The Bigly 2016 US Presidential Election Thread, Part XV

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
Last edited:
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!
 
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.
 
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.







:lol: 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.
 
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.
 


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


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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.


Good summary, guys.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 


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).
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

:up:

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?
 
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.
 
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 :shrug:.

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.
 
:up:



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.
 
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!"
 
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.
 
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-c...16_Alaska-Survey_Craciun-Research-_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.
 
Hahahahahahahahahabahahahahahahahahahahahahah

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

Hahahahahaahahahahaga
Hahahah
Hagaha
Hahaha
Hahaha
Ha.. Ha..

Oh God... Tears. Fuck.... Hahaha haha
 
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. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom