It doesn't matter at this point. Trump could wake up tomorrow, fly to Rome, and butt-fuck the Pope to death and I don't think his voters are changing their minds. Same with Hillary. Almost everyone is more or less locked in.
To be fair, if Trump flew to Rome the day before the election and butt fucked the pope, I might vote for him (if I hadn't already voted). The pope will wake up the next day realizing he's gay because trump's tiny dick he always talks about actually feels pretty good and maybe cosby was onto something.
I don't find it amazing at all... I find it the work of an astute lawyer. If you say something, that means that you now have an official statement on record on the matter. If you say nothing, there's nothing to contradict your future position, whatever that may be.
https://www.rt.com/news/365405-assange-pilger-full-transcript/ These are the biggest stories of 2016. This blows the lid off American politics and literally puts the corruption in your face. Our media won't cover it. Our politicians won't answer for it. Half of our population won't even admit it and are still willing to elect her. These are your tax dollars at work. These are American service members fighting wars not to protect you but to enrich a very elite group of people. These are innocent people being killed for being unlucky enough to live in these places. These are people who ignore the struggles of American's everywhere in favor of placing money in places its easy for them and their friends to steal it from you. Whether you decide to elect a democrat or republican, this can't go on forever, it has to change or there eventually will be nothing left.
I think that is my main issue with politics these days... NOBODY is being held accountable. Corruption has been in politics since the beginning, but it is now being talked about openly and without shame, because nothing ever comes of anything. The only real "accountability" is social media... if you say something that could outrage a SJW army, you're gone... but if you buy or sell political favours, who fucking cares. I think that was one of the main appeals of Bernie... he was fucking honest as the day is long. NOBODY could question him on that front, and it was refreshing, and I think people really wanted to see his values come into play. Politicians are now so two-faced that Clinton calls pandering a "presidential characteristic". It's disgusting.
Its sad that the only accountability is if there's a political advantage, but not for the sake of decency or honesty. The Democrats have voided all future credibility around any sort of corruption claims about any Republican candidate. She's the mostly openly corrupt candidate in history yet her supporters still play the denial game. It's absolutely remarkable. I would rather they acknowledge it and say they are still voting her anyway because reasons. The Republicans have voided any moral superiority claims agains Dems. How could they nominate Trump and ever run on that premise again? The guy is a pig that is accused of sexually assaulting multiple women and saying horrible things. Family values.
This is what concerns me. You watch your favorite show. Did you look into this or try to find a reason to it was legal? Serious question. The business times did a series of articles detailing the many felonies the foundation has committed. The truth is out there, it's just getting harder to find under all the noise. Here's one for a start: http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foun...als-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187 From the constitution: That's 18th century speak for saying politicians can't accept bribes from foreign governments. The foundation has done that numerous times. If you think that's not the case you're delusional. From the article: That's why she's cycling those bribes through the foundation instead of just taking a campaign contribution. The constitution overrides all other law. If the foundation was just taking donations from foreign governments and it never influenced policy, then yes, the potential conflict of interest might be an issue, but it wouldn't be illegal. This is fairly simple and easy to understand, but people don't want to believe it so they seek out a confirmation bias instead of meaningful data or evidence. Oh and - Basically, what Nett said. It's like this. You are literally fucking crazy. I like the part where you looked at far right conservative sites warping innocuous e-mails to prove it to yourself. Fucking hell.
And it's also an accurate statement. Which is sad. But in order to get anything done, you gotta know how to work it. Pandering, exchanging favors, is part of it, which is truly the deplorable aspect (yes, even more than trump extremists). But in order to change what works, we gotta change the system. We can start by recognizing the value of voting in your local elections. Clearly, people want it done. You can credit the desire for a system overhaul on the popularity of Sanders and Trump. But both a Trump presidency and a Sanders presidency just wouldn't work right now, because what's the point of an honest president working in a dishonest system?
We're slow and we're stupid. We had slavery for 300 years and then had to fight a civil war to get it right. I'm hoping that's what this election comes down to. We are going to fight against these problems and address them in the long run, but it's going to take a long time. /glass half full
You guys hold any stock in this? It's from 538. Legitimately asking, I checked out of this election a year ago and will vote for anyone other than these two shitstains.
Clinton reminds me a lot of Lance Armstrong. Denied doping forever. Ton of circumstantial evidence, never anything solid. Swore up and down and even convinced himself I think that he was clean. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Clinton finally has a Lance moment. And her excuse will be "but everyone else was doing it," just like cyclists say when they're caught too. Gotta do it to compete. Spoiler: personal note on Armstrong I picked up his book "Not About the Bike" a week after I survived my brain tumor operation. Anesthesia is hell on the body, so as soon as I re-taught myself how to walk I had to get my endurance back, but soon as I could I started getting heavy into road biking. That's where I learned my tumor had largely destroyed my sense of balance, but regardless, I was determined to be a success story on the bike because of that damn book. The day Armstrong admitted to doping, was the last bike ride I took. Haven't touched it since. One day I will, but I feel like it was on me for not realizing that Armstrong had been cheating the whole time. I embarrassed myself. My issue was not that he did it -- everyone dopes in cycling, I don't have a problem with doing it compete -- it's that he didn't own it and lied about what helped him. And because I believed that, I wasted a lot of sweat and blood chasing a mirage. Love 538. And not just for their politics. Statistics is fascinating, I think of it kind of like what Grantland used to be. Polls can only be so accurate, and we've discussed it a lot in this thread, but getting into the - for lack of a better word - "sport" of following it, is really interesting. 538 actually keeps this shit show fun for me.
He's come out and said that this time around it's totally different from previous elections and he is struggling to catch up and figure it out. The impression I get is that they are making their best guess but if it's wrong, they wouldn't be surprised.
They didn't detail felonies. They raised questions. Good questions, but there wasn't definitive proof of anything in there. There is no proof of this. Sorry. There's just not. If there is you certainly don't have it. Because if an armchair quarterback on the internet had it, Chaffetz, Gowdy et al the crowd who wants to see Clinton buried would have it and they would use their considerable resources to do so. Every ambitious FBI agent would love to make their name by proving something like this. So as the article points out, they didn't break the law? Okay. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what financial benefit do the Clinton's receive from their own foundation? Do they draw salaries? Does it donate to her campaign? Hint: the answer is no. You are not the guy to talk about confirmation bias, meaningful data, or evidence. You post hands down the wackiest shit in this thread. Thanks for wasting so much of my time posting youtube videos from users named Can't Stump the Trump and Breitbart articles and repeatedly being half a breath away from chanting lock her up despite zero actual evidence. Stop being an asshole. And are you saying wikileaks is a far right conservative site? Because they are the ones who warped the email in question. Does the Clinton Foundation make Hillary Clinton look bad? Yes. Does it raise good questions of ethics and corruption? Yes. Do those questions deserve to be investigated and explored? Yes. Has anyone thus far turned up any actual proof that she was bribed? No. To say otherwise is distortion and a confirmation bias fantasy. Gleen Greenwald had a good take on the whole foundation thing. The rest of the piece goes on to talk about the irony of Hillary being an example of why the left rails about Citizens United.And yet she is the candidate in the race who wants to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn that. That's probably the most significant anti-corruption measure that our country could take at this time. I mean you can pretend that a vote for Trump is a vote to drain the swamp, meanwhile in the real world Chris Christie is running his transition team. Talk about felonies. Hillary isn't the ideal candidate. But Republicans have cried wolf on her too many times for their pleas to be taken seriously. Especially when they don't have solid evidence backing them up. And even more so when they aren't willing to take steps to prevent any of this from happening with someone else. Hillary is at least open to all this stuff. That's why Bernie Sanders endorsed her.
There's a lot more undecideds, people abstaining who would normally vote, people leaving 3rd parties, etc happening compared to a normal election. There's always that stuff, there's just more than usual and it's making it harder to predict. Some people are even calling the polls themselves into question, but it's the best objective measure we have. The arguments that the polls are wrong and Clinton will outperform them have some merit, but I'm skeptical because some Trump voters either don't vote in most in elections or aren't republicans. Democrats have a lot more ambivalent voters in general, and the idea is that people hate Trump so much the polls will be off because far more 'unlikely' voters will show up to the booths. It's more compelling than the shy Trump voters theory at least. When you look at the way 538 calculated their odds it makes a lot of sense to me, but we'll find out on Tuesday.
I always try to read newspaper endorsements for and against candidates every election cycle. I figure that journalists of all stripes are the ones who pay the most attention to politics as it's what they get paid to do. I found this one to be particularly persuasive so I will share it. America's best hope: Why we would cast our hypothetical vote for Hillary Clinton Here is the first section The source of the article? It's just a transcript from a youtube user named ClintonFan4Eva. Just kidding. It's from this very liberal source: The Economist.
Those aren't the e-mails people having been using to demonstrate an easily understood point throughout the thread...
This line from the Economist piece linked above really sums it up in one sentence. Even if you give Clinton zero benefit of the doubt, and assume she is guilty of all she has been accused of, she is still a better choice than Trump. Trump is just that bad.