The Bigly 2016 US Presidential Election Thread, Part XV

[Diemen]

Yeah, when the other guy is openly and shamelessly questioning and undermining the legitimacy of the democratic process, encouraging voter intimidation in minority neighborhoods, demeaning the worth of people based on their faith and where they come from, then pardon me if I laugh at the suggestion that Hillary is the real danger.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

When FBI Director James Comey wrote his bombshell letter to Congress on Friday about newly discovered emails that were potentially “pertinent” to the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server, agents had not been able to review any of the material, because the bureau had not yet gotten a search warrant to read them, three government officials who have been briefed on the probe told Yahoo News.

Sad!

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by cobl04

I thought I had posted this already but there seems to be a tendency in here to dismiss everything negative about Hillary with a wave of the hand. I get she has a lot of supporters in here but from what I've read there's a lot of legitimate criticisms that deserve a little bit more scrutiny than "oh a politician is tied up with money what a surprise" or "oh a politician controls her campaign tightly what a surprise".




.

You're right, any legit criticism of her generally gets pshawed by the majority in here.
Its been very one sided, and as a somewhat neutral observer (meaning I think both candidates suck and neither should be President), its dismaying. But it is what it is.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by cobl04

I thought I had posted this already but there seems to be a tendency in here to dismiss everything negative about Hillary with a wave of the hand. I get she has a lot of supporters in here but from what I've read there's a lot of legitimate criticisms that deserve a little bit more scrutiny than "oh a politician is tied up with money what a surprise" or "oh a politician controls her campaign tightly what a surprise".



I certainly don't buy into the whole "she's potentially more dangerous than Trump" crap but it's a bit disappointing to see people waving all this stuff away. I suspect were she running against a candidate who wasn't fucking insane there'd be a lot more scrutiny.







so true. Election Day is gonna be so entertaining.

I don't think everyone who is on Team Clinton is dismissing the criticisms.

What you're seeing is minds having been made up a long time ago. What good does discussing Clinton's negatives at this very moment do? I've discussed plenty of negatives about her over the course of the last year and a half.

Yeah, some are disregarding it. But I don't think it's for the same reason that you're making it seem. It's because people have made their minds up. Whatever negative things Clinton is carrying with her aren't even remotely close enough to open up dialogue on the election. Obviously you know Donald Trump is a conman // isn't a serious consideration for anyone who is willing to think critically. So, so what? Clinton is less than ideal. Unfortunate. I don't see how basking in it really helps right now.

[DaveC]

for me, it's the constant background context of trying to find that thing where everyone can point at hillary and say "i told you so". i've had enough of watching people throw shit at the wall hoping something sticks. yes, she has her flaws. of course. but every little thing that arises seems to have the underlying tone of "a-HA! this is finally it" that the right has been harping on for years, and now the left is doing it too and it's getting damn exhausting.

the next eight years are gonna be fun.

[bono_212]

I still don't 100% understand exactly what it is she's done.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by bono_212

I still don't 100% understand exactly what it is she's done.

Same.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

There are a ton of legit criticisms about Clinton, and there is also a ton of drummed up bullshit about her.

It's sometimes hard to see through the noise what is a real concern and what is just stupid.

But what is clear is that the other candidate is Donald Trump.

[Hewson]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQiSjazI0lI

Paraphrasing:

Wallace: Why doesn't Clinton ask Huma Abidin about what's in these emails?
Mook: She hasn't, its a hypothetical
Wallace: There's credible reporting this came from the laptop of Anthony Weiner and Huma Abidin
Mook: There's nothing in the letter about Huma Abidin
Wallace : Its on front page of every paper in the country, why didn't Clinton ask Huma
Mook: Why didn't she ask anybody else?

Mook must work for the law firm of Duck, Dodge and Hyde.

[LuckyNumber7]

I'm too lazy to google rn.

What *did* Anthony Penis do, and why is Huma from Aberdeen important?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Hewson

You're right, any legit criticism of her generally gets pshawed by the majority in here.

Its been very one sided, and as a somewhat neutral observer (meaning I think both candidates suck and neither should be President), its dismaying. But it is what it is.

Don't agree. I feel like everyone in here as to admit at gunpoint that "she's unlikeable" and roll out these endless qualifications and conditions of their support, and somewhere along the line mention how you wish there was someone better and/or check the "less of two evils" box.

She gets shit on, a lot. She's a highly able politician who I think will be an effective president and is wildly qualified for the job. Am I allowed to even say that? Or do I have to give the usual caveats in order for me not to be seen as some sort of sheep? My whole, "she's an inveterate liar, but not about the things I care about" or "she thinks rules don't apply to her" or "she's too cautious and poll-driven" and "been in the system for too long."

Hillary Clinton gets criticized in here all the time.

[VintagePunk]

Originally Posted by bono_212

I still don't 100% understand exactly what it is she's done.

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

Same.

If you're talking in general terms, this is my extremely vague and probably simplistic take on things, from someone who can remember the 90s. I'm sure others will disagree. The Clintons were very, very popular when they entered the White House, and the Republicans launched investigation after investigation and smear campaign after smear campaign directed at them. Were some of the investigations warranted? Sure. But very little was ever found, and certainly nothing that is any worse than any other politician has taken part in (see the GWB administration, for example). Nobody has withstood the sustained scrutiny that Hillary has been subject to for decades - it's nuts. And then there is the repetition of lies - if you repeat something long enough, it doesn't matter if it's true, that's what the public will remember. That's where you get the "Hillary is corrupt, Hillary is a liar" belief from, the constant repetition of it for two+ decades. And whether the bros want to admit it or not, there is also a healthy dose of sexism thrown in for good measure. I'm sure others can and will elaborate, but that's the crux of it.

[VintagePunk]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

I think will be an effective president and is wildly qualified for the job. Am I allowed to even say that?

You're obviously a middle aged black woman.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

I'm too lazy to google rn.

What *did* Anthony Penis do, and why is Huma from Aberdeen important?

He's under investigation for carrying on a "sexting" relationship with a 15 year old girl.

Apparently an electronic device of some sort was shared between Huma and her husband, which was seized in the sexting investigation. This is where the new information was allegedly found.

We don't know what the information is, or whether or not it's relevant and/or important to anything. We just know that they are somehow connected to the Clinton email case.

Could be something was found in the cache. Could be Weiner said something to somebody else in email that he shouldn't have known. Could be some of the missing emails were saved to the computer (if she's one of those people who, ya know, saves emails). Could be much ado about nothing.

Regardless of what it is, the FBI should have not said anything unless they knew more or are willing to say more now. Injecting themselves I into a political race over maybes is incredibly irresponsible.

If they have something, come out now. Indict her if they must. But don't send this letter out this close to the election over a maybe.

[LuckyNumber7]

So what you're saying is, Anthony Penis was sexting a 15 year old girl on the family iPad, and because Huma of Aberdeen didn't do her wifely duty and make him a sandwich, Benghazi happened?

Got it.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

So what you're saying is, Anthony Penis was sexting a 15 year old girl on the family iPad, and because Huma of Aberdeen didn't do her wifely duty and make him a sandwich, Benghazi happened?

Got it.

Indeed.

And to date the FBI still doesn't have a search warrant for said emails, and doesn't know if they include government secrets or a recipie for quiche.

[gump]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

So what you're saying is, Anthony Penis was sexting a 15 year old girl on the family iPad, and because Huma of Aberdeen didn't do her wifely duty and make him a sandwich, Benghazi happened?

Got it.

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

Indeed.

And to date the FBI still doesn't have a search warrant for said emails, and doesn't know if they include government secrets or a recipie for quiche.

Good summary, guys.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Hewson

Paraphrasing:

Wallace: Why doesn't Clinton ask Huma Abidin about what's in these emails?
Mook: She hasn't, its a hypothetical
Wallace: There's credible reporting this came from the laptop of Anthony Weiner and Huma Abidin
Mook: There's nothing in the letter about Huma Abidin
Wallace : Its on front page of every paper in the country, why didn't Clinton ask Huma
Mook: Why didn't she ask anybody else?

Mook must work for the law firm of Duck, Dodge and Hyde.

Chris Wallace has got to be a special sort of stupid. I can guarantee that the FIRST bit of legal advice she received (which she probably did not need to given that she is a lawyer) was to NOT speak to Huma Abedin about this in any manner whatsoever lest it be construed that she was attempting to influence her future testimony (if any).

[BigMacPhisto]

Electoral map is now looking fairly obvious.

Trump will get the Romney states and Iowa. He is currently moving ahead in Arizona and Ohio and that's before this latest e-mail "controversy" makes it's way into the polls. Then there's also the Utah situation with McMullin.

So:

Swing States: Arizona, Ohio, Utah

Red States: Rest of the Romney states + Iowa
Blue States: Rest of the Obama states - Iowa



Very possible that Ohio swings back to Clinton just barely and we end up with, after all of this mess, an Electoral Map that is the same as 2012's with the exception of Iowa. Just goes to show how little impact, overall, the personalities matter and how it's really just about turnout with a party's own base.

Looking at the map and the state percentages, it seems the blue wall would have held regardless of who was the Republican candidate. I could see, say, Marco Rubio making a strong challenge in Florida and Ohio, maybe Nevada, but that's about it. And it would not be enough.

Meanwhile, FiveThirtyEight is expecting Trump to get a respectable 44% vote, in line with about what you would expect a Republican to get in 2016. Again, goes to show that none of his antics really mattered as the Republicans are going to vote for the (R) regardless just as the Democratic base will do the same for the (D). Hundreds of millions of dollars spent to try and convince the handful of Ken Bones left in the country when turnout makes up virtually all of the pie.

[DaveC]

i think marco rubio would probably have won the election by a comfortable margin against clinton.