The Bigly 2016 US Presidential Election Thread, Part XV

[BigMacPhisto]

He raped Juanita Broadrick. That's the assault. And nowhere did I equate consensual sex (which he has engaged in on the side) with assault (which he has also done). I'm merely pointing out that both happened.

There's many other instances of my posts being misunderstood just in the last couple of days, but I really don't feel like turning this into a reading comprehension lesson because posters just want to go ape and vent their frustrations for whatever reason. Like where did I say that the opinions of children in politics were as valid as adults, etc.? It just wasn't even worth the time to set the record straight and if people would just read the posts I make around here at face value and stop adding in their own subtext or, sometimes amusingly, redefining them all together, this place would be a lot less hostile.

 

[Axver]

You know, if you are constantly complaining that so many people misunderstand you, perhaps the problem is that you're just not very good at making yourself understood.

 

[Caleb8844]

Take it with a grain of salt, as it's Fox, but Brett Baier is more Megyn Kelly than Sean Hannity when it comes to reliability

Fox News Channel's Bret Baier reports the latest news about the Clinton Foundation investigation from two sources inside the FBI. He reveals five important new pieces of information in these two short clips:

1. The Clinton Foundation investigation is far more expansive than anybody has reported so far and has been going on for more than a year.
...
4. Sources within the FBI have told him that an indictment is "likely" in the case of pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation, "barring some obstruction in some way" from the Justice Department.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ctment_likely_in_clinton_foundation_case.html


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[DaveC]

Take it with a grain of salt, as it's Fox, but Brett Baier is more Megyn Kelly than Sean Hannity when it comes to reliability

FBI Sources Tell Fox News An "Indictment Is Likely" In Clinton Foundation Case | Video | RealClearPolitics

yea, this seems like a real trustworthy news source.

 

[Salome]

Take it with a grain of salt

I have no problem believing the FBI investigates the crap out of anything Clinton related and is fully planning to go for indictment when any of their efforts finally stick.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

I wouldn't call it their "efforts sticking" if an indictment occurs.. They either have something or they don't...and if they do actually have something, then it should be considered in all likelihood to prove wrongdoing on the part of the Clintons as the FBI sure as hell isn't going to go to trial unless they have enough evidence to enable a victory.

The fact that anybody would accept immunity in these situations such as earlier with the guy that set up the server or now with people involved with the Clinton Foundation, it tends to hint at guilt as the people accepting a deal and giving access would only have reason to do so if they felt the people they were working with were guilty of impropriety. Then again, if you were in that same situation and think, "hmm. I don't know what they have, but I don't want to go to jail" then perhaps you would be willing to comply for obvious reasons...

But the fact that deals were cut for immunity in this situation and that people working within the actual Clinton organization have been more than willing to fall on their sword for her in the past (such as the "sex island" creep pleading the fifth rather than discussing Bill), I get the feeling that there's certainly something amiss involving the Foundation.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

You know, if you are constantly complaining that so many people misunderstand you, perhaps the problem is that you're just not very good at making yourself understood.

Or maybe others can stop turning a discussion about sexual victims and those that had their reputations tarnished into me somehow having outmodeled beliefs about wives and marriage when I've never for a second held such beliefs or even expressed in an opinion in that matter?

Or maybe we can point how the high rate of black crime without people just instinctively trying to call it out as racism?

Really, it must make them feel good to try and turn anything into an opportunity that anybody disagreeing with their political stances into a proverbial boogeyman full of racist and sexist hatred. It doesn't matter if it's Donald Trump or Mitt Romney, etc. It's the same boring us against them mentality every election cycle without any self reflection over their own candidate's weaknesses and failed promises. Actual facts such as a high crime rate in the black community or polling showing a candidate's weakness can just be thrown out the window, and in essence, makes a lot of posters around here no different from the far right "non-realists" that they complain about. If it doesn't suit their own personal narrative, it must not exist.

I for one welcome alternative discussion and you don't see me brandishing pitchforks or acting like the Trump supporters in here are the devil incarnate, etc. But again, I actually support freedom of speech and people having a discourse on political topics rather than trying to marginalize anybody that doesn't support the almighty queen.

 

[Salome]

The fact

But the fact

The real fact of the matter is that so far they have found nothing that could even almost lead to an indictment. Otherwise, as you indicated, the FBI would and should have gone for an indictment by now.

You can't blame the FBI for a lack of trying though.
President Trump might want to put the FBI in charge of building that wall on the border with Mexico.
If they put the same amount of effort in that project the wall should be finished somewhere around March 2019.

 

[coolian2]

He very clearly has a number of authoritarian tendencies, including a complete disregard for separation of powers and an independent press. Combined with his blatant ethnocentric and patriarchal worldview, it is accurate to call him a fascist.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

"I'm not a fascist, I'm a priest! Fascists dress in black and tell people what to do, whereas priests.....uh....more drink!"

 

[phanan]

The FBI didn't have anything before, and they won't have anything again.

Because there just isn't anything there.

 

[BVS]

Or maybe we can point how the high rate of black crime without people just instinctively trying to call it out as racism?

See? You can't even get your finger on the pulse of FYM (this has never been the reason), let alone the nation as a whole.



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

There's many other instances of my posts being misunderstood just in the last couple of days, but I really don't feel like turning this into a reading comprehension lesson because posters just want to go ape and vent their frustrations for whatever reason. Like where did I say that the opinions of children in politics were as valid as adults, etc.? It just wasn't even worth the time to set the record straight and if people would just read the posts I make around here at face value and stop adding in their own subtext or, sometimes amusingly, redefining them all together, this place would be a lot less hostile.

Let's make something crystal fucking clear - NOBODY is misunderstanding your posts, other than perhaps yourself.

 

[Axver]

Or maybe others can stop turning a discussion about sexual victims and those that had their reputations tarnished into me somehow having outmodeled beliefs about wives and marriage when I've never for a second held such beliefs or even expressed in an opinion in that matter?

Or maybe we can point how the high rate of black crime without people just instinctively trying to call it out as racism?

Really, it must make them feel good to try and turn anything into an opportunity that anybody disagreeing with their political stances into a proverbial boogeyman full of racist and sexist hatred. It doesn't matter if it's Donald Trump or Mitt Romney, etc. It's the same boring us against them mentality every election cycle without any self reflection over their own candidate's weaknesses and failed promises. Actual facts such as a high crime rate in the black community or polling showing a candidate's weakness can just be thrown out the window, and in essence, makes a lot of posters around here no different from the far right "non-realists" that they complain about. If it doesn't suit their own personal narrative, it must not exist.

I for one welcome alternative discussion and you don't see me brandishing pitchforks or acting like the Trump supporters in here are the devil incarnate, etc. But again, I actually support freedom of speech and people having a discourse on political topics rather than trying to marginalize anybody that doesn't support the almighty queen.

Mate, you might want to stop digging. We have a rather strong diversity of opinion here, from the Vlad SSR through to fellow travellers with fascism. You're the only one insistent about being misunderstood, marginalised, etc.

 

[Caleb8844]

yea, this seems like a real trustworthy news source.

RealClearPolitics isn't particularly known for hackery, as far as I'm aware


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Hewson]

this sign was put there by a man from a factory downtown.

And after this election I think I'm gonna move to the country and eat a lot of peaches.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

yea, this seems like a real trustworthy news source.

Brett Baier is trustworthy. Biased, but trustworthy.

 

[bono_212]

Yeah, I'm not expecting they'd actually carry out that insane plan, no. It's more just the idea that they're even talking about doing such a thing, and thinking this is a totally normal, rational way to react to an election outcome or any attempt at anything resembling gun control, that disturbs me. They may not make it to Washington, but I shudder to think of what else they could try and do if the election doesn't go their way.

You know what, maybe they should do it. And then they'll get to see what happens to their militia in the modern day world. And they'll see that the Second Amendment doesn't mean the same thing today as then. And then MAYBE just maybe we'll be able to get legislation changed, once the country sees what a large group of unhinged gun owners can do.

 

[gump]

This is fine, part XLVII:

Meet Donald Trump’s Top FBI Fanboy - The Daily Beast

 

[deep]

Amazing, that both real clear Politics and Nate Silver 538 have it only four electorial votes for Clinton, that comes down to one state, New Hampshire, or any other state

 

[Caleb8844]

Fox News reported Wednesday night that the FBI’s Clinton Foundation probe has produced an “avalanche of evidence” likely to result in indictments.
Bret Baier, based on two sources, said in a tweet that “barring obstruction they’d likely continue 2 push to try for an indictment.”
Mr. Baier said the probe into pay-for-play charges at the Foundation by the Bureau’s White Collar Crime division has been going on for more than a year and has involved multiple interviews with numerous individuals.
“There is an avalanche of new information coming every day,” Mr. Baier said his sources had told him.
The sources also told Fox News that Mrs. Clinton’s private email server, which she used to handle classified information as secretary of state, had been breached by at least five hackers attached to foreign intelligence services.

Clinton Foundation FBI probe likely to yield indictments: report - Washington Times

More outlets are beginning to pick up this story.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Amazing, that both real clear Politics and Nate Silver 538 have it only four electorial votes for Clinton, that comes down to one state, New Hampshire, or any other state

Yep, he shot up from a 30% average in their three trackers to 35% in one day thanks to polls showing him tied in both Colorado and New Hampshire. This race is officially a toss-up at this point and I would not be shocked if his trend line got him as high as 45% by election day.

This will be the closest election in recent history on the day of, according to polling, other than 2000 and 2004. Who would have thought Trump was actually capable? My idea is that it's a combination of two things:

1) The weakness of Hillary Clinton as a candidate.

2) Trump brings into the fold enough non-regular voters (i.e. the people that supported him in the primary) to make up for the many Republicans refusing to vote for him, thus coming out about even and with nationwide support in line with Romney and McCain.

 

[deep]

I know I have posted at least twice in here that I would not be surprised if Obama gave Hillary a blanket pardon, that is looking more and more likely now. win or lose

 

[LuckyNumber7]

This will be the closest election in recent history on the day of, according to polling, other than 2000 and 2004. Who would have thought Trump was actually capable?

Have you ever considered working within sensationalist media? "This will be the closest in recent history [...] except for half of recent history."

Instead of barking at people to learn reading comprehension, I suggest you learn how to write.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Or because there was only one other close one from the 70s, 80s and 90s...I'm pointing out that the three this century are the exception rather than the rule in history.

But it was worth pointing out the surprise of it all. It's a shame that Democratic party members have essentially brought Armageddon upon the country. They can stay home the next time we make a choice rather than rush to Corporate Booker because he has all the financial backing, and, you know.

 

[LemonMelon]

2012 was down to less than a percentage point day of in the polls and we saw how that turned out.

 

[BEAL]

Can it be November 9th yet?

 

[BigMacPhisto]

No, it was not. The overall polling was off by one percent in favor of Romney. That's it. It was not that close the day of the election. Romney's chances were about 10% on FiveThirtyEight while McCain's were essentially zero. Trump is in new territory.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Can it be November 9th yet?

I'm over it just like everyone else. Can't wait to actually have a substantive discussion on President Hillary Clinton without "but Trump" or "but all politicians" showing up in every other post. I've seen all of one supporter of hers in here actually say their positions on things like the TPP...I guess the rest will wait and see what Hillary Clinton tells them to do. I bet their will be a lot of from them when she signs some new fracking legislation or entangles us in costly foreign interventions. After all, if it has a (D) next to its name, it's innocent.

 

[BVS]

It's a shame that Democratic party members have essentially brought Armageddon upon the country. They can stay home the next time we make a choice rather than rush to Corporate Booker because he has all the financial backing, and, you know.

Well if there is Armageddon(there's not an emoticon with a big enough eyeroll), then there won't be a next time.

 

[deep]

do any of the Clinton supporters want to weigh in on the possibility of an Obama pardon for Hillary?