2016 Presidential Election Thread

Well no fucking shit.

Well, McCain or Romney wouldn't be doing well either. Both were racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes.

Well, McCain and Romney aren't running. Neither is Obama, NBC, ABC, CBS, Chelsey, Buxh, Nixon, nor Bill.

Wasn't the Clinton campaign complaining that the media outlet wasn't doing what they wanted?

Republicans are beginning to panic ... dumping money into House races that should have been safe for them. The House is where they have their best chance of holding onto power -- in fact, numbers-wise, it should be basically inevitable -- and they're even worried there.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/house-republicans-firewall-election-229910

This is hilarious ... when you do a Google search for election polls, you get an ad from the Washington Times saying "Donald Trump surges in poll."

It's promoting a story from six weeks ago.



Denial runs deep ...

The Trump implosion is doing quite nicely. Senate is looking more and more like a lock and now the D's are looking at the House.

Meanwhile, Hillary is flooding Arizona with cash and top surrogates.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/clinton-campaign-arizona-strategy-229884

Freaking crazy to think ARIZONA is in play. Even crazier is that Georgia, Missouri and Alaska are all within 5 points. If Trump keeps sliding we could be looking at an historic blowout.

That is the point. You have a contrast between a woman in a sexual pose that communicates "grab my pussy" and a man expressing the words. A culture that promotes porn and hip-hop is suddenly offended by talk? It's especially hypocritical in the context of Bill and Hillary's treatment of women (He rapes, she targets).If your measure of a candidate is morality, then Hillary still comes up much shorter.

#manypeoplearesaying

Nope.

A woman expressing herself sexually doesn't constitute an invitation for strangers to sexually assault her any more than a man flaunting his wealth constitutes an invitation to mug him.

I dunno what our right-wing friends are so concerned about anyway. A Clinton presidency will be terrific for them: there'll be a period where they can buy guns really cheap (which they'll get to keep because despite years of "they wanna take your guns!!" screeching, it's never happened and things ain't gonna change in 8 years), they can continue to yell at the damn gub'mint and whack off to dreams of seceding (what WOULD they do with their time otherwise?), there'll be more brown folk they can yell abuse at from their porches, they'll get better healthcare when the exertion of yelling at brown folk and the gub'mint gets 'em in the ol' ticker, meanwhile the economy won't implode because Dems actually do quite well at reducing national debt.

It's pretty much win-win.

So Gturner says the media is rigging the election in the dem's favour.

Looks like the republican supporters are trying their own bit of rigging......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37684418

^Maybe the Republicans will buy Twitter? It's share price will soon be in the cents given how desperate it is to sell itself, and how every potential buyer has ran off screaming...

Also enjoying the once-neo-cons sliding towards proto-socialism. Private bizniz not doing whuts best for Merica?

Just as with bedroom antics, private only means private when they agree with what's going on. When they don't, then they want a Big Man to come in and give them some gub'mint teat to suck on.

I'd suspect we have a few bots here, except bots would be smarter.

Oh, I forgot one - cheap accommodation when they vacation in NY, since they'll be the only customers Trump still has to desperately cling on to.

I consider the claim that they come from Russia tenuous at best. And exposing a candidates actual opinions is a service to democracy. Wikileaks has done that all over the world, bringing down governments and promoting democracy repeatedly.

This election isn't rigged in the sense that Trump claims (although I'm sure that gerrymandering and voter fraud exists, the overall impact is fairly marginal). But the US system is profoundly undemocratic - as highlighted by the fact that these are the two candidates in the first place. There are a series of hurdles in place - wealth, acceptability to the corporate media, the two-party system and so forth - which filter out all candidates and policies that elites might find unpalatable.
In an election where Clinton is struggling to shake Trump despite all of the noise surrounding him, it is entirely unacceptable that her opinions on the financial sector are being ignored and worse, covered up.
If the US government intervened to stem the flow of embarrassing revelations about Trump, I believe that all of the "moderates" who sneer at him but are willing to overlook Clinton's opportunism and corruption would be two steps away from rioting in the streets.

Wow, you so didn't get what @Bailey was saying.

One thing I've learned from all this: They literally don't understand consent. I used to think that was just a way of saying they forget about it too easily or sometimes inadvertently ignore it. No. Not true. They literally don't get it.

Here's the thing, though, the way the American system is set up, if it's not Hillary, it's Trump. If Assange wanted to fix the American system, the time to do it would have been BEFORE the coronation of Hillary as the nominee. Doing it after, throws things to Trump.

Look at the shit Trump's said and done, and hasn't been able to get the majority of the Republicans to flee from him. What do you think will happen if he becomes President? Do you think that his party will suddenly gain their conscience and toss him out or hinder him in any way? If you do, or you think that the Democrats would be any different in a similar situation, you don't understand the faintest bit of American politics.

Like when Bill wrestles a screaming girl onto a bed before he rapes her after showing up unannounced at her hotel room?

They aren't Fox News, who really is the propaganda arm of the GOP...

Politico's chief political editor cleared his story with Podesta before publishing.

He e-mailed the story he was going to run to Podesta and asked “tell me if I fu*ked up anything.”

“Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u."

Illustrating that this is NOT normal journalistic practice, he also said "Please don’t share or tell anyone I did this.”

They are not journalists, and do not practice journalism. They are Democrat political hacks.

On that note:

How the Washington Post killed Bernie Sanders’ candidacy

The Bernie Sanders candidacy didn’t die a natural death — it was murdered. And the murder weapon has the fingerprints of the Washington Post all over it.

That’s the contention of the much-respected progressive writer Thomas Frank (author of the beloved-by-the-left book “What’s the Matter With Kansas?”) in an evisceration of the media’s role in taking down Sanders that will be the cover story of the November issue of Harper’s.

Frank went through every one of hundreds of opinion pieces published in the Washington Post on Sanders and Hillary Clinton, his rival for the Democratic nomination for president, during primary season, from January to May 2016, and found a stark disparity in coverage. Sanders pieces took a negative tone by a ratio of 5 to 1, whereas opinion pieces on Clinton were about evenly split between favorable and unfavorable.

Newspapers can take whatever editorial stance they wish, but Frank sees in the Washington Post the epitome of Beltway bluestocking insider liberalism — pro-Wall Street, globalist, technocratic and white-collar. The vehemence with which these writers denounced Sanders suggested to Frank a primal loathing: “In Bernie Sanders and his ‘political revolution,’ on the other hand, I believe these same people saw something kind of horrifying: a throwback to the low-rent Democratic politics of many decades ago … to the affluent white-collar class, what he represented was atavism, a regression to a time when demagogues in rumpled jackets pandered to vulgar public prejudices against banks and capitalists and foreign factory owners. Ugh.”​

The pick your candidates and then tell you what to think about them. They just farm you for your votes like you were cabbages, and to them that's all you are.

Like when anyone does that.

And yet we don't obey Fox News or we'd now be watching endless Jeb! commercials. Fox News' top anchor, Megyn Kelly, went to war with Trump in an attempt to stop him. She failed, because the right-wing is skeptical of media and the left wing is made up of mindless automatons who believe everything the press tells them, and who just do what the press tells them to do.

According to his rape victims he did. Oh, but liberals don't believe rape victims, even when they get an $800,000 settlement and their rapist is impeached and disbarred.

According to Trump, he applauds him for it. But only one of them is running for President.

But you are quite right that doesn't make Bill irrelevant. On the contrary, I think you should definitely keep telling women voters that Hillary has been victimised by womanisers and perhaps even rapists before.

Yeah, Limbaugh's statement is disturbing to say the least. Not only do they just completely not get it, apparently the concept itself, that a woman decides for herself when to be sexual, is evil.

That it may elect Trump (I don't believe it will) is no reason not to have all of the facts known about Clinton. The choice that the electorate make should be as informed as possible, and let the chips fall where they may.

Yes, but if the source is clearly partisan, then the 'facts' aren't reliable.