally, this was just saying that I believed you were stating your opinion and I wasn't believing that opinion to be based on fact simply because of the small amount of empirical data that you presented; as you can see in that map that I presented, she brought in an average of 50% over the entire state, which is why she won the 2016 Democratic Presidential Primary, which data indicates far different than "most of" the state "hates" her. That's all that I was saying. If what you were opining were true (hate being the most passionate and emotional form of disdain), Bernie would have WON in the State of NY by a far wider margin, and Clinton would not have won over 50% in all those upstate counties. Please, I do not dislike you, I am not personally attacking you or your opinion, I'm not even defending Hillary Clinton; I'm defending DATA over opinion. If I went downtown Chicago, the third largest city in the country, and talked to a bunch of people in 2 days and used that as data as to the general feel of voters in the area or City or County (including a whole ton of people in the Democratic City of Chicago who whole-heartedly voted for Donald J Trump), I WOULD BE DEAD FUCKING WRONG.

If you can't bother to even attempt to try to see what I am trying to say about "perceived" data vs. actual data then, yeah, I guess there is no "meeting of the minds" (I also have a degree in Communications and I've been in Law for too many years), then maybe we can have no discussion; but, trust me, I have carefully read your posts, even through your insulting ad hominem language etc. I haven't called you "dense," etc. I have merely questioned the validity of your claim, as have others who actually live in New Your state. And none of this is against you, personally, as this is a political discussion and not necessarily a debate. A debate generally requires support by the use of facts; stupid useless online discussions among online anonymous users on a band forum doesn't push it that far. (Case in point: You posted a map, above, and you didn't cite its source. However, compare that map to the map I posted: your map shows that Bernie won the green areas, but the map I posted lends more to your "HATES Clinton" comment which indicates that an average of 50% of at least 75% of the state minus the NYC area voted for Clinton. If people truly "hated" her, she should not have brought in an average of over 50% in 75% of those counties and won the state; she should have won more like 0-5% and Bernie would have won the Primary. The way to win is to win an average of over 50% in all of the state and when you have a huge city like NYC and you win pretty much ALL of that, then you win the state. Which is what Clinton did. It all comes down to data and math.)

Also, I think you must realize that when you say things like "the majority of people" were at a Trump rally not because they were Republicans or Trump-supporters but (insert other reason, here) it sounds like an opinion or an assumption, not fact. 524,932 voted for Donald J. Trump in the State of New York (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/primary-caucus/new-york). It is entirely possible that those people at that rally (a) are Republicans, (b) support Trump, (c) hate Clinton because they (a) are Republicans and (b) support Trump. Option (c) is a given due to the first two options, not because of unknown option (d) "Democrats suddenly register as Republicans" due to (c) hate Clinton. That's some faulty logic.

allegro
09-17-2016, 06:17 PM
Speaking of Bernie Sanders, bravo to him for lending his voice against the Dakota Access Pipeline which is a disgusting trampling of the indigenous tribes' ancient burial grounds and water supply.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/former-presidential-candidate-bernie-sanders-joins-pipeline-fight-with-bill/article_2e108e30-4f55-55b0-904c-873af4679ba3.html

You can follow the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe on Facebook to follow their progress and cheer them on (https://www.facebook.com/Standing-Rock-Sioux-Tribe-402298239798452/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED).

DigitalChaos
09-17-2016, 06:21 PM
@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76)'s insistence makes sense in many ways. In some ways its a positive vs negative proof thing, or even a direct vs subjectively inferred proof. I get the attention to detail, but it seems odd if we were also using her reelection as hard proof that they like her. Especially in context to the off-the-cuff commentary that spawned this tangent.

But I don't think there is ANY way to demonstrate whether people "hate" Hillary or not. So a pure focus on that is essentially obstructing the intent of the original message. In context, "hate" sure seemed to be on par with "dislikes" or "is strongly unhappy with." I think there is definitely enough to demonstrate this to be a strong possibility, even if just looking at how much Bernie took from her in NY.


But at the core, @sick among the pure (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=266) was rejecting @kleiner352 (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=4417)'s denial of Hillary advancing due to nepotism and "support across the isle." That denial seems even more worthy of skeptical attention, IMO. Not that it's getting it :P

DigitalChaos
09-17-2016, 06:28 PM
as for the complaint about that map not being cited, 2 click google image search says: http://wivb.com/2016/04/20/sanders-wins-most-of-wny-most-of-nys-loses-in-total-votes/

and it does seem accurate: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/national-results-map

Want a fun exercise? Check out the home state of each of the candidates on that last page. That sure does say some interesting things about the candidates... Sanders absolutely dominated. Cruz, and Kasich didn't dominate like Sanders, but still won their home states. Rubio and Clinton bombed hard in their home states. (and yes, "home state" means the populace that has experience underneath those politicians)

GulDukat
09-17-2016, 06:31 PM
Ever actually read Trump's twitter account?

Sweet Jesus.

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5E serp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

thevoid99
09-17-2016, 06:39 PM
Ever actually read Trump's twitter account?

Sweet Jesus.

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5E serp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

I hear the sound of my IQ dropping after reading a tweet from him. He is evil.

allegro
09-17-2016, 06:43 PM
I hear the sound of my IQ dropping after reading a tweet from him. He is evil.

G and I used to read it for yucks, G was following the fake Trump account:

https://twitter.com/relIDonaIdTrump

allegro
09-17-2016, 06:46 PM
@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76)'s insistence makes sense in many ways. In some ways its a positive vs negative proof thing, or even a direct vs subjectively inferred proof. I get the attention to detail, but it seems odd if we were also using her reelection as hard proof that they like her.
I think he said that he's not using the re-election, he is using the Primary election info. Okay, so throw out the re-election and only use the Presidential Primary data: that data shows that it wasn't a landslide, that data shows something other than a state landslide against her. I did not question the accuracy of the map, go read my statement again. I said that the map doesn't lend to what he is saying about Clinton; it only says that Sanders won, but it says nothing about how badly Clinton lost. She didn't lose badly, she won the state. Look at the map I posted (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/3669-2016-Presidential-Election?p=316885#post316885), which shows more accurate data (and my map shows data source info right on it).

I'm just a data nut, sorry, I'm in LAW FOR CHRIST SAKE. I like data, and I like citation sources right up front. If a judge doesn't see that, he throws it out. (Then you get fired.)

DigitalChaos
09-17-2016, 06:47 PM
Ever actually read Trump's twitter account?

Sweet Jesus.

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5E serp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

It all sounds like shit my parents produce as comments on facebook. They argue just like him too. A few members of ETS have had the pleasure of witnessing or partaking in those arguments. Needless to say, the debates are going to be fucking insanity unless Trump does a 180 with his personality soon. His personality is a wonderful match for a lot of his supporters though. Its fucking painful to observe.

implanted_microchip
09-17-2016, 06:51 PM
But at the core, @sick among the pure (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=266) was rejecting @kleiner352 (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=4417)'s denial of Hillary advancing due to nepotism and "support across the isle." That denial seems even more worthy of skeptical attention, IMO. Not that it's getting it :P

Are you really going to keep fucking doing this dude, is this what you want to spend your spare time doing

DigitalChaos
09-17-2016, 06:54 PM
I think he said that he's not using the re-election
yup. i thought someone else used the re-election as evidence that her people LIKE her. I'm *so* not going back to check though :P


using the Presidential Primary data: that data shows that it wasn't a landslide, that data shows something other than a state landslide against her.

"landslide" is also nonspecific. But either way, you can't deny the overall pattern. Clinton did poorly in her home state compared to most other candidates. Sanders dominated his home state. How well you do in your home state sure seems to say something about how you will be liked at a national level.

I'd be really interested to have a historical rundown of all presidents and how well they did in their home states during primaries and generals.

allegro
09-17-2016, 06:56 PM
It all sounds like shit my parents produce as comments on facebook. They argue just like him too. A few members of ETS have had the pleasure of witnessing or partaking in those arguments. Needless to say, the debates are going to be fucking insanity unless Trump does a 180 with his personality soon. His personality is a wonderful match for a lot of his supporters though. Its fucking painful to observe.
I totally agree, my Mom and I have said that we can't even bear the thought of watching these debates; it will be like watching an immature child fight his Mom before bedtime.

allegro
09-17-2016, 06:58 PM
yup. i thought someone else used the re-election as evidence that her people LIKE her. I'm *so* not going back to check though :P
Me, neither!!! :p


"landslide" is also nonspecific.
No, there is actually a definition for that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landslide_victory). Also, I don't think it's fair to compare Vermont with a total population of 626,562.

Yeah, in Vemont, the Dem vote (Open Primary) looked like this: Clinton: 18,338 (13.6%) Sanders: 115,900 (85.7%)

THAT is a "Landslide."

But, at least SHE WON HER HOME STATE vs. Al Gore, who did not and the theory is that a candidate who can't win his/her home state won't ever manage to win the entire election.

Although, NIXON lost California and won the election but it's pretty rare (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major-party_United_States_presidential_candidates_who_lo st_their_home_or_resident_state).

GulDukat
09-17-2016, 07:04 PM
Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence.

Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address.

Kennedy wrote Profiles in Courage.

And Trump has his Twitter account...

allegro
09-17-2016, 07:06 PM
Are you really going to keep fucking doing this dude, is this what you want to spend your spare time doing
DigitalChaos, please ignore this. Thank you.

GulDukat
09-17-2016, 07:07 PM
I totally agree, my Mom and I have said that we can't even bear the thought of watching these debates; it will be like watching an immature child fight his Mom before bedtime.

And the bar is so low and he is graded on a curve, as long as he can just stand there and pretend to be dignified, he wins by default.

DigitalChaos
09-17-2016, 07:08 PM
I totally agree, my Mom and I have said that we can't even bear the thought of watching these debates; it will be like watching an immature child fight his Mom before bedtime.
yet.... that's exactly why I will probably watch it. Much like I enjoy watching stuff like Jackass. Normally I tap out of the debates because its a shitty format to delivery much depth or intelligent discussion. It's really really empty. But i would totally watch if there was a high chance of a sustained trainwreck you know you will too!! :D

allegro
09-17-2016, 07:12 PM
And the bar is so low and he is graded on a curve, as long as he can just stand there and pretend to be dignified, he wins by default.

Do you think so, really? I don't know, this is unprecedented, and it has SUCH sexist undertones, it's going to be "that lying bitch vs. that business genius" by those who worship him.

My Mom -- a woman who raised two children all by herself on a secretary's salary with no child support -- was one of MANY women who was so fucking pissed off about this whole "Hillary is hiding her illness" crap. Women HAVE TO hide illnesses at work. If we issued a fucking press release every time we were ill, we'd be perceived as "weak" and unable to handle the job. We can't call in sick! We're held to a higher standard.

A friend of mine (who happens to be female) used to get pissed when people show up to work with colds or whatever, but I said that I have always worked in industries / careers where if we didn't show up, WE HAD BETTER HAVE CANCER. Anything less is grounds for firing or, at least, no more career advancements. A cold? Flu? Pneumonia? No fucking way. My Mom had a boss who CAME TO OUR APARTMENT TO SEE IF SHE WAS REALLY SICK. SHE HAD PNEUMONIA.

And I just see Trump and his followers as an extension of that crowd: the people who come to a woman's apartment to see if she's REALLY SICK when she has two little kids at home to take care of and support.

allegro
09-17-2016, 07:14 PM
yet.... that's exactly why I will probably watch it. Much like I enjoy watching stuff like Jackass. Normally I tap out of the debates because its a shitty format to delivery much depth or intelligent discussion. It's really really empty. But i would totally watch if there was a high chance of a sustained trainwreck you know you will too!! :D
Nah, I'm too left-brained logical. It's why my little brother loved The Three Stooges and I didn't like it. I don't dig boxing, either. It makes no logical sense to me, it's uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.

hey, THE most popular thread on this board? THE WRESTLING THREAD.

marodi
09-17-2016, 07:42 PM
Do you think so, really? I don't know, this is unprecedented, and it has SUCH sexist undertones, it's going to be "that lying bitch vs. that business genius" by those who worship him.

My Mom -- a woman who raised two children all by herself on a secretary's salary with no child support -- was one of MANY women who was so fucking pissed off about this whole "Hillary is hiding her illness" crap. Women HAVE TO hide illnesses at work. If we issued a fucking press release every time we were ill, we'd be perceived as "weak" and unable to handle the job. We can't call in sick! We're held to a higher standard.

A friend of mine (who happens to be female) used to get pissed when people show up to work with colds or whatever, but I said that I have always worked in industries / careers where if we didn't show up, WE HAD BETTER HAVE CANCER. Anything less is grounds for firing or, at least, no more career advancements. A cold? Flu? Pneumonia? No fucking way. My Mom had a boss who CAME TO OUR APARTMENT TO SEE IF SHE WAS REALLY SICK. SHE HAD PNEUMONIA.

And I just see Trump and his followers as an extension of that crowd: the people who come to a woman's apartment to see if she's REALLY SICK when she has two little kids at home to take care of and support.

THIS THIS THIS A THOUSAND TIME THIS.

I love you so much, allegro

I have my own health/work related story to share: once, while at work, I had the pleasure of experiencing the bursting of an ovarian cyst. I could not stand up from the pain. I asked to be allowed to go home and I was told: "you have your period every month; you really should have learned to tough it out by now". A WOMAN told me that. End of story.

Isn't Alice Cooper running? I'd vote for him.

Jinsai
09-17-2016, 08:13 PM
congrats on missing the point. I've explained why more people in the debates is a positive for everyone. It's the same reason Sanders was a positive even though he didn't win.

You Dems have an incredibly narrow view of the political playing field.

There's over a hundred people currently running for president. One of them is Gary Johnson, and no matter how big your boner is for him, he has just as much chance of winning as those hundred other people.


The only people in the debates should be the people who might fucking win. Gary Johnson will not win. I don't care if you "feel the Johnson." He IS NOT GOING TO WIN, IT's IMPOSSIBLE, SO LET's CUT THE SHIT PLEASE. The debates are about realistic candidates arguing about their stances, not "hey, I'm advertising my third party platform, wheeeeeee!!!!"

Fuck that noise.

GulDukat
09-17-2016, 08:52 PM
Do you think so, really? I don't know, this is unprecedented, and it has SUCH sexist undertones, it's going to be "that lying bitch vs. that business genius" by those who worship him.

My Mom -- a woman who raised two children all by herself on a secretary's salary with no child support -- was one of MANY women who was so fucking pissed off about this whole "Hillary is hiding her illness" crap. Women HAVE TO hide illnesses at work. If we issued a fucking press release every time we were ill, we'd be perceived as "weak" and unable to handle the job. We can't call in sick! We're held to a higher standard.

A friend of mine (who happens to be female) used to get pissed when people show up to work with colds or whatever, but I said that I have always worked in industries / careers where if we didn't show up, WE HAD BETTER HAVE CANCER. Anything less is grounds for firing or, at least, no more career advancements. A cold? Flu? Pneumonia? No fucking way. My Mom had a boss who CAME TO OUR APARTMENT TO SEE IF SHE WAS REALLY SICK. SHE HAD PNEUMONIA.

And I just see Trump and his followers as an extension of that crowd: the people who come to a woman's apartment to see if she's REALLY SICK when she has two little kids at home to take care of and support.

I can't stand Trump, by "wins by default," I mean that's the spin some in the media will give him. Al Gore is about 1000 times smarter than Bush, but all you heard about was Gore's sighing when the reviews came in after their debate.

allegro
09-17-2016, 09:16 PM
I can't stand Trump, by "wins by default," I mean that's the spin some in the media will give him. Al Gore is about 1000 times smarter than Bush, but all you heard about was Gore's sighing when the reviews came in after their debate.
But Bush was actually fairly decent at debate. Gore used to make some fatal flaws, like rolling his eyes, etc.

GulDukat
09-17-2016, 09:20 PM
I can't say I blame him. We would have had flying cars by now, had he been president.

allegro
09-17-2016, 09:21 PM
There's over a hundred people currently running for president. One of them is Gary Johnson, and no matter how big your boner is for him, he has just as much chance of winning as those hundred other people. Jinsai, I love you but this is one time I am going to disagree with you. We are never going to change this two-party system if we never at LEAST allow the Libertarians into the debates. There is nothing to LOSE by allowing them into the "conversation" which is the debates. This at least "dilutes" the shit show that will ensue plus Johnson is socially liberal so he will cushion Clinton, not leaving her up there with just The Moron, etc. It doesn't MATTER who will "win." TRUMP probably won't "WIN." This is about the exchange of important ideas, the moderators asking questions of the candidates, letting the voting public know the candidates' true views, etc. Johnson might bring a few ideas to the debate that might not be there, otherwise, that Trump and Clinton would have to address. Johnson isn't likely to take away votes from CLINTON; he's more likely to take away votes from TRUMP.

marodi, thank you, I love you, too. That's exactly what happens, that's what I'm talking about (OMG the pain you experienced, horror show holy crap). My Mom's husband of 40+ years had a heart attack and had to have emergency bypass surgery and the hospital staff was waiting for my Mom to arrive; she asked to leave work; her (female) boss said, "but, who is going to answer our phones?" Because the underlying environment is: men put work above illness and family, so you'd better, too.

DigitalChaos
09-18-2016, 01:09 AM
People don't seem to understand who runs the debates or the history behind it.

In short, the League of Women Voters were running it quite well, but the two major parties didn't like the lack of control they had. So, they founded the Commission on Presidential Debates. It's a private company that is tax exempt and who's corporate donors are usually hidden from the public. There are frequent agreements made in secret between the DNC & RNC in how the debates are run.

They have been pretty open about not wanting 3rd parties involved. They change the rules to make it hard for 3rd parties to get in. Remember in 96 when Perot was polling at 19%(meeting their brand new 15% requirement) but the CPD still blocked him because taking public funding "meant he wouldn't have a realistic chance of winning because he couldn't spend lots of money"?

tony.parente
09-18-2016, 02:31 PM
Honestly though, how fucked up would it be if Donald Trump ACTUALLY won the election and became the 45th President of the United States?

thevoid99
09-18-2016, 02:35 PM
Honestly though, how fucked up would it be if Donald Trump ACTUALLY won the election and became the 45th President of the United States?

Let's see, World War III where we're likely to be killed by the Chinese, the North Koreans, and the Russians. My parents are likely to be deported back to Honduras (though they're U.S. residents) and be killed there. My social security benefits will be cut off and I'm likely to be dead. Yeah, we're fucked if he becomes president.

implanted_microchip
09-18-2016, 02:51 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mike-pence-role-model-vice-president-dick-cheney/story?id=42170897

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I hate this election so very much

Dra508
09-18-2016, 03:21 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mike-pence-role-model-vice-president-dick-cheney/story?id=42170897

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I hate this election so very much

He wishes he could be Dick Cheney! Bwhahhhaaaa


I think my Dad is going to vote for Trump. Like spitting in the wind given his Upper West NYC district. Lulz

allegro
09-18-2016, 03:22 PM
He wishes he could be Dick Cheney! Bwhahhhaaaa
Dick Cheney WAS pretty much running the country.

God help us, ugh.

allegro
09-18-2016, 03:34 PM
Now this ad is running more here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZK14tyDCLE&feature=youtu.be

theimage13
09-18-2016, 05:10 PM
There's over a hundred people currently running for president. One of them is Gary Johnson, and no matter how big your boner is for him, he has just as much chance of winning as those hundred other people.


The only people in the debates should be the people who might fucking win. Gary Johnson will not win. I don't care if you "feel the Johnson." He IS NOT GOING TO WIN, IT's IMPOSSIBLE, SO LET's CUT THE SHIT PLEASE. The debates are about realistic candidates arguing about their stances.

Maybe this is just crazy talk, but you know what seems to make a candidate a realistic one? Treating them like one. By doing things like, you know, covering them in mainstream media and including them in debates.

It's a catch-22. You (the proverbial you) keep screaming that we should cover up anyone who isn't going to win. Said people never have a chance at winning because they're dismissed as outsiders. So hey, what would happen if suddenly we didn't treat them like outsiders anymore?

Scary concept, I know.

Disclaimer: I honestly don't know much about Johnson's platform. I just know that it's idiotic to keep screaming that someone doesn't have a chance at winning while actively campaigning to prevent that person from even having a chance. To make a sporting analogy: it would be like having three QBs competing for the starting job; two of whom are given ample time to practice and be judged with the starting lineup while the third is only allowed to play catch with the high school team on a different field three states over. No fucking shit they don't stand a chance if you've already told them you won't give them one.

Deepvoid
09-18-2016, 05:49 PM
Random tidbits following Chelsea attack.

Trump offered his condolences to the victims

Johnson said and I quote "just grateful that nobody got hurt".

allegro
09-18-2016, 06:17 PM
Disclaimer: I honestly don't know much about Johnson's platform.

Gary Johnson on the issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm).

Jinsai
09-18-2016, 06:31 PM
if this is an elaborate test of my ideals and values, I admit, I'm totally blowing it. Just screw this. We're a little over a month away from the main election, and the polls are saying that Johnson has absolutely no chance. I wish he did. I could run for president, it doesn't mean I should be on the debate stage. There has to be some kind of standard we hold to when it comes to who gets in there. Our election system is completely screwed up, it's a farce, but it's not going to be improved by last-minute visibility for candidates who poll below ten percent.

We're dangerously close to electing an unqualified megalomaniac real estate trust fund brat, and we need to stay on target.

allegro
09-18-2016, 06:36 PM
if this is an elaborate test of my ideals and values, I admit, I'm totally blowing it. Just screw this. We're a little over a month away from the main election, and the polls are saying that Johnson has absolutely no chance. I wish he did. I could run for president, it doesn't mean I should be on the debate stage. There has to be some kind of standard we hold to when it comes to who gets in there. Our election system is completely screwed up, it's a farce, but it's not going to be improved by last-minute visibility for candidates who poll below ten percent.

We're dangerously close to electing an unqualified megalomaniac real estate trust fund brat, and we need to stay on target.

But, the debate stage isn't about all of that. Look who was on the initial debate stage during the primaries: people who didn't win, some who didn't have a chance at winning (Ben Carson, anyone?). But, some of those people brought forth ideas that stayed in the conversation. Bernie Sanders did not win, but many of his ideas are still in the conversation, are now a part of Clinton's platform. Allowing Gary Johnson into the debate isn't JUST about "Hey, HERE'S ANOTHER CHOICE," it's also about DEMOCRACY and about ideas and in this case I think it would GREATLY TONE DOWN the HAIR-PULLING that the Trump camp certainly hopes will occur since he is nothing but a Circus Act at this point, completely skirting real issues and making ridiculous statements like "I know more than the Generals about how to handle ISIS." MANY well-known Republicans have stated that they will vote for Johnson instead of Trump. Mitt Romney has said that he will consider voting Libertarian (instead of Trump) (http://www.ibtimes.com/republican-donald-trump-vs-libertarian-gary-johnson-who-has-better-conservative-2395070).


Johnson said and I quote "just grateful that nobody got hurt".
Ugh, you know, sometimes I wonder if Johnson actually has a computer or TV or any kind of technology, or maybe he lives off the grid on Green Acres or something, with a compass and two cans with some string. Or he's just high on pot.

DigitalChaos
09-18-2016, 10:34 PM
He actually stopped smoking for the entire presidential run. He says you can't smoke on the job and POTUS is a 24/7 job.

I thought it was pretty clear he misspoke and meant "killed."


edit: yup: https://twitter.com/GovGaryJohnson/status/777562678734753794

DigitalChaos
09-18-2016, 10:42 PM
We're dangerously close to electing an unqualified megalomaniac real estate trust fund brat, and we need to stay on target.

so to rephrase: you don't think we should let others debate because you fear it might hurt your candidate's chances of winning? Am I correct in reading it this way?

If so, you are in support of the very corruption you historically have spoken against. Thats rigging a democratic system to get the result you want. It doesn't matter if you justify it through a "means justify the ends" perspective in relation to the Trump boogyman. You gotta realize this.

DigitalChaos
09-18-2016, 10:55 PM
Now this ad is running more here:




.... I'm really tempted to make an anti-Hillary version of this using only clips of Obama from the 2008 cycle. Has nobody made such a thing yet?

remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6f4tZFZ_-g

Jinsai
09-19-2016, 04:39 AM
so to rephrase: you don't think we should let others debate because you fear it might hurt your candidate's chances of winning? Am I correct in reading it this way?

If so, you are in support of the very corruption you historically have spoken against. Thats rigging a democratic system to get the result you want. It doesn't matter if you justify it through a "means justify the ends" perspective in relation to the Trump boogyman. You gotta realize this.

No, you misunderstand. I think discourse needs to be narrowed as the deadline nears.

And I do realize that holy shit I would do everything in my power to stop the Trump boogyman, but that I'm ultimately powerless in that regard. I want the madness to stop, and I would love to reform our electoral process once this election is over with and we aren't faced with armageddon.

Deepvoid
09-19-2016, 08:37 AM
For the first time, Real Clear Politics has Clinton and Trump pretty much in a statistical tie (Clinton leads by 0.9).
She had an 8 point lead in early August.

If Clinton loses to Trump, does that make her the worst politician ever? How can you come back from such a defeat?
We can only speculate about how Bernie would be faring right now

allegro
09-19-2016, 09:46 AM
For the first time, Real Clear Politics has Clinton and Trump pretty much in a statistical tie (Clinton leads by 0.9).
She had an 8 point lead in early August.

If Clinton loses to Trump, does that make her the worst politician ever? How can you come back from such a defeat?
We can only speculate about how Bernie would be faring right now
Mitt Romney relied on polls and bought a shitload of fireworks for the giant celebration.

I don't pay attention to polls (https://www.wired.com/2016/06/civis-election-polling-clinton-sanders-trump/).

I think this is probably more reliable (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/).

allegate
09-19-2016, 11:14 AM
Sanders talks about the protest vote this year, and why you should think about it.
http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/sanders-think-hard-about-a-protest-vote-this-year-766719555728
Why did you just clickbait your link?

hellospaceboy
09-19-2016, 11:23 AM
Mitt Romney relied on polls and bought a shitload of fireworks for the giant celebration.
Not quite. They relied on the myth that the polls are "skewed" and that the size of the crowd at ralleys and the enthusiasm that counts... the polls were pretty clear and correct in general.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/whole-romney-ticket-believed-unskewed-polls/321618/

The weird thing about polling is that it works. It's like the test screening of movies before a wide release: it's stupid and corporate but it does end up statistically reflecting how a movie will be received...

allegro
09-19-2016, 11:36 AM
Not quite. They relied on the myth that the polls are "skewed" and that the size of the crowd at ralleys and the enthusiasm that counts... the polls were pretty clear and correct in general.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/whole-romney-ticket-believed-unskewed-polls/321618/

The weird thing about polling is that it works. It's like the test screening of movies before a wide release: it's stupid and corporate but it does end up statistically reflecting how a movie will be received...

I remember at the time that the Romney team had their own "system" of polling, so they believed THEIR polling plus the highly-conservative news outlets' polls (probably just made-up shit), see that quote from your article:

"The numbers in Florida show this was winnable. We thought based on our polling and range of organization that we had done what we needed to win."

Plus see also the link in my post:

https://www.wired.com/2016/06/civis-election-polling-clinton-sanders-trump/

Having been in Marketing for so long, I just don't believe them, I just don't think the sampling is reliable.

Test-screening is different. It's more like focus groups: the data derived is far more reliable, it's highly focused and the sampling is right there and provable.

Deepvoid
09-19-2016, 11:39 AM
Mitt Romney relied on polls and bought a shitload of fireworks for the giant celebration.

I think this is probably more reliable (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/).

They had Clinton above 80% less than a month ago. She's not even cracking 60% now. That's an ugly trend if you ask me.
FiveThirtyEight has Clinton at 46.6% and Trump at 44.4% compared to RCP 44.9% (Clinton) and Trump 44.0%

Besides making you feel better, the numbers are surely within the margin of error.

I think this can co either way now. Wasn't the case a month ago.

allegro
09-19-2016, 11:41 AM
They had Clinton above 70% less than a month ago. She's not even cracking 60% now. That's an ugly trend if you ask me.
It's going to go up-and-down. She was just ill with pneumonia, which affects people's perception on whether or not she can handle the job (which is ridiculous but they are mostly polling old people on land lines).

Plus, Nate Silver completely disregarded Bernie Sanders back when this all started so even HE is not totally reliable, anymore.

This is, when you come right down to it, like horseracing.

See also this. (http://elitedaily.com/news/politics/reading-presidential-election-polls/1542145/) The media WANTS US to care about polls. It's how they make money.

Meanwhile, I KEEP GETTING DELUXE SHIT IN THE MAIL FROM DONALD J TRUMP (I JUST GOT ONE TODAY). Direct mail is CHEAP (relative to other marketing) and you're lucky if you get 1% response so, yeah. He's hitting the demographic of my neighborhood's income and home values, and hoping to hit the rare Republicans in this area (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Park,_Illinois#Politics). This kind of marketing is NOT highly targeted, it's cheap and easy and wide and fast.

tony.parente
09-19-2016, 12:34 PM
Meanwhile, I KEEP GETTING DELUXE SHIT IN THE MAIL FROM DONALD J TRUMP (I JUST GOT ONE TODAY). Direct mail is CHEAP (relative to other marketing) and you're lucky if you get 1% response so, yeah. He's hitting the demographic of my neighborhood's income and home values, and hoping to hit the rare Republicans in this area (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Park,_Illinois#Politics). This kind of marketing is NOT highly targeted, it's cheap and easy and wide and fast.

Fuck, I'm a 29 year old millennial voter. Where are my deluxe "make America white again" buttons and "hey I'm a woman" key chains?

allegro
09-19-2016, 01:26 PM
Fuck, I'm a 29 year old millennial voter. Where are my deluxe "make America white again" buttons and "hey I'm a woman" key chains?
This isn't THAT deluxe. It's just a 2-page letter outlining why he's so great and why you should vote Republican.

Includes this language:

"They [Democrats] won't rest until every illegal immigrant is given complete amnesty and the right to vote as a hardened, life-long Democrat."

"They [Democrats] won't be satisfied with ObamaCare until health care is 100% government run."

"They [Democrats] won't be happy with Common Core until Washington bureaucrats run every school in America."

Then a bunch of stuff about how great he is, and how he is going to build a wall.

And then he asks me for money.

elevenism
09-19-2016, 04:10 PM
"They [Democrats] won't rest until every illegal immigrant is given complete amnesty and the right to vote as a hardened, life-long Democrat."

"They [Democrats] won't be satisfied with ObamaCare until health care is 100% government run."

those two statements are true of me, except the not resting part. i take a lot of naps.

I am what they fear: a commie pinko pro amnesty borderline militant leftist.

Khrz
09-19-2016, 04:16 PM
From Texas, that makes you a traitor on top of that !

bobbie solo
09-19-2016, 04:41 PM
I think it's pretty clear that Bernie would be destroying Trump at this point, as this election has circled the drain completely away from issues and policy, and is almost completely about likability and pointing out the other side's lies. So in that regard, Bernie is super liked even by alot of people that would never vote for him, and there's not much that you can pin on him negatively. Yeah the orange chimp would call him a Communist over & over (and maybe bring up the sex fiction he wrote when he was 20), but that wouldn't stick and certainly wouldn't rise to the level of damage Clinton's email server, the health scare, etc etc. has done to her. Plus, Bernie is a true populist and a skilled politician compared to Hillary. Hillary gets things done (somewhat) once she's in the chair, but the politician part is not her forte.

hellospaceboy
09-19-2016, 05:14 PM
I think it's pretty clear that Bernie would be destroying Trump at this point

That is completely not based on anything...
The republicans would've spent all the energy they put into the Clinton email "scandal" and her "health crisis" into knocking Bernie. I do believe the communist thing would've been pushed HARD, and something else made up too. Maybe HIS health would've been in question, I don't know, but the republican politics machine would be after him. (They never went after him during the primaries because they saw him as he easier candidate to beat, or at least someone that could split the Clinton vote)

True that the democrats would probably be more fired up and excited about the elections, but we don't really know how the undecided and independent voters would see him. Let alone the republicans that hate Trump.

You might be right, but we don't really know if "Bernie would be destroying Trump at this point"

allegro
09-19-2016, 05:16 PM
I think it's pretty clear that Bernie would be destroying Trump at this point, as this election has circled the drain completely away from issues and policy, and is almost completely about likability and pointing out the other side's lies. So in that regard, Bernie is super liked even by alot of people that would never vote for him, and there's not much that you can pin on him negatively. Yeah the orange chimp would call him a Communist over & over (and maybe bring up the sex fiction he wrote when he was 20), but that wouldn't stick and certainly wouldn't rise to the level of damage Clinton's email server, the health scare, etc etc. has done to her. Plus, Bernie is a true populist and a skilled politician compared to Hillary. Hillary gets things done (somewhat) once she's in the chair, but the politician part is not her forte.

That's assuming that Independents would choose Bernie instead of Trump. NO true Democrat is going to choose Trump. And most Independents are still beholden to one party or the other, even if they say they aren't. This country is still full of people who love socialist ideas but who don't want to pay for it, or who truly believe that "socialism" ultimately means "communism" (especially those who are from former communist countries or whose families came from communist countries). Looking at the comments on Bernie's social media showed that. A lot of the country just does not like Democrats in any form right now and think that Republicans are the Holy Saviors of our country and economy and any candidate we put in there will be The Wrong One.

hellospaceboy: Democratic Machine behind Bernie, no, Bernie isn't even a Democrat. There are a lot of Democrats who don't consider him a Democrat, at all. Because he isn't.

Clinton v Obama was a DEAD HEAT popular vote in '08. She won the US Senate TWICE in NY. She won the Democratic Presidential Primary in '16. Seems like she's doing pretty well at campaigning.

hellospaceboy
09-19-2016, 05:58 PM
allegro true, but if he won the nomination I think the democrats would line up behind him to defeat Trump.

allegro
09-19-2016, 06:10 PM
allegro true, but if he won the nomination I think the democrats would line up behind him to defeat Trump.
Oh, absolutely. But I don't think for one minute that most hardcore Democrats would choose (or "get fired up over") Sanders over Clinton. Independents and Progressives: Yes. Hardcore Democrats: No. Although, my elderly lifelong Democrat Mom was pushing for Sanders for a while but she switched to Clinton. Why? Because she didn't think Sanders could beat Trump. Same thing happened to me. I was behind Sanders before he even announced his candidacy. Then Trump happened, and other stuff in the Sanders campaign happened.

http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/3669-2016-Presidential-Election?p=237050#post237050

elevenism
09-19-2016, 06:50 PM
From Texas, that makes you a traitor on top of that !
yes, i am a double agent.

tony.parente
09-19-2016, 10:19 PM
Looks like one of Clintons IT specialists was posting on reddit 2 years ago asking how to alter the contents of "very vip" emails, then after he couldn't figure it out was asking how to completely delete them.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/296680-house-panel-probes-web-rumor-on-clinton-emails

onthewall2983
09-20-2016, 06:41 AM
https://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/TMW2016-09-14printcolor-full.jpg

elevenism
09-20-2016, 06:51 AM
oh dear god i love Tom Tomorrow. haven't seen it since i left dallas.

theimage13
09-20-2016, 07:58 AM
I don't know what angers me more: that the Skittles analogy exists in the first place, that it's so unbelievably and blatantly racist, that even if we ignore that the statistics behind it are wrong beyond hyperbole, or that there are actually people who genuinely think "yes, that makes sense, very good point, fuck refugees".

I fucking hate this country.

GulDukat
09-20-2016, 08:21 AM
Looks like George H.W. Bush may be backing Clinton.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/19/politics/george-hw-bush-voting-hillary-clinton/index.html?sr=fbcnni092016george-hw-bush-voting-hillary-clinton0930AMVODtopLink&linkId=28982654

Also, Clinton may have gotten her mojo back. New NBC poll has her beating Trump, 45 to 50 percent.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/data-points/hillary-clinton-regains-momentum-against-donald-trump-poll-n650926

elevenism
09-20-2016, 09:41 AM
I don't know what angers me more: that the Skittles analogy exists in the first place, that it's so unbelievably and blatantly racist, that even if we ignore that the statistics behind it are wrong beyond hyperbole, or that there are actually people who genuinely think "yes, that makes sense, very good point, fuck refugees".

I fucking hate this country.

Love it or leave it! MURCA!

I feel you brother. I feel like a man without a country. But at least i have texas. I have always been a Texan first and an American second, and i'd say that a whole hell of a lot of us think this way. Curiously, even though texas is politically an awful offender, i utterly adore it. Many of my ultra leftist texan friends do too. It's a paradoxical thing, i know, but it's just how we feel. God bless motherfucking texas.

bobbie solo
09-20-2016, 10:48 AM
The reason I am saying Bernie would trounce Trump are the favorability polls, as well as the actual "who would you vote for" polls from back when he was running. If you support the premise that for alot of people this election is strictly about who they like/dislike more or less and NOT policy, then Bernie's extremely high favorability ratings across the board carry alot of weight towards him most likely winning. He would have the Dem machine (begrudgingly maybe, but still there), lots of donated $, a very strong ground game compared to Trump and most importantly, people wouldn't actively despise him like they do the current two leading candidates.

bobbie solo
09-20-2016, 11:51 AM
For the record, I think the same thing could be true if Kasich got the nomination. I'm not as confident, but it's there.

allegate
09-20-2016, 11:56 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byP7XvzFqRc

You know, I could have done without that imagery at 9:00. Thanks Stephen.

DigitalChaos
09-20-2016, 12:19 PM
Looks like one of Clintons IT specialists was posting on reddit 2 years ago asking how to alter the contents of "very vip" emails, then after he couldn't figure it out was asking how to completely delete them.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/296680-house-panel-probes-web-rumor-on-clinton-emails


*Posts that ETS ignores*


I've been watching this since it first popped up on 4chan over a day back. It's interesting watching how it evolves through the press. I have some opinions on it, but I need to line a few things up first.

I will say this: I find it quite telling that the FBI missed these posts.... yet they managed to find a very similar (but *much* harder to find) help request post that lead to the takedown of DreadPirateRoberts/SilkRoad.

tony.parente
09-20-2016, 12:24 PM
*Posts that ETS ignores*

Weird how that happens right, same thing with Hillary trying to turn pepe the frog into a neo nazi hitler frog...completely ignored. I was excited to see what excuses people would make up, or for the inevitable "it's a non issue" posts.

Swykk
09-20-2016, 12:38 PM
I read it and I didn't realize I didn't hit "like." Sorry! Fixed it so you know I saw it. Trust me, I understand how frustrating that feels.

Khrz
09-20-2016, 12:55 PM
*Posts that ETS ignores*.

I don't know, as far as I'm concerned it's less "ignoring" rather than "If I react to that I have to create a bullet list of the shit the other guy said and did and I don't have time for a wall of text".

Here : yeah that's shady. Done. On the other hand I don't see Trump's shady behavior being discussed much either. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-donald-trump-retooled-his-charity-to-spend-other-peoples-money/2016/09/10/da8cce64-75df-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html)

allegro
09-20-2016, 01:00 PM
How much do we know if any of this shit is REAL and then how do we "discuss" something like white supremists and a frog or Trump and the Florida attorney general or that reddit thing or the Trump rape charges or Trump and Skittles the Bernie rape essay or Trump tax returns or Clinton's PAP smear or Trump's IBS or whatever? What is to be "discussed" at this point? By us? Just some fucking morons on a NINE INCH NAILS forum? Like we're fucking Meet the Press, oh, we missed that issue!

Honestly, I read every article and then I go "meh." Even the Trump Skittles. Even the Warren Pocohontas. Even if Hillary was soliciting gay sex via her private server.

DigitalChaos
09-20-2016, 01:18 PM
Well shit, might as well just shut down the entire In The Headlines subforum then!

Those reddit posts almost certainly belong to Paul Combetta. There was so much personal evidence (addresses, pictures, etc) in that reddit account that belong to him. There is less proof that those posts refer to Hillary's server, but the multiple points of context make it very hard to deny. What is up in the air is WHY it was requested that a name be redacted in every email and WHO that name is.

1 - It wouldn't make much sense for Hillary's name to be redacted from her own email dump for the FBI, unless she was wanting to prevent future FOIA matches against her name after the email database goes into govt custody. And if it wasn't Hillary, then who? This is the confusing part here. What's the true motive?
2 - I don't think the address redaction quite amounts to OMG EVIDENCE DELETION PROOF as the right-wing is trying to push this. But maybe it absolutely qualifies as evidence tampering from the legal perspective.
3 - The other post he made about shrinking email retention certainly ties into when that happened on Hillary's server. That certainly reinforces and adds context to the deliberate destruction of emails.
4 - And the most standout to me: this is the security of the people Hillary had running her server. You don't go blabbing on the internet, especially in an easy to trace way, about fucking evidence tampering! You don't go yapping about that "SUPER VIP, SO VIP YOU WILL KNOW THE NAME" person you are doing work for, especially when doing shady shit. Like... holy fuck people. Imagine what these idiots were talking about at every party and bar they went to.


So yeah, those would be some interesting discussion points :)

allegro
09-20-2016, 02:36 PM
But discussion for what? Conspiracy theory? The guy worked for the company maintaining her server. At this point, I am more concerned about why the FBI didn't listen to the MULTIPLE WARNINGS about their UNENCRYPTED SERVER that contained SUPER SENSITIVE DATA relating to SECURITY CLEARANCE for employees which then got hacked by the Chinese but nope, nobody gives one shit, and THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Not "this may be bad" or "could affect people," IT FUCKING DID. Or the IRS server getting hacked, TWICE, and taxpayer's social security numbers were STOLEN, SHITLOADS OF THEM. Wtf, where is that outrage? U.S. citizens getting FUCKED by incompetent MORONS in the Government, probably even insecure NSA data.

Crickets.

I had to LOCK DOWN MY CREDIT REPORTING FILES because of the INCOMPETENT FBI. This actually AFFECTED ME. FOREVER. Some fucking nerd asking a dumb fucking question and MAYBE it means something, I don't fucking care. She was not the Secretary of Defense. Her server was HANDS DOWN more secure than the Government's. COLIN POWELL didn't trust the Government servers, either. George W Bush and Dick Cheney deleted a SHITLOAD of emails from the Whitehouse server. Crickets. I have dust in my house more interesting. What can we "discuss?" In LAW, nothing. Because it's too vague, too many possibilities and variables, too many blanks, too many assumptions. The address to be redacted could be the addressEES, could be too secret projects nobody is to know about, could be another super important client, but Law does not fill in blanks like US Magazine.

DigitalChaos
09-20-2016, 02:46 PM
Well, is this the presidential election thread? Is the FBI running for president?

<s>And we NEVER discuss anything here on this discussion forum, ever. You are totally right!</s>

allegro
09-20-2016, 02:51 PM
We have glossed over TONS of topics on here (Trump rape allegations, for instance) because, really, WHAT IS THERE TO DISCUSS? Facebook style rants? That isn't a discussion. Speculation based on conspiracy theory? Are we that bored? We can't discuss some of these allegations further, like the Trump Florida Atty Genl pay claim because there is not much more to say.

To imply that everybody "ignored" it because it's a coverup or something is ridiculous considering that pretty much everybody ALSO ignored the Skittles comment (YES, TRUMP ACTUALLY COMPARED SYRIAN IMMIGRANTS TO A BOWL OF SKITTLES YESTERDAY), or the RAPE ALLEGATIONS (which was not discussed OH MY GOD APOLOGISTS!!!!) etc.

The FBI omg THEY ARE IN BED WITH CLINTON. AND TRUMP!

DigitalChaos
09-20-2016, 05:18 PM
Nobody here supports Trump. Nobody here offered anything about "the skittles comment" other than the fact there was one. I still don't know what that means.


Meanwhile, HuffPo posted a premature obituary for Clinton: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57dc4bece4b04a1497b491b6

allegro
09-20-2016, 05:34 PM
Nobody here supports Trump.
How do you know that? Did Gary Johnson tell you that?

I SUPPORT HIM, NOW. JUST BECAUSE OF THE FUCKING NERDS.

CHALK UP ONE MORE VOTE FOR TRUMP.

DigitalChaos
09-20-2016, 06:00 PM
Cause I have yet to see a legitimate trump supporter post.
If you support trump, then start posting trump support shit :D

DigitalChaos
09-20-2016, 06:37 PM
Dear Democrats: No One Owes You Their Vote (http://reason.com/blog/2016/09/19/dear-democrats-no-one-owes-you-votes) yesssss! I'm seeing so much of this shit pop up lately as people turn their sights on 3rd party voters. Dems can't accept their own blame for offering up a B-sides loser from the election 8 years ago as the only viable option now. DO BETTER! Admit you need to do better! It's nobody's fault but your own of Hillary loses.

Man, I really hope Hillary's campaign picks a fight with Johnson right now. This will be perfect.


edit: and lets not forget the irony here. Dems were being complete assholes to independents the whole election, and now they want to guilt them into voting Dem. Remember DWS and her "If it was up to me, I'd exclude independents from Dem primaries (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/278469-dnc-chairwoman-if-up-to-me-id-exclude-independents-from)"

allegro
09-20-2016, 07:07 PM
Cause I have yet to see a legitimate trump supporter post.
If you support trump, then start posting trump support shit :D

Trump would not affect me or G personally one bit. Tax wise, he would benefit us. Especially getting rid of the AMT. Abortion, civil rights, gay rights, immigration, unemployment, social security, college, none of that affects me, personally. So why should I care? Wall street? Yeah all our investments aren't exactly in the mattress.

Khrz
09-20-2016, 07:12 PM
pretty much everybody ALSO ignored the Skittles comment (YES, TRUMP ACTUALLY COMPARED SYRIAN IMMIGRANTS TO A BOWL OF SKITTLES YESTERDAY)

Okay that one made me laugh quite a bit actually, because the first time I saw that exact same allegory, it was a tumblr post being spread a couple of years back by hardcore SJWs where men where the skittles, and rapists the poison pill.
Today the meme came back in full force, but suddenly it became absolutely abhorrent and OMG the worst thing ever.

Which it is, right, but it already was the first time around, except saying so was synonymous with #notallmen and you really don't want that.

Seeing the shitty metaphor go full-on boomerang was actually funny. The irony was as fruity and titillating as a red skittle.

allegro
09-20-2016, 07:16 PM
Mmmmmmm Skittles ...

Khrz
09-20-2016, 07:30 PM
I lied.
I prefer the green ones :(

I still fail to see your point DigitalChaos.

A few among us are Clinton supporters.
A few aren't, but see her as the devil you know.
A few (like me) have absolutely no place in the discussion, let's be honest.
A few may be supporting Trump, and I can't blame them for not voicing their opinion because it will be like trying to fly a kite against a jet engine.

What is the discussion you want to have about Clinton ? The lack of reaction is the discussion you get. I have the feeling you're less interested in the discussion than in the confrontation, the opportunity to collect links and quotes all over and ram them against the Clinton rhetoric.
But at this point there is nothing to gain from it other than your own satisfaction, whatever the score is the dice are thrown and most people have already made up their mind. You can cackle at her health problems and inspect every piece of obfuscated mail, those who'll vote democrat won't change their mind because Trump is still there.

For good reason or not, most people here won't switch to Johnson apparently, because he's not seen as a viable option to block the supermassive ego from getting the nuclear codes.

So yeah, I'm not getting what you are asking of this board actually ? Information ? Insight ? Some white knight defending the damsel's honor ?

allegro
09-20-2016, 07:32 PM
You know what lawn signs I have right now?

LOCAL ELECTIONS

Shit that actually affects me, my property taxes, my state's fucked-up stalled budget, the issues in my area and my state that affect me and my neighbors, directly. I get REALLY INVOLVED in those issues via petitions, etc. ALL THE TIME, not just when a President is about to be elected like these other lazy clueless citizens.

DigitalChaos
09-20-2016, 07:40 PM
Khrz - like I said. I'm interested in the possible motives behind mass-redaction of a single contact's name. It doesn't make sense to me.

theimage13
09-20-2016, 08:39 PM
Love it or leave it! MURCA!

I feel you brother. I feel like a man without a country. But at least i have texas. I have always been a Texan first and an American second, and i'd say that a whole hell of a lot of us think this way. Curiously, even though texas is politically an awful offender, i utterly adore it. Many of my ultra leftist texan friends do too. It's a paradoxical thing, i know, but it's just how we feel. God bless motherfucking texas.

Ha. I used to live in Texas. I hated it with a passion. As a guy who didn't believe in god, didn't own a gun, and talked about homosexuals as though they were *gasp* people, I got a lot of "you ain't right" treatment from those around me. And not friendly, we're just teasing you kind of treatment. I mean I was really looked down on and frequently either ridiculed, excluded, or both. With all due respect to you personally, Texas can suck it.

theimage13
09-20-2016, 08:47 PM
4 - And the most standout to me: this is the security of the people Hillary had running her server. You don't go blabbing on the internet, especially in an easy to trace way, about fucking evidence tampering! You don't go yapping about that "SUPER VIP, SO VIP YOU WILL KNOW THE NAME" person you are doing work for, especially when doing shady shit.

Or - and hear me out here - is that actually the BEST way to do it? An analogy from my childhood:

Friend and I, sitting at a computer in a wide open space in the living room.
Friend's mom, from one room over: [yells] what are you guys doing in there?
Friend: [yelling back] looking at porn.
Friend's mom: okay that's nice.

Sometimes when you're up to no good, people will actually just completely ignore you if you're honest about it. They'll think you're trolling and just being an asshat and not even give you a second though. The phrase "hiding in plain sight" comes to mind.

Now, also, having said all of that, it is pretty fucking concerning if a staffer for the Secretary of State was taking to reddit to ask for IT help. So the above analogy is not me trying to justify anyone's behaviors, but mostly just to play devil's advocate.

allegro
09-20-2016, 09:03 PM
It appears that he was not looking to delete the emails, but to replace the email address with a dummy address so as not to expose the actual address. This may have been during the point of the data dump when they were switching backup companies and stuff was deleted from the old backups when it was transferred from the cloud backup (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article37968711.html). He may not have trusted the email addie info (top secret) in the hands of the cloud server when he was not sure that the data on the cloud server would be totally deleted, or when he thought the address could become public via FOIA. Going on reddit for the info was not bad if he wasn't doing something nefarious at the time but was, instead, protecting information (or if that is what he believed he was doing, anyway) and, yeah, doing it in plain sight wouldn't look so obvious.

Of course, Clinton has as much computer knowledge as my DOG. But, she decided to have a private combined server for her work and private emails in her home (can't say I blame her considering that shithole that's a Government server), and she hired Platte River to do it. (He / Combetta is not a SOS "staffer," he is at Platte River Networks (http://platteriver.com/).) So the buck stops with her when Combetta did stupid shit. Obviously, Clinton doesn't know enough about this stuff to give him direct instructions to do this shit, it's why she hired a professional company that could be trusted with this kind of job; he obviously did this stupid shit on his own. But, she hired him. So, the buck stops with her. That's what happens when you da boss. Also, her own lawyers did stupid shit like ADDED "confidential" to a few emails during the discovery process after the fact before they submitted them to the FBI. But, they're her lawyers, she hired them; again, the buck stops with her. She da boss.

allegro
09-20-2016, 10:20 PM
Oh, btw, ends up that Trump did not make the Skittles comment. Donald JR did.

Skittles has made a formal announcement that Syrians are people and not a tasty wonderful candy.

Khrz
09-20-2016, 10:27 PM
Skittles has made a formal announcement that Syrians are people and not a tasty wonderful candy.

That is either a missed opportunity to embrace refugees as delicious and colourful , or a backhanded way to tell that Syrians aren't good candy!
Either way, shame on you Skittles!

Mantra
09-20-2016, 10:30 PM
So why does any of this email shit matter to people?

I can't even imagine caring about this stuff.

Jinsai
09-20-2016, 10:57 PM
So why does any of this email shit matter to people?

I can't even imagine caring about this stuff.

To most people, it doesn't really. It matters to them because they think it hurts Clinton. Most of these people had never heard the word "Benghazi" until four years ago. They would have guessed it was a place in a fictional science fiction movie. These are the same people who believed the made-up city of Agrabah (from the Disney cartoon Alladin) was a real place, and thought it would be a good idea to bomb it.

In keeping with a long-standing American tradition of proud ignorance, most people have no idea what the core of the scandal even is.

I was stuck behind some guy in a Home Depot once, who went on to tell the clerk all about how Barack HUSSEIN Obama wasn't born in this country, and started naming off social security numbers to "prove" it to this poor clerk who just kept smiling and nodding. Most of the people who are super outraged haven't even read the script they've been handed.

allegro
09-20-2016, 11:03 PM
That is either a missed opportunity to embrace refugees as delicious and colourful , or a backhanded way to tell that Syrians aren't good candy!
Either way, shame on you Skittles!
I almost bought some goddamned Skittles today at the grocery store. But I'm trying to avoid sugar. DONALD J TRUMP JR tried to get me to eat sugar.

Khrz
09-20-2016, 11:12 PM
I almost bought some goddamned Skittles today at the grocery store. But I'm trying to avoid sugar. DONALD J TRUMP JR tried to get me to eat sugar.

On the other hand, his analogy wouldn't have been so shocking if he used candy corn. I mean "nevermind, we'd ditch the whole bowl anyway poison or not" would have accurately reflected his line of thinking, but it doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

I just watched Zero Days, about the analysis and circumstances surrounding the inception and global release of the STUXnet worm, and I can't help but laugh at the controversy surrounding the Clinton mails. How such a story is making headlines in an endless feedback loop like it is absolutely unacceptable... Meanwhile we've just (well, y'all, really) just invited every fucking country on earth to just have a go at ruining each other's infrastructure because, hey, there's no law that reaaaaaaaaaaally forbids it, technically.

Right now, after the USA and Israel tried to ruin Iran's nuclear efforts, Iran responded in kind by paralyzing three US banks, Russia toyed with your electoral apparatus, and oh, someone is making recurrent, targeted, graduated and very thorough probing attacks against the pillars of the internet to see what makes them flinch.

But holy shit Clinton erased her mails, haxxor.

aggroculture
09-20-2016, 11:21 PM
In keeping with a long-standing American tradition of proud ignorance, most people have no idea what the core of the scandal even is.

I'm not American and I try to keep as informed as possible about this scandal: years go by and I STILL don't understand what the big fucking deal is.
She sent email from a private server. People say this is bad because she could have been hacked. She wasn't hacked. So although she wasn't supposed to do it, no harm came of it. And yet, people continue to bang on about this as if...as if...as if what exactly? I get it that it's Republicans clutching at straws. So was the swift boat, it was bullshit. But it helped sink Kerry, just like this is helping sink Hillary. The utterly baffling part is that the media are willing to play along with this, and I think part of the problem is that Hillary has not been very good at getting a positive message out for herself. What does Hillary stand for? It's hard to say. We know she's for women's rights, we know she's for socially progressive values, OK. But what is the bigger picture? What is her narrative? But oh yeah she did something bad with email, right? Let's talk about that then.

Khrz
09-20-2016, 11:35 PM
What is her narrative?

Well her narrative doesn't make good twitter bravado.

I'm not defending her, I didn't like Obama's subdued aggressiveness when it came to attacking foreign countries and I believe Clinton is worse on that regard. I still believe that, in a way, Obama tried to calm everybody down and have the situation under control, too bad for the drones, death and destruction though. I'm not sure about Clinton. I know she won't be better, but I don't even know if better would be better.

But at least her positions can't be shortened to 150 characters or less.

Mantra
09-20-2016, 11:56 PM
I'm not defending her, I didn't like Obama's subdued aggressiveness when it came to attacking foreign countries and I believe Clinton is worse on that regard. I still believe that, in a way, Obama tried to calm everybody down and have the situation under control, too bad for the drones, death and destruction though. I'm not sure about Clinton. I know she won't be better, but I don't even know if better would be better.

Yeah, see there are plenty of important things to criticize Clinton for, like stuff you're talking about here.

So why do people instead obsess over all this fake nonsense, as if there's nothing more serious to talk about?

DigitalChaos
09-21-2016, 01:00 AM
Or - and hear me out here - is that actually the BEST way to do it? An analogy from my childhood:

Sure, if this was an in-person exchange where sarcasm carries. That makes absolutely no sense online in his post. It's most like bragging. I suppose there is the option that he felt he was sort of putting it out there, as a sort of canary for people to find as evidence. ... maybe. Another option is that flagging the request as "VIP" makes it so he doesn't get flooded with comments saying how he is trying to do something the wrong way. "VIP" = "yeah, its wrong, but i have no fucking choice here so just help me" .... but again, he pressed on how VIP this person is in a way that is excessive and more bragging.




Now, also, having said all of that, it is pretty fucking concerning if a staffer for the Secretary of State was taking to reddit to ask for IT help. So the above analogy is not me trying to justify anyone's behaviors, but mostly just to play devil's advocate.
Eh... i wouldn't fault him there... too much. Lots of IT is about figuring it out and using community resources too. If you are going to do that when dealing with sensitive info, you don't use an account that is incredibly easy to attach to yourself, and you definitely do go talking about how you are doing this for a super important person that everyone knows.

DigitalChaos
09-21-2016, 01:14 AM
So why does any of this email shit matter to people?

I can't even imagine caring about this stuff.

There are lots of different reasons people care about it. A lot of the GOP only care cause its something that hurts hillary.

I care because politicians need to be accountable, especially politicians running for POTUS. Hillary has a reputation of being untrustworthy, above the rules that everyone else needs to follow, and part of the establishment. Her email situation is another example that puts all of that on display and there is significant evidence behind it. I don't want someone being given the top executive powers in our country who thinks they are above everyone else and will do whatever the fuck she wants and lie to the public.

Look at the shit she says about Snowden's handling of information and how he should be treated.




People say this is bad because she could have been hacked. She wasn't hacked. So although she wasn't supposed to do it, no harm came of it.
That's just one of the many reasons it is bad. But "she wasn't hacked" is an unknowable statement. The security I saw on display surrounding her server was so poor that they would never know if she were hacked unless her emails started showing up in a leak. Her crack team thought turning the server off for a few min "because they were under attack" was a sane response. Like, fucking come on!




I just watched Zero Days, about the analysis and circumstances surrounding the inception and global release of the STUXnet worm, and I can't help but laugh at the controversy surrounding the Clinton mails. How such a story is making headlines in an endless feedback loop like it is absolutely unacceptable... Meanwhile we've just (well, y'all, really) just invited every fucking country on earth to just have a go at ruining each other's infrastructure because, hey, there's no law that reaaaaaaaaaaally forbids it, technically.

Right now, after the USA and Israel tried to ruin Iran's nuclear efforts, Iran responded in kind by paralyzing three US banks, Russia toyed with your electoral apparatus, and oh, someone is making recurrent, targeted, graduated and very thorough probing attacks against the pillars of the internet to see what makes them flinch.

But holy shit Clinton erased her mails, haxxor.

Dude, that's awesome. So much in the world of Info Sec is suddenly turning into entertainment these days. The stories are absolutely amazing for those of us in the field, but it's hard to translate to a wider audience. I need to watch Zero Days still. Did you know it's being turned into a TV series now? If you want the real meat, i've heard that Kim Zetter's book "Countdown to Zero Day" is much better though.

Anyway, STUXNET is awesome shit. It doesn't diminish the Clinton email thing. I'll avoid repeating myself there, just go back to the top of this post.

elevenism
09-21-2016, 01:17 AM
Ha. I used to live in Texas. I hated it with a passion. As a guy who didn't believe in god, didn't own a gun, and talked about homosexuals as though they were *gasp* people, I got a lot of "you ain't right" treatment from those around me. And not friendly, we're just teasing you kind of treatment. I mean I was really looked down on and frequently either ridiculed, excluded, or both. With all due respect to you personally, Texas can suck it.
Well...welll you at least SUPPORT THE TROOPS that DAYED to give you the FRAYDOM to SAY THAT, right?

lolol i couldn't help it

Khrz
09-21-2016, 04:51 AM
Anyway, STUXNET is awesome shit. It doesn't diminish the Clinton email thing. I'll avoid repeating myself there, just go back to the top of this post.

Right, so you know about the stuxnet situation and you're bent out of shape over the emails ? From what I've seen, that makes her perfect for the chair. "I wouldn't answer about the thing that's supposed to be classified if such a thing existed", she'll be great.
Trump is fundamentally embezzling money already, and said that his children will handle his blind trust (which would make it a myopic trust ? a blinking trust ?) if he's elected.

And nobody will handle Snowden, you can't afford that. You can't tell everyone "go right ahead and blow the lid every time we're doing shady shit". Snowden is a liability about a subject nobody will touch. You had an easier time coming back from Vietnam telling everyone was collecting human ears and raping children, because the conversation existed. But infosec ? Doesn't exist, nothing to see here. Yet there's that guy who won't shut the fuck up about it, and you're supposed to shake his hand or hope he disappears ?
The guy has tried to spark a debate about something nobody wants to acknowledge. If anything Clinton's stance show that she takes her potential situation seriously. Not that I sympathize mind you, but she's completely coherent with the current climate (but that's probably what annoys you I guess).

DigitalChaos
09-21-2016, 10:06 AM
With that line of thinking, El Chapo should run the DEA.

allegate
09-21-2016, 11:48 AM
I can't tell if this is funny or scary or some weird combination.

https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video_thumb/Cs42VERUMAAI1Lo.jpg

Jordan Klepper Fingers the Pulse - Conspiracy Theories Thrive at a Donald Trump Rally (http://www.cc.com/video-clips/e9z0ej/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-jordan-klepper-fingers-the-pulse---conspiracy-theories-thrive-at-a-donald-trump-rally)

Khrz
09-21-2016, 11:52 AM
With that line of thinking, El Chapo should run the DEA.

Well those lines have been blurry more than once, have they not?

I'm kidding, and wish things could be more upfront, transparent and honest. Problem is that if you are, you'll get destroyed by those who aren't.

allegro
09-21-2016, 12:08 PM
Don King endorses Trump, drops the N word in his endorsement speech (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/us/politics/donald-trump-don-king-black-voters.html?_r=0).


“I told Michael Jackson, I said, if you are poor, you are a poor Negro — I would use the N-word — if you are rich, you are a rich Negro. If you are a talented intellectual, you are an intellectual Negro. If you are a dancing and sliding and gliding nigger, I mean Negro ..."

elevenism
09-21-2016, 01:10 PM
Don King endorses Trump, drops the N word in his endorsement speech (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/us/politics/donald-trump-don-king-black-voters.html?_r=0).
we just saw it on the news. it was priceless.

aggroculture
09-21-2016, 01:45 PM
From Facebook:

"Hillary Clinton Emails
390K people talking about this"

Seriously, 390K people, get a life, get a clue, get something. Talk about all the many shitty shitty real things Republicans do instead: gerrymandering and redistricting to win elections majorities be damned, waging a war on voters of color under the fake scandal of voter fraud, restricting women's healthcare and outlawing abortion in spite of Roe v Wade, legislating against LGBTQ people and ostracizing transgender people, making fracking compulsory and instituting statewide bans on local fracking bans, relentlessly attacking any minimum wage hike and waging a constant war on unions, dismantling and corporatizing universities, fostering obscene wealth inequality and poverty, allowing criminals and domestic abusers easy access to guns, giving tax breaks to billionaires, outlawing animal rights activists filming undercover at farms, promoting stand your ground laws, taking bribes from Trump to not investigate him, attacking science and denying climate change because paid by big oil, wasting millions of public dollars and thousands of working hours in a known to be pointless attempt to repeal Obamacare
...good grief anything but Clinton's goddamn emails.

allegro
09-21-2016, 01:50 PM
From Facebook:

"Hillary Clinton Emails
390K people talking about this"

Seriously, 390K people, get a life, get a clue, get something. Talk about all the many shitty shitty real things Republicans do instead: gerrymandering and redistricting to win elections majorities be damned, waging a war on voters of color under the fake scandal of voter fraud, restricting women's healthcare and outlawing abortion in spite of Roe v Wade, legislating against LGBTQ people and ostracizing transgender people, making fracking compulsory and instituting statewide bans on local fracking bans, relentlessly attacking any minimum wage hike and waging a constant war on unions, dismantling and corporatizing universities, fostering obscene wealth inequality and poverty, allowing criminals and domestic abusers easy access to guns, giving tax breaks to billionaires, outlawing animal rights activists filming undercover at farms, promoting stand your ground laws, taking bribes from Trump to not investigate him, attacking science and denying climate change because paid by big oil, wasting millions of public dollars and thousands of working hours in a known to be pointless attempt to repeal Obamacare
...good grief anything but Clinton's goddamn emails.

When you consider there are 1.71 billion monthly active users, 390k is not that many, relatively speaking.

There are probably 1 million people talking about that fact that Kim Kardashian's favorite moisturizer costs $240 a jar.

DigitalChaos
09-21-2016, 01:50 PM
^ too bad you restricted that list to republicans. Hillary fits a good chunk of them. Unless "hillary is a republican" was the joke?

allegro
09-21-2016, 01:56 PM
I don't know wtf you are talking about? I'm not talking about any political affiliation. I'm just talking about stats in general.

Khrz
09-21-2016, 02:00 PM
It was a reply to aggroculture I reckon, and yeah there are many issues to talk about concerning Clinton other than her fucking mails, like her stance on fracking for example, from what I've heard.

allegate
09-21-2016, 02:01 PM
I don't know wtf you are talking about? I'm not talking about any political affiliation. I'm just talking about stats in general.

here you go:

https://media.giphy.com/media/BjeiL8WnqByKY/giphy.gif

allegro
09-21-2016, 02:09 PM
https://media0.giphy.com/media/P87BXTFyrhTHi/200_s.gif

allegro
09-21-2016, 02:10 PM
like her stance on fracking for example, from what I've heard.
I don't even know her stance on fracking, to tell you the truth. All I've heard is shit about emails.

DigitalChaos
09-21-2016, 02:13 PM
It was a reply to @aggroculture (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=318) I reckon, and yeah there are many issues to talk about concerning Clinton other than her fucking mails, like her stance on fracking for example, from what I've heard.
nah man, let's talk about skittles. or maybe how Pepe is a white supremacist. #TheImportantElectionTopics #MuchMoreImportantThanHillaryLyingAboutClassifiedR ecords

Khrz
09-21-2016, 02:18 PM
Honestly, you're the one who keeps coming back with more details about emails, and nobody gives a fuck, that's established. Now if you came with a list of things where "Hillary fits a good chunk of them", perhaps you'd have that discussion ? I'm not promising anything, especially if you keep demanding answers from the people who have no fucking clue, us, but at least there would be a broader array of topics to address.

allegro
09-21-2016, 02:19 PM
nah man, let's talk about skittles. or maybe how Pepe is a white supremacist.
Or that Trump spent more than a quarter-million dollars from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits that involved the billionaire’s for-profit businesses, according to interviews and a review of legal documents (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html).


The other expenditures involved smaller amounts. In 2013, Trump used $5,000 from the foundation to buy advertisements touting his chain of hotels in programs for three events organized by a D.C. preservation group. And in 2014, Trump spent $10,000 of the foundation’s money on a portrait of himself bought at a charity fundraiser.

Or, rather, another portrait of himself.

Several years earlier, Trump used $20,000 from the Trump Foundation to buy a different, six-foot-tall portrait.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/09/14/Others/Images/2016-09-13/na-trump0101473813971.jpg?uuid=pQWtInoUEeaAZMHdyKckuw

allegro
09-21-2016, 02:23 PM
Pam Bondi says "there was nothing improper about the $25,000 contribution and wished she had talked about it sooner (http://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2016/09/20/bondi-talks-trump-donation/90730122/)" uh-huh


Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi sparred with reporters Tuesday about a $25,000 contribution from Donald Trump for her 2014 election campaign.

Bondi’s relationship with Trump is under scrutiny because at the time the check was written a number of Floridians were complaining they had been scammed by get-rich-quick schemes offered by Trump University and the Trump Institute. When Bondi asked Trump for the money, the New York Attorney General was investigating his real-estate seminars consumers said were scams.

Bondi said there was nothing improper about accepting a donation from Trump. She added it involved a small amount of money compared to the cost of running a statewide campaign and rejected a suggestion that politically it might have made sense to return the check.

Khrz
09-21-2016, 02:32 PM
She added it involved a small amount of money compared to the cost of running a statewide campaign


ahahahahha holy shit that's a nice move !

-"It didn't cost him a thing, all things considered !"
-"Well it benefited you greatly, on the other hand ?"
-"No, that's not my point, I said it was a small sum compared to his current expenses !"
-"but you're now 25,000 $ richer ?"
-"Am I stuttering ? "

DigitalChaos
09-21-2016, 03:07 PM
wtf is in the lower left of that picture? 2 black dildos and a jewel butt plug?

telee.kom
09-21-2016, 03:26 PM
Lot of people in this video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COPUU6mnRV8

Anyway, bit too melodramatic for my taste.

allegro
09-21-2016, 03:49 PM
Trump: I pay as little taxes as possible, but my tax returns are none of your business (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/13/trump_vs_stephanopoulos_my_tax_returns_none_of_you r_business_youll_see_when_i_release.html).


STEPHANOPOULOS: It’s not reported on the financials. What they don’t know also is your tax rate. they don’t show whether you paid a low –

TRUMP: I try very hard to pay as little tax as possible and have said that for the last two years. I fight very hard because this country wastes our money. They take our tax money and throw it down the drain. They spend $4 trillion in the Middle East and we can’t fix a road or a bridge. And I fight very hard. I consider it an expense because, frankly, our country doesn’t know what they’re doing with our money or tax money and that’s part of the problem. So I fight very hard to pay as little tax as possible.

STEPHANOPOULOS: What is your tax rate?

TRUMP: It’s none of your business. You’ll see it when I release but I fight very hard to pay as little tax as possible.


Mr Trump's Stupid Excuses on Taxes (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/opinion/mr-trumps-stupid-excuses-on-taxes.html).


Here are some plausible explanations for Mr. Trump’s refusal:

He earns very little money or uses loopholes and tax shelters and, as a result, pays little or no tax. Many voters were shocked when Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential candidate, disclosed that he paid an average of just 14 percent of his income in taxes. Mr. Trump might pay even less, perhaps even zero. Real estate developers like Mr. Trump can take advantage of numerous deductions, credits and other tax loopholes that allow them to minimize how much tax they owe. In fact, Mr. Trump has boasted about avoiding taxes, telling George Stephanopoulos of ABC in May, “I fight very hard to pay as little tax as possible.”

Tax records from New York City also show that Mr. Trump has, as recently as this year, received a property tax credit that is available only to families earning less than $500,000 a year. His campaign has said that the credit was issued in error. But he has received the same credit in the past. It also appears that Mr. Trump paid little or no personal income taxes in some years in the early 1990s and late 1970s, according to news accounts based on documents from gambling regulators in New Jersey.

He gives little or nothing to charity. Mr. Trump’s campaign claims that he has donated tens of millions of dollars to good causes. His last donation to the Donald J. Trump Foundation, which he and his family control, was made in 2008, according to The Washington Post, and there is no evidence that he has given much to other charities. On Tuesday, The Washington Post reported that his foundation spent $293,000 to settle lawsuits involving Mr. Trump’s businesses, pay for advertising for his hotels and buy two portraits of himself, in apparent violation of tax laws that prohibit the use of tax-exempt funds for the benefit of its executives and their businesses. That hardly inspires confidence.

His tax returns could shed light on whom he does business with. The detailed schedules in his tax return could reveal the source of his earnings and debt. This would provide information about his ties to Russian oligarchs, Middle Eastern billionaires and other figures closely linked to foreign governments that might be trying to influence or thwart American policy. A recent Newsweek story revealed that Mr. Trump has done business with politically connected businessmen in Azerbaijan, Dubai, India, Turkey and elsewhere. And a few years ago, his son Donald Trump Jr. said that many Russian investors had put their money into the family’s business.

implanted_microchip
09-21-2016, 03:59 PM
Pam Bondi says "there was nothing improper about the $25,000 contribution and wished she had talked about it sooner (http://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2016/09/20/bondi-talks-trump-donation/90730122/)" uh-huh

You have no idea how much I loathe the fact that this woman could potentially be my state's next governor or how much it makes me eager to move far, far away from here. She's so utterly terrible

aggroculture
09-21-2016, 04:05 PM
You have no idea how much I loathe the fact that this woman could potentially be my state's next governor or how much it makes me eager to move far, far away from here. She's so utterly terrible

Why isn't there a criminal investigation into the requested Trump donation and subsequent decision on her part to not pursue an investigation into Trump University?
I don't get it, what am I missing here? There is the appearance of foul play, and it would seem to me that Bondi needs to demonstrate her innocence in this case. Or are some people simply above the law?

neorev
09-21-2016, 05:13 PM
On a strange note...


http://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=bPhnXTCpxFo

So apparently around 7am on the morning of Sept. 20th, 1630AM broadcasted this strange and repeating automated voice on their station in the New Jersey area repeating what sounds like "Trump will go 26th" or "Trump April 26th" over and over for five minutes.

Deepvoid
09-21-2016, 06:41 PM
On a strange note...


http://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=bPhnXTCpxFo

So apparently around 7am on the morning of Sept. 20th, 1630AM broadcasted this strange and repeating automated voice on their station in the New Jersey area repeating what sounds like "Trump will go 26th" or "Trump April 26th" over and over for five minutes.

Cue crazy conspiracy theories in 3...2...1

allegro
09-21-2016, 08:17 PM
Former CIA Director, VP and President George HW Bush says he will vote for Hillary Clinton (http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/09/trump-time-capsule-108-bush-fahrenthold-kagan/500894/?utm_source=atlfb).

Dra508
09-21-2016, 09:30 PM
From Texas, that makes you a traitor on top of that !

Technically, Texas has only been this red for a couple of decades. Here's hoping my vote counts this time.

Mantra
09-21-2016, 09:49 PM
I care because politicians need to be accountable, especially politicians running for POTUS. Hillary has a reputation of being untrustworthy, above the rules that everyone else needs to follow, and part of the establishment. Her email situation is another example that puts all of that on display and there is significant evidence behind it. I don't want someone being given the top executive powers in our country who thinks they are above everyone else and will do whatever the fuck she wants and lie to the public.

Obviously the general principle of what you're talking about is true, but invoking that in this context is kind of a weird overreaction. She didn't stab someone and get away with it. She was a bit too careless about her email security. Big deal, there are bigger fish to fry. I mean, we could dig up some incident where she illegally jay walked and then sweet talked her way out of a ticket, and I could say "Look! Yet again she she thinks she's above the law and can do whatever the fuck she wants," but that would be crazy. It's absurd to make these dramatic indictments of her character and reputation over this petty nonsense. Sure, she could have handled the email shit better, but I still haven't seen anything that truly justifies this magnitude of outrage and obsession. This whole "controversy" is like a text book example of a red herring fallacy. It's a meaningless thing to focus on.

allegro
09-21-2016, 10:48 PM
Technically, Texas has only been this red for a couple of decades. Here's hoping my vote counts this time.
Jimmy Carter in 1976 was the last Democratic presidential candidate to carry Texas.

DigitalChaos
09-22-2016, 12:18 AM
Obviously the general principle of what you're talking about is true, but invoking that in this context is kind of a weird overreaction.
in what context?


She was a bit too careless about her email security. Big deal, there are bigger fish to fry. I mean, we could dig up some incident where she illegally jay walked and then sweet talked her way out of a ticket, and I could say "Look! Yet again she she thinks she's above the law and can do whatever the fuck she wants,"

People say this kind of thing and I always wonder if they are deliberately downplaying it, or if they truly don't understand the issue. In their heads they sympathize and think they would have little issue doing exactly what Hillary did. It's nothing like jaywalking. Every lower ranking person who broke security the way she did would have ended their careers, if not landed themselves in prison. That's not what happens when you get caught jaywalking.

This is like Hillary writing the nuke codes on the palm of her hand because it's easier than lugging around that giant bag.

The only people who downplay this issue the way you just did are people who have no understanding of InfoSec as it concerns military/government controls. Ask anyone who has been involved in government InfoSec and see if they feel this is a non-issue on par with simple jaywalking. Every single one will tell you how even much smaller offenses would end their careers at a minimum.

allegro
09-22-2016, 01:06 AM
This is like Hillary writing the nuke codes on the palm of her hand because it's easier than lugging around that giant bag.
The nuclear codes are on a little credit-card-size card called a bisquit that they carry in their pocket or whatever. The briefcase (football) carries the plans for nuclear launches. The codes on the bisquit CHANGE DAILY.

Hillary has repeatedly indicated that she did not issue or discuss top secret commands via email. Ever. That was not disproven by the investigation. The fact that the military / government NEVER FIGURED OUT that the Secretary of State broke protocol with email until long after is a good indication of just how BAD our alleged "InfoSec" is in government.

The people at the top of the recent Wells Fargo mess do not have ended careers. And they committed FRAUD. As Elizabeth Warren indicated, a teller at the bottom would have been fired, instantly; the people at the top were the same who caused the mortgage crisis of 2008 and received not only no job discipline but no criminal charges, although the bank was charged millions in fines, and the people at the top received bonuses.

The Keating Five, which was part of the great S&L meltdown, same thing. And one of them went on to become the Republican Presidential nominee of 2008, instead of serving prison time. While hundreds of thousands lost their life savings, he is still Senator in Arizona.

The bottom line is that NO "lower ranking person" would ever have the AUTHORITY to make a decision like creating an outside server instead of using an official server in a government job: that is an impossible scenario, so it's a moot point.

implanted_microchip
09-22-2016, 01:09 AM
http://nytimes.com/2016/09/22/us/politics/donald-trump-don-king-black-voters.amp.html

Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I am so unbelievably tired of this man

DigitalChaos
09-22-2016, 01:57 AM
The people at the top of the recent Wells Fargo mess do not have ended careers. And they committed FRAUD. As Elizabeth Warren indicated, a teller at the bottom would have been fired, instantly; the people at the top were the same who caused the mortgage crisis of 2008 and received not only no job discipline but no criminal charges, although the bank was charged millions in fines, and the people at the top received bonuses.


You comparing this to Hillary says everything. I agree. Hillary is very much like the people at the top of Wells Fargo who commit fraud and will get away with it. It's something very wrong and not something we should be ok with. Just look at the commentary from Sanders and Warren on that topic.


Wall Street for POTUS!



PS - Hillary didn't have the authority to create a private email server for classified material, as you imply she did. That's yet another problem with her.

tony.parente
09-22-2016, 07:35 AM
Found this on reddit:

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are in a bar. Donald leans over, and with a smile on his face, says, "The media is really tearing you apart for that Scandal."
Hillary: "You mean my lying about Benghazi?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "You mean the massive voter fraud?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "You mean the military not getting their votes counted?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "Using my secret private server with classified material to Hide my Activities?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "The NSA monitoring our phone calls, emails and everything Else?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "Using the Clinton Foundation as a cover for tax evasion, Hiring Cronies, And taking bribes from foreign countries?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "You mean the drones being operated in our own country without The Benefit of the law?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "Giving 123 Technologies $300 Million, and right afterward it Declared Bankruptcy and was sold to the Chinese?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "You mean arming the Muslim Brotherhood and hiring them in the White House?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "Whitewater, Watergate committee, Vince Foster, commodity Deals?"
Trump: "No the other one:"
Hillary: "Turning Libya into chaos?"
Trump: "No the other one:"
Hillary: "Being the mastermind of the so-called “Arab Spring” that only brought chaos, death and destruction to the Middle East and North Africa?"
Trump: "No the other one:"
Hillary: "Leaving four Americans to die in Benghazi?"
Trump: "No the other one:"
Hillary: "Trashing Mubarak, one of our few Muslim friends?"
Trump: "No the other one:"
Hillary: "The funding and arming of terrorists in Syria, the destruction and destabilization of that nation, giving the order to our lapdogs in Turkey and Saudi Arabia to give sarin gas to the "moderate" terrorists in Syria that they eventually used on civilians, and framed Assad, and had it not been for the Russians and Putin, we would have used that as a pretext to invade Syria, put a puppet in power, steal their natural resources, and leave that country in total chaos, just like we did with Libya?
Trump: "No the other one:"
Hillary: "The creation of the biggest refugees crisis since WWII?"
Trump: "No the other one:"
Hillary: "Leaving Iraq in chaos? "
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "The DOJ spying on the press?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "You mean HHS Secretary Sibelius shaking down health insurance Executives?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "Giving our cronies in SOLYNDRA $500 MILLION DOLLARS and 3 Months Later they declared bankruptcy and then the Chinese bought it?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "The NSA monitoring citizens' ?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "The State Department interfering with an Inspector General Investigation on departmental sexual misconduct?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "Me, The IRS, Clapper and Holder all lying to Congress?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "Threats to all of Bill's former mistresses to keep them quiet? " Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "You mean the INSIDER TRADING of the Tyson chicken deal I did where I invested $1,000 and the next year I got $100,000?
Trump" "No, the other one."
Hillary: "You mean when Bill flew with the director of the FBI director Loretta Lynch just before my hearing to cut a deal with her?"
Trump" "No, the other one."
Hillary: " You mean the one where my IT guy at Platte River Networks asked Reddit for help to alter emails?"
Trump" "No, the other one."
Hillary: "You mean where the former Haitain Senate President accused me and my foundation of asking him for bribes?"
Trump" "No, the other one."
Hillary: "You mean that old video of me laughing as I explain how I got the charges against that child rapist dropped by blaming the young girl for liking older men and fantasizing about them. Even though I knew the guy was guilty?
Trump" "No, the other one."
Hillary: "You mean that video of me coughing up a giant green lunger into my drinking glass then drinking it back down?"
Trump" "No, the other one."
Hillary: "You mean that video of me passing out on the curb and losing my shoe?"
Trump" "No, the other one."
Hillary: "You mean when I robbed Bernie Sanders of the Democratic Party Nomination by having the DNC rig the nomination process so that I would win?"
Trump" "No, the other one."
Hillary: "You mean how so many people that oppose me have died in mysterious was?"
Trump" "No, the other one."
Hillary: "I give up! ... Oh wait, I think I've got it! When I stole the White House furniture, silverware, when Bill left Office?"
Trump: "THAT'S IT! I almost forgot about that one".

allegro
09-22-2016, 09:34 AM
You comparing this to Hillary says everything. I agree. Hillary is very much like the people at the top of Wells Fargo who commit fraud and will get away with it. It's something very wrong and not something we should be ok with. Just look at the commentary from Sanders and Warren on that topic. Wall Street for POTUS!

PS - Hillary didn't have the authority to create a private email server for classified material, as you imply she did. That's yet another problem with her.
Yes, Hillary did have the authority because SHE DID IT and nobody noticed AT ALL, nobody even told her she was not supposed to do it. Her only higher boss was the President. Those who care could have NOTICED and said that is not allowed. Neither happened.

Second, the only outrage about Wells Fargo is coming from Warren. I was pissed at them 12 years ago when I saw what they were doing in the mortgage industry. I am in that business! OBVIOUS mortgage fraud, they were the biggest offenders. And they hurt the whole country, cost us a LOT of money, people lost their houses, equity dropped like a stone, some never recovered.

And nothing HRC did (re deciding to control her own email server instead of having the nightmare security government do it) hurt anybody.

You asserted that lower people who "did what Hillary did" would be fired, which is faulty logic for several reasons: (1) lower people wouldn't have the authority to do it unless they were deliberately committing a criminal act; (2) Hillary was not intentionally doing anything nefarious or fraudulent, she was merely trying to keep the data more secure than she thought it would have been under government control which is an honest mindset and not fraudulent in intent, (3) using Warren's analogy, a bank teller who is accidentally short $20 in her drawer at the end of her shift would certainly NOT be fired (I know, I was a bank teller) but a bank teller who DELIBERATELY AND KNOWINGLY STEALS $20 from the drawer, and it can be proven, would be fired. Doing something with the INTENT to commit fraud and the INTENT to DECEIVE is very different than doing something with no ill will behind the intent, hence why no charges were brought against Clinton; her intent was, simply, to have more control over the security of her server which included her private emails, probably because she did not trust the security of the government servers. She could have (probably should have) thrown the government servers under the bus by indicating how BAD their security is, but she didn't choose to highlight that fact in public. But, nevertheless, the FBI (the ones WITH the bad security on their servers, pot calling kettle black) determined that there was no bad intent, no criminal intent, no deliberate coverup of anything, no "deal" was cut because that's just a STUPID allegation leveled by people with ZERO knowledge of law.

No, not even in Benghazi since she did not send EMAILS re Benghazi and SHE DID NOT CONTROL THE REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED BUDGET.

allegro
09-22-2016, 09:48 AM
The reddit thing is obviously from Republicans.

"Leaving Iraq in chaos."

President George W Bush made an agreement with Iraq in 2008 to withdraw our troops by the end of 2011 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement) and Pres. Obama merely carried out that Act, per agreement. But Trump fans are blaming Clinton for it. There are several other dumb items on that list just like that, either bullshit, blaming her for shit that is Obama's fault, or blaming her for shit that is somebody else's fault. The Iraqi people and government WANTED US OUT, they didn't want to be OCCUPIED by an Imperialist government (U.S.). See also this (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/08/bush-clinton-play-blame-game-in-iraq/). Never mind that we wouldn't have this problem had Bush not invaded Iraq in the first place.


Sullivan, Aug. 11: It was President Bush who set the withdrawal date for Americans from Iraq, not President Obama. President Bush signed an agreement that required us to be out by the end of 2011. The Obama administration urged [Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki] to approve our leaving a residual force behind. But Prime Minister Maliki … made it clear that he could not get the Iraqi parliament to do that. Not even for five- or ten-thousand troops.

Here are the responsibilities of the U.S. Secretary of State. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_State)

This one on the list:

"You mean that old video of me laughing as I explain how I got the charges against that child rapist dropped by blaming the young girl for liking older men and fantasizing about them. Even though I knew the guy was guilty"

THE GUY PLEAD GUILTY. READ THE FUCKING FACT CHECK (http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/).

allegate
09-22-2016, 10:51 AM
Did you know that there was no racism before Obama? (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/22/trump-ohio-campaign-chair-no-racism-before-obama?CMP=twt_gu) Damn him.

Deepvoid
09-22-2016, 12:54 PM
Did you know that there was no racism before Obama? (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/22/trump-ohio-campaign-chair-no-racism-before-obama?CMP=twt_gu) Damn him.

She just announced her resignation.

implanted_microchip
09-22-2016, 04:47 PM
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/b2fc974d1d/between-two-ferns-with-zach-galifianakis-hillary-clinton?_cc=__d___&amp;_ccid=5075c87f-5316-4289-b895-ae461809b9c3

I could get used to these happening with every candidate

theimage13
09-22-2016, 05:47 PM
Did you know that there was no racism before Obama? (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/22/trump-ohio-campaign-chair-no-racism-before-obama?CMP=twt_gu) Damn him.


"“If you’re black and you haven’t been successful in the last 50 years, it’s your own fault. You’ve had every opportunity, it was given to you,” she said.

“You’ve had the same schools everybody else went to. You had benefits to go to college that white kids didn’t have. You had all the advantages and didn’t take advantage of it. It’s not our fault, certainly.”

Holy fucking shit. I'm about the most passive person you can find but I want to punch her in the mouth. And then take her ass out of her high income school district and show her where a very large portion of the black community goes to school. Because spoiler alert: they're not the same schools that the well-off, or even modestly well-to-do white kids are going. Sure, sometimes they are. But come visit where I live. Go to the suburban, 95% white schools. Then go to the "same" schools one district over, where most of the students are black. Tell me that the quality of education in those "same" schools is actually equal. Tell me that the opportunities the students are given are the "same".

Wait, I'm sorry. Reading that back, it's all so obvious. The black families have all the same opportunities. All they need to do is just take new higher paying jobs, buy bigger and drastically more expensive houses in the better school districts, and send their kids there instead. Duh. Problem solved! It's so simple!

I'm so glad this ass clown resigned from her insignificant little post.

(Sorry. I know I'm veering off topic, but that really rubbed me the wrong way.)

aggroculture
09-22-2016, 06:34 PM
Gary Johnson sounds like your typical Republican dick: http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/12-ways-gary-johnson-hardcore-right-wing-radical
https://thinkprogress.org/the-myth-of-gary-johnson-8f39a5688fe6#.ksn324u04

Mantra
09-22-2016, 08:33 PM
The only people who downplay this issue the way you just did are people who have no understanding of InfoSec as it concerns military/government controls. Ask anyone who has been involved in government InfoSec and see if they feel this is a non-issue on par with simple jaywalking. Every single one will tell you how even much smaller offenses would end their careers at a minimum.

It's true: I have no understanding of InfoSec as it concerns military/government controls. I don't know why I would, given that it has nothing to do with my life, and I'm pretty sure that 99.99% of the country knows just as much as I do. But if certain people feel that this fairly esoteric subject matter needs to be taken seriously as a point of discussion in this election, those people are going to have to explain WHY IT FUCKING MATTERS in ways that translate and make sense to regular folks. And so far, I've yet to see that happen.

I feel like your response mostly just doubles down on the argument that she mishandled the situation, which I guess I have no reason to doubt. But mishandling something simply indicates a lack of skill or expertise in that area. It's not an ethical failure, it's a technical failure. Allegro basically summed it up when she said, "Doing something with the INTENT to commit fraud and the INTENT to DECEIVE is very different than doing something with no ill will behind the intent."

If the response to her email situation was like "Okay, this isn't right, someone get this lady a top notch infosec expert to manage her shit, ASAP" I would understand. But instead people are like "Do you see how CORRUPT and WRONG and IMMORAL she was with her email account!?!!?" Which just don't make sense to me, because this doesn't really strike me as some serious moral/ethical problem where we need to discuss her values and character and whatnot.

Dra508
09-22-2016, 09:51 PM
Jimmy Carter in 1976 was the last Democratic presidential candidate to carry Texas.

True. I was actually thinking in-state. You know like the last great politician, Tip O'Neill said "all politics is local".

GulDukat
09-22-2016, 10:22 PM
I'm gonna miss this guy. Wish he could run for a third term.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7pbEBxQPWGc

Mantra
09-22-2016, 11:28 PM
I'm gonna miss this guy. Wish he could run for a third term.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7pbEBxQPWGc
You're in luck, I was listening to some random AM radio channel a few months back while driving cross country and the host assured us all that Obama is planning to declare marshal law and suspend the upcoming election, so there you go. Obama ain't going nowhere.

allegro
09-22-2016, 11:56 PM
I'm gonna miss this guy. Wish he could run for a third term.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7pbEBxQPWGc

Oh man that is awesome, I've never seen that, thanks for posting it.

allegro
09-23-2016, 12:52 AM
Hillary Clinton on "Between Two Ferns"

http://www.motherjones.com/media/2016/09/heres-hillary-clintons-hilariously-awkward-between-two-ferns-interview

Jinsai
09-23-2016, 03:20 AM
Hillary Clinton on "Between Two Ferns"

http://www.motherjones.com/media/2016/09/heres-hillary-clintons-hilariously-awkward-between-two-ferns-interview

My friend, who is a conspiracy theorist, was rejoicing in how this totally skewered Clinton and dragged her through the coals.

I responded to tell him that these are comedic scripted interviews, and that the script was totally approved by both parties beforehand. It was intended to make her seem more approachable and light-hearted; more appealing to younger voters. It was meant to show that she could take a joke.

He responded by saying "Oh man, if this was approved by her handlers, they just fucked up big time." What?! You believe every fucking conspiracy in the book, every single one. You think 9/11 was an inside job, you think the videos of people crying outside of disasters are crisis actors, you think terrorists are US plants, you think everyone who disagrees is an illuminati shill or a "useful idiot," but you don't believe my little conspiracy theory here? That a comedian and a presidential candidate that he supports made light-hearted fun of her controversies to endear her to a younger crowd that's been overblown with the concept that she's stiff and inhuman?

Did he really think that she went into that interview blind, knowing that she was about to spar with an edgy comedian, and he didn't even whip out a Monica joke?

telee.kom
09-23-2016, 10:28 AM
I mean the video is really funny, but I'm not sure that "Hillary is more lighthearted" is what I would take away from this. I know this video works because she's playing the straight man, but really, she's just doing her usual "is she a robot or not" self.

allegro
09-23-2016, 10:33 AM
I think she was herself, and showed a funny side which is a dry wit but it's still funny. I think she did a great job. I am not sure this is intended to appeal to a younger demographic (Zach Galifianakis is 46); I think she was asked, said yes, could reach a wider demographic and show that she isn't John Kasich ("oh my God, get the confetti out of my hair!!!"). It shows that she is aware of these conspiracy attitudes and isn't at home crying in her coffee, but isn't the whole premise of the show poking fun at that shit with sarcasm?

DigitalChaos
09-23-2016, 11:53 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_azcqlYC2s

Jinsai
09-23-2016, 12:14 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_azcqlYC2s

that was actually kind of disturbing

allegro
09-23-2016, 12:30 PM
that was actually kind of disturbing

Heh, obviously the implication was that if he was allowed to be included in the debate, he ultimately would not be allowed to SAY ANYTHING (but his mere presence would send a message of inclusion).

DigitalChaos
09-23-2016, 01:08 PM
The guy has the goofy grandpa thing going on. It was uncomfortable to watch, for sure. I sometimes wonder if he is partially autistic. It makes me cringe, but at least his "gaffes" (is this even a gaffe?) are innocent. Not so for the R & D candidates.

allegro
09-23-2016, 01:13 PM
Yeah, he's kinda Dan Quayle.

Deepvoid
09-23-2016, 03:37 PM
Ted Cruz has formally endorsed Donald Trump. Didn't see this one coming.

implanted_microchip
09-23-2016, 04:29 PM
Ted Cruz has formally endorsed Donald Trump. Didn't see this one coming.

"I call him 'Lyin' Ted'"

Mantra
09-23-2016, 04:53 PM
Yeah, I was expecting Ted to come back in 2020 to try and frame himself as the anti-Trump, the way for Republicans to right the wrongs of 2016. It would have been easier to do that if he himself hadn't endorsed Trump.

Either way, somebody is definitely going to try and capitalize on the Trump hangover. You just know that a lot of Republicans are playing the long game here. They're just gonna ride this Trump thing out and keep their heads low, and then when it's all over, they'll be there to capitalize on all the shame/backlash that comes after.

Jinsai
09-23-2016, 06:14 PM
Heh, obviously the implication was that if he was allowed to be included in the debate, he ultimately would not be allowed to SAY ANYTHING (but his mere presence would send a message of inclusion).

the look of alarm on the reporter's face... Like she's worried he's having a stroke, and then relief when it turned out he's just a really awkward guy

aggroculture
09-23-2016, 09:11 PM
Ted Cruz can't stay out of the spotlight, and this was a way of getting his name back into the news for another five minutes.
He and Trump deserve each other.

telee.kom
09-24-2016, 03:58 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3804668/Absolutely-corrupt-State-Department-convinces-judge-delay-release-14-900-new-Hillary-Clinton-emails-Election-Day.html

I know it's Daily Mail and all, but seriously?

Jinsai
09-24-2016, 04:43 AM
Ted Cruz can't stay out of the spotlight

No, he's going to have to get used to staying in the shade, nobody will ever give a fuck about him ever again.

aggroculture
09-24-2016, 07:17 AM
I wish. I fear he's going to end up being one of the major US political figures of the next 40 years. If it weren't for Trump he probably would have been the Republican nominee. He is a perfect embodiment of the post-secular, post-factual political world we have created. He wants an apocalypse, just like ISIS on the other side.

allegro
09-24-2016, 09:11 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3804668/Absolutely-corrupt-State-Department-convinces-judge-delay-release-14-900-new-Hillary-Clinton-emails-Election-Day.html

I know it's Daily Mail and all, but seriously?
The emails aren't new, the FBI had ready reviewed them before making their determination that her private server was not malicious in intent. The PUBLIC release of these emails is just under FOIA (because of Benhgazi). Judges can delay FOIA releases all they want, they do it all the time.

allegro
09-24-2016, 09:13 AM
I wish. I fear he's going to end up being one of the major US political figures of the next 40 years. If it weren't for Trump he probably would have been the Republican nominee. He is a perfect embodiment of the post-secular, post-factual political world we have created. He wants an apocalypse, just like ISIS on the other side.

He is still causing trouble in Congress. Texas still LOVES him.

telee.kom
09-24-2016, 10:10 AM
Judges can delay FOIA releases all they want, they do it all the time.

Yeah shouldn't judges also be apolitical?

allegro
09-24-2016, 10:57 AM
Yeah shouldn't judges also be apolitical?
They do it (withhhold or postpone FOIA) in criminal cases all the time, or in cases of police shootings. They often do it as a matter of timing and public policy vs. FOIA. It's generally not political, it's usually intended to do the opposite. Clinton was already cleared by the FBI and the Atty General. Now the emails are desired to try her via the court of public opinion, but that is weighed against other issues like tabloid fodder etc. or even security. In criminal cases, they don't release it when it could affect the impartiality of a jury and a defendant's right to a fair trial. In government, they don't always release everything due to security issues; they scour everything and black out tons of shit (redact), first.

Khrz
09-24-2016, 11:00 AM
Yeah shouldn't judges also be apolitical?

Given the level of scrutiny and conspiracy theorists, releasing them to the public at large would have been a political move. Pretty much a damned if you do, damned if you don't decision.

hellospaceboy
09-24-2016, 11:42 AM
Yeah, I was expecting Ted to come back in 2020 to try and frame himself as the anti-Trump, the way for Republicans to right the wrongs of 2016. It would have been easier to do that if he himself hadn't endorsed Trump.

Either way, somebody is definitely going to try and capitalize on the Trump hangover. You just know that a lot of Republicans are playing the long game here. They're just gonna ride this Trump thing out and keep their heads low, and then when it's all over, they'll be there to capitalize on all the shame/backlash that comes after.

It's not an easy game to play, because in 2020 his republican opponents will say that we got Hillary in the white house because of people like HIM, who wouldn't vote for Trump. They will make the case that Trump would have been better than Hilary...

There's really not an easy way out for the republican establishment on this one. There are candidates who are taking notes about how Trump got this far, and in 4 years we'll have at least one guy try to recreate this shitshow.

Also, they created this environment of anit-government, anti-intellectual crap, with first embracing Sarah Palin, then the tea party movement, and now that's the major voice within the party.

EDIT: still, Chris Christie is my favorite republican right now, because he completely played the wrong cards since his run for the nomination ended. He is a guy steering a burning ship in a rocky bay full of icebergs, and just manages to hit every single one of them.

Jinsai
09-24-2016, 01:11 PM
I wish. I fear he's going to end up being one of the major US political figures of the next 40 years.

I, on the other hand, am trying to be an optimist.... because my sanity depends on it.

GulDukat
09-24-2016, 03:42 PM
So Gennifer Flowers will be at the debate.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/gennifer-flowers-will-join-donald-trump-at-mondays-presidential-debate/

hellospaceboy
09-24-2016, 04:53 PM
^^^
That's fucked up! I guess the Trump campaign knows no boundaries... oh wait, we already knew that. Nevermind.

implanted_microchip
09-24-2016, 04:57 PM
Mind you this is his petulant little kid response to "dopey" (read: wealthier than he is) Mark Cuban being at the debate.

Couldn't be more of a petty sleazebag if he tried.

DigitalChaos
09-24-2016, 06:38 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3804668/Absolutely-corrupt-State-Department-convinces-judge-delay-release-14-900-new-Hillary-Clinton-emails-Election-Day.html

I know it's Daily Mail and all, but seriously?

Who needs transparency!?


Keep your eyes peeled on Hillary's birthday. :)

Dra508
09-24-2016, 08:59 PM
He is still causing trouble in Congress. Texas still LOVES him.

I was wondering if he pulled the endorsement to get back in the good graces of GOP leadership in Washington. It's true everyone hates him. He doesn't know humility. Fuck him. I can not wait to vote against him. IN TEXAS

DigitalChaos
09-25-2016, 01:16 PM
Looks like one of Clintons IT specialists was posting on reddit 2 years ago asking how to alter the contents of "very vip" emails, then after he couldn't figure it out was asking how to completely delete them.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/296680-house-panel-probes-web-rumor-on-clinton-emails

So, again, this is interesting because it could very well demonstrate the intent (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-23/hillary-emailgate-how-one-twitter-user-proved-intent-fbi-missed-after-months-investi) that the FBI says they couldn't demonstrate. And soon after, the House Committee ordered Reddit to retain all the information.

But check this out: "Proof Stontear is full of shit (https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/54f82v/proof_stonetear_is_full_of_shit_rconspiracy/)"
Summary: Internal conversations that happened on the same day of that reddit post indicate the Stonetear claimed he needed to scrub Hillary's emails because all the old sent emails now reflected her new email address, and they don't want to give out her new email to the public. Someone tested whether renaming an email account on that specific server version actually retroactively changes things as claimed.... it doesn't according to that test.

DigitalChaos
09-25-2016, 02:13 PM
People say this is bad because she could have been hacked. She wasn't hacked. So although she wasn't supposed to do it, no harm came of it.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system


With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

Straight from the FBI.

DigitalChaos
09-25-2016, 02:58 PM
So Gennifer Flowers will be at the debate.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/gennifer-flowers-will-join-donald-trump-at-mondays-presidential-debate/

Trump says he was just trolling and its not actually happening: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-campaign-not-inviting-gennifer-flowers-debate_us_57e7c8eee4b0e28b2b547760

allegro
09-25-2016, 03:34 PM
"... it is possible ..."

Straight from the FBI.

Yeah, that's fucking RICH coming from the FBI (https://www.engadget.com/2016/06/24/fbi-no-warrant-hack-computer/). Really fucking rich (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/07/09/hack-of-security-clearance-system-affected-21-5-million-people-federal-authorities-say/).


"It is a very big deal from a national security perspective and from a counterintelligence perspective,” FBI Director James B. Comey said at a meeting with reporters Thursday at the FBI headquarters. “It’s a treasure trove of information about everybody who has worked for, tried to work for, or works for the United States government.”


could very well demonstrate the intent that the FBI says they couldn't demonstrate
That doesn't demonstrate Clinton's intent; it demonstrate's Combetta's intent. Combetta is his own agent acting of his own accord. It was already established that Clinton hired Platte River to establish and run the server etc., she could not micromanage it because she doesn't have the tech knowledge to do that and by the time she had to submit emails for FOIA etc., her ATTORNEYS were handling it so any directions would have come from her attorneys. And the "intent" that the FBI cleared her of was intent related to the establishment of the private email server in the first place (http://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/).

DigitalChaos
09-25-2016, 03:50 PM
That just reinforces the point. Right?

You keep referencing the OPM hack as if it justifies Hillary some how. It's a total non sequitur on your part, but I'd point out that OPM's shit security was better than Hillary's *because* they were able to detect the presence of a hack.


It's like praising your blindfolded guard's superior security because he says that he never saw any bad guys try to get in.

Edit: no. That's not even right. It's like saying "nobody saw a bad guy get in" when you don't have anyone responsible for looking for bad guys or security cameras to look back at.

Khrz
09-25-2016, 03:54 PM
I mean, for someone who's supposedly trying to disrupt the Clinton narrative for the sake of objectivity and the defense of the silent Trump underdogs, focusing on that one issue for pages and pages really seems counter-productive, if anything it makes it look like that's the only thing one could say against Clinton's ability to become a POTUS.

It's like if my only argument against Trump was that he inherited his first millions, thus isn't the self-made man he claims to be. I mean sure, okay, point taken, is that all though ? Because in itself, that's not really convincing, no matter how much emphasis you put on it... And after a few months of the same shit, it becomes the equivalent of yelling louder just because you don't know how to be clearer.

We heard you the first 2000 times, but hey, 3000th time's the charm ?

DigitalChaos
09-25-2016, 04:08 PM
Replying to your edit additions:




That doesn't demonstrate Clinton's intent; it demonstrate's Combetta's intent.

sure. And then you investigate why. Being that it was for Hillary's account, there is a pretty clear pathway to who benefits from these actions.

And these inconsistencies have a good chance of revoking his immunity. That opens a whole bag of possible outcomes when this guy is forced to talk.




Combetta is his own agent acting of his own accord. It was already established that Clinton hired Platte River to establish and run the server etc., she could not micromanage it because she doesn't have the tech knowledge to do that and by the time she had to submit emails for FOIA etc., her ATTORNEYS were handling it so any directions would have come from her attorneys.

...a few posts ago you were saying how it doesn't matter because Hillary is "the boss"

But again, I think this recent finding opens a crack that may run deeper.






And the "intent" that the FBI cleared her of was intent related to the establishment of the private email server in the first place (http://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/).

I'm on mobile, so it's a pain to go quote what Comet said, but I think you are incorrect about the narrow scope. They were investigating the entire email server situation. Not sure that really matters depending on what comes out of this.

It very well may turn into the server admin going to jail and taking the brunt of this. It could also just boil down to the admin being really fucking bad at why he does and misunderstanding the tech. Or, it could unravel some things that go straight to Hillary. Not that she would suffer any consequences.

allegro
09-25-2016, 04:48 PM
You keep referencing the OPM hack as if it justifies Hillary some how. It's a total non sequitur on your part, but I'd point out that OPM's shit security was better than Hillary's *because* they were able to detect the presence of a hack.
No, they DIDN'T. You are an alleged security guy but you don't know this shit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Personnel_Management_data_breach)?

"The data breach, which had started in March 2014, and may have started earlier, was noticed by the OPM in April 2015."

And you keep missing the obvious point: How can the FBI (and U.S. citizens) genuinely blame Hillary Clinton for wanting to have her own private server, separate from a Government server, when the Government has a history of unsecured unencrypted servers?

And the FBI then claims that Clinton's server "may have" been hacked, yet the FBI's own OPM server WAS hacked? After the FBI was repeatedly WARNED that their unencrypted server was in danger of being hacked? This is like a fox telling the chicken that it's in danger.


sure. And then you investigate why. Being that it was for Hillary's account, there is a pretty clear pathway to who benefits from these actions.

And these inconsistencies have a good chance of revoking his immunity. That opens a whole bag of possible outcomes when this guy is forced to talk.
It's likely that he already WAS forced to talk to the FBI, hence why he wanted immunity: he knew he did some stupid shit, on his own without Clinton's direction.

Look, I think a LOT of people misunderstand how this thing works in the real world of law and questioning and discovery.

When Clinton was forced to turn over her emails, her attorneys were already handling EVERYTHING. Having been in civil litigation for nearly 30 years, and certified in same, I can assuredly tell you that people are no longer handling any kind of evidence themselves at that point, they're not even TALKING WITH the people handling things like computer servers themselves; THEIR ATTORNEYS ARE. The attorneys are in charge of combing through all of the emails and they had to sort out which were "personal" and which were "government-related" and THEY worked with Platte River in obtaining this data and submitting this data for FBI inspection and subsequent FOIA submittal, etc., NOT CLINTON HERSELF. Yes, she is responsible for "intent" as far as establishing a private email server and hiring a company, but she is not personally responsible for any negligence of her agents. In establishing her private server, she was found to have done so without malicious intent. Now, why Platte River and its agents did what THEY did after the email investigation had already started (and Clinton's attorneys had already been hired to handle all evidence regarding same) is an entirely different matter. Do you understand what I'm saying? At some point, now we are wading into the "attorney malpractice" area as well as Platte River doing really stupid shit, but Clinton was completely outside the scope of all of this by that point.

I can tell you this as somebody who has had to comb through fucking hundreds of boxes of checkbooks and mark them as exhibits at a law office, or comb through a warehouse full of documents and examine them and copy them and mark them as exhibits, etc. and all of this was completely outside the care and control of our client (who has to turn in all of these records to his/her attorney).

When you are no longer on a mobile connection, read the entire above article that I linked, written by a former military prosecutor and a current reserve U.S. Army Judge Advocate who also currently practices law in California (and not by some online web nerd trying to interpret law when they don't know shit about law).

Just in case it's hard to read, I will quote it, here:


On July 5, FBI Director James Comey announced that he was not going to recommend the filing of criminal charges against Hillary Clinton over her use of a private email server. Comey said there was insufficient evidence to show Clinton had malicious intent. Comey reasoned:


All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information, or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct, or indications of disloyalty to the United States… We do not see those things here.

All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information, or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct, or indications of disloyalty to the United States… We do not see those things here.

Many commentators have criticized Comey’s decision, arguing the statute Clinton was accused of violating, 18 U.S.C. § 793(f), requires only “gross negligence,” not intent. Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy has gone so far as to say that replacing the words “gross negligence” with “intent” rewrites that statute to serve political ends.

McCarthy and others are mistaken. The issue of mens rea, or intent, is not as simple as it seems on the surface, and intent is the correct standard. Comey was right not to recommend filing charges and to base his decision on the absence of evidence that Clinton had the necessary intent.

Section 793(f) makes it a felony for any person “entrusted with… information relating to the national defense” to allow that information to be “removed from its proper place of custody” through “gross negligence.” On its face, the law does not appear to require intent, but it turns out the key phrase in 793(f) is not “gross negligence.” The key phrase is “related to the national defense.”

Section 793(f) is a subsection of the Espionage Act, a controversial statute enacted during World War I in order to combat efforts by German agents to undermine the American war effort. The Act has been amended and renumbered many times, but its core provisions have not substantively changed. The Espionage Act has only sparingly been used to file criminal charges, but when it has been used it is often in high-profile cases. Eugene Debs was jailed under the Espionage Act for anti-war activities during World War I. The Rosenbergs were charged under the Espionage Act when they sold nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union. More recently, both Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden were charged under the Espionage Act for providing classified material to WikiLeaks.

The law has been controversial since its inception and prosecutions under the Act have been challenged as unconstitutional in several instances. The most famous of these cases is probably Schenck v. United States (1919), where the government charged two men with obstructing registration for the military draft by distributing leaflets urging young men not to register. The Supreme Court heard the case and unanimously upheld the convictions and the statute. It was in Schenck that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote that it is not protected speech to “yell fire in a crowded theater.”

But as time went by, feeling towards the Espionage Act began to sour. Later in 1919, the Supreme Court heard Abrams v. United States. That case involved the distribution of leaflets by anarchists who urged factory workers to refuse to participate in production of war materiel. In Abrams, the Court again upheld the convictions, but this time the decision was not unanimous. Holmes, who had written the majority opinion in Schenck, was one of the dissenters. Two years later, the Sedition Act, a 1918 amendment to the Espionage Act that imposed criminal sanctions for anti-war speech, was repealed by Congress in its entirety.

The Espionage Act was left on the books, however, in the years after the war it was used only sparingly. When it was used, it was often controversial because it resulted in prosecutions that civil libertarians believed infringed on press freedom and the right to political protest. Perhaps the most famous of these cases is the prosecution of Daniel Ellsberg for leaking the Pentagon papers The courts too grew wary of the Espionage Act and as a result their readings of it narrowed the scope of the law and limited when it could be used.

This helps provide context as to why James Comey insisted that intent was required to satisfy the requirement of 793(f). Even though the plain language of the statute reads “gross negligence,” the Supreme Court has essentially rewritten the statue to require intent to sustain a conviction.

In Gorin v. United States (1941), the Supreme Court heard a challenge to a conviction of a Navy intelligence official who sold classified material to the Soviet Union on Japanese intelligence operations in the United States. In that case, the defendant was charged with selling information “relating to the national defense” to a foreign power. The defendant argued on appeal that the phrase “relating to the national defense” was unconstitutionally vague, so much so that the defendant was deprived of the ability to predetermine whether his actions were a crime.

Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.” Only because the court read the law to require scienter, or bad faith, before a conviction could be sustained was the law constitutional. Otherwise, it would be too difficult for a defendant to know when exactly material related to the national defense. The court made clear that if the law criminalized the simple mishandling of classified information, it would not survive constitutional scrutiny, writing:


The sections are not simple prohibitions against obtaining or delivering to foreign powers information… relating to national defense. If this were the language, it would need to be tested by the inquiry as to whether it had double meaning or forced anyone, at his peril, to speculate as to whether certain actions violated the statute.

In other words, the defendant had to intend for his conduct to benefit a foreign power for his actions to violate 793(f).

Without the requirement of intent, the phrase “relating to the national defense” would be unconstitutionally vague. This reading of the statute has guided federal prosecutors ever since, which is why Comey based his decision not to file charges on Clinton’s lack of intent. This is also why no one has ever been convicted of violating 793(f) on a gross negligence theory.

Only one person has even been charged under a gross negligence theory: FBI Agent James Smith. Smith carried on a 20-year affair with a Chinese national who was suspected of spying for Beijing, and Smith would bring classified material to their trysts, behavior far more reckless than anything Clinton is accused of. But Smith was not convicted of violating 793(f). He struck a plea agreement that resulted in a conviction to the lesser charge of lying to federal agents. Smith was sentenced to three months of home confinement and served no jail time.

Members of the U.S. military have been charged with the negligent mishandling of classified material, but not under 793(f). Criminal charges in military court are brought under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not the Espionage Act (although violations of the Espionage Act can be charged under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in military court). The military has extensive regulations that govern the handling of classified material and the failure to follow these regulations is a criminal offense. Negligence can result in a conviction under Article 92 because the test is whether the service member “knew or should have known” they were violating the regulation. But these rules do not apply to any civilian personnel at the State Department and can only be applied to DoD civilians in very limited circumstances.

Despite what may appear to be the plain meaning of 793(f), the negligent mishandling of classified material is not a civilian criminal offense. A civilian can face many consequences for negligently mishandling classified material, including the loss of their clearance and probably with it their employment, but they would not face criminal charges. For anyone who thinks negligence should be a crime their argument is not with Director Comey but with Justice Reed, the author of the Gorin opinion. Because of that decision, the correct standard is intent, not gross negligence, and the director was right not to recommend a criminal case.

elevenism
09-25-2016, 05:07 PM
He is still causing trouble in Congress. Texas still LOVES him.
Not ALL of Texas loves him or his ilk, allegro .
This is a sweeping stereotype of the texan. We actually come in a very wide spectrum of political and philosophical ideologies.

A METRIC FUCKTON of my Texan friends utterly abhor Cruz and W and the right in general.

Dallas County, for instance, voted for Obama both times.

allegro
09-25-2016, 05:13 PM
Not ALL of Texas loves him or his ilk, allegro .
That may be true, but he won the 2016 primary in Texas, dude, you can't deny that. And Texas is still a red state as far as Presidential campaigns go, they haven't nominated a Democratic President since Jimmy Carter in 1976.

It's not a "stereotype," it was a fact that Texas, for the most part, considering that they overwhelmingly voted for Ted Cruz (http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/texas).

Ted Cruz: 1,239,370 votes
Hillary Clinton: 935,080 votes
Donald Trump: 757,618 votes
Marco Rubio: 502,223 votes

Look, I didn't say "Texans love him." I said "Texas" as in the STATE. One of my girlfriends of over 20 years -- I stood up her in wedding in Dallas in 2002 -- was born and raised in the Dallas 'burbs, her parents are Democrats and she's a Democrat, so I'm fully aware that not ALL people in Dallas love Ted Cruz (not to mention that my husband has some crazy cousins in Texas who fucking LOVE DONALD TRUMP). I am just talking about voting FACTS, here.

Here was the 2012 Presidential election results in Texas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Texas,_2012 ):

Mitt Romney: 4,569,843 Votes 57.17% 38 electoral votes

Barack Obama: 3,308,124 Votes 41.38% 0 electoral votes

elevenism
09-25-2016, 05:24 PM
I feel you @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) , but looking at those numbers, we are talking about a 60/40 split.

And the 40% of us who are leftists are, often, HARD leftists, perhaps as a result of being in the minority for the past 40 years.

And when you are talking about DALLAS, i would venture to say that the majority of people in dallas HATE Ted Cruz, as, again, Dallas County overwhelmingly voted for Obama in both elections.

allegro
09-25-2016, 05:29 PM
I feel you @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) , but looking at those numbers, we are talking about a 60/40 split.

And the 40% of us who are leftists are, often, HARD leftists, perhaps as a result of being in the minority for the past 40 years.

And when you are talking about DALLAS, i would venture to say that the majority of people in dallas HATE Ted Cruz, as, again, Dallas County overwhelmingly voted for Obama in both elections.

I didn't say Dallas, I said Texas, based on the state delivering Ted Cruz to the Senate in 2012 and then as the Presidential Primary Candidate in 2016. That's not saying that ALL Texans love him; that's saying that "Texas" loves him because they chose the jerk, just like Kansas keeps electing that asshole Brownback. But urban areas always tend to be more liberal, that tends to be a given; however, as far as the overall vote, sometimes the urban vote isn't enough to outweigh the number of the votes across the state an TX is a winner-takes-all state as far as the ELECTORAL vote so the loser takes zero electoral votes.

Look at Tennessee (http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/tennessee). That's pretty frickin' close as far as votes for Clinton vs. Trump, and NASHVILLE is known to be REALLY liberal because it's URBAN. Go out to the sticks, however, and you're likely to get a different view.

You've complained in here, NUMEROUS times, that you feel like you are surrounded by right-wing hicks who hate Obama and the left. Maybe someday things may swing different, and I sure hope so, I really do, but RIGHT NOW your state happens to be inhabited by a LOT of Republicans who believe that abortion is REALLY bad and they are REALLY into capital punishment, etc. That may eventually evolve but things are the way they are right now, hence why Cruz is so popular with voters in Texas and why he got elected. For the life of me, I can't figure out why, I think the guy is a fucking scary religious freako but whatever, obviously a LOT of voters in Texas think otherwise, plus he is a Tea Party dude which is another story entirely. I think part of the reason is because he is SO hated in Washington DC and the people in Texas who elected him really dig that, the whole "yeah, but we are Texas, not DC, so fuck y'all, here's our man, Ted, keepin' it real."

Look, I actually LIKE George W Bush and his family, he was at the opening and dedication of the new African American museum in DC the other day and the picture of Michelle Obama hugging George is priceless, and George's speech was really good. I think he was a terrible President, but I think he's basically a good man. But I REALLY don't get a lot of people's values. I have really given up at this point, the world -- with cops beating the shit out of everybody everywhere in this country, and comments on the speeches on YouTube from the African American museum saying shit like "FUCK THAT, WHY DON'T WE HAVE A WHITE MUSEUM?" and "I will never salute that President! We need to TAKE BACK CONTROL OF OUR COUNTRY" and shit like that -- has gone insane. And guys like Cruz with his Pied Piper shit is one reason why, methinks. But, whadda I know? The only thing that gives me solace right now are animal videos on YouTube. Last night I spent about an hour watching videos of some little cat that is best friends with a big dog.

http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_38/1723431/160925-mobama-w-wide-hg-1533_38d50f135ce6ca2ae7070c85fad6e341.nbcnews-ux-600-480.jpg

allegro
09-25-2016, 09:36 PM
For the record (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/13/trump-accused-destroying-email-evidence-lawsuit-10-years-ago-republican-hillary-president/85795082/):
Trump was accused of destroying email evidence in lawsuit 10 years ago


In 2006, when a judge ordered Donald Trump's casino operation to hand over several years' worth of emails, the answer surprised him: The Trump Organization routinely erased emails and had no records from 1996 to 2001. The defendants in a case that Trump brought said this amounted to destruction of evidence, a charge never resolved.

At that time, a Trump IT director testified that until 2001, executives in Trump Tower relied on personal email accounts using dial-up Internet services, despite the fact that Trump had launched a high-speed Internet provider in 1998 and announced he would wire his whole building with it. Another said Trump had no routine process for preserving emails before 2005.

Judge Jeffrey Streitfeld was stunned. “He has a house up in Palm Beach County listed for $125 million, but he doesn’t keep emails. That’s a tough one,” he said, according to transcripts obtained by USA TODAY. “If somebody starts to put forth as a fact something that doesn’t make any sense to me and causes me to have a concern about their credibility in the discovery process, that's not a good direction to go, and I am really having a hard time with this.”

Deepvoid
09-26-2016, 06:22 AM
I got offered a pair of tickets for the Montreal Canadiens pre-season game tonight so I'm gonna miss the first debate. It kinda sucks but there's no way I was turning down hockey tickets.
Anyways, here's a funny tidbit. A poll came out in Quebec to see for who we would be voting if we had Clinton and Trump has candidates.
Clinton scored 72% against 10% for Trump. 18% undecided.
61% are afraid of the consequences of Trump wins.
So now you know on which side we are.

Dra508
09-26-2016, 09:37 AM
Ted Cruz has formally endorsed Donald Trump. Didn't see this one coming.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/09/24/one-day-after-endorsement-cruz-refuses-say-trump-f/

What a wiggle worm.

elevenism
09-26-2016, 09:55 AM
You've complained in here, NUMEROUS times, that you feel like you are surrounded by right-wing hicks who hate Obama and the left. Maybe someday things may swing different, and I sure hope so, I really do, but RIGHT NOW your state happens to be inhabited by a LOT of Republicans who believe that abortion is REALLY bad and they are REALLY into capital punishment, etc. That may eventually evolve but things are the way they are right now, hence why Cruz is so popular with voters in Texas and why he got elected. For the life of me, I can't figure out why, I think the guy is a fucking scary religious freako but whatever, obviously a LOT of voters in Texas think otherwise,
True, true. Touche.
In the panhandle, democrats are fucking CLOSETED. Seriously. It's like "say, don't tell anyone, but..."
No shit.
I suppose my response was a knee-jerk reaction at not wanting to be lumped in with the majority here.
w/r/t GWB, i feel the same in terms of actually liking HIM and hating his administration.
I always said i'd LOVE to drink beer with him, but certainly didn't want him running the fucking country.

As far as the WHY of the whole thing, as in why is there a republican supermajority here it's fairly fascinating (and depressing) to me.
I think it goes a little something like this. There are a lot of religious zealots here, obviously. So the republican party gets the votes by using "family values" issues. In this way, poor people are then voting for like financial policies that are fucking DETRIMENTAL to themselves.
Case in point-texas keeps refusing to expand medicaid, but there are more people in need of it than in any other state.
There is a documentary calle "What's the Matter with Kansas" that delves into this selfsame baffling phenomenon.

elevenism
09-26-2016, 09:58 AM
Sorry for double post, but i would like to allow that i am actually, for the first time, REALLY seriously scared that Trump might win this thing.

Deepvoid
09-26-2016, 11:27 AM
Trump campaign is something else.
(http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/297734-conway-trump-didnt-like-about-lester-holt)
“I have respect for Lester,” Trump told Bill O’Reilly. “Lester is a professional, but we’ll see what happens.
“By the way, Lester is a Democrat. It’s a phony system. They are all Democrats.”

Fact: Lester is a registered Republican.

Today, Conway had to step in to defend her candidate.

"He didn't lie," Conway said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
"I think he did," co-host Mika Brzezinski shot back.
"A lie would mean that he knew the man's party registration," Conway said.

What? What kinda BS explanation is that? The fact that his voter base just doesn't care whether what Trump says is true or not is infuriating.

thevoid99
09-26-2016, 01:50 PM
You know something, I think I would rather have four more years of a George W. Bush term than spend 4 seconds with Trump.

Mantra
09-26-2016, 08:01 PM
Debate time, Here we goooooooo woooohoooooo, got my beer and everything, lets get this nightmare started

GulDukat
09-26-2016, 08:21 PM
She's kicking his ass.

Sarah K
09-26-2016, 08:31 PM
His only tactic so far is to loudly shout while she is speaking.

Mantra
09-26-2016, 08:32 PM
Ugh, what a shitshow. I need more beer.

Lester needs to reign this thing in, its a fucking free for all.

allegro
09-26-2016, 08:45 PM
She sure is patient. Holy shit.

I wasn't going to watch this because bad debate is like a bad clarinet player. But it's historic.

Edit: oh, here we go, LAW AND ORDER, here's where he loses the minority vote. Chicago had a gun ban AND stop and frisk, didn't do SHIT, dude.

Clinton just sighed like she's dealing with a stupid 10-yr-old.

Dra508
09-26-2016, 08:49 PM
She sure is patient. Holy shit.

I wasn't going to watch this because bad debate is like a bad clarinet player. But it's historic.

I'm with you. I'm taking a sip every time Donald says "tremendous".

Mantra
09-26-2016, 08:49 PM
He's doing a lot of incoherent rambling that makes no sense, but he also has a lot of zingers and one liners, and I suspect that a lot of people like that.

allegro
09-26-2016, 09:04 PM
I'm with you. I'm taking a sip every time Donald says "tremendous".

Ugh now he's saying that black people "wanted to know" that Obama was born here.

This is the Patti Doyle article, I swear the guy is dyslexic: http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/16/politics/hillary-clinton-patti-solis-doyle-birther-donald-trump/

Mantra
09-26-2016, 09:07 PM
Yeah, he's totally crashing and burning on addressing the birther thing.

Mantra
09-26-2016, 09:13 PM
"it could be someone sitting on his bed who weighs 400 pounds"

Well, he just just lost the hacker neckbeard vote

"the computer aspect of cyber"

"cyber is one of them"

Lol what is wrong with his brain, why can't he speak normally

allegro
09-26-2016, 09:22 PM
Ugh God, they said that Bush signed the Iraq withdrawal agreement (WHICH SPECIFIED A DATE) but he's too stupid to listen.

Little tidbit: Lester Holt used to be a newscaster in Chicago.

Mantra
09-26-2016, 09:30 PM
I really can't imagine this thing changing anyone's mind.

I say we just cancel the rest of the debates.

Swykk
09-26-2016, 09:56 PM
What an embarrassment Trump is. Not only did I read Clinton was interrupted 40 times (40. FORTY.) but also that Trump lost his composure quickly. And that Holt was useless.

elevenism
09-26-2016, 09:59 PM
trump like flat out couldn't complete a fucking thought! he couldn't answer the questions.
at times he sounded like a fucking young child!

allegro
09-26-2016, 11:09 PM
And that Holt was useless.

To be fair, Holt had no ammo against them to keep them in control. In an official, non-political debate, you lose points when you do things like go beyond the allotted time, don't stick to the question, etc. Here, there is no point system, no winner and loser, so Trump didn't care if he constantly interrupted. Holt couldn't "do" anything about it. Believe me, he tried.

It could have been an even BIGGER train wreck (http://www.theatlantic.com/liveblogs/2016/09/first-presidential-debate-clinton-trump-2016/501647/8615/?utm_source=atlfb).


"I thought it was great, I really enjoyed it. It's about making America great again. She proved it's all talk no action," Trump says to Mark Halperin offering up some post-debate spin. Trump suggests he considered going ugly, but shied away from it. "I didn't want to do my final attack, which was to attack her husband on what took place with respect to him and his life .... because Chelsea who I happen to think is a wonderful young lady was in the room, and I just didn't think it would be appropriate."

BUT HILLARY'S HUSBAND IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, YOU IDIOT.

thevoid99
09-26-2016, 11:32 PM
What does Rosie O'Donnell have anything to do with the issues for this country? I think my brain cells just died and I feel like I'm getting stupider at hearing him talk.

Mantra
09-26-2016, 11:50 PM
Hmmm, maybe the moderators should hook up a device to their podiums that hits them with mild electric shocks anytime they take too long.

"We have to remember that the computer aspect of cyber is great because Rosie O'Donnell was so mean to me and I think China has been tremendously-AhhHghghHH!!!!"

allegro
09-27-2016, 12:10 AM
Nightline's "Fact-checkers" just said that Clinton's claim that Trump said that pregnancy is an inconvenience to business is false.

HELLO????? FIRE YOUR FACT-CHECKERS, IT'S ON VIDEO (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-2004-pregnancy-inconvenience-employers-n580366) (cut to 1:00).

SEE ALSO (http://www.mediaite.com/online/watch-trump-says-he-never-called-pregnancy-an-inconvenience-to-employers-but-he-did/).

GulDukat
09-27-2016, 01:24 AM
Trump was embarrassingly awful. All of the online polls I read gave it overwhelming to Trump. Hoping that's just Trump fanboys voting multiple times.

tony.parente
09-27-2016, 01:35 AM
Trump absolutely lost tonights debates, but he didn't lose it to hillary clinton.

Donald Trump lost to Donald Trump tonight...ouch.

implanted_microchip
09-27-2016, 03:36 AM
I haven't been this drunk in who-knows-how-long ... what an awful affair that whole debate was. Can we cancel the rest, please? I'm good without them, thanks.

onthewall2983
09-27-2016, 05:14 AM
Trump was embarrassingly awful. All of the online polls I read gave it overwhelming to Trump. Hoping that's just Trump fanboys voting multiple times.

Probably is. Best bet is to see what the networks say. Frank Luntz's numbers were pretty bad for him I think.

Deepvoid
09-27-2016, 06:21 AM
Breitbart poll has Clinton winning the first debate +5.
That says it all.