The Bigly 2016 US Presidential Election Thread, Part XV

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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.

Originally Posted by VintagePunk

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.

So...let me get this straight: They found nothing, yet these constant investigations are still seen as legitimate and not an obvious attack at this point?

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by DaveC

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

I dunno about that, but I do agree that we would've seen a legitimate election where Rubio was favored. Probably would've taken Florida. I just don't know how he would do practically everywhere else.

If I was to pick a gimme republican, I think it would've been Kasich.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

I dunno about that, but I do agree that we would've seen a legitimate election where Rubio was favored. Probably would've taken Florida. I just don't know how he would do practically everywhere else.

If I was to pick a gimme republican, I think it would've been Kasich.

I mean, I would've been tempted to vote for Kasich .

I do like Hillary, but I *don't* think she's perfect, and it's almost worth exploring the possibility of a near moderate president, in terms of how much could've been accomplished.

BUT OH WELL. Republicans let that ship sale a LONG time ago.

[VintagePunk]

Originally Posted by bono_212

So...let me get this straight: They found nothing, yet these constant investigations are still seen as legitimate and not an obvious attack at this point?

Again, anyone with more detailed memories than me is welcome to jump in, but if there had been a smoking gun, we would have been hearing about it for the past year, rather than vague shouts of "Benghazi! Emails! Corruption! Pay to play! Seizures! Put her in prison!"

As I'm sure you know, Bill was impeached, and that came about after Starr's frustration about finding nothing on the Clinton's during Whitewater. I guess that depends on your perspective, if you think a president ought to be forced into publicly admitting that he received a beej in the Oval Office. In my opinion, the question never should have been asked, it was Republican obstructionism. But does any of that even have to do with Hillary?

The thing is, like I said about repeating lies, these things stick with low information voters, and becomes the gospel truth. And the media runs with them, because hey, a story! But there's nothing more damning in any of it, that I have seen, that hasn't been done by Republican administrations, and far worse in the case of GWB and his band of war criminals. How many emails did the GWB administration lose?

The fact that these discussions are even taking place when her opponent is someone truly corrupt, and with the temperament of a spoiled toddler is kind of mind blowing to me. But hey, that's fine, let's give him the security codes, when the world is on the brink of war, and he's up at 3 am tweeting missives during a coke binge. That scenario is much more comforting than unlikeable Hillary.

Eta - sorry if this comes off as a little ranty, Ashley. Not directed toward you at all, just my frustration with the election cycle and the recent turn of events with the FBI.

[anitram]

I think that Oprah spoke publicly about the election last week in an interview. Now I've never been a huge fan but she really put it perfectly when she said how literally every person in America must have had the same conversation about Hillary which concludes in "I'm just not sure that I like her..." Oprah's response was: "Like her? She ain't coming to your house!"

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by VintagePunk

Again, anyone with more detailed memories than me is welcome to jump in, but if there had been a smoking gun, we would have been hearing about it for the past year, rather than vague shouts of "Benghazi! Emails! Corruption! Pay to play! Seizures! Put her in prison!"

As I'm sure you know, Bill was impeached, and that came about after Starr's frustration about finding nothing on the Clinton's during Whitewater. I guess that depends on your perspective, if you think a president ought to be forced into publicly admitting that he received a beej in the Oval Office. In my opinion, the question never should have been asked, it was Republican obstructionism. But does any of that even have to do with Hillary?

The thing is, like I said about repeating lies, these things stick with low information voters, and becomes the gospel truth. And the media runs with them, because hey, a story! But there's nothing more damning in any of it, that I have seen, that hasn't been done by Republican administrations, and far worse in the case of GWB and his band of war criminals. How many emails did the GWB administration lose?

The fact that these discussions are even taking place when her opponent is someone truly corrupt, and with the temperament of a spoiled toddler is kind of mind blowing to me. But hey, that's fine, let's give him the security codes, when the world is on the brink of war, and he's up at 3 am tweeting missives during a coke binge. That scenario is much more comforting than unlikeable Hillary.

Eta - sorry if this comes off as a little ranty, Ashley. Not directed toward you at all, just my frustration with the election cycle and the recent turn of events with the FBI.

I'm not positive, but based on your post here, I think we're of the same mind on this topic.

[Popmartijn]

Originally Posted by 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

I'm sure this poll is an outlier, but still. Clinton is apparently 4% ahead of Trump in Alaska.
http://www.craciunresearch.com/wp-co...ch-_102916.pdf
Freakin' Alaska! Next door neighbour of Trump's friend Putin.
Yes, it is only 3 electoral votes. And as I said, I think the poll is an outlier (with a sample size of only 400 I think there will also be a fairly big margin of error). But still, together with Utah (and Arizona and Georgia too) it shows the damage that Trump can do.

[Phantom Dreamer]

Own it Hillbots

[bono_212]

Hahahahahahahahahabahahahahahahahahahahahahah

OK, OK, I'm OK.... - - wait... No...

Hahahahahaahahahahaga
Hahahah
Hagaha
Hahaha
Hahaha
Ha.. Ha..

Oh God... Tears. Fuck.... Hahaha haha

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by bono_212

Hahahahahahahahahabahahahahahahahahahahahahah

OK, OK, I'm OK.... - - wait... No...

Hahahahahaahahahahaga
Hahahah
Hagaha
Hahaha
Hahaha
Ha.. Ha..

Oh God... Tears. Fuck.... Hahaha haha

I don't agree with the cartoonish nature of the post, but since you don't seem to see anything wrong with Hillary, maybe you could address some of those points.

[Axver]

It's simply not relevant (and some of it blatantly untrue, e.g. the electoral fraud gibberish). She's running against an authoritarian with fascist, racist, and misogynistic opinions. End of.

I'd fucking vote for a pigeon against Trump. At least all the pigeon will do is shit on your foot, not on your entire life.

[LemonMelon]

Even if you think Hillary is completely incompetent for whatever reason, Trump still has the political experience, mindset and hands of a small, horny child.

[Vlad n U 2]

Trump, of course, is unspeakably awful - but I'm really not sure what's the worth in discussing him. Consensus here is that he's trash.

Just smash him.

[coolian2]

Oh can I? I might even be able to find some brass knuckles

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2

I don't agree with the cartoonish nature of the post, but since you don't seem to see anything wrong with Hillary, maybe you could address some of those points.

Until someone can please explain to me what she's done that's illegal and worth the witchhunt, I've asked more than a few times, actually, I'll continue to support her bid for election. Otherwise, you completely misrepresent my opinion on this topic, as I do find her to be a flawed human being, but being someone who has followed her political career, beliefs, and presidential promises for nearing on a decade, yes, I have no problem saying that she's my candidate of choice now, the same as she was 8 years ago.

As for the post:

Originally Posted by Axver

It's simply not relevant (and some of it blatantly untrue, e.g. the electoral fraud gibberish). She's running against an authoritarian with fascist, racist, and misogynistic opinions. End of.

I'd fucking vote for a pigeon against Trump. At least all the pigeon will do is shit on your foot, not on your entire life.

Seriously, it's absurd r/forwardsfromgrandma tripe and I expect better from Interference.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Phantom Dreamer

Own it Hillbots

I don't always use someone else's thoughts in political debate(oh wait, yeah I do), but when I do I use a meme.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Axver]

Originally Posted by LemonMelon

Even if you think Hillary is completely incompetent for whatever reason, Trump still has the political experience, mindset and hands of a small, horny child.

Don't insult all the small, horny children out there.

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by BVS

I don't always use someone else's thoughts in political debate(oh wait, yeah I do), but when I do I use a meme.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I do wish 'Bernie bro' would stop being a thing as well.

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by Phantom Dreamer

Own it Hillbots

You forgot the worst of the worst:

"I support elastic waist banded pajama looking baseball uniforms"

[BVS]

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.

Everyone talks about the divisiveness of this election and how things are one sided, but that's not what disappointed me this time around. I find that fym, for the most part, is usually a little more intelligent than most corners of the Internet, but it fell into the trap of the lowest common denominator like the rest of the Internet.

As someone who started out truly open to Sanders or Clinton, but the first time I questioned Sanders I was labeled a Clinton shrill, I was disappointed. We had an obvious hack in here, and they'd get called out for it, and often taken to the mat for it. But then you'd have posters who I would normally consider intelligent come in and say 'why all the vitriol for Sanders' when that wasn't even close to being the case.

There's been very little attempt at real discussion about Clinton; there's the see what shit sticks crowd, the meme crowd, and the I just hate her crowd. The legitimate issues that do get brought up, often get brought up in some vague feelings post that aren't really framed in any way for real discussion.

And then there's the big issue; she's running against the worst candidate in modern US history, so the whole playing field is skewed.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference