2016 Presidential Election Thread

Seeing you of all people post those words leaves ironic behind and goes straight into spooky.

These will be the same "sources" the moderators will be quoting at the debates:

"Mr. Trump, you said that Secretary Clinton is deceitful. However, we have a quote here from fact-checking site politifact.com that she has in fact never lied in her life. Why do you hate women?"

In the latest FBI document dump:


Hillary's IT people were calling it "the Hillary coverup" when they were deleted her e-mails and such.

Even if that were true...
(that everyone believes that - they don't...a lot of folks have warm fuzzie memories of Clinton and don't remember much about the sex scandals other than to find it petty that the GOP fixated on it...also, voters 35 and under were not even eligible to vote when he was in office, probably the vast majority of voters under 40 have little awareness that he had that kind of reputation. Horndog, yes, but JFK was a well known horndog and it never decreased the warm memories)
...none of that mitigates that Trump has pretty much the exact same reputation, behavior wise, and is much more open and bold about it. Whatever you think of Bill, he pretty much never is a boor about it in public. Trump goes on Howard Stern and revels in his misogyny. That make it stick a lot more easily, particularly with women.

another example of poorly articulating a valid idea.

The real problem, the source of dispute, on climate change beyond the debate over human's role in it, is whether or not the massive spending is going to make a real difference in outcomes. To me, I don't mind investment per se except that it seems to be a commitment to preserving current situations (for example, defending low-lying beachfront property from flooding)

It seems to me that the UN and member nations ought to be taking a hard look at what the world climate is projected to be in, say, 100 years and start thinking about what their country looks like at thattime. I know what I'm about to say is wildly simplistic in relation to actual climate patters so don't bother to point that out - it's just an example.

If you look ahead and think that in 2100 Toronto will have a climate more like Nashville, that Vancouver would remind you of current day San Diego, that Anchorage would be something like Seattle...apply that wherever...that might imply that Albert and Saskatchewan would be the breadbasket of North America, that their was prime fishing to be done along the Northern coast or whatever...figure out what is likely to happen and adapt to it, rather than try to stop it. That might mean that here in MS we end up with a climate more like...Belize? I dunno. But the ecosystem has adapted to change, even large extinctions, for millions of years, humanity has adapted to harsh conditions, it is the way of all life. And we have the advantage over our ancestors of being able to analyze and project.

The point of all this is that maybe it's wiser to spend our resources on adapting than in things that are burdensome which might not even reverse the trend anyway. That might not be the best view but it's not a crazy head-in-the-sand view.

Adapting to change on that scale would require a global government with an enormous amount of excessive force. I much prefer cheaper and cleaner energy to dictatorship.

good stuff here about what motivates white voters, who will decide this election
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/religion-and-education-explain-the-white-vote/

Pretty much education and religion - the more educated you are, the more likely to vote Clinton - the more religious, more likely Trump

the author digs into the nuances of that.

To be clear, I'm not oposed to working towards cleaner energy, I'm just troubled by the idea that, for example, if sea levels threaten Miami, or parts of it, that we should spend billions to hold Miami...understand that over the long term what constitutes Miami might change.

I'm NOT speaking of some sort of coerced evacuation to another location or whatever. Just about how we do our planning

And I absolutely do not want to turn this into a CC thread...and I acknowledge I'm not super well versed in the science so I tend to stay out of CC discussions anyway, but just as a layman's impression, the notion that in the span of 100 years the global climate would climb more than it had moved in the previous 20,000 years seems insanely counter-intuitive. It is the most difficult concept to believe that science has ever offered up, in my mind.

I am not equipped to disprove it but it LOOKS ridiculous on the surface of it.

And Belize will be hotter than the Sahara by that point. Where will those people live? It won't be a tropical landscape at that point, either, it'll be a desert like the Sahara, because what's known as the Rain Belt, will have moved to a different latitude. Essentially, the regions of the Earth between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn will be so hot and dry that human populations will find it nearly impossible to live there.

Ecosystems generally only adapt to change over large spans of time. Thousands, to tens of thousands of years. They'll have to do that in far less time. Even then, not all species make it. Had mammoths and mastodons been able to survive the onslaught of warming temperatures and being hunted by humans, there wouldn't be near the number of forest fires in western states that there are now, because they would be eating the trees, rather than the trees dying and falling over as they do now. What's going to happen when other species die out because they can't adapt to global warming?

Adapting means handling the displacement of billions of people relocating from areas where it's difficult to survive due to the heat, to other places. I think we all know how popular the idea of relocating large numbers of people from one part of the planet to another isn't.

You're living in la la land. The press tried attacking Trump over sexism and a long list of Miss USA girls lined up to say he was one of the greatest, nicest, most honorable men they'd ever met. The press did not try that again.

In contrast, Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby have the same reputation, but whereas Cosby used drugs, Bill used force.

Uh no. Even according to the wildly paranoid IPCC projections, by 2100 southern or central Kentucky will have a climate more like Nashville. Vancouver will have a climate more like Seattle or Olympia. Anchorage will have a climate more like Bismark ND or Burlington VT.

It will take fifty or more years before the change is detectable to human senses without going back and looking at archived data.

Belize already is hotter than most of the Sahara, which is located further north than Belize. There are no equatorial deserts. During much warmer interglacials the tropics stay wet and are only a little warmer than they are now, because the tropics are water cooled on a tight feedback schedule. Nobody in the tropics will even notice global warming.

There are no places where people live now where it will be difficult to survive the heat. Under a 2C increase, my city will be beat the high temperature records of the last decade for a span of several hours during an entire decade. I will watch two or three Stargate SG-1 reruns and skip the whole catastrophic three hours.

On the off-chance that anyone might believe your bullshit.

Keep telling yourself that.

The scientists are idiots. Tropical ecosystems have been tropical ecosystems for hundreds of millions of years. That's one of the reasons they have so much genetic diversity. They stay tropical through ice ages and also through much warmer interglacials (such that monitor lizards are living in Greenland and coconuts are growing in Canada).

If the tropics are suffering from drought, it means we need more global warming to increase tropical ocean evaporation.

GWB speaking at today's opening of the NMAAH - Bush is not known for eleoquence, but try to imagine Trump delivering these words. I can't do it.

This museum is an important addition to our country for many reasons. Here are three. First, it shows our commitment to truth. A great Nation does not hide its history; it faces its flaws and corrects them. (Applause.) This museum tells the truth: that a country founded on the promise of liberty held millions in chains…that the price of our Union was America’s original sin. From the beginning, some spoke the truth – John Adams called slavery “an evil of colossal magnitude.” Their voices were not heeded, and often not heard, but they were always known to a Power greater than any on Earth, one who loves His children and meant them to be free.


Second, this museum shows America’s capacity to change. For centuries, slavery and segregation seemed permanent parts of our national life. But not to Nat Turner, or Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, or Martin Luther King, Jr. (Applause). All answered cruelty with courage and hope. In a society governed by the people, no wrong lasts forever. After struggle and sacrifice, the American people — acting through the most democratic of means — amended the Constitution that originally treated slaves as three-fifths of a person to guarantee equal protection of the laws. After decades of struggle, Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were finally enacted. Even today, the journey toward justice is still not complete, but this museum will inspire us to go farther and get there faster.


And finally, the museum showcases the talent of some of our finest Americans. The galleries celebrate not only African-American equality, but African-American greatness. (Applause.) I can’t help but note that a huge influence in my teenage years is honored here, the great Chuck Barry. (Laughter.) Or my baseball idol growing up in far West Texas, the great Willie Mays.


And of course, something I never really mastered – the ability to give a good speech – but Thurgood Marshall sure could.


As some of you may know I’m a fledging painter, a struggling artist. (Laughter.) I have a new appreciation for the artists whose brilliant works are displayed here: people like Robert Duncanson, Henry Ossawa Tanner, and Charles Henry Alston. Our country is better and more vibrant because of their contributions and the contributions of millions of African Americans. No telling of American history is neither complete nor accurate without acknowledging them.


The lesson of this museum is that all Americans share a past — and a future. By staying true to our principles, righting injustice, and encouraging the empowerment of all, we will be an even greater Nation for generations to come. I congratulate all those who played a role in creating this wonderful museum. May God bless us all.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opi...medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

Obama's speech was also good.

"Centuries ago Africans were taking in chains to the country where I would one day be President. When I think back on what they did to propel me into the highest office, for me to become the leader of the free world, I look at my daughter and think "they have gained so much from me." Just like all Americans, I look at myself in the mirror and see myself reflect back at me. I look at the great generations African Americans who came before, who led to me, and I think, "If only they could know that one day, I would be President." Me. In the Oval Office. Is speaks to the greatness of this country that they elected me as their leader, and for that I am truly grateful and humbled, that me, the son of a man from Kenya, who came here not on a slave ship, but on an airliner, seeking opportunity, produced, as it turns out, me. And it is for this reason that I am motivated to do all the great and wonderful things that I do. It is what gets me up in the morning and powers me throughout my day. The thought that I have such awesome responsibilities as President, and that my Presidency shows that history's arc bends toward a more just world, one where someone as humble and wise as me can be elected to lead not just this nation, but many nations, toward the goals I perceive, with my firmness and resolve intact. And it is only by elected Hillary that my dream, my vision for the future, can be sustained. A failure to ensure my legacy will be a betrayal of me. Yes me. And that is something nobody should even contemplate, because this country should build on my greatness, not walk away from it, sloughing off into the dark recesses of the dustbin of history, having once had a leader so bright (me), and then turning back to racism and xenophobia. So in this place, this magnificent museum to my people, and to me, let us resolve to vote however many times it takes to ensure my legacy for future generations, so that they too can come to this museum and see pictures of me, reflecting on just how great I was, and how much change I brought."

I'm NOT debating the particulars, as I said I was making up examples for the sake of the point. This isn't a CC thread. I only brought it up to make a case that Johnson's position, or something similar to it (he expressed it so awkwardly I'm not entirely sure what his point was) was not an insane one.

right, the guy who repeatedly:
1. had affairs which he bragged about
2. left his wives for the mistresses
3. repeated the cycle

(and who has been accused of child rape)

is now the "family values candidate" who can exploit the adventures of the man who's only been married to one woman in his entire
life.

Simply demonstrates the cognitive dissonance of the folks who take their marching orders from the Pharisees.

But Johnson's position is entirely sane. The time to act is now, not when the Sun has expanded into a red super giant. By then it will be too late to do anything. The first step is to fund technologies that will allow our planet to travel safely through the outer corona of a star.

You mean the serial rapist and his enabler who destroys the lives of his countless victims?

Trump has invited some of Bill Clinton's "bimbos" to the debate. He'll point them out in the audience.

Some interesting things here, mostly unflattering, but this jumped out at me

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-228607


Later on it describes Clinton as being near illiterate about computers, I recall a similar article about Trump back in the spring. Guess that comes with nominating two old-timers, eh?

Sure, if you believe the InfoWars spin, which no one other than those who are already bowing the knee to the god-king do...not swing voters.

His Gennifer Flowers gag will blow up in his face with undecided women voters, they don't like that kind of shit. He could have easily trolled Clinton with someone - as she is doing him with Cuban - without going to that maneuver.

Trump is the master of the Tweet.

Heck, pictures of Ivanka make up a large proportion of web traffic, second only to cats.

But women are okay with powerful men raping young women and then having their bitch wives destroy the lives of the countless victims.

Remember all the nasty things Hillary said about Bill's rape victims? That you could find a dozen by trolling a dollar bill through a trailer park, etc? She called them whores and worthless trash.

also, see lie #11 here:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/24/us/elections/donald-trump-statements.html?_r=0

The entire list is really illuminating - and it's just ONE WEEK. You could make a list like this for every week of the year

Many women came out to support Trump, appearing at his rallies, including Miss Wisconsin who is dying. CNN story

The Democrats are desperate because they nominated the enabler wife of a serial rapist, who should have gone to prison for his numerous rapes and sexual assaults.

They should have nominated Bill Cosby instead.

According to Trump, all his "fans" will be watching football Monday night. Who - besides the Suits at NBC - is he trying to impress?

I had been wondering about the whole "smash them with a hammer" thing the right is clinging to, and where the notion originated. Having seen Trump's remark in the previously linked story, I followed the link and it turns out this is what the FBI documents say:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/u...the-fbi-clinton-email-investigation.html?_r=1
So basically while still in office on two occasions someone secured a device no longer in use by smashing it and in Republican minds this translates to destroying over a dozen devices years later AFTER she was under investigation in order to destroy evidence?

Can someone besides gturner and Ramen check this for me? Am I reading this right or is there an entirely separate and more recent phone-smashing incident?