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

GulDukat
09-27-2016, 07:38 AM
Breitbart poll has Clinton winning the first debate +5.
That says it all.
The poll on that site has him winning by 75%.

I am very partisan and my mind has long been made up, but you really have to be drinking the Kool-aid to think Trump won. It was an unmitigated disaster for him.

I don't put a lot of faith in online polls, this might give us a better indication of who won.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/27/13069088/hillary-clinton-won-first-presidential-debate

theimage13
09-27-2016, 08:34 AM
I really can't imagine this thing changing anyone's mind.

I say we just cancel the rest of the debates.

I agree whole-heartedly with your first point.

But for the second, no. We need to hold them if for no other reason than to further document and archive things so that, in the disastrous event that the orange one wins, we can go back to that footage in history classes and teach people how we ended up being set back a couple hundred years.

Deepvoid
09-27-2016, 01:05 PM
The poll on that site has him winning by 75%.

I am very partisan and my mind has long been made up, but you really have to be drinking the Kool-aid to think Trump won. It was an unmitigated disaster for him.

I don't put a lot of faith in online polls, this might give us a better indication of who won.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/27/13069088/hillary-clinton-won-first-presidential-debate


Here's the link to the gravis/breitbart poll. The poll you a referring to is an online poll. The Gravis one isn't.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/26/debate-flash-poll/

allegro
09-27-2016, 05:30 PM
Trump, please stop shitting on Chicago (http://chicagoist.com/2016/09/27/trump_chicago.php).


If you happen to see Donald Trump, can you please pass him some Imodium? Because the guy just can’t seem to stop shitting on Chicago.

[...]

He’s also apparently unmoved by that fact that Chicago essentially already had stop and frisk, and it failed. As WBEZ reported earlier this year, the issuance of contact cards spiked dramatically from around 100,000 in 2013 to 600,000 last year. During the same time, the city’s murder-clearance rate actually fell.

And don’t forget that, according to a 2015 study by the ACLU, Chicago’s use of stop-and-frisk was even more extreme than New York City. And, needless to say, it didn’t help police/community relations much.

Chicago-violence-as-conservative-talking-point is sadly nothing new. Residents of the city are all too used to it. But it's still beyond irksome, especially considering Trump was basically run out of the city in March by the very people whose interest he claims.

allegro
09-27-2016, 10:37 PM
WTF is going on with Trump's sniffling? Cocaine??? heh (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/09/whats-the-deal-with-sniffing/501773/?utm_source=atlfb)


Cocaine has been referred to as the caviar of street drugs. Trump enjoys caviar. He had heaps of it at his wedding, spooned out as one attendee described it “much like oatmeal would be.”

Cocaine would also give someone a grand sense of self. It would give someone sexual potency, which Trump has assured us he has. It would give a 70-year-old man boundless energy and the confidence that he could fulfill the duties of the highest office in the land despite having no experience in any public office.

Ring any bells? And now he’s sniffing? A little too convenient, don’t you think? These are just medical facts, you can look them up. Maybe Dean knows something we don’t. Follow the money. Follow the money.

Mantra
09-27-2016, 11:24 PM
^oh man that would be so cool

i'd give anything for it to come out that trump was a raging coke fiend.

Deepvoid
09-28-2016, 07:18 AM
Dems should request a drug test from The Donald. That would be hilarious.

tony.parente
09-28-2016, 08:18 AM
Hang on to your hats.

The Anti-Defamation League has added Pepe the frog into their hate symbol database. (http://www.adl.org/press-center/press-releases/extremism/adl-adds-pepe-the-frog-online-hate-symbols-database.html#.V-r77KcrKUk)

aggroculture
09-28-2016, 08:49 AM
I hate Trump as much as anyone. But is it possible that the sniffing was just that he had a cold?
I mean, have we ever heard him sniffing before?

tony.parente
09-28-2016, 08:53 AM
I hate Trump as much as anyone. But is it possible that the sniffing was just that he had a cold?
I mean, have we ever heard him sniffing before?
That's the joke, being that a lot of people were saying Hillary was inches from her death bed when she collapsed, was coughing alot etc.

Sarah K
09-28-2016, 09:13 AM
Out of all of the batshit crazy things he said, I can't believe people are obsessing over him sniffling.

That dumb fuck Giuliani says Clinton is "too stupid" to be president because... Bill cheated on her.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/27/politics/rudy-giuliani-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-monica-lewinsky/index.html

Khrz
09-28-2016, 09:29 AM
That's not quite what he's saying, but he isn't backing up what he's saying either.
The guy's a douche nonetheless.

tony.parente
09-28-2016, 09:33 AM
Does no one get that people talking about trump sniffling is a joke poking fun at the people talking about hillarys health issues?

Khrz
09-28-2016, 09:52 AM
But that's part of the problem isn't it ? The whole discourse around the elections has been retorts around dick size and coughing fits. That's what's discussed and scrutinised and elaborated on. Trump is in his environment, everything's a joke and the real substance remains largely ignored.

tony.parente
09-28-2016, 09:55 AM
That's really because it seems like 75% of the supporters of each candidate are only voting for them to prevent the other from getting into office. This is easily the 2 biggest jokes that have been put forth in my 29 years of existing.

Sarah K
09-28-2016, 10:02 AM
Yes. On one side, there is an individual who is perhaps the most qualified candidate in history. And on the other side, there is a reality TV star. Totally on par.

tony.parente
09-28-2016, 10:14 AM
Yes. On one side, there is an individual who is perhaps the most qualified candidate in history. And on the other side, there is a reality TV star. Totally on par.
And there is the 25% of people voting for each candidate because they like them.

telee.kom
09-28-2016, 11:10 AM
Who is the most qualified candidate in history?

aggroculture
09-28-2016, 11:18 AM
Does no one get that people talking about trump sniffling is a joke poking fun at the people talking about hillarys health issues?

Is it? I thought people were making a joke about him being a cokehead.
Trump's camp were pushing a narrative that Clinton is too sick to be president (a total fiction of course). I haven't seen anyone (apart from you) suggest that this is ironic because Trump himself was sniffling.



Another thing: Trump is supposed to be the "tough guy", Mr "LAW AND ORDER" and yet there he is, up there, whining like a child because Clinton's ads are mean to him and Rosie O'Donnell said horrible things about him, boo hoo hoo. Seriously, how do his supporters even process that shit?

allegro
09-28-2016, 11:57 AM
I hate Trump as much as anyone. But is it possible that the sniffing was just that he had a cold?
Nah, it's much more fun thinking that he was backstage doing mounds of Peruvian Marching Powder. MOUNDS.

JUST CALL ME DONALD BUMP
http://8241-presscdn-0-39.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Donald-Trump_Using_Copious_Amounts_Cocaine--560x292.jpg

aggroculture
09-28-2016, 12:24 PM
http://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/howard-dean-must-be-a-trump-fan

allegro
09-28-2016, 12:28 PM
http://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/howard-dean-must-be-a-trump-fan

Ugh, come ON, that's ridiculous. Trump is holier-than-though when it comes to anything, can't we have fun for 5 minutes pretending that he's secretly doing mounds of coke?

HE and the Republicans can joke all the time but WE can't????

It's an insult to coke addicts? Give me a break, now we've gone over the edge.

Honestly, the sniff appears to be nervous tick. I know people who do that.

aggroculture
09-28-2016, 12:32 PM
I do agree that there's so much real stuff to hit him with, that spreading false rumours, even if they are jokes, is counter-productive.

allegro
09-28-2016, 12:39 PM
I do agree that there's so much real stuff to hit him with, that spreading false rumours, even if they are jokes, is counter-productive.
I don't think that anybody would believe that it's "real" for 2 seconds. The guy doesn't even DRINK.

it's OBVIOUSLY some kind of nervous tick.

Meanwhile, I think Trump DID make a good point about Hillary's campaign spending most of its TV ad money on anti-Trump ads, and I'm not sure that is her best strategy at this point; I think she really needs to heavily focus on issues that would bring in voters she needs, like appealing to women, minorities, the working class, taxpayers, senior citizens, college students, etc.

I was reading some of the online comments by Trump supporters and he really DOES have them totally convinced that lowering taxes on businesses will 'bring more jobs' even though trickle-down economics has shown to have failed since the Reagan administration and businesses have not brought any more jobs even with all of the tax loopholes enabling them to pay very little taxes as it is. When Clinton says she wants to "increase taxes on the wealthy," Trump supporters automatically buy Trump's rhetoric that this means "increase business taxes" which means "more business to China and Mexico" which is really doing nothing but saving Trump's own ass so HE won't have to pay any taxes since "the wealthy"= HIM.

Edit:

Btw, I DO really love this shit: 4Chan and Reddit bombarded debate polls to declare Trump the winner (http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/trump-clinton-debate-online-polls-4chan-the-donald/)

allegro
09-28-2016, 12:41 PM
Who is the most qualified candidate in history?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/Mickey_Mouse.png

DigitalChaos
09-28-2016, 08:07 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)?

Right in your link, under "discovery" ... "it was detected by OPM personnel using a software product of vendor Cylance"
So yeah, the OPM was able to detect the breach. You are probably thinking about detection as it happens vs detection after it happens (digital forensics). Yes, live detection is better, but the ability to detect through digital forensics after the fact still requires some security design as well. A lot of it can be summed up as extensive logging and retention of that logging. (There is a lot more to it, but it doesn't matter here). OPM's setup clearly had this. Hillary's server didn't. In fact, they seem to have been actively and aggressively purging data that would have helped in detection.

So yes, OPM still had better security. Though I'm not sure why you always try and compare the two as a justification for Hillary. Has she ever once said she chose to do this for security? Nope...

DigitalChaos
09-28-2016, 08:22 PM
Also, Trump's tax return currently has a $10k bounty.
https://socialhax.com/2016/09/28/2600-magazine-offers-10k-access-donald-trumps-tax-return/



Oddly, every Trumptard I show this to is suddenly very concerned about the sanctity of privacy and how its immoral to do this. so. much. fun.

Khrz
09-28-2016, 08:23 PM
Btw, I DO really love this shit: 4Chan and Reddit bombarded debate polls to declare Trump the winner (http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/trump-clinton-debate-online-polls-4chan-the-donald/)

I love how the reddit management tried to block and censor all the toxic parts, like amputating a man dying of septicemia...
There's half a dozen news subreddits and it's a waging war between SJWs in violent denial and postfascists on a sea of trolls. It's like watching cancer pretend it's people.

allegro
09-28-2016, 08:49 PM
Right in your link, under "discovery" ... "it was detected by OPM personnel using a software product of vendor Cylance"
So yeah, the OPM was able to detect the breach. You are probably thinking about detection as it happens vs detection after it happens (digital forensics). Yes, live detection is better, but the ability to detect through digital forensics after the fact still requires some security design as well. A lot of it can be summed up as extensive logging and retention of that logging. (There is a lot more to it, but it doesn't matter here). OPM's setup clearly had this.
Not really (http://fedscoop.com/how-the-opm-breach-was-really-discovered).


A contracting engineer, Brendan Saulsbury, working in the agency's Security Operations Center told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in an interview that he first discovered the breach on April 15 or 16, 2015, five or six days before CyTech Services conducted the demo of its CyFIR tool on OPM systems. After the breach became public, some media reported that the demo had first discovered the presence of the malware hackers had used, running on the agency's network.

CyTech “didn’t detect anything that we didn’t already know about,” Saulsbury told the committee.

Reports from the U.S.-Computer Emergency Readiness Team that OPM requested a "digital media analysis" from the team on April, 16, 2015, corroborate Saulsbury's account, the letter says. Another interview with OPM Chief Information Security Officer Jeff Wagner backed that version of events as well.

CyTech CEO Ben Cotton told FedScoop that his company never claimed to have discovered the hack. "It's not what we have said publicly. What we have said publicly is ... that we don't have any knowledge of what they did or didn't know prior to us arriving on site, but on April 22, we discovered three running process in their production environment in active RAM."

In June 2015, after news of the breaches broke, Cotton publicly stated that “Using our endpoint vulnerability assessment methodology, CyFIR quickly identified a set of unknown processes running on a limited set of endpoints. This information was immediately provided to the OPM security staff and was ultimately revealed to be malware."

However, he added at the time: "CyTech is unaware if the OPM security staff had previously identified these processes."

When asked during a June 2015 hearing if CyTech played a role in the discovery of the vulnerabilities, OPM's then-Administrator Katherine Archuleta and then-CIO Donna Seymour — who both have since resigned following fallout from the hacks — testified their agency detected it a week before CyTech did.

So then, how exactly did OPM first discover the vulnerabilities? And how did CyTech get credited for it?

Saulsbury said his team noticed a “malware beaconing out to a command and control server from, at times, two different servers.” The file type is what caught his eye, because it was disguised as an antivirus file from McAfee software, which OPM doesn’t use.

“So that stood out right there to us that, at that point, I was 100 percent certain that this is malware that is beaconing out,” he told the committee on Feb. 17, 2016.

Wagner, in his interview with the committee a day later, gave more details. He said it was a different tool, from cybersecurity contractor Cylance, which OPM previously hired to enhance its security, that detected the intrusion.

See also: The OPM Breach Is a Catastrophe: First the government must own up to its failure. Then the feds should follow this plan to fix it. (http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/06/opm_hack_it_s_a_catastrophe_here_s_how_the_governm ent_can_stop_the_next.html)


Even OPM isn’t certain of the breadth of the hack, and the multiple intrusions that occurred beginning at least as early as March 2014 make it difficult to even pin down how many hacks and hackers there were. OPM has confirmed that millions of employees’ personal data were stolen but has not been more specific. In a letter sent June 11 complaining about lack of information, American Federation of Government Employees National President J. David Cox called one breach an “abysmal failure,” saying he has concluded the hackers obtained “every affected person’s Social Security number(s), military records and veterans’ status information, address, birth date, job and pay history, health insurance, life insurance, and pension information; age, gender, race, union status, and more” from Central Personnel Data. It gets worse: OPM is tasked, among other things, with conducting background investigations for security clearances, so this isn’t merely a violation of the employees’ privacy but also a national security threat. Yet another breach was made against the SF-86 database, which stores the results of background checks, including information on drug use, mental health, and applicants’ friends. All undercover employees whose information touched the OPM may have just had their cover blown. Former NSA senior counsel Joel Brenner called the material “a gold mine for a foreign intelligence service,” declaring, “This is not the end of American human intelligence, but it’s a significant blow.” (Points to the CIA, which refused to have anything to do with the OPM and thus kept its own employees’ information safe.) Calling this a “breach” is too modest. It’s a systemic failure of security. Worst of all, people inside and outside the OPM already knew that before the breach happened.

We do know that the security failings of OPM were no secret. An audit report from last November upgraded OPM’s security troubles from “material weakness” to “significant deficiencies”; a more recent report details the discovery in 2013 of “persistent deficiencies in OPM’s information system security program,” including “incomplete security authorization packages, weaknesses in testing of information security controls, and inaccurate Plans of Action and Milestones.” Those watered-down words have damning implications: They respectively mean that (1) sensitive data was not secured, (2) security measures were not even tested to make sure they worked, and (3) OPM was unsure even of how to fix these problems. Those deficiencies had not been fixed as of April, and it’s unlikely they’ve been fixed in the two months since.

See also: Why the “biggest government hack ever” got past the feds: Inertia, a lack of internal expertise, and a decade of neglect at OPM led to breach. (http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/06/why-the-biggest-government-hack-ever-got-past-opm-dhs-and-nsa/)


Even before the KeyPoint attack (http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2014/12/opm-alerts-feds-second-background-check-breach/101622/), OPM was moving to correct its deficiencies. Until 2013, the agency had no internal IT staff with "professional IT security experience and certifications." By November of 2014, seven such professionals had been hired and four more were in the pipeline. But only a fraction of the agency's systems had been brought under the control of a central IT security organization.

The IG report noted that just 75 percent of OPM's systems had valid authorizations to operate under Federal Information Security Managenent Act (FISMA) regulations. This was symptomatic of the way OPM handled its IT programs—a tangle of division-level projects with poor central oversight. Many of them were operated by agency contractors outside direct control of OPM's IT staff. And as the IG report noted, "several information security agreements between OPM and contractor-operated information systems have expired."

The mess continued. The IG noted that OPM wasn't even sure of what it had on its network. "OPM does not maintain a comprehensive inventory of servers, databases, and network devices. In addition, we are unable to independently attest that OPM has a mature vulnerability scanning program."

There was no multi-factor authentication for users accessing systems from outside OPM. So if someone's credentials were stolen, an attacker could use them from outside to get access to just about anything. Even worse, OPM didn't have control over how its systems were configured. An attacker could make software changes that fundamentally altered security. "OPM also has a software product that has the capability to detect, approve, and revert all changes made to information systems," the IG team reported. "However, this capability has not been fully implemented, and OPM cannot ensure that all changes made to information systems have been properly documented and approved."

Re why she set up a separate server, she got the idea from Colin Powell, though he later denied it but here is the email proof (http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/DOS-HOGR-09022016-000001%20to%20000003.pdf).

allegro
09-28-2016, 09:10 PM
Also, Trump's tax return currently has a $10k bounty.
https://socialhax.com/2016/09/28/2600-magazine-offers-10k-access-donald-trumps-tax-return/

Oddly, every Trumptard I show this to is suddenly very concerned about the sanctity of privacy and how its immoral to do this. so. much. fun.
I read an interesting article*, can't find it now, about why there hasn't been a leak, yet, probably because it's such a huge Federal offense to access the IRS data. But the fucking IRS has been hacked TWICE. No accountant or tax preparer is going to use his/her credentials to access that info because it will leave access fingerprints but I'm SURE there's a way to hack the info without somebody giving a shit and without leaving any legit fingerprints. Sanctity of privacy, when it's anybody else's emails, whatever, but when it's his tax returns, NOOOOOOOOOOOO.

*EDIT: AH, HERE IT IS!!! (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/21/this-is-why-donald-trumps-tax-returns-havent-been-leaked/) (SEE ALSO VIA THIS ROUTE IF IT'S BEHIND A PAYWALL (http://www.sltrib.com/home/4379978-155/this-is-why-donald-trumps-tax?fullpage=1))

GulDukat
09-28-2016, 10:01 PM
List of Newspapers endorsing Donald Trump:






























































.

tony.parente
09-29-2016, 03:42 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSGuugyE6tc&feature=youtu.be

Man, if you guys haven't had the chance go to reddits the_donald subreddit. Those folks are nutty.

GulDukat
09-29-2016, 08:15 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSGuugyE6tc&feature=youtu.be

Man, if you guys haven't had the chance go to reddits the_donald subreddit. Those folks are nutty.
What are these people going to be saying once (if) she wins?

aggroculture
09-29-2016, 08:24 AM
For a while I have believed that if she wins, or even before, he's going to call for armed insurrection in the streets.
He's going to claim that the election is rigged, and that citizens need to save the nation or some such nonsense.
He's going to be a sore loser about it, and he's going to make it ugly, as with every single thing in his campaign.

Khrz
09-29-2016, 09:22 AM
Armed insurrection I don't know, but yeah he won't admit he lost, the guy can't lose, he just doesn't know how. He never admits defeat or fault, of course if he loses this election it will be because of shady manipulations.

allegro
09-29-2016, 05:02 PM
"Not Too Late: I wrote that I despised Hillary Clinton. Today, I want to publicly take it all back" by Isaac Saul (http://qz.com/795906/election-2016-i-wrote-that-i-despised-hillary-clinton-today-i-want-to-publicly-take-it-back/?utm_source=atlfb)

implanted_microchip
09-29-2016, 05:14 PM
For a while I have believed that if she wins, or even before, he's going to call for armed insurrection in the streets.
He's going to claim that the election is rigged, and that citizens need to save the nation or some such nonsense.
He's going to be a sore loser about it, and he's going to make it ugly, as with every single thing in his campaign.

I mean hasn't he already gotten as close to this as he ever will? "Maybe some of those Second Amendment people could do something ..." "I'd like to see her Secret Service guards have their guns taken away, see what happens to her then!"

He's great at the art of suggesting appalling things in just-barely-kinda-if-you're-an-awful-pedantic-piece-of-shit-not-outright-inciteful-ways. He'll pitch a fit, he'll never shut up about it until he dies, he'll likely use it as a springboard for TNN, the Trump News Network, and we'll see a news station during Hillary's presidency that will make Fox during Obama's look pretty fair, all things considered, and that's really the best case scenario here.

telee.kom
09-29-2016, 06:24 PM
http://i.imgur.com/WWJALTE.gif

I think I need this

Jinsai
09-29-2016, 09:45 PM
He's great at the art of suggesting appalling things in just-barely-kinda-if-you're-an-awful-pedantic-piece-of-shit-not-outright-inciteful-ways. He'll pitch a fit, he'll never shut up about it until he dies, he'll likely use it as a springboard for TNN, the Trump News Network

And then hopefully the Turner News Network will sue Donald Trump for infringement, and life will imitate art, and then art will imitate life, and an Oscar is born... especially if this releases in 2017 and we're collectively sitting in our back yards, hugging the ones we love as we wait for the bombs to drop.

Swykk
09-30-2016, 01:30 PM
"Fuck, we can't fat shame? Since when?! Let's try slut shaming then!"--Trump and Cronies

Bachy
09-30-2016, 02:26 PM
The more I look at this election, the more I think we need to go back to a system of government of strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords. Now we see the violence inherent in the system.

http://67.media.tumblr.com/b9053c6c2c3f7467b596aa27b4de429b/tumblr_o9qz7viTXL1u411rco1_250.gif

allegro
09-30-2016, 07:13 PM
Well, this is interesting:

Chicago Tribune Editorial Board endorses Gary Johnson (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-gary-johnson-president-endorsement-edit-1002-20160930-story.html).

Ryan
09-30-2016, 07:22 PM
https://scontent-syd1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/14446206_1140275352709814_8825688009989081279_n.jp g?oh=33e2cb1adef51d7b93061c6a3afcfc2d&oe=58AD86C6

allegro
09-30-2016, 07:46 PM
"Fuck, we can't fat shame? Since when?! Let's try slut shaming then!"--Trump and Cronies

In the immortal words of Donald J. Trump:

http://quoteshunter.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/trump-quote-3.jpg

DigitalChaos
09-30-2016, 09:39 PM
Well, this is interesting:

Chicago Tribune Editorial Board endorses Gary Johnson (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-gary-johnson-president-endorsement-edit-1002-20160930-story.html).

I think this is his 6th or 7th newspaper endorsement. I don't know what newspaper endorsements are worth, but Trump had none last I checked.


Also, anyone see Johnson getting shit cause he couldn't name a foreign leader he respects? Shit, I can't think of any I respect either. Most coverage was "Gary Johnson unable to name any foreign leaders" of course, missing that minor detail.

botley
10-01-2016, 12:46 AM
I can't think of any I respect either.
I'm somehow not surprised. You do realize a President actually talks to foreign leaders?

allegro
10-01-2016, 01:18 AM
Trump violated the Cuba embargo in 1998 (http://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/14/donald-trump-cuban-embargo-castro-violated-florida-504059.html).

GulDukat
10-01-2016, 07:02 AM
This race is about to get even nastier.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/01/us/politics/donald-trump-interview-bill-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

Khrz
10-01-2016, 07:56 AM
When asked if he had ever cheated on his wives, Mr;Trump said:"No - I never discuss it. It was never a problem."
Asked specifically about his affair with Ms.Maples when he was married to Ivana Trump, Mr. Trump said "I don't talk about it "

I'm sorry, what ?

Fair point, there has been a lot of flip-flopping on Clinton's part since the 90ies concerning specific issues and her narrative has waved all over the place in 20 years. Trump is the only guy who does that from one sentence to the next though.

Also, if he really thinks he's seen her nastiest side, he may have some surprises when he tries to draw the big guns... Coming from him, I'm pretty sure she's ready for everything, and actually expected the last debate to get way dirtier than it did.

DigitalChaos
10-01-2016, 03:44 PM
I'm somehow not surprised. You do realize a President actually talks to foreign leaders?

Yeah sure. What about talking to foreign leaders requires that you admire them?

Khrz
10-01-2016, 03:59 PM
Respect them, well quite a bit I'd say. Nobody's asking to kiss their boots, but at least be able to know enough about their stewardship to quote some decisions, some policies.

There were a thousand honest answers to that question better than "errrrr hmmmm aaaah...". He could elaborate on why he doesn't really respect any, he could nitpick on good decisions taken abroad, he could go full-on history channel and quote Alexander the Great.

Anything would have been better than nothing.

allegro
10-01-2016, 04:04 PM
Yeah sure. What about talking to foreign leaders requires that you admire them?
The word was "respect;" not "admire (https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/threads/153686-Respect-v-Admire)."

DigitalChaos
10-01-2016, 04:10 PM
The full quote was "name a foreign leader who you respect and look up to"

Respect, in the dictionary, means deep admiration (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/respect). And that's clearly the definition intended based on context.

allegro
10-01-2016, 04:30 PM
The full quote was "name a foreign leader who you respect and look up to"

Respect, in the dictionary, means deep admiration (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definiti
on/respect). And that's clearly the definition intended based on context.
Some of the online dictionaries are incorrect in not fully explaining the full meaning of respect, to hold in regard, especially their position of authority, e.g. like we respect a doctor or a police officer or our Dad. We don't have to admire them or even LIKE them, but we respect them. If he did not "look up to" any of them (who does these days?), he could have been diplomatic and equivocated by saying that he has a great deal of respect for many of the world leaders in the challenges that they face, etc.

DigitalChaos
10-01-2016, 04:37 PM
Yea. Lots he could do different and better. There are lots of instances the other candidates could have responded better. I'm just perpetually amused that all of the OMGThisKillsJohnsonsCampaign stories are about him being unable to produce a name on demand. Those are the worst instances that deserve to disqualify him in THIS election with THESE other candidates? fucking LOL

allegro
10-01-2016, 04:40 PM
Come on, every one of them gets picked apart for something they said. EVERY ONE. ALL of them have had "OMG THIS KILLS THEIR CAMPAIGN" shit they said. None of them have been given a break. You are whining.

botley
10-01-2016, 04:40 PM
I'm just perpetually amused that all of the OMGThisKillsJohnsonsCampaign stories are about him being unable to produce a name on demand. Those are the worst instances that deserve to disqualify him in THIS election with THESE other candidates?
I mean, it doesn't disqualify him by any means. But rightly or wrongly, people want a President to have snappy answers ready to hand when asked something like that. Don't pretend it's just quaint when he blanks on a direct question in a TV interview.

allegro
10-01-2016, 04:45 PM
Exactly. You have to be able to think on your feet; honestly, it's not THAT hard to have a few diplomatic canned answers. This ain't fucking molecular biology.

Khrz
10-01-2016, 05:01 PM
Even a tepid answer would do wonders to make him look better than Trump who doesn't even know where Scotland stands on the awesomeness of Brexit and mixes up Belgium and Brussels.

Here he just looks like he has no clue about what's happening beyond your borders, that's a problem. He's not the only one with that problem (holy shit) but that's a bad problem to seemingly have when you want to get at the helm of the United States of America. Because unless you do your own brexit with the whole world, there's a lot of foreign policy involved.

botley
10-01-2016, 05:54 PM
Indeed, diplomacy is a huge part of the President's job. One could form a substantive critique of Secretary Clinton's record handling international relations, but if you can't put together a basic response on the spot to that kind of open-ended "gimme" question, it looks ridiculous when you turn around and criticize her competency.

DigitalChaos
10-01-2016, 06:15 PM
Johnson's foreign policy is a lot closer to "a Brexit with the rest of the world" if you look at it. No more interventions, no more foreign aid, no more of our military in people's shit.

On the converse, he wants to open trade more than it is. He also wants to accept more refugees.

Khrz
10-01-2016, 06:20 PM
That's a reverse brexit :D

DigitalChaos
10-01-2016, 06:39 PM
Come on, every one of them gets picked apart for something they said. EVERY ONE. ALL of them have had "OMG THIS KILLS THEIR CAMPAIGN" shit they said. None of them have been given a break. You are whining.

For the record, I was referring to more than just headlines. Actual humans I talk to uses this things as the reason Johnson is unqualified and they cannot vote for him. I just had a similar back and forth with a NIN member.

I mean, I can't imagine anyone voting for Trump over Clinton based on the theoretical scenario where she fails to answer a question like that. So it's just crazy to me that Johnson seems to be getting different judgement.


What's more interesting to me is the recent spike in anti-third-party narrative that has popped up. Johnson and Stein are getting continually attacked in odd ways. Johnson recently made the claim that Hillary has spent more money on attacking him than his entire campaign will spend in total.


I'll remind you that I've become mostly uninterested in Johnson after he chose Weld. Weld has said some amazingly dumb shit that a lot of libertarians can't possibly support. A lot of us tapped out after seeing that.

implanted_microchip
10-01-2016, 06:57 PM
I mean shouldn't him saying climate change is pointless to fight because the sun will one day consume the Earth so let's not worry about it at all disqualify him instantly for anyone and everyone not to mention his lack of support for minimum wage and his love and adoration of things like Citizen's United and his dislike of public health care

Like, holy shit, how Gary Johnson ended up being "THE ALTERNATIVE GUYS!" for people who liked Bernie Sanders is beyond me. Let's be real -- he's so far away from anything Sanders ever had to say. He supports some fucking lunatic-level things. He makes Republicans look good when it comes to things like climate change because at least they act like they don't know; he just goes "Yeah sure but fuck it what are we to do right let's just live in space!" C'mon. For fuck's sake. How he's even a part of the discussion this election is beyond me. It's just total proof not enough know about him but are happy to make an under-informed vote.

DigitalChaos
10-01-2016, 07:04 PM
^ that's actually what I'd prefer to see. Substantial policy stance discussion.

DigitalChaos
10-01-2016, 07:12 PM
PS - Johnson's isidewith.com has him aligned ~80% with Sanders. So a look at the entire picture would answer kleiner's question.

implanted_microchip
10-01-2016, 08:52 PM
I would argue that 20% difference is on much of what Sanders' entire thing was focused on, though. If you think the government needs to do something about big business and financial influence on our politicians, if you think global warming is a major threat to our society and we need to enact policy to change it, if you think the minimum wage needs to be raised and that everyone deserves a right to a college education debt-free and the ability to get medical treatment without being in debt or paying crazy amounts on insurance -- then you do not agree with Gary Johnson on any of those extremely major things. At all.

The same is true on if you think we need to do more about gun control, but that's a borderline footnote in difference between those major things, and those things were almost all huge aspects of Bernie's platform and general stump speech, and he called attention to them at all times possible.

allegro
10-01-2016, 08:53 PM
PS - Johnson's isidewith.com has him aligned ~80% with Sanders.
That makes zero sense. Sanders is a socialist who wants MORE (if not TOTAL) government control of social programs with the government and taxes paying for all or most of it and the rich and Wall Street being forced to pay their fair share. Johnson is a libertarian who wants no government programs paying for anything and nobody being forced to do anything because somehow the market will magically work things out. Sanders wants gun control, universal healthcare, a mandatory Federal minimum wage increase, Citizens United overturned, more corporate taxes, etc.

Swykk
10-02-2016, 12:14 AM
This happened. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/

GREAT businessman. Loses close to a billion, may not have had to pay taxes for a couple decades.

DigitalChaos
10-02-2016, 12:41 AM
here is a list of most of the big things that Johnson & Sanders agree on via isidewith.com.
I have also bolded the items that I know Hillary *disagrees* on.


Abortion
Planned Parenthood funding
gay adoption rights
same sex marriage
not ok for business denying service over conflicts of religion (gay wedding cake)
birth control required in health insurance
no death penalty
remove god from money, fed buildings, monuments
women in the military
allow assisted suicide


no banning muslim immigrants until govt improves security
granting citizenship to children of illegal immigrants
not forcing immigrants to learn english
amnesty for working illegal immigrants
no detaining illegal immigrants of minor crimes




Legalize marijuana (hillary is only for medical)




accept refugees from Syria
Decrease military spending
no "enhanced interrogation"
We should stay out of Middle Eastern conflicts

No sending troops to fight ISIS
US shoudl remain in UN
Close Gitmo
Lift trade embargo on Cuba
Don't overthrow Assad in Syria
Stop NSA surveillance of our allies
Continue defending other NATO countries
US shouldn't prevent Russia from conducting airstrikes in Syria
US shouldn't provide military assistance to defend Ukraine from Russia

Victims of gun violence shouldn't be allowed to sue firearms dealers/manufacturers
police shouldn't increase surveillance & patrol in muslim neighborhoods
NSA shouldn't collect metadata on citizens
Redrawing of congressional districts should be controlled by independent non-partisan commisions
decriminalize drug use
Do not support the Patriot Act




Federal Reserve Bank should be audited by Congress
Would not increase sales tax to reduce property tax




no photo ID requirement for voting
Presidential debates should include candidates with less than 15% support in national polls


Govt should fund space travel
GMO labeling laws
Support for nuclear energy


Police be required to wear body cameras
convicted felons should have the right to vote

DigitalChaos
10-02-2016, 12:43 AM
big surprise, Hillary is a giant warhawk, doesn't want to legalize weed, and is for the death penalty while Johnson and Sanders arent.

Remember when the US war stance was a big issue in elections and something as small as closing Gitmo was a BIG fucking deal in the election?

allegro
10-02-2016, 01:08 AM
The DEMOCRATIC PARTY is AGAINST the death penalty.

The right has made Gitmo the equivalent of letting murderers out of prison, according to the public; Congress hasn't allowed it because of all the prisoners there, and none of the members of Congress want to risk their hide by having to answer to so many who think that closing Gitmo risks World security and leads to WW III.

Your list has Johnson aligned with the Democratic Party except for maybe 3 issues.

She already said she'd take pot off the Schedule I list. She may end up trying to convince Congress to go farther than that.

http://time.com/4449322/hillary-clinton-marijuana-schedule-dea/

Regarding the Federal Reserve, she wants to completely restructure it and get rid of the banks holding seats on the regional boards:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-its-a-big-deal-hillary-clinton-plans-to-shake-up-the-fed-20160513

DigitalChaos
10-02-2016, 01:27 AM
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/transcript-msnbc-democratic-candidates-debate-n511036

Maddow: ... do you still support capital punishment, even if you do so reluctantly?
Clinton: Yes, I do. ...


The Dem Party is "against" a lot of things. Doesn't mean their "chosen" candidate follows it all.



and lol at blaming the GOP for Clinton's shitty positions that Sanders had no problem holding. Like, you can try and apologize for her milquetoast stances, but you should recognize that Sanders supporters were never about the milquetoast stances. They liked the more "radical" positioning of Sanders. So it shouldn't be a surprise that some of those supporters like someone else who has strong positions.

Swykk
10-02-2016, 01:32 AM
The sentient pile of orangutan shit who could actually become president had his 1995 tax return hacked, revealing almost a billion loss which would somehow (tax laws are weird I guess?) allow him to not pay taxes for two decades and....Gary fucking Johnson is still the hot topic here? Really?

allegro
10-02-2016, 01:33 AM
It doesn't MATTER if she supports capital punishment. It doesn't affect anything from the Executive office, since capital punishment is effected on a STATE level, NOT Federal, and NOTHING the Executive office does has anything to do with writing laws. But it wouldn't surprise me that people vote not KNOWING these things.

You vote for a GOVERNOR based on capital punishment views, or a state senator. Personally, capital punishment views isn't even on my top 10 list since it's not legal in my state - a REPUBLICAN governor issued a moratorium.

And the President can't close Gitmo. Can't. Congress has to write the legislation to do that. Presidential candidates can talk about it, promise it, make posters, but they can't do it. And they hope that lots of voters are too stupid to KNOW that.

allegro
10-02-2016, 01:37 AM
The sentient pile of orangutan shit who could actually become president had his 1995 tax return hacked, revealing almost a billion loss which would somehow (tax laws are weird I guess?) allow him to not pay taxes for two decades and....Gary fucking Johnson is still the hot topic here? Really?
I don't think anybody is surprised? I'M certainly not. I knew this is what would be discovered, I think I have even said it a few times in here. He DID sustain losses to get those write-offs but that's what these people do. I once worked for a company that was a subsidiary that existed solely as a tax loss write-off.

Swykk
10-02-2016, 01:41 AM
I'm not surprised but now we know for sure. The great businessman who's going to fix the economy is going to...what? Write off the national debt? The great businessman, who's had multiple bankruptcies and lost almost a billion in one year is a guy to trust with the country's finances?
Sure people suspected this...but now we know.

allegro
10-02-2016, 01:49 AM
I'm not surprised but now we know for sure. The great businessman who's going to fix the economy is going to...what? Write off the national debt? The great businessman, who's had multiple bankruptcies and lost almost a billion in one year is a guy to trust with the country's finances?
Sure people suspected this...but now we know.

The funny thing is, this really is just business as usual. They find crappy investments to "lose" so they have write-offs. Mitt Romney released his tax returns and he only paid a 14% tax rate because he had so many write-offs including shit like depreciation. Bankrupties are just a way to fuck creditors and write off debt, it's not a failure, it's a way to screw people.

When Trump Enterprises decided to file Chapter 11 for the casinos in Atlantic City, they fucked shitloads of creditors out of getting paid what they were owed; Trump Enterprises walked away unscathed and with a HUGE tax write-off, and all those employees were out of work, too.

DigitalChaos
10-02-2016, 02:01 AM
It doesn't MATTER if she supports capital punishment. It doesn't affect anything from the Executive office, since capital punishment is effected on a STATE level, NOT Federal, and NOTHING the Executive office does has anything to do with writing laws. But it wouldn't surprise me that people vote not KNOWING these things.

Right. And that applies to 100% of what kleiner listed as major differences that Sanders people should have issues with.



I would argue that 20% difference is on much of what Sanders' entire thing was focused on, though. If you think the government needs to do something about big business and financial influence on our politicians, if you think global warming is a major threat to our society and we need to enact policy to change it, if you think the minimum wage needs to be raised and that everyone deserves a right to a college education debt-free and the ability to get medical treatment without being in debt or paying crazy amounts on insurance -- then you do not agree with Gary Johnson on any of those extremely major things. At all.



so.... there it is!

DigitalChaos
10-02-2016, 02:04 AM
The sentient pile of orangutan shit who could actually become president had his 1995 tax return hacked, revealing almost a billion loss which would somehow (tax laws are weird I guess?) allow him to not pay taxes for two decades and....Gary fucking Johnson is still the hot topic here? Really?

I think this is enough to prove he doesn't have as much money as he says he has. That's a specific amount of deduction. You can't make it last for 2 decades unless you make below a certain amount, on average, each year.

allegro
10-02-2016, 02:07 AM
I think this is enough to prove he doesn't have as much money as he says he has. That's a specific amount of deduction. You can't make it last for 2 decades unless you make below a certain amount, on average, each year.
Taxes are about INCOME, not "worth."

You claim your annual EARNED INCOME AND LOSSES each year. This doesn't include the current value of things like real estate holdings, trust funds, investments, etc. You only pay taxes on the dividends from those investment, or you write off the losses.

A FINANCIAL STATEMENT tells you what somebody is "worth." Not a tax return.

You CAN spread the losses out over two decades because he doesn't "earn" the "income" to write it off against. So his net "income" will always be "zero."

DigitalChaos
10-02-2016, 02:09 AM
i dont pay any attention to the shit Trump says about his money. Does he not brag about income?

allegro
10-02-2016, 02:20 AM
i dont pay any attention to the shit Trump says about his money. Does he not brag about income?
He brags about NET WORTH.

Guys like him don't have "income" like you and me.

Nearly all of his holdings are public so Forbes has estimated his net worth at $3.7 billion.

http://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump/

Trump got pissed at Forbes because he says he is worth more like $10 billion because his brand has additional tangible value, except he has not provided an analysis of how he came up with that figure and analysts agree that the brand DOES have value but it would not add to his net worth in tangible dollars.

And, again, NONE of this would be on a tax return (but it would be on a Financial Statement).

Have you SEEN a tax return for a guy like him and his companies? They're, like, 12,000 pages.

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/702894623761498112/photo/1

Look at it this way: If you won $200 million in the Lotto and could take it all at once, you could live off the earned INTEREST EVERY MONTH if you put it in a shitty CD. If you put it in a solid investment, you'd still live off the monthly dividends earned and never TOUCH the winnings. That is PASSIVE income, not earned income. Your "income" every year isn't the $200 million, it's the money you make off of the $200 million. And that's what's on your tax returns (the $200 million only shows up once, as capital gains, then never again).

DigitalChaos
10-02-2016, 02:27 AM
Wait, didn't Hillary say that Trump may be hiding his taxes because he doesn't have as much as he says he does (as a possible reason) or something along those lines?

allegro
10-02-2016, 02:44 AM
Wait, didn't Hillary say that Trump may be hiding his taxes because he doesn't have as much as he says he does (as a possible reason) or something along those lines?

She said that but that was to piss him off because she knows he HATES THAT (see above Forbes note).

She also said it is likely that he pays zero taxes.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/that-other-time-trump-fought-forbes?utm_term=.kxWMQEae4#.wywy7rJ1P

DigitalChaos
10-02-2016, 03:06 AM
Sounds like Hillary doesn't understand Tax 101 either then :p

Maybe Trump *is* the right guy to to fix our fucked tax system.


Not really, but at least whoever does his taxes would be able to help point out the holes.

Jinsai
10-02-2016, 03:49 AM
Yeah sure. What about talking to foreign leaders requires that you admire them? that you don't clumsily advertise your lack of respect when you're doing the whole foreign relations sideshow? Are you just playing devils advocate again or playing goalie for Johnson? A large part of the job is diplomacy, which is one of the scariest things about the idea of president Trump...

implanted_microchip
10-02-2016, 06:22 AM
I'm not surprised but now we know for sure. The great businessman who's going to fix the economy is going to...what? Write off the national debt? The great businessman, who's had multiple bankruptcies and lost almost a billion in one year is a guy to trust with the country's finances?
Sure people suspected this...but now we know.

"That makes me smart" -- Donald Trump on paying no federal income taxes

Obv. a relatable and great businessman that any everyman can connect to, right???

implanted_microchip
10-02-2016, 06:23 AM
A large part of the job is diplomacy, which is one of the scariest things about the idea of president Trump...

Hey now, are you implying 3:40 AM tweet storms aren't the greatest place to make peace in fragile international relationships and tentative peace arrangements?

allegro
10-02-2016, 07:05 AM
Sounds like Hillary doesn't understand Tax 101 either then
Sounds like you can't read what I posted.

allegro
10-02-2016, 07:12 AM
"That makes me smart" -- Donald Trump on paying no federal income taxes

Obv. a relatable and great businessman that any everyman can connect to, right???
The thing that kills me is that so many of his Medicaid-recipient Disability-collecting fans will say "FUCK YEAH" even though Trump is paying not one cent toward their benefits. Ditto for the Vets who want to vote for him ("strengthen the military" but not with HIS money), etc. Hey, if he is a billionaire and doesn't pay taxes (neither does General Electric) then he must be smart, so they shouldn't pay taxes, either, NO TAXES FOR ANYONE!!! EVERYTHING CAN BE PAID FOR IN MONOPOLY MONEY!!!

implanted_microchip
10-02-2016, 08:35 AM
The thing that kills me is that so many of his Medicaid-recipient Disability-collecting fans will say "FUCK YEAH" even though Trump is paying not one cent toward their benefits. Ditto for the Vets who want to vote for him ("strengthen the military" but not with HIS money), etc. Hey, if he is a billionaire and doesn't pay taxes (neither does General Electric) then he must be smart, so they shouldn't pay taxes, either, NO TAXES FOR ANYONE!!! EVERYTHING CAN BE PAID FOR IN MONOPOLY MONEY!!!

I very sadly know you're correct but want to mine whatever split seconds of joy out of this that I can

Also, on a brighter note -- those who are already on his side are there to the end, this election. But they're not enough to win, generally speaking. His big need right now is to win over undecideds. Something tells me this only serves to isolate him further from them, especially coupled with his campaign to do his best to isolate himself from any and all prospective woman voters this past week, too. So I do think that while it won't make his fans turn their backs, it'll do a lot to ensure no one is won over. Or, at least, I strongly hope -- otherwise I have to see it as us being fucked with no hope and I see no point in that.

hellospaceboy
10-02-2016, 12:26 PM
Oh, other than Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani is my other favorite republican right now.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-claim-916-million-loss-shows-hes-genius/story?id=42497011 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-claim-916-million-loss-shows-hes-genius/story?id=42497011)

While you can tell that the rest of the GOP establishment isn't banking on a Trump victory, and try to stay away and brace for a party loss, these two are all in! They're really giving it 100% and it's so embarrassing to watch, but it's my favorite train wreck in this political season. Trump is too scary to really get a kick out of watching (although sometime he goes batshit crazy and that's fun) but these two are quite harmless, just self humiliating and burning their careers and it gives me the feels. Love these two!

DigitalChaos
10-02-2016, 03:06 PM
Sounds like you can't read what I posted.
"oh but she only said that factually incorrect thing to mess with him" is the kind of excuse that comes out of Trump supporters

allegro
10-02-2016, 03:37 PM
"oh but she only said that factually incorrect thing to mess with him" is the kind of excuse that comes out of Trump supporters

Here is what she said (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/26/donald-trump-mumbles-waffles-about-releasing-his-taxes.html) (see it on video on this page)


“There is no prohibition on releasing it when you’re under audit. So you’ve got to ask yourself, why won’t he release his tax returns? And I think there may be a couple of reasons. First, maybe he’s not as rich as he says he is. Second, maybe he’s not as charitable as he claims to be… or maybe he doesn’t want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he’s paid nothing in federal taxes.”

and ALL OF THE STUFF SHE SAID (above) was fully intended to (a) hammer him about his tax returns and (b) tell people that he's probably not paying anything in taxes, and (c) pull the rug out from under him to piss him off to get him riled up so that he'd stop being calm Donald and become Idiot Donald which is exactly what happened. How RICH you are is not interesting to swing voters but HOW MUCH TAXES YOU ARE PAYING and whether or not you have OFFSHORE INVESTMENTS when you are a candidate who has focused YOUR ENTIRE CAMPAIGN bitching about FOREIGN COMPANIES TAKING OUR JOBS is REALLY important.

She gave him the bait and he took it.

I'm not saying this as a "Hillary Fan," I'm saying this as a bystander watching some moron not see that he took the bait like a dumb fucking 6-yr-old.

He wasn't prepared. Period. He didn't KNOW that he'd get the tax return question? His people didn't PREPARE him with good, canned responses (other than "that makes me smart" or "I'll release my tax returns when you release your deleted [personal and private] emails")? He doesn't seem to PREPARE himself for these debates, at all. Zero prep. The guy wings it. But anybody who has EVER DONE DEBATE knows that the MAJORITY of debate is PREPARATION, including anticipating questions and preparing your answers and rebuttals.

Khrz
10-02-2016, 04:02 PM
His people didn't PREPARE him with good, canned responses

I've seen an official statement somewhere from his debate brainstorming bunker, and those guys deserve a fucking medal. The guy just won't listen to them, won't read the Clinton transcripts from previous speeches, won't physically rehearse standing for more than an hour under the spotlights, won't prepare key points and statements other than "I got a good one don't worry", won't elaborate on policies even for the cameras.

They're supposed to supercharge him and the guy's just too lazy and narcissistic to even take it seriously. I really really feel for them, that campaign must be pure hell. They're trying to build intelligent strategies and responses and the guy won't give the slightest fuck. Discouraging and exhausting.

allegro
10-02-2016, 04:11 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nQGBZQrtT0&feature=youtu.be

hellospaceboy
10-02-2016, 04:58 PM
^^^
That SNL skit is brilliant!!!

Deepvoid
10-02-2016, 05:26 PM
Wikileaks is allegedly on the verge of releasing new material. They were supposed to make an announcement on Tuesday but it has been cancelled due to security concerns. To be continued...

cynicmuse
10-03-2016, 02:42 AM
He wasn't prepared. Period. He didn't KNOW that he'd get the tax return question? His people didn't PREPARE him with good, canned responses (other than "that makes me smart" or "I'll release my tax returns when you release your deleted [personal and private] emails")? He doesn't seem to PREPARE himself for these debates, at all. Zero prep. The guy wings it. But anybody who has EVER DONE DEBATE knows that the MAJORITY of debate is PREPARATION, including anticipating questions and preparing your answers and rebuttals.
I was especially amused when he complained after the debate because Benghazi wasn't brought up. If he'd spent even a little bit of time preparing, he could have come up with a pivot like Clinton did with Alicia Machado. Her pivot wasn't pretty, but it was effective.

ziltoid
10-03-2016, 06:25 PM
Wikileaks is allegedly on the verge of releasing new material. They were supposed to make an announcement on Tuesday but it has been cancelled due to security concerns. To be continued...

I wondered why Mr. Assange postponed the next round of information, maybe it has something to do with this?

“Can’t we just drone this guy?” Clinton openly inquired, offering a simple remedy to silence Assange and smother Wikileaks via a planned military drone strike, according to State Department sources. The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, “walking around” freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States. Clinton was upset about Assange’s previous 2010 records releases, divulging secret U.S. documents about the war in Afghanistan in July and the war in Iraq just a month earlier in October, sources said. At that time in 2010, Assange was relatively free and not living cloistered in in the embassy of Ecuador in London. Prior to 2010, Assange focused Wikileaks’ efforts on countries outside the United States but now under Clinton and Obama, Assange was hammering America with an unparalleled third sweeping Wikileaks document dump in five months. Clinton was fuming, sources said, as each State Department cable dispatched during the Obama administration was signed by her.

http://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wikileaks-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-proposed-drone-strike-on-julian-assange/

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/clinton-considered-drone-strike-assange/

Deepvoid
10-03-2016, 06:50 PM
I doubt. It's not like they would bomb the embassy. The grand gesture of making an announcement from the balcony is just ridiculous. Too bad he doesn't have a website on which he could just release the info without putting his physical person at risk. Oh wait....

tony.parente
10-03-2016, 11:39 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS0nZt1Rtps
Fuck, Joe is cool.

allegro
10-04-2016, 12:37 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS0nZt1Rtps
Fuck, Joe is cool.

Jesus. That was powerful. Brought tears to my eyes.

bobbie solo
10-04-2016, 12:55 AM
just like Bernie, Biden would be wiping the fucking floor with this orange asshole. Can you imagine him attacking Trump in a debate? It would be glorious.

tony.parente
10-04-2016, 01:09 AM
just like Bernie, Biden would be wiping the fucking floor with this orange asshole. Can you imagine him attacking Trump in a debate? It would be glorious.
I think had he not had lost his son he would have ran and would be up by 40 points right now. Hell the dude is so fucking powerful I don't even thing trump would be the nominee had Joe ran.

implanted_microchip
10-04-2016, 01:31 AM
Biden would certainly have been my first choice this year. Bound to be on the list of "people who deserved to be president who never were."

tony.parente
10-04-2016, 05:34 AM
Biden would certainly have been my first choice this year. Bound to be on the list of "people who deserved to be president who never were."

My choices for the democratic nominee:

1. Barack Obama
2. Joe Biden
3. Bernie Sanders

...

98. My dog Brodie.
99. Hillary Clinton.

implanted_microchip
10-04-2016, 05:36 AM
tony.parente maybe Brodie can be the dog Hillary talked about having in Congress to bark whenever Republicans try and tell a lie

tony.parente
10-04-2016, 05:38 AM
@tony.parente (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=2107) maybe Brodie can be the dog Hillary talked about having in Congress to bark whenever Republicans try and tell a lie
Well he DOES hate poodles and other dogs with strange haircuts...

Deepvoid
10-04-2016, 09:58 AM
So Assange finally did a presser to promote his book. No bombshell. Conservatives are crazy mad at him. Alex Jones is losing it as we speak.

GulDukat
10-04-2016, 12:17 PM
So Assange finally did a presser to promote his book. No bombshell. Conservatives are crazy mad at him. Alex Jones is losing it as we speak.
I happened to be up at 4:00 am and was expecting something.... Wasn't it supposed to "be over for Clinton on Wednesday"?

In other news, Trump is up, on average, 5 points in Ohio. Clinton can still get to 270 without it though.

Deepvoid
10-04-2016, 12:39 PM
I happened to be up at 4:00 am and was expecting something.... Wasn't it supposed to "be over for Clinton on Wednesday"?

In other news, Trump is up, on average, 5 points in Ohio. Clinton can still get to 270 without it though.

Yeah that's pretty much what Roger Stone tweeted. Hillary's campaign was over tomorrow.
Guess again Bob!

Ohio has voted for the winning candidate over the past 10 elections (http://www.270towin.com/states/Ohio) (1976)

However, if you look at http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ , Ohio is clearly not in play. Colorado appears to be THE swing state, especially if FL, NV and NC go to Trump.

onthewall2983
10-04-2016, 05:21 PM
https://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/TMW2016-10-05printcolor_full.jpg

Frozen Beach
10-04-2016, 06:01 PM
Well, out of left field, Guccifer 2.0 is leaking new stuff

GulDukat
10-04-2016, 08:41 PM
You don't even need to watch the debate, the RNC apparently can see into the future and declared Mike Pence the winner.

allegro
10-04-2016, 09:08 PM
Well, out of left field, Guccifer 2.0 is leaking new stuff

But comments say otherwise. Donations from Michelle Bachman and Republicans? Really? It's a combo of the DCCC and just a bunch of crap.


It would be nice if this was really an archive of files from the CF, but it just appears to be the DCCC/DPVA documents repackaged.

Someone has posted a file list at: https://justpaste.it/yzwz

With G2 releasing credible leaks previously. It is worth considering the possibility that G2 may, as of now, have lost control of this blog and that it could be getting used by others masquerading as G2 to post something easily debunked with an extraordinary claim that generates headlines and subsequently diminishes his reputation.

Why make a big claim of a new hack and then only release previously leaked files rather than something specific to the new target? – And why claim you don’t know how to get files out effectively when you’re familiar with an outlet that handles that sort of thing specifically?

Frozen Beach
10-04-2016, 09:21 PM
But comments say otherwise. Donations from Michelle Bachman and Republicans? Really? It's a combo of the DCCC and just a bunch of crap.
here's a statement from his twitter
https://twitter.com/GUCCIFER_2/status/783425088796364800

Deepvoid
10-04-2016, 09:53 PM
Don't know how reliable is the Daily Dot but those docs are apparently not from the Clinton Foundation.

http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/guccifer-2-clinton-foundation-hack-leak/?tw=dd

DigitalChaos
10-04-2016, 11:51 PM
I feel like this should go here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJwHZVl5Buk

DigitalChaos
10-05-2016, 12:21 AM
Don't know how reliable is the Daily Dot but those docs are apparently not from the Clinton Foundation.

http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/guccifer-2-clinton-foundation-hack-leak/?tw=dd

yeah, these things take some time to investigate. It's not hard to make up fake docs. But the "Pay to Play" folder should be a pretty obvious flag, unless that's just Guccifer marking things?


Either way, It seems like Guccifer is going to be releasing more data.


It is a good time to remember that the Clinton Foundation was hacked recently, probably by Russians: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-22/clinton-foundation-said-to-be-breached-by-russian-hackers

DigitalChaos
10-05-2016, 12:08 PM
So Assange finally did a presser to promote his book. No bombshell. Conservatives are crazy mad at him. Alex Jones is losing it as we speak.

The amazing thing is the Trump people and the media did this to themselves. Assange never said it was about Hillary. It was promoted as a 10 year anniversary event. Assange was so pissed about it he created WLTaskForce on twitter to correct things like this.

But it's not the first time Trump people created a person, and general reality, that didn't exist just because it's what they were hoping for.

allegate
10-05-2016, 07:24 PM
The Atlantic endorses Clinton for President, only the 3rd endorsement ever after Lincoln & LBJ (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-and-against-donald-trump/501161/)


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

implanted_microchip
10-05-2016, 10:15 PM
The Atlantic endorses Clinton for President, only the 3rd endorsement ever after Lincoln & LBJ (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-and-against-donald-trump/501161/)

Any tweets yet about the "failing Atlantic" allying itself with the "dishonest media" for "Crooked Hillary" from Donny T.?

DigitalChaos
10-05-2016, 11:21 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEVKI1Zi2n8

hellospaceboy
10-06-2016, 09:50 AM
^^^
What a time capsule!!!
... although I was disappointed that she wasn't doing the actual Macarena dance, she was just clapping.

allegro
10-06-2016, 01:55 PM
Trump says it's pronounced "nevahhhhhhhdahhhh" (it's not)

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/10/06/donald-trump-nevada-pronunciation-bts.cnn

allegro
10-06-2016, 01:58 PM
^^^
What a time capsule!!!
... although I was disappointed that she wasn't doing the actual Macarena dance, she was just clapping.

Speaking of TIME CAPSULE ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tve8qYS-zh4

allegro
10-06-2016, 02:15 PM
This, too!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2SaY0977xA

Mantra
10-06-2016, 11:38 PM
It's kinda surprising hearing how strong her accent was back in those days, cause I'm so used to the way she sounds today. You can still hear traces of it nowadays, but it's pretty subtle.

I had a similar reaction watching old Trump videos, although with him it wasn't his accent but his speaking style and his overall personality. He seemed more chilled out and level-headed back then. It's really weird to watch those old tv interviews with him from back in the 80s, cause it's like "Wait, this dude became a birther? How?" It's strange being able to see a record of how people have transformed over the years.

implanted_microchip
10-07-2016, 12:37 AM
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/1z5kee/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-back-in-black---getting-out-the-millennial-vote

Lewis Black did a pretty killer segment recently on voter turnout this election

DigitalChaos
10-07-2016, 01:58 PM
Holy shit this was satisfying.
Kennedy grills Bill Weld: http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/05/kennedy-puts-bill-weld-through-the-wring

She's a great embodiment of where libertarians are right now in this election.

Also, Ron Paul says people should vote Green Party??? When the fuck did that happen?? I've kinda tapped out of this election, and only been watching the R & D attack the hell out of Johnson/Weld out of fascination. I might have to pay more attention.

allegate
10-07-2016, 05:28 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html

Man alive. And pulling a Clinton card there at the end? Hey, Don, we have a recording of you doing it, not Bill.

GulDukat
10-07-2016, 06:46 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html

Man alive. And pulling a Clinton card there at the end? Hey, Don, we have a recording of you doing it, not Bill.
I'm sure that will help him with women voters.

allegate
10-07-2016, 06:53 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/mike-pence-donald-trump-comments-women-229303


A Pence aide insisted that it was normal procedure for the pool to leave at the end of such stops, and that the abrupt departure was not related to the breaking news.https://media.giphy.com/media/11a8FLrVeoLnna/giphy.gif

implanted_microchip
10-07-2016, 11:46 PM
This is, like, absolute Christmas for anyone against Trump, wow.

What a beautiful time to be alive, I can only only hope "You can do anything" becomes a campaign slogan for the T/P ticket in the final weeks! Truly a herald of American exceptionalism.

This next debate is going to be the most exciting thing to air on TV all goddamn year at this point. I cannot fucking wait.

marodi
10-07-2016, 11:52 PM
This next debate is going to be the most exciting thing to air on TV all goddamn year at this point. I cannot fucking wait.

Is he even going to show up for the debate? He is his own worst enemy. I really hope this will mean his doom.

Then again, he's a cockroach; and we know how they are difficult to get rid of.

GulDukat
10-07-2016, 11:58 PM
Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump drops out. He can't win, so to save face and humiliation on 11/8, he could withdrawal.

implanted_microchip
10-08-2016, 12:07 AM
Is he even going to show up for the debate? He is his own worst enemy. I really hope this will mean his doom.

Then again, he's a cockroach; and we know how they are difficult to get rid of.

Well a couple days ago we had him hilariously discrediting an event moderator's attempt to say he was practicing for it at that event, basically admitting he's doing fuck-all to get ready, he's talked up and up and up again his intent to bring up Bill's affairs to her face, despite literally everyone alive who isn't Rudy Giuliani saying that's utterly insane and totally stupid, he's talked about "not being so nice" in the next debate (because he was such a saint in the first), in general I'd be surprised if he skips out this close to it. It's his to lose (and then bitch about and deem rigged for weeks after).

I think Hillary has the next debate won already in full, too. The whole strategy first debate was to show him as rattled and as unhinged as they could get him, and that was him at his most clear and functional, before he had an entire country calling him a massive loser, criticizing everything he had to say, his supporters expressing concern and now his number 2, Mike Pence, being deemed a "better candidate" than him (which, in my opinion, was the whole goal for Kaine in the VP debate -- he lost that battle to win the war, making the entire news spin about how Pence couldn't defend Trump and how Republicans liked Pence more, which is literally the worst thing anyone could say if they want Donald to act even halfway reasonable at all; he can't stand playing second fiddle to anybody and now, he's doing it, and he's not liking it).

If she can just have more of her own victories in this debate than in the first one, while keeping him riled up and letting him do his thing like she did in the first one, it's her debate and it's her election. I'm honestly really confident currently that he is not going to be the next president and we're going to be okay. I'm still gonna vote and tell everyone I know to vote but it's gonna be a confident and empowered vote rather than an "Oh fuck oh my god I really hope this works" vote. For the first time in a while now I'm just enjoying the ride of this wild election again, because it seems like Trump has done what he's so great at doing -- just tremendous, the best, believe me -- and that is making a fool of himself when given every opportunity not to.

Seriously, whoever the fuck told Hillary to bring up Miss Universe is an absolute strategic genius and it is the first and only time we have seen anyone really manage to find and expertly strike Trump's Achilles' heel. It fucked him right up and he's been spiraling around his misogynistic storm drain ever since. His inability to ever apologize, to ever admit he's wrong, to ever walk back on something or seem remorseful -- for once it was used against him rather than being a winning move and it's so great. This Trump Tape leak is only making it cemented and impossible to argue that this man is an absolute misogynist with no respect or care for women who does not care about anything other than his own personal satisfaction and gratification. The moment he tries to bring up Bill's transgressions this next debate, he's capital-f Fucked.

GulDukat
10-08-2016, 12:19 AM
Trump apologies:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-apologizes-for-aggressive-crude-comments-229333?cmpid=sf

implanted_microchip
10-08-2016, 12:22 AM
Trump apologies:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-apologizes-for-aggressive-crude-comments-229333?cmpid=sf

I don't actually believe he means it but I'm genuinely impressed he somehow figured out the magical and mysterious way to say you're sorry without somehow making it backhanded or insulting someone else while doing it

thevoid99
10-08-2016, 12:23 AM
Well, let's see how long he will recant that and spew other bullshit.

Amaro
10-08-2016, 12:25 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPL7k1KMnLI

implanted_microchip
10-08-2016, 12:31 AM
Oh hey and by the way are we still gonna try and pretend Russia didn't hack the DNC because USIC sure thinks so now

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuMGUkxXYAA-LX1.jpg

GulDukat
10-08-2016, 12:31 AM
Trump is done. It's over.

marodi
10-08-2016, 12:38 AM
I don't actually believe he means it but I'm genuinely impressed he somehow figured out the magical and mysterious way to say you're sorry without somehow making it backhanded or insulting someone else while doing it

But look at all the downplaying he's doing: it's not who he "really is", the whole thing is a "distraction" and hey look: the Clintons are worse than me! They did bad stuff too! Why are you on my back for this when "they" are so horrible too?

Wah wah wah...

And as a female: apology not accepted, you Bozo. And De Niro is talkin' to you!

Amaro
10-08-2016, 01:07 AM
Trump apologies:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-apologizes-for-aggressive-crude-comments-229333?cmpid=sf


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

implanted_microchip
10-08-2016, 01:17 AM
But look at all the downplaying he's doing: it's not who he "really is", the whole thing is a "distraction" and hey look: the Clintons are worse than me! They did bad stuff too! Why are you on my back for this when "they" are so horrible too?

Wah wah wah...

And as a female: apology not accepted, you Bozo. And De Niro is talkin' to you!

Oh I mean yeah, it's totally as forced and barely-an-apology-at-all thing, but it's still miles ahead of any other attempts at "apologizing" he's ever made before. You can fucking see it on his face that he did not want to do this. Some big shit's going down and it's beautiful.

allegro
10-08-2016, 01:20 AM
But look at all the downplaying he's doing: it's not who he "really is", the whole thing is a "distraction" and hey look: the Clintons are worse than me! They did bad stuff too! Why are you on my back for this when "they" are so horrible too?

Wah wah wah...

And as a female: apology not accepted, you Bozo. And De Niro is talkin' to you!

The weird thing is, most of us know that a LOT of guys talk like this as a matter of course, it's like some stupid male-bonding shit; Trump took it to the next level which perpetuates the rape culture ("grab her pussy").

See also this (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/10/this-is-not-explicit-sex-talk/503459/?utm_source=atlfb).

It won't surprise his male voters at all; and I've already seen a video that a friend posted online of two BLACK WOMEN saying that Trump didn't actually say anything TO women, he said it about women like that's not a big deal EVEN THOUGH HE'S TALKING ABOUT SEXUAL ASSAULT and it's still "not as bad as Hillary's emails." So it still won't decrease his already-decided voters. Because they're a basket of deplorables.

(Btw, a friend of mine is staging a "basket of deplorables" as a Halloween decoration on her front lawn.)

implanted_microchip
10-08-2016, 01:43 AM
Anyone who thinks his diehards are gonna ever care about anything at this point is being naive, but that's not what matters -- the on-the-fence begrudging conservatives, the pool of undecideds, the tepid liberals who don't feel particularly charged by Hillary and are maybe sitting this out but just need a better push to see why Trump is so much worse -- those are the people this shit can impact. Heavily.

His diehards are not enough to win the election on their own. All the other people he needs are only going to be more isolated by this. It pushes more Republicans that can't stand him to sit this one out or go third party or even closet-vote for Hillary and it only proves the arguments against Trump's views toward women.

I'm sure in our sexist as hell culture people will try to rationalize this one, too, but it's as hard as humanly possible to do at this point. Anyone who can do that with this was never going to come around anyway on the subject. He didn't just say he wants to fuck somebody, he talks about avidly attempting to have an extramarital affair with a married woman while he is married and bragging about his ability to coerce and assault women graphically because of his status and celebrity. Anyone who can hear that and try to spin it off as something else is never going to actually care about anything he could ever say about women, anyways.

Then again he's openly said he found 12-year old Paris Hilton hot and no one gave a shit so who knows. I just don't want to believe that the majority of people are sincerely this okay with utter and unfiltered misogyny that is this blatant.

allegro
10-08-2016, 01:53 AM
He didn't just say he wants to fuck somebody, he talks about avidly attempting to have an extramarital affair with a married woman while he is married and bragging about his ability to coerce and assault women graphically because of his status and celebrity. Anyone who can hear that and try to spin it off as something else is never going to actually care about anything he could ever say about women, anyways.
This election is outing racism, sexism, RAPE CULTURE, the whole 9 yards. It's like we've lifted a giant scab to expose a gaping wound we didn't notice was there for about 50 years.

I love this from that above-linked Atlantic article:


The thing about the Republican’s words isn't that they’re explicit or graphic. It's that they're misogynistic, coercive, abusive, and dehumanizing. And as my colleague David Graham notes, illegal: The candidate is describing forcing himself on women, bragging that they’re disinclined to object because of a power structure on which he knowingly capitalizes.

Explicit conversation is a bonding ritual that’s not bad or shameful. Treating it as such makes people misunderstand what explicit conversation is supposed to be—as Trump claimed when he excused his comments as “locker room banter.” To take him at his word, he misunderstands the ritual: Talking explicitly about sex is different from bragging about forcing yourself on people.

Any notion to the contrary is a product of not talking about sex frankly, openly, often enough. And then when you do, feeling like you have to brag about grabbing women “by the pussy” on a bus with Billy Bush, so you end up perpetuating archaic notions of power and forcible objectification. Because that’s what you heard someone else do. That’s what the boys at the New York Military Academy did during Trump’s formative years.

Like Trump, ever more Americans seem to feel that masculinity (as they understand it, narrowly defined) is threatened. It’s threatened specifically by “PC culture,” often used as a sweeping indictment of any attempt at decency. My colleague Molly Ball spoke to some of these men recently at a Trump rally in Pennsylvania, men with chin-strap beards and novelty t-shirts calling Hillary Clinton a bitch because “it’s funny.”

Confusing humor and cruelty is born of profound ignorance, and an idea that violating codes is inherently funny. Counteract this confusion by talking about sex more openly, not less. Show that decency need not be puritanical. Chastise coercion but embrace consensual boning down. (And avoid saying “boning down” until you’ve got a good read on the room.) Because in their ignorance, toxic men are malleable. Their notions of masculinity will change with the culture that shapes them. This starts with the words that, seemingly small, frame these discussions about sex and power, respect and abuse, what’s lewd and what’s baldly inhumane.

onthewall2983
10-08-2016, 06:18 AM
I feel like the scab has been exposed for awhile now, going back to the NFL scandals of domestic abuse a few years ago. But this isn't just picking at it, but stabbing it with a rusty blade.

Trump is so fucked, it's beautiful. And now a judge has made sure his rape trial will continue. If he loses this election, that will just be the beginning.

GulDukat
10-08-2016, 08:07 AM
Some questions to consider:

1. How many prominent Republicans will unendorce Trump?
2. Will Trump show up at the debate on Sunday?
3. Will Trump, seeing the writing on the wall, drop out before November 8?
4. If Trump drops out, who will replace him?
5. If Trump stays in the race, will he bring up Monica, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, etc.?

Substance242
10-08-2016, 08:21 AM
I want a movie about this. It could be called... "House of Cards", maybe? :-)

Mantra
10-08-2016, 11:17 AM
The part where he's defending himself by saying, "Look it was TEN YEARS ago" is kind of absurd. That kinda defense could maybe work if you're like 25 and "ten years ago" was back when you were an immature little freshman shit who was trying to show off for your dumb friends.

But it doesn't really hold up as well when you're a fucking 70 YEAR OLD MAN.

"back when I was only 60 years old, I said some bad things, but now at the age of 70 I'm a completely different person!" C'mon dude, give me a fucking break, lol

allegro
10-08-2016, 12:51 PM
Some questions to consider:
5. If Trump stays in the race, will he bring up Monica, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, etc.?
This idea that Hillary is somehow at fault for (or has ANYTHING TO DO WITH) Bill's womanizing (and "enabled" him) is a ridiculous, sexist premise. It's easy to then turn the tables, "oh, so that stuff on tape was Melania's fault? Should we get Melania up here and question her? And get Ivana up here, too, and question her, since you were having an affair with Marla Maples while you were married to Ivana"?

It's victim-blaming because the guy couldn't keep his dick in his pants..

And the shit about Hillary "threatening" the Bill Clinton women is mostly shit; but also remember that her husband was DENYING everything at the time, AND HILLARY BELIEVED HIM.

Also, these millennial Trump fans who are supposedly driving the desire to dive into the Lewinsky info weren't cognizant when this shit happened, so they really didn't "get" the whole big picture: That it was a witch hunt that victimized a young woman and dragged her through the press so that the Republicans could go after the President for the PAULA JONES case; every American should read the ENTIRE STARR REPORT (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/icreport/icreport.htm), really, it's HORRIFYING. I still have a printout on my bookshelf in my home office.

But see also this Vox article (http://www.vox.com/2016/9/30/13096290/donald-trump-bill-clinton-sex-scandal):



[Steve Bannon's] conviction stems from the group of young, female Breitbart News reporters whom he’s dubbed the Valkyries. When I expressed skepticism about the value of reintroducing old scandals, Bannon countered that the Valkyries—a sort of in-house focus group of millennial voter sentiment—were unfamiliar with Clinton contretemps that most older people consider settled. "There’s a whole generation of people who love the news but were 7 or 8 years old when this happened and have no earthly idea about the Clinton sex stuff," he says.

There’s an obvious counterargument to this claim: When people were aware of Bill Clinton’s indiscretions in the 1990s, it didn’t make him unpopular. Indeed, in the first weeks after the Drudge Report broke the Lewinsky story on January 17, 1998, Clinton’s approval rating spiked upward, from about 60 percent to 69:

https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/3ICfQ6nooykSmYlWb_Y7oSG1neU=/1600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7190675/wb0rutqog0acctlgfgnuva.jpg

After the House impeached him in December, his popularity spiked again, only falling after the whole saga ended with a Senate acquittal in February. It’s hard to conclude anything besides that the scandal was good for Clinton’s reputation with the public at the time, and completely backfired for congressional Republicans, who faced losses in the 1998 midterms for good measure.

And that’s nothing compared with what the scandal did for Hillary. If Bill’s approval ratings edged upward as a result of the Lewinsky affair, Hillary’s positively soared:

https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/gvRiXRXeHyvGQAenagpIOo_mr2Q=/1600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7190719/gallup_hillary.0.0.png

GulDukat
10-08-2016, 12:56 PM
This idea that Hillary is somehow at fault for (or has ANYTHING TO DO WITH) Bill's womanizing (and "enabled" him) is a ridiculous, sexist premise. It's easy to then turn the tables, "oh, so that stuff on tape was Melania's fault? Should we get Melania up here and question her? And get Ivana up here, too, and question her, since you were having an affair with Marla Maples while you were married to Ivana"?

It's victim-blaming because the guy couldn't keep his dick in his pants..

And the shit about Hillary "threatening" the Bill Clinton women is mostly shit; but also remember that her husband was DENYING everything at the time, AND HILLARY BELIEVED HIM.

I agree that it's ridiculous to blame Hillary for anything. My question is, will Donald Trump "go there" and do it anyway.

allegro
10-08-2016, 01:13 PM
I agree that it's ridiculous to blame Hillary for anything. My question is, will Donald Trump "go there" and do it anyway.

well, obviously, we don't know. I was simply posing the risks that he is taking IF HE DOES. Nearly every online report is saying that he is being advised by key Republicans to NOT GO THERE.

But, of course, the guy is dense.

GulDukat
10-08-2016, 01:23 PM
well, obviously, we don't know. I was simply posing the risks that he is taking IF HE DOES. Nearly every online is saying that he is being advised by key Republicans to NOT GO THERE.

But, of course, the guy is dense.
In his "apology" he hinted he would go there. The election is over at this point. He can do whatever he wants. Even his own running mate threw him under the bus in his public statement.

Funny to see Trump supporters being offended that his own words are repeated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/08/please-stop-saying-that-word-a-cnn-panel-for-the-ages/?tid=sm_fb

allegro
10-08-2016, 01:31 PM
in his "apology" he hinted he would go there. The election is over at this point. He can do whatever he wants. Even his own running mate threw him under the bus in his public statement.

Funny to see trump supporters being offended that his own words are repeated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/08/please-stop-saying-that-word-a-cnn-panel-for-the-ages/?tid=sm_fb

LOL bravo to her! "STOP SAYING PUSSY!!!" "MY DAUGHTER IS LISTENING!"


Navarro: Don't act outraged and offended when I say the word that you're not offended by the man who you are supporting is saying. That's just absurd.

allegro
10-08-2016, 01:34 PM
Meanwhile, my husband and I have booked a loft suite at a nearby pet-friendly Residence Inn for election night and me, G and our terminally-ill blind dog are gonna sit in front of the fireplace and TV in the room and watch Trump's campaign crash and burn and celebrate the election of the first female President of the United States.

Edit: Whoa, holy shit, the fall-out is really starting, now!

Arnold Schwarzenegger (https://twitter.com/Schwarzenegger/status/784803865723965440/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw): "As proud as I am to label myself a Republican, there is one label that I hold above all else - American. My full statement (https://twitter.com/Schwarzenegger/status/784803865723965440/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)"

Mike Pence on Trump's Remarks: 'I Cannot Defend Them'
(http://www.theatlantic.com/liveblogs/2016/10/trumps-tape-scandal-the-latest-updates/503480/9029/?utm_source=atlfb)
As a husband and a father, I was offended by the words and actions described by Donald Trump in the 11-year-old video released yesterday. I do not condone his remarks and cannot defend them. I am grateful that he has expressed remorse and apologized to the American people.

We pray for his family and look forward to the opportunity he has to show what is in his heart when he goes before the nation tomorrow night.

Look how many Republicans have changed their votes to NAY (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/where-republicans-stand-on-donald-trump-a-cheat-sheet/481449/).

And, as my husband pointed out, there is less than a month until Election Day; it's TOO LATE to get a replacement on the ballots.

Mantra
10-08-2016, 03:20 PM
Trump on Twitter: "Certainly has been an interesting 24 hours!"

You know, despite how much Trump rambles on about having "energy!" and being the ultimate winner and whatnot, he often seems kind of nihilistic, like he seriously does not give a fuck about what is happening to him right now. He's decided he's just gonna crack some lulzy one-liners in the face of his own annihilation.

Louie_Cypher
10-08-2016, 03:28 PM
my favorite new phrase is" grab'em by the p. dog1! thanks Don ;)
=l-louie. use it in place, of have good day, break a leg, gook luck anything been usinging it all day! going to work out grab'em by the pussy, dog see you later!
-louie

DigitalChaos
10-08-2016, 04:24 PM
The weird thing is, most of us know that a LOT of guys talk like this as a matter of course, it's like some stupid male-bonding shit; Trump took it to the next level

Yup. That shit is so obnoxious. I've had so many coworkers try that shit with me. I just give them the "kill yourself" look. Sadly, I've also seen other guys just play along because they favor social acceptance over not being a try-hard cunt.


I don't think Trump took it to another level. That stuff is very on par with the super power-oriented machoism many try to go for. That's why it won't really hurt him with most of his supporters. All of them know that at least half their male friends have said similar.

Trump naming Bill Clinton is interesting though. People immediately dismiss it as a dumb attack on Hillary. But Dems love Bill despite equally bad womanizing. Hell, they are willing to put Bill right back into the whitehouse as the first man. Yet they think Trump doing it is a horrific campaign ender? Kleiner calls it a gift in the same way Trumpers talk about Benghazi and other dumb crap. The fuck?

Swykk
10-08-2016, 06:14 PM
McCain and Rice just withdrew their support for Trump.

I hope he has to stay in until the end. I hope the GOP doesn't try to replace him. They created this, they should have to sit in their own stink.

allegro
10-08-2016, 06:41 PM
Yup. That shit is so obnoxious. I've had so many coworkers try that shit with me. I just give them the "kill yourself" look. Sadly, I've also seen other guys just play along because they favor social acceptance over not being a try-hard cunt.


I don't think Trump took it to another level. That stuff is very on par with the super power-oriented machoism many try to go for. That's why it won't really hurt him with most of his supporters. All of them know that at least half their male friends have said similar.

Trump naming Bill Clinton is interesting though. People immediately dismiss it as a dumb attack on Hillary. But Dems love Bill despite equally bad womanizing. Hell, they are willing to put Bill right back into the whitehouse as the first man. Yet they think Trump doing it is a horrific campaign ender? Kleiner calls it a gift in the same way Trumpers talk about Benghazi and other dumb crap. The fuck?

Dems are doing no such thing; this election is about HILLARY CLINTON; focusing on HER HUSBAND is SEXIST because it dismisses HER qualifications. When people elected GW Bush, they weren't saying "we're putting Laura in the White House."

Trump has been naming Bill Clinton for everything for MONTHS because it's sexist. Bill isn't running for office, and whatever HE did is NOT Hillary's fault, no more than blaming Melania for the shit that Trump just said.

And Trump DID take it to another level because he took it to sexual assault vs. "Look at those tits." He was saying that he could use his powerful position to just go up and grab a woman's crotch. That is grounds for being ARRESTED. No smart Republican is gonna be close to that stink.

Bill Clinton was getting consensual blowjobs. Trump was just recorded talking about grabbing a woman's crotch without her consent. And in all of this, Hillary is in the same position as Melania: spouse.

allegro
10-08-2016, 06:50 PM
McCain and Rice just withdrew their support for Trump.

I hope he has to stay in until the end. I hope the GOP doesn't try to replace him. They created this, they should have to sit in their own stink.
They CAN'T replace him. People have already started EARLY VOTING. Chicago started voting last week. It's too late, they are fucked.

But his supporters are going to spin this like it's okay. Which is disgusting. His contention is that everybody is too PC and his followers love that; these are the people wearing t-shirts that say "Hillary Sucks But Monica Is Better." They're low-life.

Swykk
10-08-2016, 07:01 PM
"LCD" is my preferred name for them. The lowest common denominator.

allegro
10-08-2016, 07:07 PM
I am pretty certain of one thing: Hillary Clinton knows the Bill Clinton shit is gonna come out of Trump's mouth at the debate, and she is already fully prepared as to how to handle it.

DigitalChaos
10-08-2016, 07:19 PM
When people elected GW Bush, they weren't saying "we're putting Laura in the White House."


If GWB's wife was someone with horrific ideas like say, a West Borough Baptist Church leader... you know people would be saying "i dont want someone like that with influence anywhere near the whitehouse or even representing the ideals of this country." But that's assuming someone with womanizing morals like Trump is a legitimate issue for Dems. The fact that they love Bill Clinton is proof that it's not high on their list. It's just an opportunity for moral outrage.


Bill Clinton was getting consensual blowjobs. Trump was just recorded talking about grabbing a woman's crotch without her consent.

yeah, just skip over those rape accusations from one woman, groping from another woman, exposing himself by another woman, and other nonconsensual acts...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations

Mantra
10-08-2016, 07:23 PM
I don't think Trump took it to another level. That stuff is very on par with the super power-oriented machoism many try to go for. That's why it won't really hurt him with most of his supporters. All of them know that at least half their male friends have said similar.
Yeah, his diehard fans do not give a fuck about this issue at all. For them, this whole thing is just further confirmation for their perspective: society is way too PC these days, and Trump is the antidote. Trump is the ultimate SJW-crusher they've been longing for, and they're not gonna be dissuaded by stuff like this. They'll just love him even more for it. But that crowd of people isn't really big enough to win him the national election, which is why he's fucked.


And Trump DID take it to another level because he took it to sexual assault vs. "Look at those tits." He was saying that he could use his powerful position to just go up and grab a woman's crotch. That is grounds for being ARRESTED.

I get what you're saying, and I think it's good that people are emphasizing that Trump's "grab 'em by the pussy" comment is describing sexual assault. In general, a lot of people seem to have a fuzzy grasp of what is and is not sexual assault, so I like seeing this point hammered home.

That said, I think when DigitalChaos said that Trump didn't really "take it to another level," he just means that his comments aren't any worse than what a lot of dudes say every single day, even when you consider the sexual assault aspect. Tons of guys make comments and jokes about rape all the time. Trump's comments were downright tame compared to the way some guys talk. That's why a lot of his supporters are pissed this has become a controversy: "Who cares, that's just how guys talk!" They think it's unfair that he's getting trashed over something so commonplace. This is the depressing reality of male culture in our society.

Mantra
10-08-2016, 07:28 PM
The fact that they love Bill Clinton is proof that it's not high on their list.

Is Bill Clinton really that popular these days? Maybe I'm wrong, but I never got that impression. I personally can't remember the last time I heard anyone talking about him in a positive light.

DigitalChaos
10-08-2016, 07:51 PM
@Mantra (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=925) - that's exactly it. The claims of assault really aren't uncommon in that type of talk. It's almost always bullshit from guys talking themselves "up" to sound powerful. It's so goddamned obnoxious. It's one of the many reasons I hate socializing with coworkers or any similar situation with non-friends.

And it seemed like "common knowledge" that Bill was still a favorite. He has certainly been beneficial to Hillary as well. Campaigning for her, etc. But you say anything about Bill's presence and it's instantly misogyny because a lot of Trump people actually use it in a misogynistic way.

Remember this skit from SNL a year ago?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzyP3CHMWTI

allegro
10-08-2016, 11:14 PM
yeah, just skip over those rape accusations from one woman, groping from another woman, exposing himself by another woman, and other nonconsensual acts...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations
I don't know that any of that has been proven, the assault cases are entirely unsubstantiated and neither of those women went to the police, and it's inconsequential since he is not running for President. I just don't get how you don't see pointing at her HUSBAND'S misdeeds as HER not being qualified for President as sexist. It's NEVER been done for any male Presidential candidate (maybe because the females aren't so disgusting), so it's not fair to do it to this female candidate. Sure, we've never had a Presidential candidate whose spouse is a former President but it doesn't matter. Hillary was embarrassed, hurt, humiliated by Bill Clinton's shit. Hasn't she been dragged through the mud enough for his shit?

Bill Clinton is a brilliant man, but he's a deeply flawed human being. And now he's an old fart whose time has passed and he knows he has karma ahead of him. But he is campaigning for her as a supportive spouse, because HE OWES HER for all the SHIT he put her through. It's the LEAST he can do, really.

allegro
10-08-2016, 11:17 PM
That said, I think when DigitalChaos said that Trump didn't really "take it to another level," he just means that his comments aren't any worse than what a lot of dudes say every single day, even when you consider the sexual assault aspect. Tons of guys make comments and jokes about rape all the time. Trump's comments were downright tame compared to the way some guys talk. That's why a lot of his supporters are pissed this has become a controversy: "Who cares, that's just how guys talk!" They think it's unfair that he's getting trashed over something so commonplace. This is the depressing reality of male culture in our society.
So guys talk about sexually assaulting / raping women all the time, it's just par for the course?

Sorry, but I am having a hard time believing that and so are a shitload of guys I know on Facebook who keep saying this is bullshit and totally unacceptable.

If it's true, the "bowl of Skittles" thing is actually correct.

GulDukat
10-08-2016, 11:21 PM
In my nearly 37 years on this Earth, I've heard crude talk, but nothing quite as bad as what is on that tape. Even in high school neither me or my friends would talk like that. It is not "normal locker room talk."

allegro
10-08-2016, 11:25 PM
My husband says he has never heard assault talk, either.

Yes, there are rapists out there because a rape culture definitely exists (wherein women are viewed as nothing but objects); but this doesn't mean it is "normal" or "acceptable" as "locker room talk" (which is actually a normal form of sexual expression among males).

Going up to a female and kissing her or grabbing her crotch because you "feel like it" and because you "can" because you are very rich and powerful is most likely something that is talk beyond the realm of conversation in this forum. See "Red Hot Chili Peppers" for further reference (http://www.laweekly.com/music/can-you-be-a-feminist-and-still-love-the-red-hot-chili-peppers-6853593).

(My husband is friends with a guy whose cousin is Chad Smith and I keep wanting my husband to ask him if Chad has raped any teenagers lately.)

DigitalChaos
10-08-2016, 11:38 PM
I just don't get how you don't see pointing at her HUSBAND'S misdeeds as HER not being qualified for President as sexist.
....maaaaybe cause I never said this was the case?

I've repeatedly said that Dems don't actually give a shit about this *because* they like Bill Clinton who does the same kind of shit. It's fake moral outrage because they hate Trump. That's it. Reread it.


The bit about putting him back in the whitehouse as First Man is just a further demonstration of the above.

allegro
10-08-2016, 11:47 PM
....maaaaybe cause I never said this was the case?

I've repeatedly said that Dems don't actually give a shit about this *because* they like Bill Clinton who does the same kind of shit. It's fake moral outrage because they hate Trump. That's it. Reread it.

No, I think you are wrong; the Democrats DO give a shit about this because it just shows that Trump uses his money and power to abuse women and we sure as fuck don't need any more of THAT SHIT in office. The Dems have been expressing outrage, and Hillary Clinton has already made a statement about Trump's taped comment. THIS Democrat gives a shit about it.

Trump has money, but he has no class. Not one ounce. He is ostentatious, gaudy, flaunts his money, has no manners, is totally inappropriate, doesn't know the meaning of discretion, and now this. Bill Clinton was a smart hillbilly when he arrived at the White House (now he's a really rich smart hillbilly) but he's a DOG. A DOG. Trump is a DOG WITH NO CLASS.

At least the Bush family has class, I'll give them that.

But I don't give a FUCK about Bill being First Dog in the White House. He's an Old Retired Dog whose dick probably doesn't even WORK, anymore.

Now, HILLARY is running for office and Bill has to just stay out of the way and keep his dick in his pants.

The only reason the Dems liked Bill Clinton was because the economy got better; otherwise, he was a shitty President. He signed DOMA, he agreed to all kinds of stupid shit, and then he was IMPEACHED. But, he has a lot of charisma, he's smart, and he is a really good speaker. Folksy, but a good speaker. But, he's still a dog.

And, he's not Hillary Clinton and he's not running for President.

Saying "It's okay that Trump said this because BILL did it" doesn't mean that it's okay for us to have 4 more years of that shit in the White House. Nope. Been there, done that. And Trump arguing to Hillary "but YOUR HUSBAND DID IT" is something a 5-yr-old would say, because IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HER.

And Trump's claiming that Hillary "enabled" Bill is a ton of shit because (a) it's unsubstantiated and (b) we know for a fact that she didn't believe he was even DOING the majority of it because he kept insisting he wasn't and she believed him, which is exactly what Melania Trump is doing right now so if Hillary is an enabler, Hello Melania Trump? (That's ridiculous, of course.)

DigitalChaos
10-08-2016, 11:57 PM
So, then you do agree that Trump and Bill Clinton are similar in terms of their womanizing shit. You just see that Trump is very different from Bill for a bunch of other reasons, of which you just detailed.


So, through basic reasoning of that logic... Dems are actually permissive of this type of womanizing with certain people but not others. You couple that womanizing with someone like Trump, and then it's an issue.

allegro
10-09-2016, 12:07 AM
So, then you do agree that Trump and Bill Clinton are similar in terms of their womanizing shit. You just see that Trump is very different from Bill for a bunch of other reasons, of which you just detailed.

So, through basic reasoning of that logic... Dems are actually permissive of this type of womanizing with certain people but not others. You couple that womanizing with someone like Trump, and then it's an issue.

Joe Biden says this (https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/784851147513270272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw).

We are supposed to be evolving PAST THAT, not going constantly backward.

It's not excusing Bill Clinton's behavior. It's saying: ENOUGH.

This is not "normal" and this is not "acceptable" (and it's just another reason why I want a female in the White House).

Jinsai
10-09-2016, 12:17 AM
So, then you do agree that Trump and Bill Clinton are similar in terms of their womanizing shit.

Not if the rape charges being lobbied at Trump are true... then I think he easily "wins"

allegro
10-09-2016, 12:21 AM
Well, and now there's this (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/08/donald-trump-just-retweeted-juanita-broaddrick-calling-bill-clinton-a-rapist-all-bets-are-now-off/).

Here's more on Juanita Broaddrick (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/1999/03/is_juanita_broaddrick_telling_the_truth.html).

The alleged "threat" from Hillary:


Months after her NBC interview, Broaddrick told the Drudge Report that the wife of the gubernatorial candidate [Hillary] made a point of meeting her at a [Bill] Clinton campaign event just two weeks after the alleged assault.


She came directly to me as soon as she hit the door. I had been there only a few minutes, I only wanted to make an appearance and leave. She caught me and took my hand and said: “I am so happy to meet you. I want you to know that we appreciate everything you do for Bill.” I started to turn away and she held onto my hand and reiterated her phrase — looking less friendly and repeated her statement — “Everything you do for Bill.” I said nothing. She wasn’t letting me get away until she made her point. She talked low, the smile faded on the second thank you. I just released her hand from mine and left the gathering.

So no police report was filed, no action was taken, she goes to a Bill Clinton fund raiser after the alleged assault and she thinks that Hillary somehow "knows about" the "assault" and is "threatening" her to campaign for Bill.

Yeah, if I was raped, I'd sure wanna go to a fund-raiser to make an appearance with him.

Edit: Oh, and here's the Trump rape complaint (https://www.scribd.com/doc/316341058/Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-Rape-Lawsuit-and-Affidavits).

If Hillary really did intimidate or "threaten" women back then, I truly believe it was because she believed her husband was innocent of charges and she thought they were bringing false charges against her husband; I don't believe for one second that she was trying to protect an adulterer or rapist husband, nope.

implanted_microchip
10-09-2016, 05:28 AM
Yeah last I checked you didn't have countless large rape cases and attempts at assault charges with out of court settlements abound surrounding Bill Clinton. He cheated on his wife, it wasn't cool, shit was given for it, Republicans tried to use it as a tool to impeach the guy and it was addressed. It was not laughed off as "just the way men are." It's behavior that isn't to be tolerated and Trump doesn't show even the smallest amount of genuine remorse or apology.

He has had a life of bragging about being a womanizer, ranted on Howard Stern about how he's "obligated" to fuck beauty pageant contestants if they're attracted to him, went on a long, utterly disgusting tangent about how he's allowed backstage in the dressing rooms as the head of the event so he can "get away with" watching women getting naked and scrutinizing their bodies. It's disgusting and it's habitual. He has been openly like this for ages and now we have him openly saying he likes to walk up to women and grab their genitalia unsolicited which is, you know, fucking sexual assault. The only way you can argue against that is by acting like sexual assault isn't sexual assault, and that's why people like this exist and get away with it so much in our culture in the first fucking place -- a lot of people in this country only think sexual assault or rape is violent, brutal beatings and screaming and penetrative sex. It's not. Sexual assault and rape come in many different forms, in many different situations. To act like he isn't saying "I like to sexually assault women" in that video is to encourage a cultural climate where tons of victims carry all the damage and all the scars but don't ever address it because they don't think it was "worth getting upset about" and never saying anything. I was sexually abused as a kid and it took me a long, long time in my life to admit to myself what happened because these kinds of fucking attitudes exist and it is not cool, it does not make somebody look intellectual or smart or better-informed, it does not come with just the air of utter smugness that the people who love to just dissent at all times wear around them -- it perpetuates and allows for more of this shit to happen all of the fucking time to people of all genders, all sexes and all ages.

To act like Bill Clinton cheating on his wife and one completely unsubstantiated case of someone making a claim that has no real evidence and seems questionable-at-best is the same as a man who has flat-out said he assaults women and who has spent decades upon decades openly spewing misogynistic, rape-y shit all the time is as false an equivalency as ever. You know, if the Democratic nominee turned out to be like this, I would not support them, because it's got nothing to do with party or politics even -- this is basic human decency and behavior and Donald Trump being president of the United States because somebody had a hissy fit and couldn't handle that the alternative wasn't a fucking Messiah Christ Incarnate would be the biggest pro-misogyny statement in ages in this country, it would encourage and embolden everyone who acts like this, it would only make shit worse.

To say "all men talk like this" is the worst fucking excuse. It's not true. I don't talk like this and I am not special or better or unique for that, that's normal. That's just fucking normal. And even if all men did, how would that make it okay? Once upon a time almost all men of wealth in this nation owned slaves. Didn't make it okay. You draw the line somewhere or you let shit always happen because you're a cunty little fuck who doesn't actually care about anyone else or anyone else's well-being and just wants to feel better than everybody out of some frail and pathetic pseudointellectual commitment to being an asshole.

I just cannot fucking believe people are still trying to defend this shit and behave as if it isn't what it is or somehow criticism is invalid because "but somebody else did bad things too!" Fuck that. Fuck all of that shit. No excuse. No excuse at all. No justification.

botley
10-09-2016, 08:25 AM
^ yes x1000000

GulDukat
10-09-2016, 08:44 AM
Tonight's debate should be interesting.

Some predictions:

1. Trump will flop, spectacularly. He will come unprepared, again, will be shaken by the past two weeks, especially the past 48 hours, will be off message, rambling and not even be able to have one good moment, like he did the last time when he brought up Clinton's support for certain trade deals.

2. Trump will bring up Bill Clinton, call Hillary an enabler, etc. This will backfire.

3. Hillary will get some heat, i.e., emails, Wall Street, Bengazi, etc. but she will brush it off and it will be a footnote compared to Trump's next series of meltdowns.

4. Sometime next week, Paul Ryan, the RNC and more party officials will unendorce Trump. But Trump will go nowhere.

allegro
10-09-2016, 11:23 AM
There is not enough alcohol or sedatives in the world for this debate.

I told my Mom not to watch it; the last one gave her residual anxiety for 2 days.

I'm taking her to vote early in Cook County on October 24th.

allegro
10-09-2016, 01:17 PM
There is an interesting article in today's Chicago Tribune (https://www.pressreader.com/usa/chicago-tribune/20161009/281848643112134) that mentions the town hall 1992 debate between Bill Clinton, H Ross Perot and George HW Bush.

Here's the debate:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg9qB_BIjWY

It's amazing how we're still talking about the same issues that we were in 1992.

allegro
10-09-2016, 02:02 PM
The LIST KEEPS GROWING (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/29/us/politics/100000004612887.mobile.html). He has so many UNFANS, lol. (Note that people shaded in BLUE said they will vote for Hillary Clinton.)

Deepvoid
10-09-2016, 03:01 PM
CNN is reporting that Pence may drop off the ticket.

"Sources tell @GloriaBorger some republicans want Mike_pence to quit the ticket in order to pressure @realDonaldTrump to get out"

hellospaceboy
10-09-2016, 03:10 PM
CNN is reporting that Pence may drop off the ticket.

"Sources tell @GloriaBorger some republicans want @Mike (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=188)_pence to quit the ticket in order to pressure @realDonaldTrump to get out"

What would be epic!!!

Deepvoid
10-09-2016, 03:21 PM
Are there any precedence of a VP dropping out of a ticket?

DigitalChaos
10-09-2016, 03:47 PM
Yeah last I checked you didn't have countless large rape cases and attempts at assault charges
Gee, maybe you haven't heard of Juaniti Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Dolly Kyle, or Eileen Wellstone, who all accused Clinton of rape or assault.


with out of court settlements abound surrounding Bill Clinton.
you mean like the $850k he paid to Paula Jones?



To act like Bill Clinton cheating on his wife and one completely unsubstantiated case of someone making a claim that has no real evidence and seems questionable-at-best
yeah, it's totally "just one" /s
and yeah, rape and assault charges from women should totally be treated with extreme skepticism because they probably aren't true. /s



it's got nothing to do with party or politics even
keep telling yourself that!




I fucking LOVE how much you sound like a Trump supporter right now and don't even realize it. I also love all the hillary supporters who read your post and don't see the obvious flaws here. "yeah, this speaks for ME so loudly!"

allegro
10-09-2016, 04:04 PM
Gee, maybe you haven't heard of Juaniti Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Dolly Kyle, or Eileen Wellstone, who all accused Clinton of rape or assault.

you mean like the $850k he paid to Paula Jones
Paula Jones was a sexual HARASSMENT case (work-related), not assault. The above 4 women you are getting from the Wikipedia page but you didn't do any research and you evidently are too young to remember it real-time including problems regarding Kathleen Willey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Willey#Investigation_and_current_status). Dolly Kyle alleges that she had a consensual affair with Bill Clinton (not sexual assault). Eileen Wellstone is largely an online myth. And I've already posted a lot of evidence against Juanita Broaddrick's credibility including her being extremely pissed that Clinton didn't commute her ex-husband's prison sentence. The other controversies regarding Clinton were all extramarital affairs, not sexual assaults. Not one female in these online Clinton myths has filed a charge against Clinton, although it would have been really easy to do so during the Paula Jones case.

And this isn't apologist, this is coming from a LEGAL perspective, from the perspective of LAW.

Regarding Trump: I'm coming from the perspective of this current campaign, the two CURRENT candidates: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

We aren't going to vote for Bill Clinton.

I'm not "horrified" over Trump's statements, I just don't want him for President. Because he's gross. And so was Bill Clinton but we didn't know that until his presidency was almost over.

NOW QUIT DELIBERATELY STIRRING UP SHIT FOR STUPID FUCKING REASONS. AND, YES, WHAT HE SAID WAS SEXUAL ASSAULT. PERIOD. It doesn't matter who did or didn't do what before or who does it anyway, it's excusing him for this current reality.

DigitalChaos
10-09-2016, 04:13 PM
I look forward to the moment when anyone in this thread decides to apply the same level of skepticism toward Trump. (yeah right)

Mantra
10-09-2016, 04:18 PM
So guys talk about sexually assaulting / raping women all the time, it's just par for the course?

Sorry, but I am having a hard time believing that and so are a shitload of guys I know on Facebook who keep saying this is bullshit and totally unacceptable.

Well, it depends on the scene/group, what kind of culture has developed among them, how diverse it is, etc.

A few years back, I worked at a food processing/packaging warehouse as part of the maintenance cleanup crew, and our crew was nothing but men, maybe ten of us or so. And yeah, those guys made edgy rape jokes and creepy misogynistic comments all the time. It was definitely "normal." Not normal in the sense of it being an good or desirable, but just in the sense that it was a regular/daily thing. Lots of jokes about kidnapping women in a van and taking turns with them, etc. The same thing was true when I worked at a recording studio many years back. I don't know if they "meant" it or not, but they certainly talked that way a lot.

I work at a college now, and it's very diverse in terms of gender, age, race, etc, and in general it's a very 'professional' sort of vibe with strict codes of conduct and whatnot, so of course no one would dare make a rape joke, not unless they're a complete idiot that wants to open themselves up for instant termination. The culture here is really different and you can't get away with stuff like that. But that's not how it is everywhere.

I'm not saying it's everybody, but those Trump comments aren't as uncommon as they should be, especially not in circles that are super male-dominated. Sometimes it's dudes who never evolved beyond shocking/edgy jokes that they fell in love with when they were younger (i.e: read the a page or two back in the Tool thread). Other times it's guys who fantasize about being the ultimate aggressive alpha-bro, especially dudes who are deep into the whole MRA/PUA/redpill cult. It's one of the main reasons I'm kind of selective about which dudes I hang around, because I've encountered it enough times and it fucking sucks. I can't stand when you get a big group of them together and they decide it's time to bro down with a bunch of gross shit. It starts to take on a life of it's own, and it just becomes the norm, and then you either gotta out yourself as the "boring/uptight/humorless" person or you just stay quiet.

The ironic thing is that these same dudes are usually the types who argue that there's no such thing as rape culture, and yet they're trying to defend Trump's sexual assault bragging as "normal locker room talk" or "just the way guys are," which is basically them admitting "rape and sexual assault is part of who we are"....aka: rape culture.

allegro
10-09-2016, 04:32 PM
I look forward to the moment when anyone in this thread decides to apply the same level of skepticism toward Trump. (yeah right)
Look, it was most likely said as a joke, that's a given. But he said that his position of POWER and WEALTH put him in the position where he can force himself on females and "they let him" because of that wealth and power. And we already IMPEACHED one President for committing purgery during his sexual harassment case (and we didn't know about that shit until he was already into his 2nd term); we DO NOT need to go through that shit, again. Yes, a lot of this stupid ass country was high-fiving Bill as a poon-hound back then, his approval rating went UP. Wtf. But the advance knowledge that a President can grope females because he is a rock star with money and power? That makes Putin look like a Saint. No way. NEXT. It's one thing to find out AFTER they are in office. Before? Gtfo, NEXT.

It doesn't matter to us Dems, we weren't going to vote for Trump, anyway. But this is HUGE with the religious right.

Mantra, I read your post to my husband. He has worked in a male-dominated field for nearly 35 years where they all get drunk together and they are friends and he has seen guys piss on themselves (I saw that too once actually lol), fall off bar stools, fall asleep in adjoining buildings during air traffic controller hockey tournaments (that one was in Minnesota lol) and they say stuff about nice tits but he says he has never ONCE heard a rape joke, not even with 30 guys all hanging out in the same hotel totally drunk for a week and literally hanging out in lockers. Never. He is wondering if it is some kind of socioeconomic thing. These guys make over $175 to $200 grand a year. They drink a lot, but they ain't rapey. But they are probably all older than you, too.

DigitalChaos
10-09-2016, 04:36 PM
ugh, Mantra it sounds like you've worked in similar places that I have. Are you able to say the general geographic areas that happened?

I've seen it in the midwest, but I have also seen lots of it in places like downtown San Francisco. It usually wouldn't happen in the workplace itself, but usually at a lunch or more commonly at a bar. Places the guys felt they were out of earshot of women they know or work with. They would say shit, seemingly, for the pure purpose of one-upping another or just going along with it too. Some were young bachelor types, some were married people in failing marriages.

I ended up getting the reputation of "he doesn't drink" because of how often I turned down the invites :P

In a lot of the white collar jobs, the men who do this are a bit more careful about it. The blue collar jobs seem to be a lot worse though. Guy's who I've only been interfacing with for half a day decide to start up with it. I find it amazing that people are trying to shut this down with phrases like "saying all men do this is not an excuse" (nobody said ALL men, and its not an excuse) or "people who say all men do this are speaking about themselves too" (lol... right).

DigitalChaos
10-09-2016, 04:46 PM
Look, it was most likely said as a joke, that's a given.
Doesn't seem to be a given for most in here discussing it. That statement is being taken as absolute proof of actual sexual assault that actually happened.


But he said that his position of POWER and WEALTH put him in the position where he can force himself on females and "they let him" because of that wealth and power.
of course, thats Mexico-will-pay-for-the wall-Trump for you. Nearly everything he says about his ability to do something sits on that justification.



But the advance knowledge that a President can grope females because he is a rock star with money and power? That makes Putin look like a Saint. No way. NEXT. It's one thing to find out AFTER they are in office. Before? Gtfo, NEXT.
I truly wish this were the case. I wish we would take all the advanced notice we have about a candidate and actually reject them. You know Hillary is going to drone a whole lot of innocent brown people, thinks our police don't have enough power. But that's not gonna write her off. And really? You think this makes Putin a saint compared to Trump? The guy who has a horrible record on civil rights and has killed countless people? Your claims are actually making Trump's pussy grabbing look trivial in nature... which is sad.

allegro
10-09-2016, 04:56 PM
Putin is a dick, yes. But I think Trump is proving to be a very dangerous man. (People didn't know that about Putin until he was in office.) Especially considering the position Trump is putting us in re Putin. And now Russia is trying to fuck with our election. I don't think our country has a stellar record re civil rights right now, either, and Trump would make it WORSE.

GulDukat
10-09-2016, 05:40 PM
Ah, Rudy...

http://www.liberalamerica.org/2016/10/09/rudy-giuliani-trumps-lewd-comments-ok-cuz-hes-going-lower-taxes-video/

DigitalChaos
10-09-2016, 06:02 PM
Putin is a dick, yes. But I think Trump is proving to be a very dangerous man. (People didn't know that about Putin until he was in office.) Especially considering the position Trump is putting us in re Putin. And now Russia is trying to fuck with our election. I don't think our country has a stellar record re civil rights right now, either, and Trump would make it WORSE.

I'll be sure to point all of Hillary's damages to civil rights and her pro-war bullshit when she is POTUS and lots of people die as a result. I'm sure people will sound completely sane when they say "yeah, that sucks, but at least we didn't elect the guy who jokingly talked about grabbing a pussy!"

How THIS is the topic people are going to focus on is baffling. The worst thing that Trump has ever done is talk about grabbing a pussy in a non serious way????

hellospaceboy
10-09-2016, 06:12 PM
The worst thing that Trump has ever done is talk about grabbing a pussy in a non serious way????

No. It just shows his attitude towards others, his complete disregard to how his actions affect them, how entitled he feels to get whatever he wants, that he has no morals and he just simply doesn't give a shit.

Please don't turn around and tell me that Hillary doesn't care about women, etc... that's not what we're arguing about.

The conservative party's nominee is a repulsive human being who lacks basic empathy and who is greatly detached from reality. You could argue that Hillary's leaked speeches should matter more, and that would be true if the GOP nominee was Rubio or Cruz or any of the other guys who ran. But they chose Trump, and then actual policy and substance arguments went out the window. He runs on "personality", and the same douchy-ness that got him this far is derailing him.

DigitalChaos
10-09-2016, 06:16 PM
Right. How is that new? The whole "playboy" thing has been his entire character. It's what he sells himself as.

You might as well be freaking out over leaked audio about Trump taking about how he does his own shitty hair.

hellospaceboy
10-09-2016, 06:19 PM
Oh, I see how you meant it. It's not new, it's just harder to ignore. I'm surprised too that it's hurting him so much, because some of the equally shitty things he said/did in the past didn't have much of an impact. In that way I absolutely agree with you.

onthewall2983
10-09-2016, 06:29 PM
Now someone is saying there is footage of him saying the N word.

DigitalChaos
10-09-2016, 08:16 PM
Oh, I see how you meant it. It's not new, it's just harder to ignore. I'm surprised too that it's hurting him so much, because some of the equally shitty things he said/did in the past didn't have much of an impact. In that way I absolutely agree with you.
yeah, and don't get me wrong. I in no way support that kind of crap. I've stated that a few times, but it's worth pointing out the larger picture: his words demonstrate a gross view of power and what it lets you do to others. And that's not just about sexual actions. My entire political stance hinges on consent for *everything*, pro-choice for *everything*, voluntary interactions, and the general abolishment of power hierarchy that infringes on that.



But to be completely fair, Trump's statements weren't necessarily about the violation of consent. They were about a gross type of consent. "And when you are a star they let you do anything. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything." And it's this type of power worship that permeates our culture.

allegro
10-09-2016, 08:19 PM
But to be completely fair, Trump's statements weren't necessarily about the violation of consent. They were about a gross type of consent. "And when you are a star they let you do anything. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything." And it's this type of power worship that permeates our culture.
Gotta say, this really is true, I agree.

edit: It's kinda like Manson and NIN and the deaf girl with the meat (https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/wtf/that_time_marilyn_manson_and_his_band_covered_a_de af_groupie_with_meat_and_peed_on_her.html)? Or Led Zeppelin's tour manager and the Mudshark incident (http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/mudshark.asp)? This kind of power worship is pretty much why Trump is where is he is right now; his fans don't care what he does, they are Groupies.

GulDukat
10-09-2016, 08:28 PM
Trump appears with alleged Clinton abusers:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/09/ahead-of-debate-trump-holds-news-conference-with-bill-clinton-accusers/?tid=sm_fb

tony.parente
10-09-2016, 09:26 PM
Haha this debate is amazing.

GulDukat
10-09-2016, 09:31 PM
What a nasty son-of-a-bitch Trump is.

Frozen Beach
10-09-2016, 09:31 PM
Is this a debate or a WWE match?

tony.parente
10-09-2016, 09:52 PM
Hillary is doing pretty good tonight to be honest.

allegro
10-09-2016, 10:12 PM
OMG this Syria shit, Trump sounds like a total moron.

He's also a total BABY.

edit: I just LOVE that look on her face, that expressionless look, it's awesome.

She is doing what Bill Clinton did with the 1992 town hall debate: When she answers a question, she walks toward the questioner, and she talks right to the person, directing her answer directly to the person, making it a personal answer to him/her. It made Bill win the debate and it was determined that it probably won him the Presidency.

Deepvoid
10-09-2016, 10:21 PM
Is this a debate or a WWE match?

https://twitter.com/Benstonium/status/785296672574308352?s=09

allegro
10-09-2016, 10:24 PM
Ugh this is making me nuts.

And I'm pretty sure this is gonna make Hillary Clinton win.

thevoid99
10-09-2016, 10:24 PM
https://twitter.com/benstonium/status/785296672574308352?s=09

bah gawd almighty!!!! She killed him!!!!!!! As gawd as my witness, he is broken in half!!!!! Good gawd!!!! Good gawd!!!!! That's it, he's dead!!!!! Will somebody stop the match!! Enough is enough!!!!!!

tony.parente
10-09-2016, 10:25 PM
Best burn of the night


Clinton: it's a good thing someone like you is not in charge of the law in this country


Trump: because you'd be in jail


Audience: oh buuuuuurrrrnnnnnn


Cooper: shut up audience.

GulDukat
10-09-2016, 11:46 PM
That was just really deppressing. I feel really bummed out after sitting through that.

Jinsai
10-09-2016, 11:46 PM
How THIS is the topic people are going to focus on is baffling. The worst thing that Trump has ever done is talk about grabbing a pussy in a non serious way????

Because for a lot of his supporters, this sort of commentary is shocking. To most people, this is predictable, but to his supporters who live in these weird insular bubbles, this is shocking.

This is who he is. He's everything we said he was, and here's him joking about sexually assaulting women.

GulDukat
10-09-2016, 11:56 PM
Clinton wins debate, according to a CNN poll.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/10/09/1580150/-Post-debate-polls-Hillary-Clinton-wins-again?detail=facebook

thevoid99
10-10-2016, 12:21 AM
Clinton wins debate, according to a CNN poll.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/10/09/1580150/-Post-debate-polls-Hillary-Clinton-wins-again?detail=facebook

So it's Clinton 2, Trump 0?

cashpiles (closed)
10-10-2016, 01:53 AM
I don't know... after watching this I'm a Trump fan again.... Clinton has zero charisma... based on charm and charisma, Trump is much better. Plus, I don't believe a damn thing Clinton says. She just gives off an untrustworthy vibe (I'm a liar... so I can recognize liars... and Clinton is a huge liar).

cynicmuse
10-10-2016, 04:23 AM
Trump also doubled down (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-says-central-park-five-are-guilty-despite-dna-n661941) on his belief in the guilt of the Central Park Five last week (but it was overshadowed by his comments on sexual assault). I think he needs to take high school level government class so that he gains a better understanding of the Constitution and the courts.

Jinsai
10-10-2016, 10:12 AM
I don't know... after watching this I'm a Trump fan again.... Clinton has zero charisma... based on charm and charisma, Trump is much better. Plus, I don't believe a damn thing Clinton says. She just gives off an untrustworthy vibe (I'm a liar... so I can recognize liars... and Clinton is a huge liar).

Trump has all the "charm and charisma" of your drunk uncle who shows up at holidays wearing knee-high socks and a salmon colored polo and he just can't wait to show you the pictures from his recent trip to Dubai. If you support Trump as a politician you're an asshole or an idiot, but if you think he's cool and charismatic you are a dork.

implanted_microchip
10-10-2016, 10:27 AM
Who knew using "I'm not as bad as ISIS" in defense of admitting to sexual assault made you "charming" and "charismatic"!

If anything about this guy comes off as "charming" then Las Vegas must be your favorite vacation destination and you likely need some form of meds. Saying he'd have "special prosecutors" to take down his political rivals is flat-out dictatorial talk. He whined and bitched and moaned constantly about being told he'd gone over time, came off as scatterbrained, offered no actual policy, when pressed continued to spiral around and flame out, didn't actually provide anything of substance, provided an utterly tone-deaf response to a Muslim woman and a black man, had the nerve to say "nobody respects women more than me" and behaved like he was on Jerry fucking Springer.

If what this man has done to our political process seems "cool" or "charming" to you, then I hope you're 14 and get off of 4chan soon. If not, Lord help you. It's not "cool," it's an utter embarrassment to the decorum and image of office and proves he is an insubstantial cult of bullying energy and childish pettiness. He's a whiner, he's a rambler, he's a babbling ignorant conman who knows nothing about government or foreign affairs. If he'd been 100% great the entire debate, and still given that Syria answer, in any other election it would've been "the moment they lost," yet it's a drop in the bucket because he was that ridiculous the entire time.

President isn't about cheap shots and one-liners. If that's what it takes to be a leader then Comedy Central Roasts would replace elections in this country. Come the fuck on.

Khrz
10-10-2016, 10:48 AM
No, I get it, Trump is good on a soapbox, he's flashy and loud. Since Clinton's strategy was obviously to remain level-headed and take the high road as she said herself, her own performance was incredibly subdued by contrast. Although that was the obvious move for her, Trump remains the showman.

Singling out Clinton as a liar though ? I mean yeah, sure, but compared to Trump though ? Your lie detector doesn't make a blip when it comes to him cashpiles ? Might want to get a refund.

allegro
10-10-2016, 10:56 AM
Exactly. He lied a shitload of times last night. The guy likes to manipulate the truth like it's an art.

And that is not new to most of us. What totally STUNNED me was his lack of knowledge with foreign policy. HE BLAMED HILLARY FOR NOT GOING AFTER ASAD AFTER THE "LINE IN THE SAND" AND SHE WAS NO LONGER SECRETARY OF STATE. He said oh but you were probably still ADVISING Obama. That's not how it works, dude

Ugh.

implanted_microchip
10-10-2016, 11:04 AM
Let's not forget his solution to health care was to "open things up to the companies," he refused to answer when asked if he'd require a mandate, refused to answer when pressed about the Muslim ban and simply went "it's called EXTREEEEEME VETTING" as if he were naming a flavor of hateful Doritos, basically admitted he and his VP have no relationship, continued to claim he never supported Iraq (I guess we need to call Sean Hannity, even though the guys at Keepin' It 1600 already tried to), basically showed he had no real understanding, awareness or care about Syria and used a cheatcode of an answer to "What do you think would happen if Aleppo falls" with "I think it already has," a great way of not having to actually show any knowledge whatsoever, continued to brag about having 40% of the amount of endorsements from generals that Romney did, etc., etc.

I don't know, the guy spent ninety minutes proving he knows absolutely fuck-all about anything that government actually does. The fact that him just being a loud-mouthed asshole for an hour and a half is good enough for them is beyond unfortunate.

Khrz
10-10-2016, 11:06 AM
HE BLAMED HILLARY FOR NOT GOING AFTER ASAD AFTER THE "LINE IN THE SAND" AND SHE WAS NO LONGER SECRETARY OF STATE. He said oh but you were probably still ADVISING Obama. That's not how it works, dude.

Apparently she wasn't when it was implemented (2013), but still was when it was drawn though (2012) ?

allegro
10-10-2016, 11:13 AM
No the "Red Line" was when Kerry was Secretary of State. Clinton was gone. Well, to clarify: when the comment was MADE BY OBAMA, she was there. When it was verified that Assad had CROSSED IT, she was gone.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/10/hillary-clinton/clinton-and-line-sand-comment/


Trump replied, "You were in total contact with the White House, and perhaps sadly Obama probably still listened to you, I don’t think he’ll be listening to you very much anymore. Obama draws the line in the sand. It was laughed at all over the world what happened."
He is referring to not doing anything, not the comment itself. (Although, who knows with him, he's an idiot.) The comment was made by Obama but wasn't confirmed until Kerry and then the US decided not to act.

He would blame her for 9-11 if he had more time. Wait, I think he already blamed Obama for 9-11 and he wasn't even a Senator, yet.

implanted_microchip
10-10-2016, 11:47 AM
By the way I've not seen it mentioned pretty much anywhere but can we all agree how hilarious it was that he brought up Bernie Sanders as if he could win some support there, then went on to talk about how single-payer healthcare is a nightmare? Like who on Earth that loved Sanders' platform but hasn't been able to accept Hillary yet is being swayed by this shit

allegro
10-10-2016, 11:48 AM
Also interesting is the exchange about carried interest. G and I were looking at each other, like, WTF is carried interest? Trump was accusing Clinton of not single-handedly getting rid of it while she was in the Senate. Clinton claims she "tried to" get rid of it.

This morning, G read this article from Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanellis/2016/10/09/trump-and-clinton-know-nothing-about-carried-interest-and-taxes/#5e940feb1ef0):


Trump and Clinton Know Nothing About Carried Interest and Taxes

There was an extended conversation in tonight’s presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton about the issue of taxes in general and “carried interest” in particular.

What’s most interesting about the exchange isn’t what they said about carried interest (not much, since neither has any idea what it refers to), but how it’s become a ridiculous empty vessel for both major party nominees.

Trump said he would get rid of the “carried interest deduction.” Clinton said she would get rid of the “carried interest” from the tax code. It’s obvious from this that each candidate could use a basic Tax 101 on the issue, so here it goes:

What is “carried interest?” It’s not a deduction, it’s not a loophole, and it’s not a provision. Rather, it’s a type of capital gain. Specifically, it’s a capital gain earned by an investment partnership. Even more specifically, it’s a capital gain earned by an investment partnership as allocated to the managing partner (as opposed to the limited partners). That’s it. It’s so simple, even political reporters from the New York Times could understand it.

It’s not compensation. It’s not a write-off. It’s not anything other than simply and obviously what it is–a long-term capital gain, earned by an investment partnership, derived from the sale of an asset the partnership built and managed and grew. That’s all. No one who knows the first thing about taxes disputes that it’s the capital gain from the sale of an asset. I’ve written much more about this issue here.

What are the candidates proposing? Both Trump and Clinton have proposed taxing the type of capital gain known as a carried interest as ordinary income, despite the fact no one disputes we’re dealing with a capital gain. In Trump’s case, that means raising the tax from 23.8 percent to 33 percent. In Clinton’s, it means raising it from 23.8 percent to some vague figure approaching 50 percent (her tax policy is famously unclear). Again, no one disputes that this is a long term capital gain–the tax rate increases are in spite of that unchallenged fact.

Will that soak the rich, as both candidates claim? Absolutely not. According to Congress’s non-partisan Joint Tax Committee, taxing carried interest capital gains at ordinary income tax rates would raise taxes by $19.6 billion over the next decade. To put that in context, the Congressional Budget Office projects that total federal tax revenues over the next decade will be $41.7 trillion over that same decade. This is not a pay-for in tax reform, and it doesn’t change the distribution tables of taxes paid.

So we’re dealing with a literal rounding error here, and that’s assuming the higher taxes are dutifully paid in full. More likely, business partnership agreements would be altered to minimize the tax hike’s damage and less revenue than the government projects would actually be collected.

There are a thousand ways to more effectively raise taxes on high income households if that’s a public policy goal. Taxing carried interest as ordinary income will not accomplish this goal any more than switching from strawberry to vanilla milkshakes will help you lose weight. It’s just common sense.

Is the carried interest tax hike only on rich guys? Afraid not. The loose way in which this issue has been thrown around by politicians has created some predictable unintended consequences. One of those is that it would raise taxes on the “enterprise value” of a small business. Basically, if someone starts a business in their garage and is later bought out (picture Steve Jobs at Apple in the 1970s), the profit from their sale is taxed as a capital gain, which is what it is–a profit on the sale of an asset.

This “carried interest” tax hike posturing would suck in these businesses, who are certainly not fat cats on Wall Street.

The non-partisan Tax Foundation says that raising taxes on carried interest capital gains will kill 2200 jobs and shrink the economy. Those newly unemployed are not rich financiers, but real people with families and mortgages. They deserve better than to be used as props by politicians.

allegro
10-10-2016, 01:10 PM
Best burn of the night


Clinton: it's a good thing someone like you is not in charge of the law in this country


Trump: because you'd be in jail


Audience: oh buuuuuurrrrnnnnnn


Cooper: shut up audience.

That was more than a "burn," though; it was an unprecedented threat of breach of rule of law; a President doesn't have that kind of authority; he was delving into an Authoritarian position.

SEE THIS (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-s-pledge-jail-clinton-would-be-unprecedented-n663351).


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cua5W7KWAAAbZBI.jpg

"Trump's pledge to jail Clinton - which Pence just defended today - was literally one of the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon" - Ari Melber

Also, there is this VAST misunderstanding that there was or is some kind of "smoking gun" contained in ANY of the Clinton emails, be it the submitted emails or the deleted emails, which the FBI was seeking and this is not true. The FBI was investigating Clinton's use of a private email server and whether using said server was "malicious in intent" (e.g. "with the intention of providing secrets to a foreign country"). The remaining shit about deleted emails has to do with FOIA requests which is a separate issue; PRIVATE AND PERSONAL EMAILS are NOT subject to FOIA requests. Hillary Clinton does not know how to "wipe" or "bleach" or whatever any emails; she has admitted that she barely knows how to operate her computer; her emails exchanges with Colin Powell show that she was mostly trying to continue the use of her beloved Blackberry, which he advised was better done -- if she wanted to risk it -- with a private server without the .gov extension (which he did). NOBODY in the Government was investigating her "emails" searching for anything related to Benghazi, or anything else. Said private emails were deleted by her attorneys since they were not subject to a FOIA request; the FBI had in their possession sufficient emails to determine whether or not the private server was "malicious in intent." The continuous topic of these deleted emails is a simple tactic to plant in the minds of the American voters a "shred of doubt" much like criminal lawyers do at trials, even if the information is totally false or is based on false premise; it doesn't matter if the information is false, or the premise is false, so long if it plants doubt. Prosecuting attorneys use this same tactic in the reverse, to plant a seed of guilt.

Here's the other thing: The Sanders fans out there who think that a sudden Clinton revelation that would implicate her in some way would immediately carve a path for Bernie to the White House is likely false: it's more likely that KAINE would be the next in line as Democratic nominee at this point, not Sanders; which means it would be Trump v Kaine.

Sarah K
10-10-2016, 01:35 PM
Pence had an event scheduled for tomorrow in Nebraska, and he canceled it. Is he just jumping ship or what?

Swykk
10-10-2016, 03:52 PM
Pence had an event scheduled for tomorrow in Nebraska, and he canceled it. Is he just jumping ship or what?

Nope. And actually, I'm glad. Hoping this scumbag goes down with the shitty ship.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/10/politics/mike-pence-donald-trump/

implanted_microchip
10-10-2016, 04:11 PM
LOL at Paul Ryan saying he's done with Trump and also not unendorsing and openly telling Republicans to "do what they have to" to get re-elected. Real moral backbone on these folks

DigitalChaos
10-10-2016, 04:24 PM
That was more than a "burn," thought; it was an unprecedented threat of breach of rule of law; a President doesn't have that kind of authority; he was delving into an Authoritarian position.

......ooooor from Trump's perspective (and most of his supporters) its a 1sec interjection that says "if i were president right now, you'd be in jail because I wouldn't allow for all the corruption that allowed you get away with all the things you do"

allegro
10-10-2016, 04:43 PM
......ooooor from Trump's perspective (and most of his supporters) its a 1sec interjection that says "if i were president right now, you'd be in jail because I wouldn't allow for all the corruption that allowed you get away with all the things you do"

Well of COURSE that's their perspective. And Hitler's perspective was that The Final Solution would repair Germany by ridding it of Jews. There are always lots of ways to spin perspectives. In this case, Clinton was already found to have done nothing illegal especially since there is no law that prevented her from doing it without malicious intent. Trump's threat, however, did teeter on grounds for impeachment before he is even anywhere near the office (2nd time he has done this, 1st time was re the Federal judge). It was more than 1 second; he continued on, threatenening to have his Attorney General launch a full investigation into all of Clinton's "situation" That's abuse of authority.

See this (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/trump-constitution/503540/?utm_source=atlfb).

Exocet
10-10-2016, 06:25 PM
That trashy conference with Trump and the women claiming to have been assaulted by Bill Clinton...all just gives me a sinking feeling, what the fuck..its all surreal.
Not that im into autocrats or totalitarian dictatorships, but at the same time...democracy in the western world in 2016, seems to have serious flaws!!!

allegro
10-10-2016, 07:28 PM
That trashy conference with Trump and the women claiming to have been assaulted by Bill Clinton...all just gives me a sinking feeling, what the fuck..its all surreal.
Not that im into autocrats or totalitarian dictatorships, but at the same time...democracy in the western world in 2016, seems to have serious flaws!!!

Well, except Bill was elected back in 1992 and 1996 but, yes, Democracy has its flaws.

Deepvoid
10-10-2016, 07:41 PM
This is good. Warren Buffet responded (http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20161010005859/en/Tax-Facts-Donald-Trump#.V_vEHkTPnJo.twitter) to Trump regarding his income tax.

allegro
10-10-2016, 08:14 PM
This is good. Warren Buffet responded (http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20161010005859/en/Tax-Facts-Donald-Trump#.V_vEHkTPnJo.twitter) to Trump regarding his income tax.

Wow, that is awesome, I love Warren Buffet.

cynicmuse
10-10-2016, 09:59 PM
That trashy conference with Trump and the women claiming to have been assaulted by Bill Clinton...all just gives me a sinking feeling, what the fuck..its all surreal.
Not that im into autocrats or totalitarian dictatorships, but at the same time...democracy in the western world in 2016, seems to have serious flaws!!!
3 of the women were accusing Hillary Clinton via Bill. The fourth one was the victim of a pedophile that Hillary Clinton defended (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/09/why-donald-trump-just-attacked-hillary-clinton-for-defending-an-accused-child-rapist-explained/). Clinton said in her book that she was assigned the case. The Constitution says that everyone, even scum of the earth pedophiles, has the right to an attorney. Trump implied that Clinton didn't care about sexual assault victims because she defended the pedophile.

allegro
10-11-2016, 02:28 AM
Hillary sure LOOKED really good at the last debate.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CubAfstXgAUcQBO.jpg:large

implanted_microchip
10-11-2016, 06:29 AM
Hillary sure LOOKED really good at the last debate.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CubAfstXgAUcQBO.jpg:large

But did she have the STAHMINUH? Did she have the STAHMINUH? You never said look, you said STAHMINUH.

aggroculture
10-11-2016, 07:52 AM
By the way I've not seen it mentioned pretty much anywhere but can we all agree how hilarious it was that he brought up Bernie Sanders as if he could win some support there, then went on to talk about how single-payer healthcare is a nightmare? Like who on Earth that loved Sanders' platform but hasn't been able to accept Hillary yet is being swayed by this shit

The idea that Bernie and Trump are on the same page is so absurd: Bernie's entire campaign was a slam on the billionaire class, of which Trump is a prime and rotten representative. I'm sure there are some (misguided, to my mind) protest voters who were for Sanders and now are for Trump, but Trump's constant mentioning of Sanders, as if they're both in it together against Hillary, is idiotic. I wonder what hardcore right wingers make of it: Trump invoking a socialist (or Wikileaks) as authority multiple times.

GulDukat
10-11-2016, 09:34 AM
Now Trump is calling Ryan "weak." He is also saying that he won the second debate by "a land slide according to everyone poll."

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

allegro
10-11-2016, 12:19 PM
Then he retweets a link to this:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Tom_Winter/status/785845815373856768

These morons think it's a smoking gun, but in litigation EVERYBODY SHARES THIS INFORMATION. The DOJ would INFORM them of the DISCOVERY schedule for a status hearing. The DOJ needs the emails (discovery) produced per order of court.

These people are conspiracy morons. Trump included.

Jinsai
10-11-2016, 12:36 PM
what the hell is this tweet even supposed to mean?

"It is so nice that the shackles have been taken off me and I can now fight for America the way I want to"

Oh, were you restrained in your bullshit before? What fresh hell are we in store for now?