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

marodi
10-11-2016, 02:06 PM
He is also saying that he won the second debate by "a land slide according to everyone poll."


That's in the alternate reality he's living in.

For the next debate, I'm having a drinking game: I get a shot of Grey Goose each time Trump is sniffing and each time he says "disaster". I expect to be drunk within the first 10 minutes.

allegate
10-11-2016, 02:14 PM
Or at the hospital getting your stomach pumped from alcohol poisoning.

elevenism
10-11-2016, 02:30 PM
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

now this is the type of shit that i find flat out hilarious

Jinsai
10-11-2016, 02:47 PM
That's in the alternate reality he's living in.

For the next debate, I'm having a drinking game: I get a shot of Grey Goose each time Trump is sniffing and each time he says "disaster". I expect to be drunk within the first 10 minutes.

You need to offset it by applying a negative drink every time he says "tremendous," which might help you survive the debate.

GulDukat
10-11-2016, 03:42 PM
The right is getting desperate.

http://www.infowars.com/banished-the-untold-story-of-danney-williams-search-for-his-father/

allegro
10-11-2016, 04:01 PM
The right is getting desperate.

http://www.infowars.com/banished-the-untold-story-of-danney-williams-search-for-his-father/

Bonking a hooker in a bush while he's jogging. Wow.

cashpiles (closed)
10-11-2016, 07:50 PM
Bonking a hooker in a bush while he's jogging. Wow.

wouldn't doubt it.. this is the same man that sticks cigars up people's vaginas.

allegro
10-11-2016, 09:40 PM
wouldn't doubt it.. this is the same man that sticks cigars up people's vaginas.

That was in avoidance of actual hetero penetrative sex. It's not really all that weird, people put all kinds of things in vaginas (http://www.medicaldaily.com/weird-science-6-weird-things-found-inside-womens-vaginas-nsfw-306939).

Sex with a hooker in some bushes whom he meets while jogging? The guy is a sex addict.

cashpiles (closed)
10-11-2016, 09:57 PM
That was in avoidance of actual hetero penetrative sex. It's not really all that weird, people put all kinds of things in vaginas (http://www.medicaldaily.com/weird-science-6-weird-things-found-inside-womens-vaginas-nsfw-306939).

Sex with a hooker in some bushes whom he meets while jogging? The guy is a sex addict.

that's what I'm saying.. this guy is a sex addict. it's no surprise he'd solicit a hooker during a jog. I've done it.

allegro
10-12-2016, 12:41 AM
So true: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/trump-stalked-clinton-onstage-at-the-debate-and-women-recognized-him-as-a-threat/#.V_wKNqXGJVQ.facebook


During the exchange over the e-mails, Trump stepped over the line, doing something that no other presidential candidate had ever publicly threatened to do: have his opponent “investigated” for running against him.

Trump at that moment did not sound like a presidential candidate but rather like an abusive spouse or a rapist warning the woman that he had was threatening that he would hurt her if she resisted him.

While standing very close to her, he raised his voice and began his threat by claiming that Clinton had forced him to do this. He “didn’t want to do this” but he didn’t have a choice, a classic technique of an abuser. He then told her that she should be ashamed of herself, even though the discussion had been about his behavior toward women and his comments toward immigrants, racial minorities, and persons with disabilities.

Any woman who has ever been ‘gaslighted ’recognized the behavior of the abuser who yells at his victim that she is the cause of her own abuse.

“And I’ll tell you what. I didn’t think I’d say this, but I’m going to say it, and I hate to say it. But if I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, because there has never been so many lies, so much deception. There has never been anything like it, and we’re going to have a special prosecutor,” Trump said to Clinton.

“So we’re going to get a special prosecutor, and we’re going to look into it, because you know what? People have been — their lives have been destroyed for doing one-fifth of what you’ve done. And it’s a disgrace. And honestly, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.”

As she responded to the threat, Trump again interrupted her, telling her that she should be in jail. It was hard not to be chilled by the encounter between the large, out-of-control angry man chasing the smaller woman around a stage threatening her. It was not hard to imagine that, without an audience,Trump may have treated Hillary as he once did then-wife Ivana, who allegedly, after a failed hair-transplant surgery, took out his anger on Ivana by pulling out her hair by the roots and then holding her down and forcibly raping her.

onthewall2983
10-12-2016, 05:45 AM
http://i2.wp.com/espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/silver-electionupdate-womenvoted.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=575&ssl=1 (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-women-are-defeating-donald-trump/)

onthewall2983
10-12-2016, 02:45 PM
Are there any scans online of the People Magazine article in '98 where he talks about running as a Republican?

allegro
10-12-2016, 02:49 PM
Are there any scans online of the People Magazine article in '98 where he talks about running as a Republican?

It appears that it's just a meme and not reality.

Deepvoid
10-12-2016, 02:56 PM
Clinton and Trump tied in Utah. McMullin close in 3rd. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/doanld-trump-utah-poll_us_57fe4bb3e4b05eff55809d3c)

Utah hasn't voted for a Democrat since 1964.

allegate
10-12-2016, 03:46 PM
https://twitter.com/CandaceSmith_/status/786262723323715584

Does this mean there won't be a third debate?

allegro
10-12-2016, 03:53 PM
To quote Jadezuki of this board:

I am filled with a sense of ewwwww

Former Miss Arizona, former Miss Vermont Teen say Trump walked in on nude contestants (Former Miss Arizona, former Miss Vermont Teen say Trump walked in on nude contestants)


Separately, Buzzfeed reported early Wednesday that four women in the 1997 Miss Teen USA beauty pageant said he walked into their dressing room while they were changing. Some were as young as 15, Buzzfeed said.

allegate
10-12-2016, 04:00 PM
Clinton and Trump tied in Utah. McMullin close in 3rd. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/doanld-trump-utah-poll_us_57fe4bb3e4b05eff55809d3c)

Utah hasn't voted for a Democrat since 1964.

I'll be honest, I had to read the article to remember just who McMullin was. He's doing better than Johnson? Wow. And I'm not sure if that's a surprised or sad wow.

allegro
10-12-2016, 04:05 PM
I'll be honest, I had to read the article to remember just who McMullin was. He's doing better than Johnson? Wow. And I'm not sure if that's a surprised or sad wow.

Ah, he went to Brigham Young so no wonder the Mormons love him.

The Republican Mormons have been doing some pretty interesting things. (https://thinkprogress.org/compared-to-the-religious-right-mormons-are-surprisingly-progressive-daadb4aff373#.mu2gbj13e)

Deepvoid
10-12-2016, 04:11 PM
To quote @Jadezuki (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=12) of this board:

I am filled with a sense of ewwwww

Former Miss Arizona, former Miss Vermont Teen say Trump walked in on nude contestants (http://Former Miss Arizona, former Miss Vermont Teen say Trump walked in on nude contestants)

There's a lawsuit against Trump for the rape of a 13 year old girl. Status hearing set for December 16.
https://fr.scribd.com/document/326055870/Doe-v-Trump-et-al-refiled-complaint-9-30-16?content=10079&ad_group=Online+Tracking+Link&campaign=Skimbit%2C+Ltd.&keyword=ft500noi&source=impactradius&medium=affiliate&irgwc=1

allegro
10-12-2016, 04:16 PM
There's a lawsuit against Trump for the rape of a 13 year old girl. Status hearing set for December 16.
https://fr.scribd.com/document/326055870/Doe-v-Trump-et-al-refiled-complaint-9-30-16?content=10079&ad_group=Online+Tracking+Link&campaign=Skimbit%2C+Ltd.&keyword=ft500noi&source=impactradius&medium=affiliate&irgwc=1

Yeah, I linked that here (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/3669-2016-Presidential-Election?p=319148#post319148).

He won't even have to appear at the status hearing; they'll just continue it.

Deepvoid
10-12-2016, 04:19 PM
Yeah, I linked that here (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/3669-2016-Presidential-Election?p=319148#post319148).

He won't even have to appear at the status hearing; they'll just continue it.

Oh sorry about that.
He will have to deposed at one point no?

allegro
10-12-2016, 04:24 PM
Oh sorry about that.
He will have to deposed at one point no?
Maybe. The Judge might set a discovery schedule at the status hearing. This is a court order that gives both sides deadlines for production of evidence, which includes depositions, so this doesn't drag on forever. The parties are also supposed to discuss why this is being tried in New York, and whether or not the case can be settled. So they have to discuss proper venue, possible settlement, discovery scheduling, etc. and then they'll set a new status hearing.

The new suit includes an additional (2nd) witness. (http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/trump-team-fires-back-after-jane-doe-refiles-rape-lawsuit-with-new-witness/)

Deepvoid
10-12-2016, 04:37 PM
Go vote on November 28!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EekwEtZLtC0

Jinsai
10-12-2016, 05:13 PM
To quote @Jadezuki (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=12) of this board:

I am filled with a sense of ewwwww

Former Miss Arizona, former Miss Vermont Teen say Trump walked in on nude contestants (http://Former Miss Arizona, former Miss Vermont Teen say Trump walked in on nude contestants)

There's audio of Trump bragging about doing this on the Howard Stern show.

allegro
10-12-2016, 05:20 PM
There's audio of Trump bragging about doing this on the Howard Stern show.

Yeah, it's in that article. Stern: "You're like a doctor" wtf

allegate
10-12-2016, 05:34 PM
#repealthe19th (https://twitter.com/hashtag/repealthe19th?src=tren)

Well that's disgusting.

allegro
10-12-2016, 06:07 PM
#repealthe19th (https://twitter.com/hashtag/repealthe19th?src=tren)

http://media1.giphy.com/media/TfS8MAR9ucLHW/giphy.gif

allegro
10-12-2016, 06:14 PM
Melania trolled everybody and wore a Gucci "Pussy-bow Blouse" to the 2nd debate. (http://nypost.com/2016/10/10/melania-trump-really-wore-a-pussy-bow-shirt-to-the-debate/)

https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/afp_h03ah_134745373.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=664&h=441&crop=1

https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/melania1.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=864

tony.parente
10-12-2016, 08:54 PM
#repealthe19th (https://twitter.com/hashtag/repealthe19th?src=tren)

Well that's disgusting.

Aaaahaha holy shit what.
Trump could have destroyed in this election, all he had to do was coast and run on a "I'm not Hillary, I'm trustworthy" campaign and he would have coasted right in. How did he fuck this up so bad?

Oh, he's a goddamned idiot, and so are his remaining supporters.

sweeterthan
10-12-2016, 09:15 PM
Melania trolled everybody and wore a Gucci "Pussy-bow Blouse" to the 2nd debate. (http://nypost.com/2016/10/10/melania-trump-really-wore-a-pussy-bow-shirt-to-the-debate/)

https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/afp_h03ah_134745373.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=664&h=441&crop=1

https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/melania1.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=864

I just don't think she's that clever. She got trolled by a stylist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

allegro
10-12-2016, 10:18 PM
I just don't think she's that clever. She got trolled by a stylist.
LOL true dat !

It was allegedly not intentional. (https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/785315016253673472?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

Dra508
10-12-2016, 11:30 PM
When is the next debate? I forgot to jump on here and follow along here you mini tweeter.

I'm guessing Trump can't wait for Election Day to get here FFS. His concession speech is going to be hilarious, and short. "Crooked Hilary did a tremendous job" throw moderators and republicans under the bus, plug his DC hotel and exit stage left. We'll never see all his tax returns.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

allegro
10-13-2016, 01:02 AM
When is the next debate?
I think Trump done CANCELED it, and took away all our fun.

cynicmuse
10-13-2016, 01:27 AM
Apparently, Trump was informed (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-was-told-russia-was-blame-hacks-long-debate-n663686) in his intelligence briefings (both of which happened before the second debate) that Russia was behind the email hacks. I guess that he either forgot or doesn't trust his briefings, leading to his response during the debate, "Maybe there is no hacking."

implanted_microchip
10-13-2016, 06:35 AM
Apparently, Trump was informed (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-was-told-russia-was-blame-hacks-long-debate-n663686) in his intelligence briefings (both of which happened before the second debate) that Russia was behind the email hacks. I guess that he either forgot or doesn't trust his briefings, leading to his response during the debate, "Maybe there is no hacking."

Or the third option: he simply does not care and is willing to bend and outright ignore reality as much as he wants as long as he thinks it'll support his fabricated and paper-thin world view.

hellospaceboy
10-13-2016, 08:20 AM
His concession speech is going to be hilarious, and short.

or it will be a 3 hour long stream-of-consciousness rambling about everything from Mexicans to emails to whatever pops into his head. He'd go out the same way he announced his run!

GulDukat
10-13-2016, 09:06 AM
Trump the groper:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/amid-fresh-allegations-trump-ship-starts-sink-n665661

Dra508
10-13-2016, 09:12 AM
or it will be a 3 hour long stream-of-consciousness rambling about everything from Mexicans to emails to whatever pops into his head. He'd go out the same way he announced his run!

I'm imagining the music that starts playing when some one goes too long on the Oscar acceptance speech.

"You like me. You really do like me." Not. GTFO and let the Republican Party go figure out how to win the White House in 2020.

I predict Paul Ryan DOESN'T make to then.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

GulDukat
10-13-2016, 09:15 AM
How about a montage video of Donald Trump during this campaign, over "My Way" by Frank Sinatra? That would seem to be an appropriate way for him to conclude his bid for the presidency.

allegate
10-13-2016, 11:15 AM
I'm imagining the music that starts playing when some one goes too long on the Oscar acceptance speech.

"You like me. You really do like me." Not. GTFO and let the Republican Party go figure out how to win the White House in 2020.

I predict Paul Ryan DOESN'T make to then.


Sent from my iPad using TapatalkSo another post-mortem (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/6-big-takeaways-from-the-rnc-s-incredible-2012-autopsy)they can proceed to ignore? Sounds good.

GulDukat
10-13-2016, 11:18 AM
Now Drudge is saying TRUMP BACK IN LEAD because Rasmussen has him up by two points.

allegate
10-13-2016, 11:38 AM
Also:http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/12/media/new-york-times-donald-trump-lawsuit-threat/index.html?iid=Lead

If the Trump campaign does proceed with lawsuits, it will give both the Times and the Post the opportunity to pursue discovery and request information on Trump's entire sexual history, because Trump would have the burden of proving falsity and actual malice.

Deepvoid
10-13-2016, 12:20 PM
Now Drudge is saying TRUMP BACK IN LEAD because Rasmussen has him up by two points.

The proper response to anyone quoting a Rasmussen poll is "Romney in a landslide".
Only the LA Times daily tracking is worse.

GulDukat
10-13-2016, 01:37 PM
The proper response to anyone quoting a Rasmussen poll is "Romney in a landslide".
Only the LA Times daily tracking is worse.
Trump is citing the Rasmussen poll at his rally. "TWO POINTS AHEAD. WE ARE WINNING!"

allegate
10-13-2016, 01:55 PM
https://twitter.com/melbournecoal/status/786620067370991616

Wish I could figure out how to post twitter images instead of linking.

marodi
10-13-2016, 02:53 PM
Trump: "The NYT is printing a bunch of LIES; it's CHARACTER ASSASSINATION. I'm going to sue the Crooked NYT"

The NYT: "Go ahead, make my day."

Dra508
10-13-2016, 04:31 PM
So another post-mortem (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/6-big-takeaways-from-the-rnc-s-incredible-2012-autopsy)they can proceed to ignore? Sounds good.

Dude, I'm of the opinion that this party needs to have a complete and utter melt down in order to build itself back up. I'm no historian, because I don't think that it would be the first time in American History.

Also for me "sounds good" is a trigger. Don't dismiss me biotch! [emoji6]

GulDukat
10-13-2016, 06:02 PM
Clinton up by one point in Ohio. WTF is wrong with people.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/poll-clinton-ahead-north-carolina-virtual-tie-ohio-n665981

allegro
10-13-2016, 06:32 PM
Clinton up by one point in Ohio. WTF is wrong with people.
Depends on the poll:

https://www.bw.edu/news/2016/bw-poll-shows-ohio-voters-leaning-away-from-trump

DigitalChaos
10-13-2016, 07:52 PM
Dude, I'm of the opinion that this party needs to have a complete and utter melt down in order to build itself back up. I'm no historian, because I don't think that it would be the first time in American History.


lets do this for the whole electoral system and major parties. please. thanks
i'd say we should do it to the whole country, but that's a lot harder to rebuild in an easy way.

allegro
10-13-2016, 07:53 PM
The electoral college is going to spare us of DJT.

See also this article (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html). We need the electoral college. Sorry, but we do.

GulDukat
10-13-2016, 09:42 PM
Michelle Obama's speech today, ftw!

elevenism
10-13-2016, 10:21 PM
so do you guys think trump snorted coke or something before the debates?

At first my wife and i were just kind of joking about it, but then we saw his running mate being interviewed on face the nation or something, and they asked him "did donald have a cold? what's with all the sniffing?" or something like that, and Pence is like "i don't know what you're talking about!" and changes the subject post fucking haste. i mean, RAPIDLY, like he REALLY didn't want to talk about it.
Then the second debate comes around, with increased sniffling.

So now i am seriously wondering if he's snorting fucking rails before walking out. :P

allegro
10-13-2016, 11:11 PM
so do you guys think trump snorted coke or something before the debates?
It appears to be a nervous tick.

Dra508
10-13-2016, 11:49 PM
Hell is freezing over:

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/texas-news/new-poll-trump-lead-shrinks-in-texas-within-margin-of-error/335896258

elevenism
10-13-2016, 11:50 PM
It appears to be a nervous tick.
perhaps, or some sort of breathing method?
of course it would be funniest if it was cocaine.

HOLY shit Dra508 , and me not fucking registered to vote :(

Dra508
10-13-2016, 11:51 PM
It appears to be a nervous tick.

I read somewhere that it's a tell for anxiety and basically lying that's turned into a tick.

elevenism
10-13-2016, 11:52 PM
I read somewhere that it's a tell for anxiety and basically lying that's turned into a tick.
a "tell for lying?"
okay, that's even better than drugs :P

Dra508
10-13-2016, 11:57 PM
HOLY shit Dra508 , and me not fucking registered to vote :(

WTF you idiot!!!

hellospaceboy
10-14-2016, 02:10 AM
and me not fucking registered to vote :(

Nooo!!!!!!!!!!

And I can't vote, since my citizenship application is taking FOREVER... I really wanted to vote against Trump (I live in Florida, so it might even count) but clearly I'm not the only immigrant who had this idea because they're backed up as fucked with applications :)

But yes, you are an idiot, and you should be registered to vote.

Jinsai
10-14-2016, 05:11 AM
I actually heard an analyst say that there was a real chance, however slim, that Texas could swing blue this year or at least come close enough to send a message. His argument sounded like wishful thinking, but it also seemed plausible.

Why aren't you registered to vote?

implanted_microchip
10-14-2016, 07:01 AM
and me not fucking registered to vote :(

C'mon man, you're better than that

elevenism
10-14-2016, 08:58 AM
C'mon man, you're better than that
it wasn't on purpose! i kept meaning to do it, and then time ran out.
and secondly, Texas is a winner take all state at the top (and has been a red state for my entire adult life,) and there is like a 0 percent chance of a democrat winning anything down ballot where i live.
So i kinda felt that voting here is pretty much futile.

That being said, you guys are right. I should be registered.

I registered, btw, when i got my ID in 2013, so i may well be registered after all.
I hope i am!

Dra508
10-14-2016, 09:19 AM
lets do this for the whole electoral system and major parties. please. thanks
i'd say we should do it to the whole country, but that's a lot harder to rebuild in an easy way.

There was a lot of screaming about that back in 2000 and diddlysquat happened.

Canada oh Canada, our home and native land.

Interesting fact, to be a citizen up there you have to speak English or French, even just a little. No requirement in the U.S. HA

Dra508
10-14-2016, 09:22 AM
I registered, btw, when i got my ID in 2013, so i may well be registered after all.
I hope i am!

You should still be registered. There should be a way to double check. Get on that shit man. STAT!

I've voted in plenty of elections that felt like spitting in the wind, but it's your civic fucking duty. Plus, no whining allowed about anything political if you didn't IMO.

elevenism
10-14-2016, 09:24 AM
But yeah, honestly y'all, when i lived in dallas, voting mattered to me a whole hell of a lot because democrats could win congressional seats and that sort of thing.
Where i live now, that shit just doesn't happen.

edit: but again, you are absolutely right Dra508

allegro
10-14-2016, 09:41 AM
You should still be registered. There should be a way to double check. Get on that shit man. STAT!
The deadline in Texas expired on October 11.

He can check his status here: https://teamrv-mvp.sos.texas.gov/MVP/mvp.do

edit: Meanwhile, all this shit I keep stumbling into regarding the Clinton Foundation and Haiti is not good shit. At all.

Why are SO MANY POLITICIANS SUCH ASSHOLES?!?!?!?

allegate
10-14-2016, 11:13 AM
https://twitter.com/mishalawless/status/786762745257623554

Dude. Really?


Ken Bone did an AMA on reddit today and didn't create a new username for it--like, he used the username he's had for years. Didn't take people long before they found his comments in r/preggoporn

Case in point (nsfw): https://www.reddit.com/r/PreggoPorn/comments/4r7vhy/swimsuits_and_bellies_go_swell_together/d54o08x
fucking lol

Khrz
10-14-2016, 12:07 PM
Yeah, I'm kinda shocked to see Rosamund Pike at a Trump rally !

hellospaceboy
10-14-2016, 12:16 PM
Interesting fact, to be a citizen up there you have to speak English or French, even just a little. No requirement in the U.S. HA

In the US you have to speak English to become a citizen.
Not to become a permanent resident (get a green card), because that's a right in many cases. Like for me, my wife is an american citizen, and she has the right to live with her husband, so the state (unless they found something objectionable) HAD TO give me a green card.

Citizenship, on the other hand, is a privilege, and you can't earn it, only apply for it. And you do have to take a (very basic) English test as part of the process. Also a US history test.

Archive_Reports
10-14-2016, 12:33 PM
https://twitter.com/mishalawless/status/786762745257623554

Dude. Really?



fucking lol

Who cares what porn that dude checks out? He wasn't being super-weird or gross about anything. At this point it's just Internet bullying.

marodi
10-14-2016, 03:05 PM
Danny Elfman wrote a horror movie score for the footage of Trump lurking behind Clinton during the second debate (http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/10/14/danny_elfman_creepily_scores_a_video_compiling_foo tage_of_trump_lurking.html)

@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) Just when we thought we couldn't possibly love him more!

elevenism
10-15-2016, 10:19 AM
So okay, i'm gonna take it back a few months and ask: are we SURE Trump isn't like throwing the race?
everything he is saying and doing is just so fucking absurd!

allegro
10-15-2016, 12:07 PM
So okay, i'm gonna take it back a few months and ask: are we SURE Trump isn't like throwing the race?
everything he is saying and doing is just so fucking absurd!

No, he appears to really want to win and he believes that the things he says are what won him the primary so he's just "being himself." He refuses to take advise from hardly anybody because he swears he knows better because he won the primary on his own with his personality and ideas, honestly, that's what he has said (https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-doesnt-want-pivot-000000685.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma).

ziltoid
10-15-2016, 12:11 PM
Can anyone explain this to me: http://embols.com/2016/10/01/apparently-bernie-is-registered-as-a-write-in-in-nearly-all-states/
I believe this is a long shot and I don't know how it will effect the election as a whole.

My question is, if enough people write in Bernie sanders for their given state will the electoral college actual choose Bernie even though there is a two party system? or does that not mater?

How does this affect the election by a state-by-state basis?

Doesn't the electoral college choose who to "endorse" after collecting the popular vote or am I mixing it up?

I did a quick google search and this is what turned up but nothing about write-ins showed up.

The candidate who receives a majority of electoral votes (270) wins the Presidency. The number 538 is the sum of the nation's 435 Representatives, 100 Senators, and 3 electors given to the District of Columbia. Every four years, voters go to the polls and select a candidate for President and Vice-President

allegro
10-15-2016, 01:18 PM
Can anyone explain this to me: http://embols.com/2016/10/01/apparently-bernie-is-registered-as-a-write-in-in-nearly-all-states/
I believe this is a long shot and I don't know how it will effect the election as a whole.

My question is, if enough people write in Bernie sanders for their given state will the electoral college actual choose Bernie even though there is a two party system? or does that not mater?

How does this affect the election by a state-by-state basis?

Doesn't the electoral college choose who to "endorse" after collecting the popular vote or am I mixing it up?

I did a quick google search and this is what turned up but nothing about write-ins showed up.
The electoral college ultimately decides the winner based on the popular vote in each state. So the write-ins would have to be enough to win the electoral college for each state, and then enough states to win the country.

See this for a pretty good explanation: (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/what-is-the-electoral-college_n_2078970.html)

How does the Electoral College work?

Every four years, voters go to the polls and select a candidate for President and Vice-President. In all but two states, the candidate who wins the majority of votes in a state wins that state’s electoral votes. In Nebraska and Maine, electoral votes are assigned by proportional representation, meaning that the top vote-getter in those states wins two electoral votes (for the two Senators) while the remaining electoral votes are allocated congressional district by congressional district. These rules make it possible for both candidates to receive electoral votes from Nebraska and Maine, unlike the winner-take-all system in the other 48 states.

So it doesn't matter HOW they are on the ballot, it just matter who gets the most votes in that state (which indicates who gets the electoral votes). So Bernie would have to get more votes than both Clinton and Trump in that state to win that state's electoral votes, and he would have to do that in all 50 states.

From what I understand, "write-ins" are just an empty spot on a ballot. My husband wrote in HIS OWN NAME as a write-in for a JUDGE seat during the Primary, LOL.

elevenism
10-15-2016, 01:38 PM
No, he appears to really want to win and he believes that the things he says are what won him the primary so he's just "being himself." He refuses to take advise from hardly anybody because he swears he knows better because he won the primary on his own with his personality and ideas, honestly, that's what he has said (https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-doesnt-want-pivot-000000685.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma).
the things he is saying, @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) , i am just fucking speechless

specifically the bit where he denies a sexual assault allegation by saying that the victim wouldn't have been his "first choice" or whatever.
and then he said that he wasn't impressed when HC walked in front of him at the debate, as in saying that he wasn't turned on by her ass.

Is he really just this crazy? i've pretty well gotten over conspiracy theories in general, but for fuck's sake!

How could anyone be this stupid? :/

Khrz
10-15-2016, 01:54 PM
The regular outrage over his attitude really sounds like "Did he really Trump as much as I saw him Trump ? I mean, I knew he could Trump, he has Trump for a while now, but that's the most Trump he ever Trump before !"

I mean, yeah. He's is Trump. Again. Still.


What I find surprising is the absolute silence over the DNC leaks ? Even if it was absolute garbage there should be a wave of "it's garbage and here's why" articles, no ?

hellospaceboy
10-15-2016, 02:53 PM
I find it amusing that the GOP's pitch to voters this season is the promise that their nominee, once in office, will not behave the way he does now and won't do the things he says he will...

hellospaceboy
10-15-2016, 02:54 PM
What I find surprising is the absolute silence over the DNC leaks ? Even if it was absolute garbage there should be a wave of "it's garbage and here's why" articles, no ?

I might be wrong, but my understanding is that there was nothing really newsworthy in these latest email leaks.

onthewall2983
10-15-2016, 02:59 PM
The regular outrage over his attitude really sounds like "Did he really Trump as much as I saw him Trump ? I mean, I knew he could Trump, he has Trump for a while now, but that's the most Trump he ever Trump before !"

This is what we should have done when we filtered his name for something else very briefly. Use "Trump" instead of "shit" or something like that.

I heard a statistic that 7% of people actually had fallen out with friends or family because of this election. That is beyond sad, and beyond me for sure. As far as I know most of my family is voting for Trump, but I refuse to hold it against them, even though there have been a couple heated exchanges about it.

sweeterthan
10-15-2016, 04:21 PM
I just saw a Trump rally on MSNBC where he's denying the sexual assault allegations by saying there are no witnesses. To me, it just screams "I did it".

Nobody saw me. You can't prove anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Amaro
10-15-2016, 06:44 PM
Taking a moment to look back and reflect.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw2-EbXnwvs

hellospaceboy
10-15-2016, 06:55 PM
^^^
Ahh.... I actually feel bad for the guy!

implanted_microchip
10-15-2016, 07:12 PM
I'm very glad Jeb won't be president and disagree with so much that the man stands for and have a number of things as a Floridian that I dislike about his actual record but the guy himself honestly seems like someone who wants to do what he believes is the best for people and, in general, is the kind of person I'd like to think is all in all a relatively decent person face to face. I remember some friends of mine going to a rally of his just because it was gonna be in the area and they figured "Why not?" (all my friends are political nerds as well, pretty much) and met him and all they had to say was "He looked like he was in desperate need of a hug."

Of all the people Trump shat on in the primaries, Jeb seemed the most personally wounded by it and I felt the most sympathy for him. The guy just has one of those soft, open-hearted faces and you could see the discomfort, inadequacy and anxiety that plagued him written across it all the time. The "My mother is one of the strongest people I know" "Then she should be running!" moment was still Trump's insult peak as far as I'm concerned and it all went downhill from there. Still can't believe I saw that happen.

thevoid99
10-15-2016, 07:28 PM
I do feel bad for Jeb Bush. He definitely means well but he had to take all of those insults from that asshole. I don't blame the family for wanting to vote for Clinton.

onthewall2983
10-15-2016, 07:52 PM
Glenn Beck just compared Michelle Obama's speech to Reagan (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/301161-glenn-beck-michelle-obama-gave-most-effective-political-speech). We are through the looking glass here, people.

allegro
10-15-2016, 10:05 PM
I might be wrong, but my understanding is that there was nothing really newsworthy in these latest email leaks.

there was the stuff about the emails between Podesta and the DOJ (Trump tweeted stupid shit about it and I addressed it in this post (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/3669-2016-Presidential-Election?p=319383#post319383)) but it has been since viewed as appropriate even by various conservatives (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441016/podesta-contacts-doj-clinton-campaign-plus-tweet).

elevenism
10-16-2016, 04:39 AM
I mean, yeah. He's is Trump. Again. Still.

this is utterly fucking priceless. Thanks for the lulz.
i can't quit laughing at that shit. i had to embolden Again and Still to retain the emphasis.

w/r/t the DNC leaks, you can always dig through youtube and separate the factual reporting from the sea of videos on the subject made by loons.

I think what interests me the most about the DNC leaks is how scared the democratic establishment seemed to be about what MIGHT have been in them, hence the timing of the shitstorm that recently came trump's way.

Also, i find it a little fishy, the claims that it was DEFINITELY a russian hack. I think our government is utterly terrified of Assange.

allegro
10-16-2016, 07:25 AM
Also, i find it a little fishy, the claims that it was DEFINITELY a russian hack. I think our government is utterly terrified of Assange.
Well but they have REALLY good evidence that the source was Russia. And Assange himself is not a hacker, he just leaks the shit that was hacked. (So he is ultimately viewed as a co-conspirator at this point.) Our Government shouldn't be "terrified," they should just work to develop better security for their own servers (the DNC not being the Government, natch).

allegro
10-16-2016, 11:02 AM
Anyway, as was discussed today on "Meet the Press" (and as I said earlier in this thread), the one thing that Clinton has escaped so far from the leaks but she is likely to get hammered by in the next debate: Haiti and the Clinton Foundation

Ugh, not good; not as bad as Trump and sexual assault but, still, NOT good at all.

elevenism
10-16-2016, 12:15 PM
Well but they have REALLY good evidence that the source was Russia. And Assange himself is not a hacker, he just leaks the shit that was hacked. (So he is ultimately viewed as a co-conspirator at this point.) Our Government shouldn't be "terrified," they should just work to develop better security for their own servers (the DNC not being the Government, natch).
Oh wow, that's creepy. I have yet to see the evidence. I hate to think that JA would work with a state sponsored source with nefarious intentions, mostly just to get attention for himself. That sucks.
Assange insinuated that he had some sort of bombshell information about clinton and then didn't. Also, I meant party establishment when i said gvmt btw.

Assange's hacking days might be behind him, but he WAS a legendary hacker. He hacked into NASA and the pentagon and did all kinds of cool shit back in the day.

He was kind of a hero to me, but if he is helping Russia try to fuck with our elections, i probably need to rethink that.

elevenism
10-16-2016, 12:27 PM
I think that Clinton has this election in the bag.
A trump presidency would be truly terrifying, and i think it's been averted.

That being said, i will be happier when we have a Bernie Sanders running against a Ron Paul.
And i think it IS coming.
I want this corporate oligarchy system to come to an end.
I want a president who isn't just another centrist.

Khrz
10-16-2016, 12:39 PM
Less "helping Russia fuck the election up" rather than "exploit whatever info he gets no matter the source". I'm pretty sure making things as embarrassing as possible for Clinton is a huge plus.
Meddling with elections and democratic processes is nothing new, the tools evolve, but it's the same old trade. Denouncing another nation's propaganda and general bullshit for your own nation's benefit is an old game, everyone has played it time and time again.
Although I'm not a huge Dan Carlin fan, he was right when he said the US government has this tendency to recklessly exploit every new toy they have, until everyone starts to follow their own example. Then suddenly it becomes immoral and unacceptable. Meddling with other's cyber security and confidential data is ah-okay up until the Russians do the same.
Wait until the Russian drones start to fly... I'm sure everyone will demand international regulations then.

allegro
10-16-2016, 12:41 PM
Oh wow, that's creepy. I have yet to see the evidence. I hate to think that JA would work with a state sponsored source with nefarious intentions, mostly just to get attention for himself. That sucks.
Assange insinuated that he had some sort of bombshell information about clinton and then didn't.
The evidence has been pointing that way for a long time (https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/guccifer-2-all-roads-lead-russia/). The bottom line is that Assange is fucking with our election process just as much as Putin, with the bullshit excuse of "transparency." Except that he's doing it the same way as Watergate. Yes yes, our government has done the same shit, but Assange has been holding up this flag of "providing us with transparency for our own benefit" shit. Which is shit. Snowden, yes, I think he is a good guy caught in a bad situation and even he has said that Wikileaks is doing a shit thing (http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/edward-snowden-slams-wikileaks-for-not-curating-info-releases/). Assange? He's a piece of shit (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/julian-assanges-arrest-warrant-rape-case-upheld-sweden-court-n649296).

We Americans know that all politicians do stupid shit. Fucking with this process and hacking into the DNC is what Nixon did with WATERGATE. Assange is OBSESSED with fucking with the American government. For HIS OWN BENEFIT. Period.

The "corporate oligarchy" will never come to "an end" in this country, ever. Electing a President especially won't end it because a President does not have that kind of singular power (thankfully). We are a capitalist country, and our leaders have been wealthy white dudes since its INCEPTION and that ain't gonna change, man (http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2015/jul/02/founding-fathers-ordinary-folk/).

The right is horrified right now over the leaked Podesta emails with snippets of Clinton's Goldman Sachs speeches about open trading borders; Um, dudes, THAT SOUNDS EXACTLY LIKE RICHARD NIXON.


Historically, our superior technology, and high productivity have made it possible for American workers to be the highest paid in the world by far, and yet for our goods still to compete in world markets. Now we face a new situation. As other nations move rapidly forward in technology, the answer to the new competition is not to build a wall around America, but rather to remain competitive by improving our own technology still further and by increasing productivity in American industry.

Our new monetary and trade agreements will make it possible for American goods to compete fairly in the world's markets--but they still must compete. The new technology program will put to use the skills of many highly trained Americans, skills that might otherwise be wasted. It will also meet the growing technological challenge from abroad, and it will thus help to create new industries, as well as creating more jobs for America's workers in producing for the world's markets.

Source: Pres. Nixon's 1972 State of the Union message to Congress , Jan 20, 1972

We can be "centrist" and still have safety net programs and still have a thriving middle class. But, the Republicans are going to have to stop fighting tooth-and-nail for the wealthy and the Democrats are going to have to start getting more in touch with the poor and middle class and I mean REALLY in touch. (Nancy Pelosi is a multi-millionaire.)

The thing that really pisses me off about this election is that even if Clinton wins, this shit ain't going away; the damage Trump has done is sticking around.

For instance, LOOK AT THIS (http://chicagoist.com/2016/10/14/the_second_city.php).

We had already seen some of this shit brewing, with people like Billy Corgan bitching that we are "too PC" like common courtesy is a bad thing (because he has his head so far up his own millionaire ass (http://www.alternativenation.net/billy-corgan-political-correctness-roman-empire/)) and now we're seeing an uprising of "oppressed white people" who are pissed off that they can't make nigger jokes anymore or poke fun at fat women or make rape jokes and who swear that the ONLY reason we have racism now is because of Obama. And that shit ain't going away anytime soon because this country mostly worships millionaires like Trump and Corgan and the people on Shark Tank. The people blindly following Trump are no different than the people blindly following Corgan or any other "star" at the top of the capitalist pile, and these are the people who have been waiting to go back to the "old days" when everybody spoke English and could do and say whatever the fuck they wanted.

elevenism
10-16-2016, 02:35 PM
@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) , i will concede that the corporate oligarchy "coming to an end" is a stretch, that that will never happen. This country, i've always maintained, is based on greed.
And you are right about trump stirring up an "alt-right" hornet's nest.

But don't you see at least the possibility of a future with some serious changes? I can FEEL it.
People on both sides of the aisle are sick of the status quo-especially people younger than us.

And while i realize that a president alone can't fix everything, it would be a BIG start.
One step at a time, right?
Jesus, you sound more pessimistic than ME today and that's saying something. :P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL7Q6fRFtO0&t=163s

Have you seen this? I bet you would get a big kick out of it.

"at least 25% of americans have ALWAYS been ignorant xenophobic racist rednecks. This shit didn't just start because Obama got elected..."

elevenism
10-16-2016, 03:10 PM
Sorry for double post, but i am so excited and proud for my brother. His company is doing the lighting for Hillary's speech in Colorado today, and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren will be speaking too.

This is either the second or third HC event he's got to see live. I'm damned jealous.

here is a selfie of his goofy face in front of the stage :) (http://i1286.photobucket.com/albums/a609/tylerlankford11/austinhc_zps23pvxxp2.jpg)

allegro
10-16-2016, 04:33 PM
But don't you see at least the possibility of a future with some serious changes?
And while i realize that a president alone can't fix everything, it would be a BIG start.
One step at a time, right?
The President doesn't make laws; Congress does. And Congress is mostly worried about getting re-elected. And in the states where racism is big, no member of Congress is going to stick his/her neck out too far in the direction of civil rights. It's pretty much why all those Dems in the South jumped ship to the Republican party after LBJ. And then most of the Republican members of Congress have been making sure that things don't progress any further. The fucking Voters Rights Act was recently GUTTED, dude. That is not changing in the right direction; it paved the way for states that were already discriminating against minorities at the pols but were kept in check by the Feds per the VRA to now do whatever the fuck they want, including closing near all pols in minority areas (citing "budget problems") and issuing subpoenas to minority registered voters and demanding that they appear before a magistrate to show proof of their ability to vote, etc.

Sure, blacks don't have separate drinking fountains, anymore. But that does not mean there are not a whole bunch of racist assholes in this country still pissed off that a negro is in the White House, who want to "take back our country" from blacks etc.

This will likely change with:

(a) better education
(b) those generations dying off

DigitalChaos
10-16-2016, 05:16 PM
Here is the first thing that popped up, and this is was from a few days ago. There is more being covered.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/14/seven-more-hillary-clinton-scandals-exposed-wikile/


1. Clinton Foundation donors expected “benefits in return for gifts.”


2. Obama’s Cabinet picked by Citigroup executive — during the bailout — a month before the election.


3. Mrs. Clinton tried to save a profitable Wall Street speech before her campaign launch.


4. Qatar, an Islamic State funder, gave former President Bill Clinton $1 million for his birthday.


5. Mrs. Clinton team poll-tested attacks on Obama’s Muslim heritage.


6. Mrs. Clinton discussed hiding emails from Mr. Obama, then deleted them.


7. Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman urged her to lie to the public on whether she sent classified information.

allegro
10-16-2016, 05:43 PM
Here is the first thing that popped up, and this is was from a few days ago. There is more being covered.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/14/seven-more-hillary-clinton-scandals-exposed-wikile/
Ugh that fucking site hung up my Chrome browser then crashed it. But it's obviously a hate-Hillary site.

there were some disturbing things in the Podesta emails, mostly (to me) about the Haiti / Clinton Foundation shit. Which the Washington Times shithole doesn't mention (but it mentions Obama and Citibank yet disregards the entire GW Bush staff -- for 8 years -- being built on ridiculous levels of cronyism, including all of GWB's and Cheney's friends at Halliburton / KBR running the Iraqi infrastructure -- TERRIBLY -- after GWB invaded Iraq).

I'm not sure that the Citicorp information is 100% accurate, though; just not buying it at this point. And none of the above points implicate HRC directly other than #6, which I have a hard time believing she would actually discuss considering that Obama was her boss. It just seems too stupid; she may be sneaking but she has an estimated IQ of over 145.

DigitalChaos
10-16-2016, 05:54 PM
Ugh that fucking site hung up my Chrome browser then crashed it. But it's obviously a hate-Hillary site.

there were some disturbing things in the Podesta emails, mostly (to me) about the Haiti / Clinton Foundation shit. Which the Washington Times shithole doesn't mention (but it mentions Obama cronyism and disregards the entire GW Bush staff -- for 8 years -- being built on ridiculous levels of cronyism, including all of his and Cheney's friends at Halliburton / KBR running the Iraqi infrastructure -- TERRIBLY -- after GWB invaded Iraq).

post them! What I posted is absolutely not complete, nor the best. I've been falling way behind due to some personal life stuff.

Sure, its not an unbias site, but you sure as fuck aren't going to find anyone on the dem-friendly sites posting about this. Their only commentary about the emails is "Russia hacked them!" or the occasional "They are fake!" These are the same dipshits screaming about authoritarian Trump wanting to censor news orgs because he dislikes what they say.... while completely ignoring Obama talking about do the exact same kind of shit (https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-decries-wild-west-media-landscape-214642552.html) in the same week.

allegro
10-16-2016, 06:07 PM
post them! What I posted is absolutely not complete, nor the best. I've been falling way behind due to some personal life stuff.

Sure, its not an unbias site, but you sure as fuck aren't going to find anyone on the dem-friendly sites posting about this. Their only commentary about the emails is "Russia hacked them!" or the occasional "They are fake!" These are the same dipshits screaming about authoritarian Trump wanting to censor news orgs because he dislikes what they say.... while completely ignoring Obama talking about do the exact same kind of shit in the same week.

Seriously? The Haiti shit has been all over the fucking place!

IT'S ON THE FRONT PAGE OF TODAY'S NEW YORK TIMES. (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/us/hillary-clinton-cheryl-mills.html?_r=0)

It was in the WaPo a year ago. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/role-of-hillary-clintons-brother-in-haiti-gold-mine-raises-eyebrows/2015/03/20/c8b6e3bc-cc05-11e4-a2a7-9517a3a70506_story.html)

See also this.
(http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/haiti-factory-big-money-state-department-clintons-meet/story?id=42729714)

Sure, it isn't Trump's Atlantic City Casino going under and his losing even more millions of dollars so he can stiff more people and write off more taxes for another 20 years so he won't have to pay any taxes, but we currently have the wonderful choice of two shifty people; except one of the shifty people has actually done some good for the world, and the other shifty person has done good only for himself, and the third party candidates are not acceptable, either. So, yeah.

I said on THE FIRST PAGE OF THIS THREAD (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/3669-2016-Presidential-Election?p=236828#post236828) that another Clinton wouldn't be my first choice; she's still a war hawk and she's still a shifty Clinton. But, Obama turned out to be a "Politician," too, once he got elected so I have ZERO trust in ANY of them at this point.

But I'm still gonna celebrate when we have our first female President because at least there's THAT.

elevenism
10-16-2016, 06:26 PM
The President doesn't make laws; Congress does. And Congress is mostly worried about getting re-elected. And in the states where racism is big, no member of Congress is going to stick his/her neck out too far in the direction of civil rights. It's pretty much why all those Dems in the South jumped ship to the Republican party after LBJ. And then most of the Republican members of Congress have been making sure that things don't progress any further. The fucking Voters Rights Act was recently GUTTED, dude. That is not changing in the right direction; it paved the way for states that were already discriminating against minorities at the pols but were kept in check by the Feds per the VRA to now do whatever the fuck they want, including closing near all pols in minority areas (citing "budget problems") and issuing subpoenas to minority registered voters and demanding that they appear before a magistrate to show proof of their ability to vote, etc.

Sure, blacks don't have separate drinking fountains, anymore. But that does not mean there are not a whole bunch of racist assholes in this country still pissed off that a negro is in the White House, who want to "take back our country" from blacks etc.

This will likely change with:

(a) better education
(b) those generations dying off
Now allegro , you sound like me when i was saying that legislation couldn't change racism or homophobia. This is true.

And look, we know that with Clinton, we will be getting more of the same. At my most cynical, i see Obama as GWB! Also available in Black!
And HC is GWB! Also available in Female!

I know what happened with the VRA. And it's awful. But this is not the step in the right direction i was refering to.

I'm talking about a Bernie type candidate being elected in 2024 or 2032. That will be a huge step in the right direction, and i can SEE it allegro! I can see it! Times are changin'! We thought Bernie wouldn't make it out of Iowa, and look how far he got!

We have to keep the faith. Our time is coming.

allegro
10-16-2016, 06:44 PM
We have to keep the faith. Our time is coming.
God, I hope so. Man, I remember the 60s and some of the 70s when I was young, a time of hope and protest and all that. I was in 5th grade and our class went to Washington D.C. for one day for a class trip, and I remember seeing all those Vietnam War protesters, tons of them, out in front of the White House. (I have roll-up poster of us 5th graders in front of the White House, I should scan it and post it, LOL.) Protesting and caring about stuff like civil rights and the environment was a nationwide MOVEMENT that was HUGE and it demanded HUGE changes that NIXON (a fucking REPUBLICAN) got Congress to enact.

And then I remember being a full-time college student in 2007 and walking across the campus mall and "Gimme Shelter" was blasting out of the speakers from the campus radio station and the Student Union building and I thought, "where are the protests? where is the student involvement in the election?" NOBODY FUCKING CARED. The young students barely knew who was running.

Sanders helped to spark some involvement, but that's BARELY SCRATCHING THE SURFACE. It took YEARS of that kind of involvement in the 60s to effect real change. And my gut says that once this is over, they'll go back into a coma again.

The Presidential election is just ONE election every 4 years but people have to continue to hammer at their local officials, their local aldermen, their mayors, their police commissioners, their state and U.S. senators, they have to stop re-electing judges, they have to move to effect term limits, they have to move to demand better services,better safety net programs, equal protection under the law, etc. LOCALLY, because it all starts IN THEIR OWN STATES.


Mark Cuban posted this video on Facebook. So sad. (https://www.facebook.com/markcuban/videos/746527032152471/)

Khrz
10-16-2016, 06:46 PM
But I'm still gonna celebrate when we have our first female President because at least there's THAT.

Sometimes it's a bit hard to rejoice that there's a cherry on top on a very shitty cake. And depending on how shitty said cake turns out to be, it can actually stall progress for a long while. Our first female prime minister was the last.
I understand the historical importance of such a symbolical breakthrough, and when the choice is between Clinton and Trump anyway it's not like her gender is the only argument to celebrate her potential victory. But as victories go, it's still a pyrrhic one. I can't be happy that the most powerful, the most involved and the most intrusive nation will be led by a woman who off-handedly ponders if she can't just drone a frustrating nuisance away.
We've been shivering at the thought of Trump playing with the biscuit, but the thought of Clinton checking targets off USA's list makes me equally uncomfortable.

allegro
10-16-2016, 06:56 PM
Sometimes it's a bit hard to rejoice that there's a cherry on top on a very shitty cake. And depending on how shitty said cake turns out to be, it can actually stall progress for a long while. Our first female prime minister was the last.
I understand the historical importance of such a symbolical breakthrough, and when the choice is between Clinton and Trump anyway it's not like her gender is the only argument to celebrate her potential victory. But as victories go, it's still a pyrrhic one. I can't be happy that the most powerful, the most involved and the most intrusive nation will be led by a woman who off-handedly ponders if she can't just drone a frustrating nuisance away.
We've been shivering at the thought of Trump playing with the biscuit, but the thought of Clinton checking targets off USA's list makes me equally uncomfortable.

to be fair, if she really did make the Assange "drone" comment, I really doubt that she meant it SERIOUSLY. We have plenty of ways to take him out with Navy Seals and covert actions (https://www.globalpolicy.org/war-on-terrorism/49442-the-secret-killers-covert-assassins-charged-with-hunting-down-and-killing-afghans.html) (leaving no trail and making it look like an accident) without using something so GIANT as a friggin' DRONE on somebody else's EMBASSY. It really did sound like a joke about a guy who is pain-in-the-ass. But, if he was THAT big of a pain-in-the-ass to us, he'd be sleeping with Osama bin Laden right now. And we didn't use a drone on him. We have a history of crazy shi (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB365/)t, and they look clean-as-snow going in and then they take one step into that Oval Office and the power corrupts them. And, ultimately, we end up choosing people by choosing party platforms. Because career politicians are, by definition, corrupt. I mean, seriously, what kind of fucking moron would choose that as a career?

Hmmmmm ...

* Doctor
* Electrician
* Writer
* Secretary
* Computer Programmer
* Engineer
* Nurse
* POLITICIAN!!!!!

But, yes, the U.S. considers the world as its giant Risk board. That's the way it is, and even Sanders would have to view it that way from a National Security standpoint, whether he PUBLICLY admits it or not.

Our favorite game as teens was Risk. And, really, this is just a bigger game of Risk.

Khrz
10-16-2016, 07:21 PM
to be fair, if she really did make the Assange "drone" comment, I really doubt that she meant it SERIOUSLY.

Yeah I'm well aware of that, and the way I picture it is definitely a bunch of dudes assessing the damage Assange is causing and extrapolating on the damage he will cause further down the line, and the legal PITA he represents, and Clinton sighing heavily and wearily and mentioning droning him in a "do we really have to deal with that bullshit now ?" way.

That doesn't reassure me one bit. Trump has been joking a lot too, and I didn't laugh either.

My problem is that it only takes one high-ranking military to answer "well, no, but on the other hand..." to turn the joke into something deadly serious. And as far as I'm concerned, there's already too much people who have been remotely and merrily turned into puddles, including a US citizen and later his 16 yo son (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki).

So when someone whose apparent defining trait is to be a warhawk (compared to, say, Obama ?) is jokingly mentioning killing off a person who represents a liability for the security of the USA, I'm not laughing.

I have no problems with the RISK game. Everyone plays it, and the US owns most of the board. You're basically the roman empire, you call the shots and it comes with a price. Being an immense power makes you an immense target.
Call me naive or sensitive, but the I worry about the little plastic figures that get erased off the board. It's a game where it's never the actual players who lose. Just the guys checking in to work a Tuesday morning, driving their family to the mosque, or enjoying a concert with their loved ones.
Play RISK. I get it. Don't expect me to laugh when you joke about it, that's all.

DigitalChaos
10-16-2016, 07:43 PM
Damn. Wall Street Journal with the slam. (Posting zerohenge cause wsj is paywalled)



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14/wall-street-journal-blasts-press-consistently-buries-hillary-clintons-sins



"But even if average voters had the TV on 24/7, they still probably haven’t heard the news about Hillary Clinton: That the nation now has proof of pretty much everything she has been accused of."

allegro
10-16-2016, 08:40 PM
Don't expect me to laugh when you joke about it, that's all.
yes but she was saying that in closed doors to others in a meeting (allegedly), in exacerbation, not "joking" in front of the American public, "hahaha, I'm going to drone Assad next week, hahaha."

The guy is publishing stuff that could put us at risk (at least that's what our security experts believe) and he just doesn't care, and he won't play nice in the sandbox; and, yes, if he was that big of a threat, we kill him. But we certainly aren't the only government that plays the game of Risk, certainly you know that (http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/07/france-slowly-reclaiming-its-old-african-empire-280635.html).

allegro
10-16-2016, 08:45 PM
Damn. Wall Street Journal with the slam. (Posting zerohenge cause wsj is paywalled)



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14/wall-street-journal-blasts-press-consistently-buries-hillary-clintons-sins



"But even if average voters had the TV on 24/7, they still probably haven’t heard the news about Hillary Clinton: That the nation now has proof of pretty much everything she has been accused of."

this is a bunch of shit, I posted a few New York Times articles here, and a few Wall Street Journal articles here that were not good toward Clinton. The Chicago Tribune fucking HATES her and they endorsed GARY JOHNSON. These online idiots obviously only read stupid national web news links and don't read local newspapers, or just can't read, period. Here, want an example? Read John Kass's column at the daily Chicago Trib, HERE IS TODAY'S: EVIL QUEEN VS. EVIL CLOWN. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-presidential-election-kass-1016-20161014-column.html)

The bottom line is that there still exists NO LAW by which to prosecute Clinton for her private email server unless she had malicious intent, and to prosecute her for anything else (sans anything else) is to set a very dangerous precedent. We can't make up laws that don't exist just because we are pissed off, or prosecute people for "treason" when they are not subject to treason, or pull their security clearance when others of the same level have already done the same offense (Colin Powell, Condeleeza Rice) with no malicious intent and nothing happened. This isn't protecting Clinton; this is protecting the due process of law, and legal precedent. I could name Federal cases where WORSE happened but I can't because of privacy because my husband is a Federal employee but, trust me, Chiefs of Federal facilities have done some really stupid shit that cost taxpayers literally millions of dollars and instead of being fired, they were sent to a nice desk job and still make the same pay. There is an EEO precedent, here, there is all kinds of legal precedents, here, you just can't willy-nilly throw this "treason" shit around, it doesn't work like that.

Now, yes, the Clinton Foundation and that HAITI shit ... THAT IS SHIT.

Meanwhile, here's this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i4EnjRKVQw&feature=youtu.be

Khrz
10-16-2016, 09:58 PM
But we certainly aren't the only government that plays the game of Risk, certainly you know that (http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/07/france-slowly-reclaiming-its-old-african-empire-280635.html).

Obviously not, but we're talking about the potential president of one of the major players here.
What I meant by "don't expect me to laugh" is, the capacity to destroy anyone by pushing a button isn't something I take lightly. Whether Clinton was serious or not is more or less the same to me. After all, the only difference is in the interpretation, whether the question was purely rethorical or not, and some day someone might decide it is not so rethorical anymore.

I am being the same towards Trump. I'm sure that in his world, that was a joke about the things he might and could do. But locker banter or not it reveals a line of thinking I find profoundly abhorrent.

Its not so much about whether or not I'm supposed to laugh, but whether or not I'm supposed to brush it all off because of the context. And no, I don't. Raping a woman or killing a man isn't acceptable small talk, especially when you actually have the power to do it.

DigitalChaos
10-16-2016, 10:33 PM
You say it's a bunch of shit, but here is CNN telling viewers that it's illegal for them to read the leaks and that they should only listen to the media's interpretation of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE

allegro
10-16-2016, 11:25 PM
Its not so much about whether or not I'm supposed to laugh, but whether or not I'm supposed to brush it all off because of the context. And no, I don't. Raping a woman or killing a man isn't acceptable small talk, especially when you actually have the power to do it.
I understand what you are saying, but she didn't have the power to do it; and droning a guy in an ally Embassy is just plain old NUTS; it's like saying "Can't we drone Santa Clause on Christmas Eve? He's such a fucking pain in the ass."

I am just not getting your comparing sexual assault to somebody ALLEGEDLY (we don't have actual proof) asking if we can just bomb a guy in plain sight in an ally Embassy, killing everybody else around it. I know that Hillary is a hawk but SHE'S NOT THAT STUPID. She, of course, says she doesn't recall making any kind of joke (http://www.mediaite.com/online/clinton-i-dont-recall-any-joke-about-drone-striking-the-founder-of-wikileaks/).

allegro
10-16-2016, 11:26 PM
You say it's a bunch of shit, but here is CNN telling viewers that it's illegal for them to read the leaks and that they should only listen to the media's interpretation of them.
CNN??? SERIOUSLY?? CNN is the short bus on the news network.

DigitalChaos
10-16-2016, 11:39 PM
lol. They sure are. But they still have a huge set of viewers and represent a large chunk of media narrative. I'm still amazed at that video.

Anyway, I'll have to come back to the emails in a day or two.

Jinsai
10-17-2016, 07:35 AM
Yeah I'm well aware of that, and the way I picture it is definitely a bunch of dudes assessing the damage Assange is causing and extrapolating on the damage he will cause further down the line, and the legal PITA he represents, and Clinton sighing heavily and wearily and mentioning droning him in a "do we really have to deal with that bullshit now ?" way.

That doesn't reassure me one bit. Trump has been joking a lot too, and I didn't laugh either.

Trump says these things into a microphone in front of crowds of undecided voters, believing that his remarks will endear him to them and make him more electable.... When he's behind closed doors, he's telling people that he likes to grab unsuspecting women by the pussy. He employs an open-floor political discussion to encourage former rival countries (amid saber rattling) to hack his opponent's emails, and then he makes threats about all the ways he'll unconstitutionally abuse the office of president to wreck revenge on the people who dared challenge his efforts to grasp the seat of highest power.

Hillary apparently made some comment that we have no proof of, and even if we take the transcript at face-value. Trump says his "jokes" at rallies in front of tens of thousands of people. And speaking of gallows humor jokes... I'd much rather hear a sad sound clip of Clinton saying "oh fucking Julian Assange, can't we just nuke whatever country he's hiding in?" than to hear Trump say "ah, I'm so awesome! I get to grab all the pussy because I am so powerful. You know what's the only thing that'll let me grab more unwilling girls by the pussy? More power!"

Dra508
10-17-2016, 09:46 AM
In the US you have to speak English to become a citizen.
Not to become a permanent resident (get a green card), because that's a right in many cases. Like for me, my wife is an american citizen, and she has the right to live with her husband, so the state (unless they found something objectionable) HAD TO give me a green card.

Citizenship, on the other hand, is a privilege, and you can't earn it, only apply for it. And you do have to take a (very basic) English test as part of the process. Also a US history test.You're right. I was getting my have-to speak and official language arguments confused.

Pretty sure many born on soil Americans couldn't pass that history test. :P

DigitalChaos
10-17-2016, 12:23 PM
FBI's own investigation records show Hillary's team pressuring the FBI and offering a quid pro quo

https://twitter.com/dnvolz/status/788025082916462592

Bribes.

Fucking BRIBES during a federal investigation.

I'll wait for the "we need to uphold legal process" Hillary defenders chew on that for a bit.

allegro
10-17-2016, 12:51 PM
FBI's own investigation records show Hillary's team pressuring the FBI and offering a quid pro quo

https://twitter.com/dnvolz/status/788025082916462592
I don't understand where this document is coming from. Who documented this? This looks like some kind of transcript.

The "intent" still doesn't change when some underling does stupid shit, btw. Classified or unclassified still doesn't change it to malicious intent (spying).

botley
10-17-2016, 12:52 PM
Apparently from the FBI's notes on its investigation.

That is indeed bad behaviour, and I think Under Secretary Kennedy should be disciplined harshly for that, but when you say he's on "Hillary's team" you're referring to a senior public servant and diplomat appointed to his position by George W. Bush during the Iraq war years. His job is to protect his boss's ass, no matter whose party is in power. Also, bribery is illegal inducement by gifts or other recompense to an individual. If Kennedy implied he'd "allow the FBI to place more Agents in countries where they are presently forbidden", even in exchange for getting his boss out of trouble, that is not technically a bribe. Based on that report, it seems to me he tried his damnedest to throw the State Department's weight around, but in no way implied he would bribe anyone.

DigitalChaos
10-17-2016, 01:20 PM
They are FBI FD-302's (summaries from investigations).

More detail here:
https://www.rt.com/document/5804da2cc46188dd048b45e8/amp


It seems to have been a classified Benghazi email. He didn't want it classified because it "caused problems" and he wanted it archived “in the basement of DOS never to be seen again.”

Shortly after the FBI said they wouldn't comment about the classified email, Hillary told the public she had no classified emails.


So go with "it's not technically a bribe" and "it wasn't actually Hillary" and "it's his job" (wtf??) all you want, but do you really think she wasn't involved? Especially with the timing of her public messaging...

allegro
10-17-2016, 01:27 PM
They are FBI FD-302's (summaries from investigations).

More detail here:
https://www.rt.com/document/5804da2cc46188dd048b45e8/amp


It seems to have been a classified Benghazi email. He didn't want it classified because it "caused problems" and he wanted it archived “in the basement of DOS never to be seen again.”

Shortly after the FBI said they wouldn't comment about the classified email, Hillary told the public she had no classified emails.


So go with "it's not technically a bribe" and "it wasn't actually Hillary" and "it's his job" (wtf??) all you want, but do you really think she wasn't involved? Especially with the timing of her public messaging...

I don't know enough to determine at this point, since Benghazi wasn't being investigated; she may have honestly believed, from her position, that she didn't recall any classified emails since she didn't conduct most of her business via email (she has constantly maintained this; in fact, she was ribbed by the judicial committee as to why there were no emails to or from her regarding the Benghazi situation, as if she had DELETED those emails, and she said she was using a secure phone line or meetings) and anybody sending or receiving those emails would have been her staff, not her, so the ones who were worried about it would be them? Dunno. Don't have enough facts to even understand the full gist of the memo at this point. I'm in LAW, remember? I don't just jump to conclusions with anybody, not even Trump.

The FBI can't comment about anything until after the investigation is over, that's pretty much always their stance, so that's not a smoking gun. But I hate the FBI, they're whores, they'd sell their grandmother, they don't follow rules, they're whores, they put innocent people in prison all the time.

DigitalChaos
10-17-2016, 01:35 PM
Sure. Lots more info needed. But since you are in law, maybe you can comment on the bribery term. I don't think it matters what it's called, but when you are offering a position in exchange for modified behavior... that sure fits the legal definition of bribe. Correct?

allegro
10-17-2016, 01:38 PM
Sure. Lots more info needed. But since you are in law, maybe you can comment on the bribery term. I don't think it matters what it's called, but when you are offering a position in exchange for modified behavior... that sure fits the legal definition of bribe. Correct?
No, in law we call that "business as usual" hahahahahahahahaaaaa

Plea bargain hahahahaaa

Look, the FBI has no incentive to NOT get a GREAT CATCH like this. We have a saying: "The Feds always get their man." It's like some kind of competition with these people, who is gonna get the biggest fish. And a fish like HER? Honey, that's like catching the biggest fucking fish in the sea. And a REPUBLICAN head of the FBI isn't likely to let go of that big fish unless he knows that he doesn't have any law to back it up, even if somebody gives him some pretty big trade-offs, even with hookers, booze, and free passes into the countries of their choice, although that last one is pretty fucking sweet (which would expire the end of 2016 anyway unless Clinton wins the election). Why take a deal like that which can expire? The memo just sounds too risky, made by an idiot. But, like I said, deals like this are cut all the time. I was INVOLVED in a Fed case where THE FEDS WERE OFFERING THE DEALS. They're the biggest fucking whores in the Universe! But, they only offer the deal if they are seeking A BIGGER FISH.

botley
10-17-2016, 01:52 PM
So go with "it's not technically a bribe" and "it wasn't actually Hillary" and "it's his job" (wtf??) all you want, but do you really think she wasn't involved? Especially with the timing of her public messaging...
In the case of the public messaging, I think she would have asked him what to say about it because he was keeping an eye on the investigation, and he told her to say that. He managed the operations of her department, after all. Did she mastermind a nefarious conspiracy to cover up her mistake? I don't believe so.

DigitalChaos
10-17-2016, 01:53 PM
Deals (like immunity deals) that obtain more info about an investigation are not even remotely close to this. And you know it. This is a request to basically bury evidence in exchange for something completely unrelated to the investigation.

And you are right that it would have been a shit deal for the FBI (ignoring the legalities). And they didn't take that deal.

allegro
10-17-2016, 02:02 PM
Deals (like immunity deals) that obtain more info about an investigation are not even remotely close to this. And you know it. This is a request to basically bury evidence in exchange for something completely unrelated to the investigation.

And you are right that it would have been a shit deal for the FBI (ignoring the legalities). And they didn't take that deal.

But the dumb thing is that they found classified documents (well, marked classified AFTER the documents were handed over to the attorneys which is even dumber) and the FBI still determined that it STILL wasn't malicious in intent. So the dumb asses trying to "help" were doing more damage than good.

No, I wasn't talking about immunity, I'm talking about plea bargaining where you exchange things; in this case, this would be exchanging something the FBI wants for something the State Dept wants. But obviously that is a dumb deal because what the FBI wants would EXPIRE at some point. So that's a DUMB offer. And Clinton ain't THAT fucking dumb, so I can't imagine she would make that kind of offer. Really, the IDIOT in this is KENNEDY!

"We find Under Secretary Kennedy’s actions extremely disturbing. Those who receive classified intelligence should not barter in it – that is reckless behavior with our nation’s secrets. Someone who would try to get classification markings doctored should not continue serving in the State Department or retain access to classified information"

See the new Press Release (https://oversight.house.gov/release/chaffetz-nunes-statement-new-fbi-files-clinton-investigation/).

I tell ya one thing: If Clinton wins, she'll have to give up that fucking Blackberry.

Who the FUCK has a Blackberry anymore, anyway? Except old farts and idiots?

DigitalChaos
10-17-2016, 02:05 PM
In the case of the public messaging, I think she would have asked him what to say about it because he was keeping an eye on the investigation, and he told her to say that. He managed the operations of her department, after all. Did she mastermind a nefarious conspiracy to cover up her mistake? I don't believe so.

Id not say mastermind. Just complicit and aware.

allegro
10-17-2016, 02:11 PM
Is not say mastermind. Just complicit and aware.
Not so sure about that; this looks like maybe he was using his own authority, here, and doing a bad job. And then there's this added layer of "Shadow Government" shit wtf.

edit:

hahahahahahahahhhaaa I knew it!!! Whores, hard at work!!!!

The Press Release says:


In response, the FBI official proposed a “quid pro quo” to downgrade the classification if the State Department would support increasing FBI personnel into Iraq. A veteran diplomat like Kennedy should have been receptive to the FBI’s personnel needs without resorting to a bargain that could threaten national security information. Due to the sensitive nature of the information, the classification was never ultimately downgraded.

It looks like they wanted the email pulled from FOIA due to "geological and geophysical information," but that info could have easily been REDACTED in the FOIA dump.

In the spring of 2015, Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy contacted a senior FBI official to request the FBI reverse its finding that one of Secretary Clinton’s Benghazi-related emails contained classified information. Kennedy allegedly assured the FBI official State would “archive the document in the basement of [the Department] never to be seen again,” withholding it from the public under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exception (b)(9), which relates to geological and geophysical information.

onthewall2983
10-17-2016, 05:35 PM
http://thedonaldtapes.com/

thevoid99
10-17-2016, 07:37 PM
http://thedonaldtapes.com/

Shit, if I had those tapes. Hell yeah I would give it to Larry Flynt but I would also want a lifetime subscription of Hustler magazine and its entire back catalog as well as be a part-time contributor.

Jinsai
10-17-2016, 09:50 PM
you couldn't pay me a million dollars to watch a Trump sex tape.

thevoid99
10-17-2016, 09:55 PM
you couldn't pay me a million dollars to watch a Trump sex tape.

I think he means audio tapes. Sex tape.... no fucking thanks. I'd rather endure a marathon of Michael Bay movies than see a second of that.

Khrz
10-17-2016, 10:01 PM
you couldn't pay me a million dollars to watch a Trump sex tape.

Especially since he asks for a recording of Trump being - at least- inappropriate, that wouldn't so much be a sex tape rather than a rape tape.

cashpiles (closed)
10-17-2016, 10:23 PM
Trump says these things into a microphone in front of crowds of undecided voters, believing that his remarks will endear him to them and make him more electable.... When he's behind closed doors, he's telling people that he likes to grab unsuspecting women by the pussy. He employs an open-floor political discussion to encourage former rival countries (amid saber rattling) to hack his opponent's emails, and then he makes threats about all the ways he'll unconstitutionally abuse the office of president to wreck revenge on the people who dared challenge his efforts to grasp the seat of highest power.

Hillary apparently made some comment that we have no proof of, and even if we take the transcript at face-value. Trump says his "jokes" at rallies in front of tens of thousands of people. And speaking of gallows humor jokes... I'd much rather hear a sad sound clip of Clinton saying "oh fucking Julian Assange, can't we just nuke whatever country he's hiding in?" than to hear Trump say "ah, I'm so awesome! I get to grab all the pussy because I am so powerful. You know what's the only thing that'll let me grab more unwilling girls by the pussy? More power!"

nuking a country is more acceptable to your ears than grabbing vaginas. okey dokey. Crooked Hillary and her clan are the most corrupt individuals to ever walk the planet. Also, fuck Trump. Fuck both of them.

elevenism
10-17-2016, 10:34 PM
https://www.facebook.com/MultimediaAV/videos/10154208800718292/

this little video is from my brother's work on Hillary's event in Colorado.
He's my fucking hero.

Jinsai
10-17-2016, 11:46 PM
nuking a country is more acceptable to your ears than grabbing vaginas. okey dokey. Crooked Hillary and her clan are the most corrupt individuals to ever walk the planet. Also, fuck Trump. Fuck both of them.

No, because "can we just nuke whatever country where this Julian Assange guy is?" is obviously a joke, not said in a public forum in a situation that can be perceived as a threat, and not intended and prepared for public scrutiny. Much like Trump's comments about grabbing unwilling women's pussies, we're not talking about a policy proposal. Unlike Trump's comments, I don't think Hillary has truly intended to nuke a foreign country just to snipe out Julian Assange. Also unlike Hillary Clintion, I think Trump probably has feebly attempted to grope as many pussies as his tiny hands can manage.

allegro
10-18-2016, 02:47 AM
Come on, Jinsai, ignore his ass. "Most corrupt to walk the planet," he's smoking crack. We have had Presidents who make her look like Gandhi. He has been living in a fucking igloo or something. They don't learn about Watergate or Iran-Contra in South Korea or Canada. And (so far) drones don't carry nukes.

(Mine doesn't, anyway. Yet.)

I really do wish this election was all over, though. Ugh.

I just saw that somebody cut Assange's internet connection?

Boo hoo hoo.

WorzelG
10-18-2016, 04:15 AM
Is it just me or has the discourse around the election become really toxic this time? It didn't seem this bad the last 2 and they were electing a black man, or am I not remembering properly? I'm thinking maybe the rise of twitter has something to do with it

Swykk
10-18-2016, 07:44 AM
Chip off the ol' Patrick Bateman block, right there: http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/17/media/don-jr-on-shock-jock-radio/index.html

implanted_microchip
10-18-2016, 09:49 AM
Is it just me or has the discourse around the election become really toxic this time? It didn't seem this bad the last 2 and they were electing a black man, or am I not remembering properly? I'm thinking maybe the rise of twitter has something to do with it

There have always been idiots -- I remember quite vividly (and hilariously) a douchebag driving around after the 2012 election in my town with his car done up like a wedding but instead it said "RIP AMERICA -- 1776 - 2012" and my balls wanted to explode (because, you know, Obama held off on his nation-destroying until his second term, naturally).

But it definitely wasn't like this at such a national level. Trump is a huge reason why, to be perfectly honest. Romney acted like a grown man. I never liked him, but the discourse and temperament (although, we all know, Donald has THE BEST temperament) was presidential and, you know, adult. Trump gets in B-list reality TV star twitter feuds and nicknames his opponents like a bully in the fifth grade. It only makes sense that his supporters followed suit. He's been a signal to everyone inclined to be that way that it's okay, and even to those of us who oppose him, I think it's gotten very hard to keep it together when you have millions of people on his end acting like we're in middle school.

2012 felt like two adults were facing one another. This feels like I'm stuck in class again with that asshole kid who, while occasionally funny, is constantly getting sent out for interrupting and written up for backtalking the teacher and derailing the entire course and that unpopular bookish girl who sits in the front row and answers everything and talks to the teacher during her lunch period but is gonna end up valedictorian when all is said and done. It's no surprise things are at such a childish level language-wise and discussion-wise.

When you have an entire side basically saying "They can't do the things we do!" all of the time and refusing to take accountability for their behavior while holding the other to a ludicrously high standard, excusing sexual assault as "locker room talk" and "boys talk" and then dredging up decades-old conspiracy theories while aligning with extremist media groups and insisting that any loss they suffer isn't an earned one but rather because "it's all rigged!," it's kind of hard to have any conversation that sounds like one between two adults. When you have one candidate trying to give an answer to a question in a debate only for the other to interrupt every ten seconds to get in some snarky douchebag quip or whine to the moderators about it being "unfair" in some vague, non-specific way, it's hard to have any level of actual substantial discussion. When you have a candidate who refuses to ever get into policy talk because he "doesn't want the enemy to know his plans!" it's hard to talk about much at all.

Add in the Libertarians who hide their insanity behind their manners or the fact that they have literally no real record to be held to or tested by and you have The Greatest Shitshow On Earth.

Also: it's fucking amazing how the less people know about American history the more extreme their judgments can be. If you think Hillary is "the most corrupt" ever or that her administration would be, do us all a favor and google the Teapot Dome and read up a bit on good ol' Gamaliel Harding or even just Nixon. Come on. Talk about recency bias.

WorzelG
10-18-2016, 10:39 AM
There have always been idiots -- I remember quite vividly (and hilariously) a douchebag driving around after the 2012 election in my town with his car done up like a wedding but instead it said "RIP AMERICA -- 1776 - 2012" and my balls wanted to explode (because, you know, Obama held off on his nation-destroying until his second term, naturally).

But it definitely wasn't like this at such a national level. Trump is a huge reason why, to be perfectly honest. Romney acted like a grown man. I never liked him, but the discourse and temperament (although, we all know, Donald has THE BEST temperament) was presidential and, you know, adult. Trump gets in B-list reality TV star twitter feuds and nicknames his opponents like a bully in the fifth grade. It only makes sense that his supporters followed suit. He's been a signal to everyone inclined to be that way that it's okay, and even to those of us who oppose him, I think it's gotten very hard to keep it together when you have millions of people on his end acting like we're in middle school.

2012 felt like two adults were facing one another. This feels like I'm stuck in class again with that asshole kid who, while occasionally funny, is constantly getting sent out for interrupting and written up for backtalking the teacher and derailing the entire course and that unpopular bookish girl who sits in the front row and answers everything and talks to the teacher during her lunch period but is gonna end up valedictorian when all is said and done. It's no surprise things are at such a childish level language-wise and discussion-wise.

When you have an entire side basically saying "They can't do the things we do!" all of the time and refusing to take accountability for their behavior while holding the other to a ludicrously high standard, excusing sexual assault as "locker room talk" and "boys talk" and then dredging up decades-old conspiracy theories while aligning with extremist media groups and insisting that any loss they suffer isn't an earned one but rather because "it's all rigged!," it's kind of hard to have any conversation that sounds like one between two adults. When you have one candidate trying to give an answer to a question in a debate only for the other to interrupt every ten seconds to get in some snarky douchebag quip or whine to the moderators about it being "unfair" in some vague, non-specific way, it's hard to have any level of actual substantial discussion. When you have a candidate who refuses to ever get into policy talk because he "doesn't want the enemy to know his plans!" it's hard to talk about much at all.

Add in the Libertarians who hide their insanity behind their manners or the fact that they have literally no real record to be held to or tested by and you have The Greatest Shitshow On Earth.

Also: it's fucking amazing how the less people know about American history the more extreme their judgments can be. If you think Hillary is "the most corrupt" ever or that her administration would be, do us all a favor and google the Teapot Dome and read up a bit on good ol' Gamaliel Harding or even just Nixon. Come on. Talk about recency bias.

Yeah, all that 'crooked hillary' business. Whenever anyone says that phrase I just can't take them seriously. Like every presidential candidate beforehand has been perfect. It's like extremist opinion gone mad

kdrcraig
10-18-2016, 10:41 AM
Yeah, all that 'crooked hillary' business. Whenever anyone says that phrase I just can't take them seriously.

My one friend completely believes there is a government wide conspiracy to put Hillary in the white house, like 100% believes it. Yesterday he was freaking out about the Wikileaks shit, saying Assange is probably dead and the Wikileaks twitter account tweeted out "dead man switch" tweets. I figured out both of those things were not true with 5 minutes of Google research. Because if people on 4chan/reddit are saying it then it must be true. People are losing their god damn minds.

implanted_microchip
10-18-2016, 10:55 AM
It's just classic conspiracy to me: a lot of people do not like and have a hard time accepting and rationalizing how complex and complicated reality is. There are rarely easy morality plays. There are even more rarely perfect messiahs that fix everything (and, historically, most of them were simply made into them as time went by, with the collaborative effort of many ignored by history and their own shortcomings unmentioned or downplayed). We live in a world where an unstable young man can pick up a gun, walk into an elementary school and shoot children that did him no wrong in the face. We live in a world where extremists can fly commercial airliners into skyscrapers and all we can do is hope to clean up the mess, save the injured and respect the dead while trying our best to prevent it from happening again. We live in a world where civilization is so advanced that it's all but impossible for any one leader to fix everything or even most things and there are no simple answers or solutions -- and, if someone says there are, you're likely being lied to or they're leaving some serious detail out. We live in a world where an entire dominant society can mass-murder millions of people based on ethnicity or religious affiliation and where our own government can be aware of it and do nothing about it.

These things are, quite simply, shitty truths of reality. To turn them into conspiracy theories almost always reduces them to simplistic narratively-satisfying morality plays again, which we are raised on and innately wired for. We crave it. We're desperate for it. It's Kohlberg's stages of moral development on perfect display. It threatens a lot of world views to view things as the tangled, compromise-necessitating mess that they often really are. There are people who cannot stand to make ethical compromises or to be pragmatic or to accept the shitty necessities of some things.

The idea that there isn't a "perfect president" is a bitter pill to swallow for a lot of people -- it's an aggrandized position, our history tells us to revere it and we're sold mythic and perfect images of many in the past. There's a lot of people who, once they see the reality just a bit and notice that those aggrandized portraits aren't necessarily perfectly true just run toward the opposite deep end -- rather than irrational perfection they become prophets of irrational cynicism, claiming everyone is irredeemably corrupt and shit and everything is terrible all the time. It's the exact same "comfortable" moral space -- where there's a clear right and a clear wrong and an obvious good and an obvious evil, just from a different point of view. Both are pretty childish and neither actually agree with most of reality.

The times in life where there is an absolute right versus an absolute wrong is depressingly rare but to reject that is to cause things to be even messier -- you end up with candidates like Trump who sell that simplistic and reductive world view to the masses and encourages it in plenty of people and you end up with a GOP constantly behaving as if they're morally superior and even a Democratic party convinced they're intellectually superior. No one can compromise or operate like adults when one side is convinced the other is some cartoonish and unrealistic evil that does not exist in reality and the other is convinced their opposite is too stupid to talk to.

Swykk
10-18-2016, 11:02 AM
The "no such thing as a perfect presidential candidate" sentiment is definitely true. However, we did have a better choice this time and for a variety of reasons (popular vote, DNC shenanigans, people not knowing what "democratic socialism" actually means, etc), it didn't work out.

implanted_microchip
10-18-2016, 11:08 AM
The "no such thing as a perfect presidential candidate" sentiment is definitely true. However, we did have a better choice this time and for a variety of reasons (popular vote, DNC shenanigans, people not knowing what "democratic socialism" actually means, etc), it didn't work out.
I loved Bernie and voted for him in my primary.

That said, I can't for a minute really say that I can picture his presidency being any more successful than a Hillary one.

What's Hillary's big flaw with Dems? She's "too conservative." She's called herself center left and that's too right for a lot of us.

And yet the GOP acts like she's the reincarnation of Joseph fucking Stalin. She's a "liberal extremist" in their eyes.

How on Earth anyone can tell me an openly-Democratic Socialist candidate would have any higher level of cooperation from Republicans in office is beyond me. If we're worried Hillary would suffer from the same kind of gridlock Obama has, we can't pretend Bernie Sanders would have any better a situation. It's just very hard to imagine to me. We already have McCain claiming they'll block and SJC nominee from Hillary -- would they be any more open to a Sanders nominee, truly? I don't think so.

He's the better candidate if you just want someone to represent your liberal ideology. She's the better candidate if you want someone to get things through our system. I voted for him knowing he'd likely never get the nomination because I wanted his ideology to be taken more seriously by the party -- and the party platform that got adopted this year is far, far more liberal than ever before now. Hillary was pushed further left by his run and if she wants her party to support her she's gonna have to follow suit. That's fine enough for me for now.

Then again I'd rather have had Biden over anybody anyway so I was settling from the start.

WorzelG
10-18-2016, 11:09 AM
It's just classic conspiracy to me: a lot of people do not like and have a hard time accepting and rationalizing how complex and complicated reality is. There are rarely easy morality plays. There are even more rarely perfect messiahs that fix everything (and, historically, most of them were simply made into them as time went by, with the collaborative effort of many ignored by history and their own shortcomings unmentioned or downplayed). We live in a world where an unstable young man can pick up a gun, walk into an elementary school and shoot children that did him no wrong in the face. We live in a world where extremists can fly commercial airliners into skyscrapers and all we can do is hope to clean up the mess, save the injured and respect the dead while trying our best to prevent it from happening again. We live in a world where civilization is so advanced that it's all but impossible for any one leader to fix everything or even most things and there are no simple answers or solutions -- and, if someone says there are, you're likely being lied to or they're leaving some serious detail out. We live in a world where an entire dominant society can mass-murder millions of people based on ethnicity or religious affiliation and where our own government can be aware of it and do nothing about it.

These things are, quite simply, shitty truths of reality. To turn them into conspiracy theories almost always reduces them to simplistic narratively-satisfying morality plays again, which we are raised on and innately wired for. We crave it. We're desperate for it. It's Kohlberg's stages of moral development on perfect display. It threatens a lot of world views to view things as the tangled, compromise-necessitating mess that they often really are. There are people who cannot stand to make ethical compromises or to be pragmatic or to accept the shitty necessities of some things.

The idea that there isn't a "perfect president" is a bitter pill to swallow for a lot of people -- it's an aggrandized position, our history tells us to revere it and we're sold mythic and perfect images of many in the past. There's a lot of people who, once they see the reality just a bit and notice that those aggrandized portraits aren't necessarily perfectly true just run toward the opposite deep end -- rather than irrational perfection they become prophets of irrational cynicism, claiming everyone is irredeemably corrupt and shit and everything is terrible all the time. It's the exact same "comfortable" moral space -- where there's a clear right and a clear wrong and an obvious good and an obvious evil, just from a different point of view. Both are pretty childish and neither actually agree with most of reality.

The times in life where there is an absolute right versus an absolute wrong is depressingly rare but to reject that is to cause things to be even messier -- you end up with candidates like Trump who sell that simplistic and reductive world view to the masses and encourages it in plenty of people and you end up with a GOP constantly behaving as if they're morally superior and even a Democratic party convinced they're intellectually superior. No one can compromise or operate like adults when one side is convinced the other is some cartoonish and unrealistic evil that does not exist in reality and the other is convinced their opposite is too stupid to talk to.

I love Lord of the Rings because it embodies that good versus evil obviousness but i've never pretended it's reality, I enjoy it because it is a fictional antidote to the shades of grey that is reality

Swykk
10-18-2016, 11:11 AM
We could've agreed on Biden. Bernie still represents what I think both a leader and our country SHOULD be, but can you imagine what this race would look like if it was Biden vs Trump? You think Trump is a flailing toddler tantrum mess now?! Biden would be mauling him.

implanted_microchip
10-18-2016, 11:15 AM
I love Lord of the Rings because it embodies that good versus evil obviousness but i've never pretended it's reality, I enjoy it because it is a fictional antidote to the shades of grey that is reality

But good Christ if people haven't treated DC as Mordor and whoever is president at the time as Sauron. And I think we're all guilty of these things but the important part is being aware of that and trying to check your thoughts and views from time to time and adjust accordingly. But it's very hard to do and with the climate we have you have to do it 24-fucking-7 and that's exhausting. I can't blame people for not doing it. It sucks but it's the way things are right now. You either have to think someone is utterly amazing or utterly awful and if you think anything else you're never going to get heard in the sea of extremism that we're stuck floating in. Any moderate or middle-ground opinion is totally lost in the echo chambers we're all immersed in.

And it's hard to have a conversation when we now have an entire political movement that operates on rejecting pretty much all opposition as "rigged," "crooked," "dishonest" or "corrupt" and refusing to believe that they have any flaws at all, meanwhile attacking any opposition for all the things they claim they shouldn't be criticized for. It's insane. It's pure hypocrisy to a comically large degree. If you took the entire attitude of the Trump movement and gave it to a party in a new season of House of Cards or something everyone would rightfully tear it apart as unrealistic and too over the top and one-sided, but, wow, here we are. Every time I try to watch pretty much any Trump surrogate in an interview they just spend their entire time contradicting themselves, rejecting any reality and then embracing polls by the very people they just called impossible to trust because they happen to reflect well on them at the time. It's nuts and it's not helping. It's only going to be easier now for people on every end of the spectrum to become the same way.

@Swykk (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=285) Biden's interviews and speeches this election have been fucking nuclear against Trump, it's incredible. Sadly they have no impact on anyone who wouldn't already be voting blue anyway but, wow, if he was in the debates it'd be a different race IMO. I actually think Hillary has played the debates really, really intelligently since her best method that fits her strengths and protects her weaknesses the best is to just stay cool, stay back and let Trump froth at the mouth but, goddamn, Biden's the type who'd effortlessly be able to attack him as it happened and still look good.

GulDukat
10-18-2016, 11:20 AM
"Shadow voters" will win this election for Trump. :)

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5173844782001/shadow-voters-key-to-race-for-the-white-house/

allegro
10-18-2016, 01:50 PM
We could've agreed on Biden. Bernie still represents what I think both a leader and our country SHOULD be, but can you imagine what this race would look like if it was Biden vs Trump? You think Trump is a flailing toddler tantrum mess now?! Biden would be mauling him.

I agree that had Biden been the Dem nominee this year, he would have slaughtered Trump.

You see this between Sanders and Bachman and Bachman just doesn't shut up and Sanders is too polite, doesn't manage to get a word in.

Trump is Bachman on crack.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cJUBOZE26k

Biden wouldn't have let Bachman or Trump get away with that shit.

I ALSO think that had the GOP establishment allowed Romney to keep his hat in the ring (instead of pushing him out in favor of Jeb Bush), Romney would have given Trump a run for his money ... LITERALLY.

Dra508
10-18-2016, 02:04 PM
Romney would have given Trump a run for his money ... LITERALLY.Personality wise, Romney is the antithesis of Trump - dude doesn't have a pulse.

At the end of the day, who you vote for comes down to trust. It's possible that Romney could have been more trusted than Clinton. He just didn't have the desire to slog through the primaries. Imagine he and Cruz duking it out over religion.

Timinator
10-19-2016, 09:06 AM
Leave it to us Canadians to be the kinder, gentler voice (https://www.tellamericaitsgreat.com/) in this election.

Also, yesterday I saw a hat saying, "Make Metallica Great Again".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stGhjokq57U

hellospaceboy
10-19-2016, 12:20 PM
I loved Bernie and voted for him in my primary.

That said, I can't for a minute really say that I can picture his presidency being any more successful than a Hillary one.

What's Hillary's big flaw with Dems? She's "too conservative." She's called herself center left and that's too right for a lot of us.

And yet the GOP acts like she's the reincarnation of Joseph fucking Stalin. She's a "liberal extremist" in their eyes.


The fact that Hillary is widely considered (or at least portrayed) as a terrible choice is seriously fucked up and so sexist!!! As far as qualifications to do the job go, her resume is badass! First lady, New York senator, secretary of state... If a man strolled in with a resume like this I do think people would say that he was the obvious choice in this election.

There's a meme going around how a well-qualified woman who's been building her career for decades has to fight for the job with a clearly unqualified white man who just walked in from the street. This race is waaaaay too close for my taste, I don't see how anyone can put Trump in the highest office. IT IS A JOB! You have to know how to do it, and you have to know politics (because if you're elected then you are a politician!) and the man has literally ZERO qualifications for it.

allegro
10-19-2016, 02:00 PM
New Eminem released this morning. Holy shit, man.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvqYabGI6HQ

tony.parente
10-19-2016, 08:25 PM
What a time to be alive folks.
https://i.imgur.com/i3w3kmx.jpg

allegro
10-19-2016, 08:31 PM
Trump claiming "media bias" against him.

So, lemme get this straight:

When the media followed Trump around for over a year, reporting on him and hanging on his every word and every Tweet, and basically giving him free advertising for over a year so the media could suck in shitloads of advertising revenue, Trump says this = GOOD $$$$$$


When the media follows Trump around, reporting on him and hanging on his every Tweet, and reporting on salacious reports about shit he did in the past, including alleged sexual assaults, so that the media could suck in shitloads of advertising revenue, this = MEDIA BIAS?????

Meanwhile, I swear I just saw Vince Neil of Motley Crue in the crowd at the debate.

Also, Marco Rubio just pulled ahead of the Republican scum this week and had some integrity (http://www.npr.org/2016/10/19/498529403/marco-rubio-warns-gop-on-wikileaks-tomorrow-it-could-be-us).

Mantra
10-19-2016, 08:51 PM
got some hard liquor for this one.

round three....FIGHT!

allegro
10-19-2016, 08:59 PM
There isn't enough booze in the world for this three-ring circus.

Mantra
10-19-2016, 09:05 PM
Very curious to see how trump's coke habit is doing tonight

allegro
10-19-2016, 09:10 PM
Very curious to see how trump's coke habit is doing tonight
He did too much Viagra, first, and then a handful of Sudafed for his sinuses so the coke would interact negatively. All that sniffing is from the Viagra. (runs away)

Sarah K
10-19-2016, 09:12 PM
In before DigitalChaos is triggered by the phrase "gun show loophole" tonight.

Mantra
10-19-2016, 09:16 PM
^lol, that's what I thought of too. "uh oh, digital chaos isn't gonna like that."

Mantra
10-19-2016, 09:21 PM
Jesus, this "rip the baby out of the womb" rhetoric can fuck off.

DF118
10-19-2016, 09:22 PM
Jesus, this "rip the baby out of the womb" rhetoric can fuck off.

Seriously, what a cunt.

allegro
10-19-2016, 09:22 PM
Dude, drugs are coming in via SHITLOAD OF AIR CONDITIONED TUNNELS. (http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1895418_1877436,00.html)

You're gonna put a wall on top of the tunnels!!

https://kimbroughwriter.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/eye-roll-in-motion-3.gif

Sarah K
10-19-2016, 09:22 PM
Hillary's abortion answer tonight was great.

GulDukat
10-19-2016, 09:26 PM
"Bad hombres," wtf?

Mantra
10-19-2016, 09:27 PM
"He used undocumented workers to build the Trump tower." Lol

DF118
10-19-2016, 09:31 PM
Trump said "bigly"! Twice!

Dra508
10-19-2016, 09:32 PM
He's sounds like whiny teen.

This interrupting is bullshit.

Spout The Putin line ! Bwahhahhaaaaaa

Trump defending Putin. He can't finish a fucking sentence. Is that the viagra

/headdesk.

allegro
10-19-2016, 09:33 PM
OMG TRUMP IS BLOWING PUTIN RIGHT HERE ON NATIONAL TELEVISION!!!

This is nuts. His campaign manager is in back breathing into a bag. Bigly.

This is gonna make the BEST SNL SKIT EVAR

edit: Now he has TWO HUNDRED GENERALS

Mantra
10-19-2016, 09:34 PM
"No, you're the puppet. You're the puppet."

We are literally at an 2nd grade level now

allegro
10-19-2016, 09:37 PM
WRONG!!!

hahahahhahaaa

why does he SQUINT like that??

tony.parente
10-19-2016, 09:38 PM
I love how it took less than 20 minutes before they were arguing like teen siblings.

Mantra
10-19-2016, 09:40 PM
why does he SQUINT like that??

He's thinking really, really hard.

allegro
10-19-2016, 09:41 PM
Did he just call Obama's presidency a REGIME???

sweeterthan
10-19-2016, 09:42 PM
the putin ass kissing was so bizarre.

DF118
10-19-2016, 09:43 PM
It's like he has a piece of his brain missing.

Dra508
10-19-2016, 09:43 PM
I can't watch anymore. He is such an idiot.

marodi
10-19-2016, 09:44 PM
I can't watch the debate right now and you guys are spoiling it bigly!

allegro
10-19-2016, 09:44 PM
I can't watch anymore. He is such an idiot.
I'm reaching that point, too.

theruiner
10-19-2016, 09:45 PM
I love how it took less than 20 minutes before they were arguing like teen siblings.

"I'm not a puppet, YOU'RE a puppet! I'm not a puppet, you're a puppet!!!" *sticks tongue out, pouts*

Edit: Mantra beat me to it.

Dra508
10-19-2016, 09:47 PM
Did he just call Obama's presidency a REGIME???

Someone coached him that one.

Look, I don't think he had enough votes for people he is currently pandering to.

DF118
10-19-2016, 09:48 PM
"Correct!", interrupted Trump. The moderator snorted, and patronized him back, both involuntarily and facetiously in equal measure: "Thank you, sir".

allegro
10-19-2016, 09:50 PM
LET'S FACT-CHECK NAFTA, SHALL WE??!?!?!? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/09/history-lesson-more-republicans-than-democrats-supported-nafta/)


The Facts

Bill Clinton was certainly a supporter of NAFTA who pushed approval through Congress. But it was negotiated and signed by President George H.W. Bush.

Here’s a photo of George HW Bush signing NAFTA
http://67.media.tumblr.com/926486a7dd754be758702dd92b9b8789/tumblr_mxyxa9et181qjih96o1_500.jpg

Moreover, more Republicans than Democrats voted for the deal, as the trade pact was vehemently opposed by labor unions. One key ally for Clinton was then-House Minority Whip (and later House speaker) Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), who is said to be on Trump’s list of possible running mates.

NAFTA was a successor to a free-trade pact with Canada. Bush had viewed NAFTA as a political opportunity, an achievement for his reelection campaign. He initialed the deal on Aug. 12, 1992, before the GOP convention, and then formally signed it in December 1992, after he had lost the election to Clinton.

Clinton had supported the pact during the presidential campaign but said he wanted to negotiate side agreements with Mexico concerning enforcement of labor and environmental laws. He didn’t pursue ratification in Congress till after those agreements were reached in August 1993 — but the deals were denounced by labor and environmental groups as too weak.

So Clinton did not negotiate NAFTA, nor did he sign it. But he did put his political prestige on the line to get it approved by Congress — even as two top Democrats, House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt (Mo.) and House Majority Whip David Bonior (Mich.), opposed it. In the House, NAFTA passed 234-200; 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voted in favor of it. The Senate approved NAFTA 61-38, with the backing of 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.

In both the House and the Senate, more Democrats voted against NAFTA than for it — a signal that the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party was strong even then. Clinton held a signing ceremony for the implementing legislation on Dec. 3, 1993, flanked by former presidents and congressional leaders of both parties. But that’s not the same as negotiating and signing the treaty with Mexico and Canada. The trade agreement went into effect on Jan. 1, 1994.

Mantra
10-19-2016, 09:53 PM
Man I'm so tired of all these topics.

Dra508
10-19-2016, 09:55 PM
Is he president of the conspiracy theory club of ' merica? Oh and, quote Andy Warhol correctly you ass wipe: 15 minutes of fame!

cynicmuse
10-19-2016, 09:55 PM
Wow. Clinton just stared into the camera and shook her head when Donald claimed that she funded the violence at his rallies.

Mantra
10-19-2016, 09:58 PM
The crowd started laughing when he said "Nobody respects women more than me."

allegro
10-19-2016, 09:59 PM
Wow. Clinton just stared into the camera and shook her head when Donald claimed that she funded the violence at his rallies.

Look into that shit, a lot of crap here in Chicago is coming out about people bragging that they paid for it or started it but they are trying to take credit for shit when they had nothing to do with it but were bragging about it.

cynicmuse
10-19-2016, 10:04 PM
Look into that shit, a lot of crap here in Chicago is coming out about people bragging that they paid for it or started it but they are trying to take credit for shit when they had nothing to do with it but were bragging about it.
Oops. I wasn't clear. I wasn't saying that the great orange cheeto (which is an insult to cheetos) was telling the truth. Her reaction was something more like what I would have expected from SNL mocking the debate. She'd previously managed to keep her response to a somewhat incredulous smile.

DF118
10-19-2016, 10:05 PM
The crowd started laughing when he said "Nobody respects women more than me."

Yeah, he's done.

tony.parente
10-19-2016, 10:06 PM
"Made with Chinese steel"

LOL

Sarah K
10-19-2016, 10:08 PM
She is going IN tonight!

I love this so much.

Dra508
10-19-2016, 10:15 PM
I don't know how HRC keeps a straight face.

It's about now when Trump will go off the rails. The sing songy mocking shit is not presidential, does he know that?

tony.parente
10-19-2016, 10:19 PM
You know this debate is a joke when the moderator can't help but laugh.

allegro
10-19-2016, 10:20 PM
"ALEPPO. HAVE YOU SEEN IT? HAVE YOU SEEN WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN ALEPPO???"

Jesus Christ, he and Alec Baldwin are one person, now.

Wtf were WE SUPPOSED TO DO in fucking Aleppo??? RUSSIA is bombing the shit out of Aleppo.

Trump seems to think that Clinton, as Secretary of State, solely decided what to do in countries like Syria. UM, PRESIDENT OBAMA DECIDED STUFF LIKE THAT ALONG WITH HIS DEFENSE ADVISORS.

HE SHOULD READ THIS ARTICLE. (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/)

Mantra
10-19-2016, 10:21 PM
It's weird how even when he has the opportunity to make a stronger point he botches it because he can't formulate a statement that extends beyond one sentence.

sick among the pure
10-19-2016, 10:27 PM
I didn't watch the debate, I wasn't home at the time. To be honest, I didn't really want to. DId I honestly miss anything important at this point, or just more things to laugh/cry about?

allegro
10-19-2016, 10:27 PM
I didn't watch the debate, I wasn't home at the time. To be honest, I didn't really want to. DId I honestly miss anything important at this point, or just more things to laugh/cry about?

This Saturday's SNL skit will sum it up for you.

Edit: To sum it up, Trump called Clinton "such a nasty woman"

Mantra
10-19-2016, 10:31 PM
I fucking hate this moderator, to be honest.

allegro
10-19-2016, 10:32 PM
OH, GOOD, THEY ARE GONNA TALK ABOUT MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY, AND NOBODY HAS TALKED ABOUT THIS, THANK GOD!

DUDE, OBAMACARE IS NOT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE, what the FUCK!!!


I fucking hate this moderator, to be honest.

Yup, he doesn't force Trump to answer the fucking question.

I would REALLY like to know why they aren't giving Social Security recipients better cost of living increases based on something other than stupid baselines like GAS PRICES when seniors don't fucking DRIVE but they spend their money on MEDICINE!

Mantra
10-19-2016, 10:39 PM
Wow, so three whole debates and not a single question about climate change. Great.

Dra508
10-19-2016, 10:40 PM
HRC walked away. No handshake. Wait, is that Vince Neil?

allegro
10-19-2016, 10:53 PM
Wait, is that Vince Neil?
I know, it looks just like him!!!

allegro
10-19-2016, 10:53 PM
Wow, so three whole debates and not a single question about climate change. Great.

I thought they talked about it in the first debate, and he blamed China.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/09/26/mobile-clinton-trump-debate-hofstra-sot-climate-change-01.cnn

frankie teardrop
10-19-2016, 11:18 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfLZfyphg0M

hopefully that absolutely uncalled for statement is the death rattle of his campaign.

frankie teardrop
10-19-2016, 11:18 PM
also, i was begging for him to say "embiggens." i think it's a perfectly cromulent word.

Mantra
10-19-2016, 11:48 PM
I thought they talked about it in the first debate, and he blamed China.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/09/26/mobile-clinton-trump-debate-hofstra-sot-climate-change-01.cnn

Yeah, I remember that moment, but unless I'm mistaken, wasn't that exchange sort of tangential and not directly connected to the question being asked?

As far as I recall, the moderators never directly brought up the topic of climate change.

hellospaceboy
10-20-2016, 08:58 AM
I don't know why, but I can't stop laughing at this!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvLw45dXEAAxi9M.jpg:large

Amaro
10-20-2016, 09:15 AM
I don't know why, but I can't stop laughing at this!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvLw45dXEAAxi9M.jpg:large

A pretty scary sight for me, especially when I've just woken up.

implanted_microchip
10-20-2016, 10:20 AM
Wow, so three whole debates and not a single question about climate change. Great.

They should've held one in Miami and focused heavily on it with audience questions from people who are already getting directly affected by it. Really shameful that all we got out of all three was Ken Bone's lame "what are ya gonna do to have cleaner energy without hurting any industry" question on it.

perceptionnexus
10-20-2016, 10:25 AM
I support neither candidate at this point and think this election has become absolute kindergarten-level drama. I tend to run a pretty steady middle-ground as far as politics are concerned, and from my perspective the mainstream media in the United States has also shown a ridiculous amount of left-wing bias as well, and has made it very difficult to be as objective as I can and to feel fully-informed. It's an absolute mess and I hate to say it, but as a voter, I'm throwing my hands in the air. I'm burned out on researching and after last night I don't feel either are fit for office.

allegate
10-20-2016, 11:47 AM
"they're both terrible!!1!"

http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/giphy.gif

onthewall2983
10-20-2016, 12:07 PM
A pretty scary sight for me, especially when I've just woken up.

So is your avatar, so maybe it's karma?

DigitalChaos
10-20-2016, 01:18 PM
Is it just me or has the discourse around the election become really toxic this time? It didn't seem this bad the last 2 and they were electing a black man, or am I not remembering properly? I'm thinking maybe the rise of twitter has something to do with it

Everyone says this, but it's not true unless... maybe.. you are talking about an election you have experienced first hand.
Has a presidential election ever been as negative as this one? (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/10/18/the-most-negative-campaign/)

onthewall2983
10-20-2016, 01:23 PM
It feels bad now, but I think it will be judged ultimately by it's aftermath. If there is long-lingering resentment at large by Trump supporters, it could make life in America a little uneasy for everybody, including them. If that's not the case, and everybody just gets on with their lives, then maybe it won't be as toxic in the long run. Especially if the GOP heeds the lessons that surely could be learned from this disaster they are directly responsible for.

DigitalChaos
10-20-2016, 01:28 PM
In before DigitalChaos is triggered by the phrase "gun show loophole" tonight.
sorry, I don't watch the "debates"
There is no debate unfolding in the format they have. It's just endless assertions. It's mindless entertainment for people who want to feel politically involved while wanting to see their football team play on the field and stick it to the rival team. It's on par with Fox News in that sense. All the comments in this thread about the debate kind of reinforce this. It seems pretty pointless.

WorzelG
10-20-2016, 01:32 PM
Everyone says this, but it's not true unless... maybe.. you are talking about an election you have experienced first hand.
Has a presidential election ever been as negative as this one? (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/10/18/the-most-negative-campaign/)

I did just mean in my memory where I guess Reagan is probably the first one.
That is a really interesting article though, Thomas Jefferson's Congo harem! I had no idea

DigitalChaos
10-20-2016, 01:34 PM
It feels bad now, but I think it will be judged ultimately by it's aftermath. If there is long-lingering resentment at large by Trump supporters, it could make life in America a little uneasy for everybody, including them. If that's not the case, and everybody just gets on with their lives, then maybe it won't be as toxic in the long run. Especially if the GOP heeds the lessons that surely could be learned from this disaster they are directly responsible for.

Exactly. In terms of actual consequences, this election is much like prior ones. Everyone acts like its "the most important ever" every goddamned election. It's definitely humorous to watch though. People get fed that shit and eventually believe it and start preaching it with impressive passion. Yet, all the stuff they were equally as passionate about over the last year has been forgotten.

As for the lingering resentment: you mean like when McCain lost, Romney lost, Tea Party became a thing, etc? Been there already...

Timinator
10-20-2016, 01:35 PM
I support neither candidate at this point and think this election has become absolute kindergarten-level drama. I tend to run a pretty steady middle-ground as far as politics are concerned, and from my perspective the mainstream media in the United States has also shown a ridiculous amount of left-wing bias as well, and has made it very difficult to be as objective as I can and to feel fully-informed. It's an absolute mess and I hate to say it, but as a voter, I'm throwing my hands in the air. I'm burned out on researching and after last night I don't feel either are fit for office. One of them will be elected; don't you think it's your duty to cast your vote for one of them? Are you saying that you can't see any points of differentiation between Trump and Clinton?

DigitalChaos
10-20-2016, 01:42 PM
I did just mean in my memory where I guess Reagan is probably the first one.
That is a really interesting article though, Thomas Jefferson's Congo harem! I had no idea

It is! It's kind of odd seeing the author use Jefferson as a parallel to Hillary, considering how Jefferson was pretty close to what a libertarian is these days, but I get the point.

The bit about how easy it was to spread a false rumor (like a candidate's death) and how hard and slow it was to correct the info... Really interesting to think about. We can now correct info across the world in seconds, but you have echochambers and conspiratorial thinking that prevents that info from taking hold. I wonder if those same issues existed back then as well, at least to the extreme we see today. If so, the false info campaigns could be absolutely detrimental back then, compared to now. I really want to learn more about how potent the false-info spread was compared to now. So fascinating.

allegro
10-20-2016, 02:05 PM
sorry, I don't watch the "debates"
There is no debate unfolding in the format they have. It's just endless assertions. It's mindless entertainment for people who want to feel politically involved while wanting to see their football team play on the field and stick it to the rival team. It's on par with Fox News in that sense. All the comments in this thread about the debate kind of reinforce this. It seems pretty pointless.
In debates I watched in prior elections from, say, 20 or more years ago, they were really informative and much more formal and actually helpful. But the last few primaries and elections, ugh, nuts. I only watched them this time for the same reason people watch NASCAR: potential crashes.

perceptionnexus
10-20-2016, 02:10 PM
One of them will be elected; don't you think it's your duty to cast your vote for one of them? Are you saying that you can't see any points of differentiation between Trump and Clinton?

Yes, you are absolutely correct regarding it being a civic duty, but on the other I have a hard time justifying supporting either with my vote, simply because I want neither in the oval office. My wife and I have been talking about voting for Johnson. He won't likely even win his home state, but looking at it we can get behind him on more issues than Clump, so it's more a matter of principle.

Thank you for bringing that up, it's an important role for us as citizens. I've appreciated reading the dialogue in this thread, and thanks to you guys for helping give me some insight into things. To each their own as far as candidates, regardless of opinions on the issues, it may be a circus, but it's also great to see people really caring, making their voices heard and giving a shit about the direction of the country.

implanted_microchip
10-20-2016, 02:27 PM
Yes, you are absolutely correct regarding it being a civic duty, but on the other I have a hard time justifying supporting either with my vote, simply because I want neither in the oval office. My wife and I have been talking about voting for Johnson. He won't likely even win his home state, but looking at it we can get behind him on more issues than Clump, so it's more a matter of principle.

Thank you for bringing that up, it's an important role for us as citizens. I've appreciated reading the dialogue in this thread, and thanks to you guys for helping give me some insight into things. To each their own as far as candidates, regardless of opinions on the issues, it may be a circus, but it's also great to see people really caring, making their voices heard and giving a shit about the direction of the country.

So you think we should abolish the minimum wage, do nothing about climate change since ages from now the sun will swallow the Earth and that we should get rid of the Department of Education?

allegate
10-20-2016, 02:46 PM
Voting is a Right, Not a Civic Duty (https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/10/27/jacoby/PiV0sbV2bXf6OQAToXalxM/story.html)


If you’ve heard it once, you’ve heard it a thousand times: It’s your civic duty to vote. Between now and Election Day — unless you’re planning an extended session in a sensory-deprivation tank — you’ll no doubt hear it again. And again.
Don’t believe it. It’s not your duty to vote.

Sarah K
10-20-2016, 02:53 PM
Unless you are a white cis man, someone along the line fought long and goddamn hard for you to be able to vote. We owe it to those people who sacrificed so much. It should be viewed as a duty for everyone outside of that group.

Khrz
10-20-2016, 02:56 PM
Unless you are a white cis man

Yeah sorry, but some people lost their lives so that white cis men could vote too, just because it didn't happen "over there" doesn't mean it wasn't instrumental in defining your rights and, yes, duties.

Timinator
10-20-2016, 03:07 PM
Yes, you are absolutely correct regarding it being a civic duty, but on the other I have a hard time justifying supporting either with my vote, simply because I want neither in the oval office. My wife and I have been talking about voting for Johnson. He won't likely even win his home state, but looking at it we can get behind him on more issues than Clump, so it's more a matter of principle. Some people have disputed above whether it's a civic duty or a right to vote. I don't care much for this argument either way.

I think that if you want to vote for Johnson that's fine. I'm not interested in telling anyone who they should or should not vote for.

But I still have a hard time getting my head around the fact that you find Trump and Clinton equally unpalatable. There seems to me to be a lot of clear space between these two candidates. Their policies differ across the board. They compose themselves in totally different manners. They have infinitely different experience. I just don't understand how someone can look at them and say, Naw, they're the same.

marodi
10-20-2016, 03:24 PM
In my entourage, we have a saying:"Voting gives you the right to bitch and whine about the government. If you don't vote, you don't get a goddamn word to say about the result."

And in the wise words of Yogi Berra (may he rest in peace): that debate was déjà vu all over again.

implanted_microchip
10-20-2016, 03:40 PM
In my entourage, we have a saying:"Voting gives you the right to bitch and whine about the government. If you don't vote, you don't get a goddamn word to say about the result."

And in the wise words of Yogi Berra (may he rest in peace): that debate was déjà vu all over again.

God I cannot tell you how hard a time I had not telling all the early 20-somethings I knew who bitched and moaned ceaselessly about Bernie losing the primary despite not even being registered to vote to shut the fuck up.

If you care, you should vote. It's that simple. If you don't, you shouldn't complain about the outcome, because you did nothing to make it go your way.

hellospaceboy
10-20-2016, 03:59 PM
God I cannot tell you how hard a time I had not telling all the early 20-somethings I knew who bitched and moaned ceaselessly about Bernie losing the primary despite not even being registered to vote to shut the fuck up.


I was just bitching out a coworker who complained that the independents weren't allowed to vote in the Democratic primaries... He said it was unfair that only democrats had a say in who became their nominee...

Dra508
10-20-2016, 04:03 PM
I was just bitching out a coworker who complained that the independents weren't allowed to vote in the Democratic primaries... He said it was unfair that only democrats had a say in who became their nominee...
HAHAHHAHAA. Did you give him a lesson in the 'merican democratic process?

DigitalChaos
10-20-2016, 04:16 PM
In debates I watched in prior elections from, say, 20 or more years ago, they were really informative and much more formal and actually helpful. But the last few primaries and elections, ugh, nuts. I only watched them this time for the same reason people watch NASCAR: potential crashes.
that's what the youtube highlights are for! what are we, the research crew for The Daily Show (when it didn't suck)? someone can edit that shit down to the slow-mo and freeze frames with multiple replays of the ankle snapping in half. that's my shit

DigitalChaos
10-20-2016, 04:33 PM
Yeah sorry, but some people lost their lives so that white cis men could vote too, just because it didn't happen "over there" doesn't mean it wasn't instrumental in defining your rights and, yes, duties.
I can't top this (it's a way more concise mention of human history) but i'd like to extend this.

in this country voting is a right, not a duty. There is no right that people truly think 100% of people in this country have a *duty* to actively exercise. Everyone should own a gun even if they are mentally unstable! Everyone should exercise their freedom of religion even if they don't believe in god! Everyone should run for office!

...nah. There are a lot of people who probably shouldn't vote. The uninformed. The people who don't feel a need to vote (the uninformed). There are plenty of informed reasons not to vote as well. Choosing not to positively affirm a candidate you have strong disagreement with is perfectly fine.


There is also the original implication of this duty being connected to feminism and other civil rights movements. That's connected to this toxic pressure on women that channels through feminism. So many feel they must exercise ALL of the rights they have as a duty, as opposed to simply having the option to pick and choose which they want to exercise. (look at all the women who feel they must hold a successful fulltime job while also being a perfect mother to their children, because if they don't then they are a failure and not a strong women as feminism demands)

hellospaceboy
10-20-2016, 05:35 PM
in this country voting is a right, not a duty. There is no right that people truly think 100% of people in this country have a *duty* to actively exercise.

A good example of what an actual duty is registering for selective service (for men, over the age of 18). I got my green card when I was 22, and I had to register if I wanted to live here.

tony.parente
10-20-2016, 06:36 PM
I did that isidewith.com quiz and I ended up siding with Gary Johnson AND Jill Stein 82%, then Clinton at 74% and then Trump at 30%. That's weird.

perceptionnexus
10-20-2016, 06:45 PM
So you think we should abolish the minimum wage, do nothing about climate change since ages from now the sun will swallow the Earth and that we should get rid of the Department of Education?

I don't believe that refusing to vote for either main candidate along with the information I provided would suggest taking positions that definitive, so maybe jumping a bit to conclusions there. I'm curious though, as a stranger on a message board what value would my opinion hold to you? Are you seeking affirmation of your own beliefs? A contrast to your own ideas to facilitate a debate? Are you skeptical of some of your own ideas and seeking evidence suggesting otherwise? What initial opinions would you form about a complete stranger based on their own thoughts, opinions and research about those 3 subjects? Dismissive? Receptive? Under what conditions? I'm being completely sincere in these questions to you. I find people really interesting regarding these kinds of things Should you choose to respond, thank you and God bless.

To clarify, Timinator (is that @ the way to do it? I honestly don't know), please recall that I didn't say that I find Trump or Clinton equally unpalatable. What I meant to convey is that I have difficulty casting a vote for either of two candidates I find unfit for the position of POTUS. I personally don't find either worse or better than the other. They simply are what they are. Trump has a couple of ideas I find somewhat valid, or at least warranting further thought, but most I conclude to be absurd. Same with Clinton. That's not even going into the horrible ways they've treated one another as human beings in the last couple of months. I'm actually more concerned with the role of the media in this election and the way we are absorbing information as a nation. The ratio of junk info posing as real news, bias, and factoids to the pursuit of hard, objective truth has become absolutely appalling. I mean, it's been bad for a long time, but not like this. Again, based on my own experiences.

If I had to hire a person for the job, and had to pick between those two, Johnson and Stein, I would take Johnson. Kind of a wild card, and he certainly doesn't come off as "presidential", but compared to the others, I like a number of his ideas, and being elected governor twice speaks a lot to me.

allegro
10-20-2016, 07:16 PM
I did that isidewith.com quiz and I ended up siding with Gary Johnson AND Jill Stein 82%, then Clinton at 74% and then Trump at 30%. That's weird.

Here are mine, LOL

http://i.imgur.com/hIzNDZp.png

allegro
10-20-2016, 09:46 PM
THESE ARE HILARIOUS (http://qz.com/814511/trumpbookreport-people-imagine-how-donald-trump-would-interpret-great-works-of-literature/?utm_source=atlfb)

#TRUMPBOOKREPORT
“It was the worst of times. Total disaster.” People imagine how Trump would interpret great works of literature

"Lolita. Beautiful woman. Phenomenal woman. In ten years, I'll be dating her. That Humbert Humbert guy. So low-energy. Sad! #TrumpBookReport"

"Little Women. I love women. Especially beautiful ones. Not nasty women. #TrumpBookReport"

"Let me tell you about Les Miserables. He was a good man. Great man. Les. Such a man. He became miserable thx to Hillary. #TrumpBookReport"

allegro
10-20-2016, 10:03 PM
Also, this is a great article (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/10/hillary-clintons-powerful-defense-of-abortion-rights/504866/?utm_source=atlfb). <-----------

implanted_microchip
10-20-2016, 10:10 PM
Wow, Hillary came off as actually personable and humorous at the Al Smith dinner tonight. I'm a big supporter and even I can't believe she managed that. Really funny act.

Meanwhile, Trump got booed. Booed! At the Al Smith dinner!

GulDukat
10-20-2016, 10:24 PM
I'm no Trump fan but thought he actually started off on a good note. The "pardon me" joke was pretty good. Then things went south. I thought Clinton was very quite good.

GulDukat
10-20-2016, 11:46 PM
Who gets booed at the Al Smith dinner?

GulDukat
10-21-2016, 07:45 AM
But it's all rigged anyway:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trumps-incredible-shrinking-map-230135

Timinator
10-21-2016, 02:42 PM
To clarify, @Timinator (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=258) ...I personally don't find either worse or better than the other. They simply are what they are.I still find this baffling. I guess if you're a libertarian then the positions of Trump and Clinton might seem equivalently (maybe I mis-spoke when I said equally, before) awful. But I still find it hard to avoid the very practical view that - conscience votes aside - one or the other of those people is going to be the next POTUS, and as disagreeable as you may find either, they're both so equivalently disagreeable that you'd vote 3rd party, or not vote, because it really doesn't matter which one of them gets in. That one will be entirely as bad (though maybe in different ways) than the other.


I'm actually more concerned with the role of the media in this election and the way we are absorbing information as a nation. The ratio of junk info posing as real news, bias, and factoids to the pursuit of hard, objective truth has become absolutely appalling. I agree with this.

If I was American:
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b262/tdickin/pol.png

Jinsai
10-21-2016, 03:12 PM
I had a nightmare last night that Trump won. I was screaming at the TV, tearing my hair out. I watched Trump walk on stage with that Kermit the Frog smirk saying "we beat a rigged system folks! Nothing can stop us now! We're going to make America so fucking great again! And let me tell you, I couldn't have done it without you... without all your love and support"

...and then I woke up making some kind of "nnnnnggggggaaaaaaaaaAAAAAHHH!!!!" noise. Slowly, the realization that these things hadn't yet come to pass, and that we were still a little over two weeks away settled on me. It was the greatest relief, but I also now know exactly how I'll feel if Trump is elected president. I really, really, really don't want to feel that way again. I've never had a nightmare like this before. The closest I've had is that recurring dream where you didn't study and today's the finals, and then you wake up and realize whew, you have five days left to get your shit together and study. With this, there's still time, and it's looking hopeful that he's going to lose... but like with those "you didn't study and now you're fucked!" dreams, I think that's your brain's way of getting you off your ass. With this, I think my brain is trying to get me to do something about this horrible thing that just might happen, but it doesn't realize I'm powerless.

What am I going to do? Go to a rally? Argue with Jill Stein supporters? Donate some pocket change to the Clinton campaign? Run around reminding people to vote?

I always vote, and I always feel like it's this strangely anticlimactic thing. You feel like you picked up a single grain of sand, walked a thousand miles to a beach, and then threw it into the tide. On your way out someone hands you a sticker, and then you sit around and wait to find out how fucked you are.

allegro
10-21-2016, 03:51 PM
On your way out someone hands you a sticker, and then you sit around and wait to find out how fucked you are.
It's not THAT bad. There are pretty easy explanations as to why some of us have been disappointed in the past. And, Republicans have been disappointed just as much as Democrats in the last 25 years. It wouldn't be nearly as disappointing if people got a lot more heavily involved in local politics and didn't put as much emphasis on the Presidential elections.

It's all this fucking gloom and doom that Trump has been spreading, and that the media has been spreading in the event of a Trump win, and the rancor in this election, etc. I've seen psychologists on TV talking about the stress this campaign is causing people, even young children. People blaming the Federal government for job losses when they don't blame their own Governors or state legislators, etc.: it's just stupid.

allegate
10-21-2016, 03:51 PM
http://assets.amuniversal.com/54acb100713f0134d5c1005056a9545d