The reality is that by just planting the seed of doubt, Trump is utterly fucking this country over. There are now going to be huge swaths of the population that firmly believe the vote is rigged if Hillary wins, which only serves to undermine not only her but the entire government as a whole. I think Trump knew he was losing so he went nuclear. If he was going down he was taking Hillary and the entire government with him, and the best way to do that is make sure 30-40% of the nation views the entire government as illegitimate. This is only going to lead to a greater divide and more problems. I know Trumpers like to brush this all off as bluster by a petulant man-child, but his whole "rigged" campaign can have seriously dangerous consequences.
Two things: 1) Just because they are on the registry doesn't mean they have actually voted. This is such a silly bullshit argument I don't even know where to start. It goes like this: Man registers to vote. Man dies. Registration office doesn't get notice, never removes man from registered list. I know no one could possibly believe the government is inept and inefficient, but there it is. Poorly run? Sure. Corrupt? Nah, most likely just lazy and/or poorly organized. 2) Indiana is a heavily republican state, leaning towards Trump (pro tip: Trump will win Indiana), with a solidly republican state congress, Republican Pence as governor (With Republican Mitch Daniels before him), and most of the counties run by Republicans (except Lake, Porter, and Marian). In other words, virtually everything is run by Republicans. How and or why would they rig it for Hillary and Democrats?
I did an absentee ballot a couple weeks ago and I can't say for certain my vote will be counted in my very very very conservative republican home town.
Sometimes it's hard to tell when Clinton is being evil and when she's just utterly incompetent. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/24353 Ok, so she's considering expanding US military actions in the regions to combat ISIL, that has expanded across several regions. As for who's arming them - Just fucking awesome. Now much of that aid is going to ISIL. Of course, all these favorable weapons deals she made a "top priority" as secretary of state have nothing to do with the millions of dollars they've flooded into the Clinton foundation. That would just be ridiculous. I mean, we got to be intellectually honest here. What the fuck? The arms you now want to give the Kurds to level the playing field against the arms you accidentally gave to ISIL are definitely going to be used by Kurdish rebels inside Turkey. Also, where the fuck did you come up with this idea that because there's been instability in Turkey arming rebels there and sending our relations with them into a fucking tailspin is a sound strategy? She also wants a no fly zone as a senseless dick waving message to Russia to prove how tough she is. This will marginally weaken Assad, while providing little to no long term strategic benefit. If I was a Syrian, I would be expecting the war to be going on a very, very long time. This is the worst foreign policy ever.
The geriatric blue hairs they typically have running the voting stations are the ones you really got to keep your eye on. I hold out some hope that there will be some amount of positive change by all bullshittery of this election. Term limits or some sort of federal law prohibiting the type of incestious relationship between elected officials turning around and becoming lobbyist the minute they retire or are voted out. Not holding out much hope as we are so devided and tribal that you really can't see any sort of reasonable compromise on anything in the near future. Burn out is the best we can hope for a little while it would seem.
I had to miss the Trump one because I got tickets too late. People think the Hillary/Trump rallies are crazy, but get ready for some libertarians heckling Johnson over not running to dissolve the government. Now, that is a crazy political group. On the downside there won't be any paid thugs posing as nazis to start a brawl, but you take what you can get.
Yea, as you guys may have noticed I'm pretty reserved about politics. I support Johnson, not sure I'm ready to get into that kind of environment.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts of the last Jon Oliver where he digs more into Johnson's platform and thoughts.
At one time I supported Johnson. The turning point for me was his absolute cluelessness about Aleppo.
I tried too, but the more you watch the guy the harder it is to do. I didn't see a single interview where he didn't embarrass himself and/or say something incredibly stupid. The dullness of his personality aside, I think he's an honest and upfront politician, much more so than the average legislator in Washington, but he's just not bright at all. There might have been an opportunity in this election for a 3rd party candidate to make a splash, but Johnson screwed up at every turn. However, the number of votes he's polling at isn't insignificant. Trump's best chance at this point would probably be to sway the Johnson voters over to his side. Not sure that it would work, as I'm sure many of Johnson's supporters are likely doing so out of hatred for both candidates, but he should start pushing hard for that vote. As in yesterday.
The part that really got me was that this is at least his third time running for President and he couldn't name a foreign leader he liked. It would be one thing if he were some clueless average-joe who saw back in March that Trump and Hillary were running and said "By God, I have to stop this from happening!" But no, he's the head of a "major" political party who's been to this dance three times and could not name ONE foreign leader to save his life.
There's been so many posts in this thread about why people don't like Hillary, and Trump's insanity/lack of temperament. For those of you voting for Hillary, is it strictly a lesser of two evils, or is there parts of her politics that you actually like? As in what you reasonably expect her to do in office, not just rattling off aspects of her platform that seem like good policies (except for when you expect her to institute those policies of course). Also, is her experience seen as a positive in the sense that she has a good understanding of the dynamics and how things work, or is it a favorable view towards her conduct in office over the last couple decades, or both?
I'll be voting for Johnson not because I think he can win, but because the other two are so disgusting to me in wouldn't vote for either with a gun to my head. Yet I've always voted since I was able to in 1992 and am not sitting the one out. I'll vote for a third party in the hopes enough others do so and we can get a third candidate on the big stage next time around instead of the clusterfuck we have now.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...arns-politics-of-rage-will-slow-global-growth http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...-biggest-fuck-you-ever-recorded-human-history Investment houses have figured it out, hell, even Michael Moore has figured it out. People are sick of the status quo and are willing to do whatever it takes to overturn the system that they see as rigged against them. The only fix for this is going to be major changes within Government in order to bring the media, banks and politicians to heel to the public will. I don't think this election will be the end of it either, people are angry and they should be. Donald Trump may make promises to make change, Hillary is clearly the status quo, but I really doubt Donald can bring the change that needs to happen. At the very least, maybe we can stop focusing so much on identity politics and start concentrating on something that will make life better for everyone like more and better paying jobs.
I've posted why I've been a Hillary supporter since her announcement of her candidacy, but I'll re-post my reasons here: 1. She's the democratic candidate. I'm diametrically opposed to pretty much every social position held by conservatives/republicans, and the current social issues that are at the forefront of our society today such as reproductive rights, LGBT rights, and police brutality are very important to me. 2. She's got a lot of experience as a politician and from several different positions, which I think will be useful. I was also extremely impressed by the way she handled herself during the Benghazi hearing. I think she's going to do a lot better navigating the current Washington climate than Obama did when he first took office. 3. Related, I don't put any weight in any of the allegations against her. As far as I'm concerned it's all petty, vindictive bullshit, and it doesn't hold any water with me. As far as I'm concerned, The GOP lost any faith with me when they decided to go after her during the Lewinsky scandal. 4. I'll say it: The fact she's a woman and I'd like to see a woman break through that barrier and be POTUS.
That was mine too. His supporters tried to spin it as "but you didn't hear the rest of the interview, he did so good during the rest of it!".... Yeah but he's fucking clueless about the rest of the world. That, and his tax policies make no sense as shown in the video Nett posted. Now granted, at least he has stated more policy than trump has, but still. The party I most closely align with is the Libertarian Party. I liked him because he was the Libertarian candidate. But the way I saw it, since he was trying to push himself into the national debate, his threshold for not knowing shit was a lot lower. If you're clinton or trump and you have two hundred thousand questions coming at you 24/7, it's ok if you misstep a little bit. Everyone would make mistakes under that kind of pressure, they're not robots. But as a 3rd party candidate you only have a few chances to really shine and get your name into the spotlight. You fuck up one of those? No excuses. Also, I say "I identify most closely with" the libertarian party, instead of "I am a libertarian," because I totally disagree with their stance on foreign policy, taxes, and some of the crazy fringe stuff like vaccinations. Johnson was great, until he opened his mouth. That being said, at the same time I was becoming soured on him, I went from seeing clinton as the lesser of two evils to actually liking her. I voted for her because I want her to win. Because I couldn't, morally, put my vote behind someone who I don't morally agree with. Which was my original reason for supporting johnson.
You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but I'm also allowed to shake my head and wonder what the fuck is wrong with you.
To Nett's point: I know this guy pisses a lot of people off but listen to what he has to say. These are very basic questions that we don't have answers to or at least answer that make any sense when you try to back up and look at the bigger picture. You know, in the end, I don't blame Clinton alone for Benghazi, it just happened to be her watch and I think she was put in an impossible position by other not-so-legal dealings going on at the time, especially with the Saudis and Qataris. It doesn't excuse the fact that she is plain and simply a liar but I think what Gowdy is referring to and try to prove is this: https://www.truthorfiction.com/clinton-sent-ambassador-stevens-benghazi-retrieve-stinger-missiles/ This is nothing more than a theory and supposition but it actually brings a lot of pieces together into something that makes some sense of all of the bullshit that has been going on. Again, this is why I don't blame Clinton alone in this but if you stop and ask the simple question of why: Why keep a private email server that you go to such great lengths to wipe? Why destroy all of the other media devices and lie about how many there were? Why were we in Benghazi after all that had happened? Why lie and blame it on a Youtube video? Why didn't we send in air support, QRF or evacuation? If he could prove this out it would be like the Iran Contra scandal all over again.