The Bigly 2016 US Presidential Election Thread, Part XV

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Andrea Chalupa @AndreaChalupa
In intel circles, the story goes FSB filmed Trump in an orgy while in Russia.

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by Axver

Not if it's a really large dick and balls.

 

Then its a Hillary vote?

Zing.

 

And a very flaccid disinterested D&B would be a vote for Gary Johnson?

__________________

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by RockNRollDawgie

I just found out about this connection between Putin (KGB) and Trump and a server in Russia connected with a Trump server in the US.
There is absolutely no mention about this on the news.
All the media is talking about is the "October surprise" of more emails
and legalizing pot.

There is no such thing as the KGB in Russia now, unless you think the Belarusians are in on this too.

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by Axver

This ought to be far greater a media sensation than those bloody overdone emails.

It won't be, of course.

It won't be, but probably because it isn't true.

For much of the summer, the F.B.I. pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents scrutinized advisers close to Donald J. Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats, and even chased a lead — which they ultimately came to doubt — about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank.

Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us...rump.html?_r=0

Today, we've learned a good lesson about why we don't trust Slate as a valid source. Trump would be a shitty president. He probably isn't a puppet of the Kremlin. Both can be true.

However, if you'd like an interesting story about presidential candidates and Russia . . .

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release

As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons.

When the New York Times article was published the Clinton campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, strongly rejected the possibility that then-Secretary Clinton exerted any influence in the US goverment's review of the sale of Uranium One, describing this possibility as "baseless".
Mr Fallon promptly sent a memo to the New York Times with a rebuttal of the story (Podesta Email ID 1489).

In this memo, Mr Fallon argued: "Apart from the fact that the State Department was one of just nine agencies involved in CFIUS, it is also true that within the State Department, the CFIUS approval process historically does not trigger the personal involvement of the Secretary of State. The State Department’s principal representative to CFIUS was the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs. During the time period in question, that position was held by Jose Fernandez. As you are aware, Mr Fernandez has personally attested that “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.”

What the Clinton campaign spokesman failed to disclose, however, was the fact that a few days before sending his rebuttal to the New York Times, Jose Fernandez wrote on the evening of the 17 April 2015 to John Podesta following a phone call from Mr Podesta (Email ID 2053): "John, It was good to talk to you this afternoon, and I appreciate your taking the time to call. As I mentioned, I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton, and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign".


Five days after this email (22 April 2015), Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon wrote a memo to the New York Times, declaring that "Jose Fernandez has personally attested that 'Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter',” but Fallon failed to mention that Fernandez was hardly a neutral witness in this case, considering that he had agreed with John Podesta to play a role in the Clinton campaign.

The emails show that the contacts between John Podesta and Jose Fernandez go back to the time of internal Clinton campaign concern about the then-forthcoming book and movie "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer on the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation.

In an email dated 29 March 2015 (Email ID 2059), Jose Fernandez writes to Podesta: "Hi John, I trust you are getting a brief rest after a job well done. Thanks no doubt to your recommendation I have joined the CAP [Center for American Progress] board of trustees, which I'm finding extremely rewarding."

A bit of a read, but quite worth the time and effort. Unfortunately, the email and CGI issues are a bit convoluted and difficult to follow, but it's really necessary that we do our due diligence, here.

[gump]

Originally Posted by Axver

And what form of voting does Brazil have? This sort of thing would be convenient in Australia's preferential system for providing quick results for the Senate, where voters in larger states sometimes have over 100 candidates to rank (if they vote below the line for individuals rather than above the line for parties). The Senate count is notoriously slow. On the other hand, I am unsure if a machine system could present a ballot as simply and effectively as the paper version does, for the purposes of the voter marking preferences.

We require simple majorities for executive positions at the municipal, state and federal levels (with a second round with the top 2 candidates if nobody receives more than 50% of the votes), as well as for the Senate. For the other legislative positions (we have only unicameral legislatures at state and municipal levels), we have a proportional system.

In the machines, you vote consecutively for each election: President, then Governor, then Senate, then House of Represenatives, then State legislature. Municipal elections never coincide with Federal and State elections. For each of your votes, you enter the "number" of the candidate you want to vote for (which is the number of his or her party - generally well known and publicized, but you can consult lists at the booth). The candidate's photo, name and details will then appear, and you hit on confirm.

Where it gets slightly more complicated is for your legislative candidates: their numbers are larger (4 digits for the Federal House and 5 digits for the State legislatures). You can either take a piece of paper with the numbers written down, or consult the lists. You can also vote simply for the party, given that it's a proportional system.

[DaveC]

edit: nvm. wrong thread

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

It won't be, but probably because it isn't true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us...rump.html?_r=0

Today, we've learned a good lesson about why we don't trust Slate as a valid source. Trump would be a shitty president. He probably isn't a puppet of the Kremlin. Both can be true.

However, if you'd like an interesting story about presidential candidates and Russia . . .

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release



A bit of a read, but quite worth the time and effort. Unfortunately, the email and CGI issues are a bit convoluted and difficult to follow, but it's really necessary that we do our due diligence, here.

Saying that there's no direct link found is not the same as saying it isn't true.

It could be nothing, it could be something.

Just like the emails on Weiner's computer, but that didn't stop the Comey from interjecting.

[Caleb8844]

If the FBI investigates and concludes that there're no links found between Abedeen's emails and the Clinton investigation, then there will have been no links found.

These situations are not at all analogous.

An analogous situation would be if the FBI came out and said they were beginning to investigate links between Trump and Russian banks.

[BVS]

Have we ever had an election where both major candidates were "under investigation" by the FBI a week before Election Day?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[LemonMelon]

Being a citizen of a deeply blue state, I'm fairly certain that I'm not voting for president at this point. My vote is irrelevant to the electoral college and I have so little passion for either candidate that it's a needless internal conflict. I am, however, going to do my due diligence and vote on other seats/propositions relevant to my state that will benefit my interests long-term. I will be spending the rest of the week researching those matters and trying to tune out the rest of this bullshit.

[jay canseco]

Trump may be running for president so that he can pardon himself

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

The right thing to do is for Clinton to finish out this election and then she can be the first elected female President. Then she can step down before the Electoral College so Tim Kaine can be sworn in when January comes around. Republicans will be happy to get as right-leaning a Democrat as they could hope for while the rest of the country gets someone they can trust that isn't tied up in scandals and all of this mud slinging that has gone on.

Meanwhile, as Kaine heals the wounds as a placeholder President, liberals can go ahead and finally nominate their candidate in 2020, getting someone that actually excites the nation and would be a big help down ticket.

Dude, enough.

[deep]

Originally Posted by LemonMelon

Being a citizen of a deeply blue state, I'm fairly certain that I'm not voting for president at this point. My vote is irrelevant to the electoral college and I have so little passion for either candidate that it's a needless internal conflict. I am, however, going to do my due diligence and vote on other seats/propositions relevant to my state that will benefit my interests long-term. I will be spending the rest of the week researching those matters and trying to tune out the rest of this bullshit.

I can respect this, I will be doing the same. I can't remember when my vote for President ever mattered in CA. I am glad I voted for Gore and Kerry against W each time. And I have the satisfaction of telling anyone that cared to listen from 1999 on that W would be a poor president. I had no idea how right I would turn out to be. As for our ballot here in CA we have a ton of proportions. I will evaluate and vote on each one. A few could be close. I have 3 city council seats I can vote for in a hotly contested City Council race for control of the City.
I will probably be voting against all incumbent school board members, we have no term limits and some have been there for 20 and 30 years. I do believe 2016 Presidential election will be like 2000 where people will not boast about voting for the winner.

[deep]

Is all the stuff about Russia just a bunch of lies spread by the Hillary/ Podesda/ DNC machine??


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us...rump.html?_r=0

[Mrs. Garrison]

Originally Posted by Diemen

With so much sexism coming to the fore during this election, it would be nice to not see it spread in this forum, thanks.

Oh please
You know it's only humor, lighten up. Any candidate who barks like a dog deserves to get a video made up about them regardless of their sex.

[gump]

So someone revived an official FBI twitter account that had not been used in a year - @FBIRecordsVault - to release old FBI documents that praise Fred Trump and issue some details about a controversial pardon by Clinton. Literally, the first tweet sent by this account in over a year calls Fred Trump a philantropist.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...tion-marc-rich

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison

Oh please

You know it's only humor, lighten up. Any candidate who barks like a dog deserves to get a video made up about them regardless of their sex.

I second that. Unless I missed something (I didn't watch the whole thing or pay much attention), I think anyone regardless of gender would be mocked on the internet for barking like a dog.

[Axver]

The title is "barks like a bitch". Gee I wonder what the subtext is there.

[LuckyNumber7]

Title doesn't show anywhere for me. Didn't see that bit.

[Oregoropa]

Originally Posted by deep

Is all the stuff about Russia just a bunch of lies spread by the Hillary/ Podesda/ DNC machine??


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us...rump.html?_r=0

That was a Hail Mary. Got debunked by NYTimes within 2 hours. Heard Huff Post passed on the story yesterday. Guess they were out 'locker room' recordings.

Hearing that the Obamas, Biden are cancelling appearances with HRC on the trail. Also Barry, Michelle, Warren are scrubbing their archived twitter history with HRC.