2016 Presidential Election Thread

Um, no. Hillary is the victimizer and Bill's enabler. When Bill goes out and fucks some random woman, Hillary has the woman stalked and harassed, and possibly murdered (there's a list of those). Bill's victims aren't afraid of Bill, they're afraid of Hillary's goons.

That's not how it works. I'm sure liberals like you don't believe rape victims because they're inherently biased and emotional, as opposed to weighing the evidence.

For those of us who understand the concept of 'truth', it is.

We have tens of thousands of their own e-mails. We can read what the truth is for ourselves instead of having it predigested for us by Rosie O'Donnell.

For example, in the hundreds and hundreds of additional pages that the FBI just released from the investigation, we learn that Hillary looted the State Department's furniture and took the stolen merchandise to her house. That's theft of government property, and it's a felony. Of course that's nothing compared to the $6 billion dollars in State Department funds that are still missing. It's probably in offshore accounts managed by the Clintons.

Gturner's dipshit response gives the whole game away.
It's not rape unless there's kicking, screaming, and some black eyes probably help too.
Until then, I guess it's "good ol' boys havin' fun".

And there you have it folks, Rick admits that he utterly fails to understand Americans. Nothing dumped by Wikileaks has been a surprise to anyone, it merely confirms what we've suspected all along, and nobody really gives a shit.

We know that Hillary's in bed with Wall Street, and Trump wants to be a despot, and we voted for them anyway.

Wait wait wait. I thought Bill was raping these women? Now it's fucking them. You really need to get a consistent argument down.

Bills rapes the ones who won't consent.

The Human Dumpster Fire is continuing his feud with Paul Ryan:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-paul-ryan-2020-ambitions-229922

Who know whose the biggest loser in this election?

The Libertarian party.

Good God does Gary Johnson and Bill Weld suck. They are just terrible.

Ron Paul would be far more effective then those two.

This would be a perfect year to really gain ground around the country and these two knuckle heads are blowing it big time.

Well, people can judge that for themselves, as they do with all media. Censorship of Wikileaks is not the answer.

How is this anything to do with understanding Americans? Does people being generally aware of Clintons leanings mean that nobody should have the right to publish specific information confirming them?

You know what you call someone who gets in a feud with Paul Ryan?

The winner.

And that's the problem with the Libertarian party.

Step 1) Stand on principles a great many Americans from both mainstream parties can agree on.

Step 2) Find the most lackluster, inept, fruitcake pair in the nation to advance these views.

Step 3) Wait four years and repeat steps 1 and 2.

*Optional: Add naked dancing fat people - if possible in silly hats.

They're doing a lot of self-censoring by their choice of when to deploy information. A lot of this info could, and should, have been made available much earlier.

Playing holier-than-thou whilst tactically deploying information to maximum harm to one side isn't being transparent, instead it's the exact kind of activity you'd be shitting pure fury over if it was some kind of CIA play in another country's election.

The CIA, and other nation states' intelligence agencies for that matter, are at least meant to do dirty deeds, it's in their job description. Wikileaks loves telling everyone they're super speakers of truth however, and their current threats of information, and timed dripping of info, stinks of someone acting for one of those agencies. Maybe they've gone back to St Julians original remit of making money...

I suspect that if, as expected, Hilary is the next President, Wikileaks may discover there are consequences to shilling for Putin.

"Self-censoring" is what everyone does and I don't mind if they have an agenda. I don't even mind if they're trying to damage Clinton specifically. Wikileaks are not themselves a state actor and they have a right to be partisan.
As to knowingly working with the Russians and batting for Trump, I'm still skeptical. Trump is damaging himself quite enough and Wikileaks likely just doesn't have anything to throw at him.

I think I've been very clear that I want wikileaks to continue and that I oppose any attempt to introduce censorship against it. But pointing out perceived bias in a specific part of its data dumps is part of the legitimate public debate that discusses it.

Awww.

You don't believe it's within the capacity of the establishment to lie about that to discredit Wikileaks?

Put it this way, I believe it was within the capacity of the Bush administration to perpetrate 9/11.
But they didn't.

Wikileaks wouldn't have anything on Trump because there's not ten years worth of political insider e-mails to hack. It would be like hacking Tom Selleck, Dick Vitale, or Harry Connick. There wouldn't be anything interesting in it, and Trump already tweets like a banshee and did reality TV for over a decade, so there's very little left to find that we wouldn't already know about. Thus the media desperately trying to fan the flames about silly locker room talk. If there was something more, the press would be using it, such as the laughable groping claims coming out of the woodwork from women wouldn't draw any undue attention in a late-night laundry mat in the projects.

*Disclaimer: I've groped most NFL cheerleaders, and they liked it. I once got trapped in an elevator with Alicia Silverstone, Jessica Alba, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Melissa Joan Hart, and Christina Applegate because one of them would keep holding the "door close" button so I couldn't escape. If I hadn't got physical I'd probably still be trapped there.

Then they should be up front about it, and they should also be prepared that waging informational war only remains informational when both parties have a vested interest in avoiding in it becoming hotter than that. If they're going to play that game, somehow I doubt they'll get the same level of protection from drones delivering something a little more explosive than the Breaking Bad DVD boxset than, say, the Chinese state-sponsored hacking groups.

Ah. So the traditional media have magically plenty to throw at him, and Wikileaks haven't? That doesn't sound remarkably dubious to you? The fact Trump has deals all over the world, dodgy ventures such as Trump University and he's, what, able to do more with his, and second- and third- parties, data than he can do with his gob or twitter account, as in keeping it shut?

Yeah. Okay.

He must keep all that shit at Volpone's board or something I imagine, such is it's ability to hide from prying eyes.

I think he shares William of Ockham's ability to recognise something that walks and quacks a lot like a duck, and not conclude it's Hillary in the reeds with a whistle.

I actually do doubt that it is in their capacity to do a concerted effort of such specificity, because as much bias as there is, there is no one smoke-filled room where it all comes together in one small group of co-conspirators. Hence, the bias is generally pro-capital and pro-corporations and pro-military-industrial-complex, but it's not biased towards one specific conspiracy theory.

But much more importantly, just as you suggested with the current leaks, we can look at the material and judge for ourselves. And what we see is a clear and direct intention to hurt Hillary, and a close collaboration with Russian media.

It is not, in fact, within the capability of the American establishment to publish stories about the latest wikileaks dump on a Russian government propaganda page before the dump actually happens. Not unless the American establishment itself is behind the leaks, hacked the Russian government propaganda page, and put up a fake article that the Russian government never saw fit to disavow as a hack, and believing that would mark a person as a conspiracy theorist of the highest order.

Here is what RT had to say.

Seems pretty clear that the documents were already publicly available on the Wikileaks site before Wikileaks chose to tweet about them.

Wikileaks if I'm not mistaken are not hackers.

If no one hacks Trump or his people what can Wikileaks do about it? They can't release what they don't have.

No, they're not hackers, but I find it somewhat difficult to believe no one has gone after Trump.

Maybe I've missed all the plaudits, the warm love this internationally-loved man, this successor to Nelson Mandela as a bringer of joy, peace and light unto to this world, that would mean any hacker would rather drink bleach than potentially besmirch the unsullied name of this modern colossus.

I can't help but feel "if no ones hacked Trump" has a whiff of "the dog ate my homework" about it.

Yes there is a "smoke filled room". In the 2008 election it was called "JournoList" and about 400 left-wing media journalists were members, sharing talking points and attack strategies.

Tucker Carlson, who edited several of Strong's articles about JournoList, wrote in a July 22 article: "Again and again, we discovered members of Journolist working to coordinate talking points on behalf of Democratic politicians, principally Barack Obama. That is not journalism, and those who engage in it are not journalists. They should stop pretending to be. The news organizations they work for should stop pretending, too. ... I've been in journalism my entire adult life, and have often defended it against fellow conservatives who claim the news business is fundamentally corrupt. It's harder to make that defense now. It will be easier when honest (and, yes, liberal) journalists denounce what happened on Journolist as wrong."[15]Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard,discussed JournoList saying, "... hundreds of journalists have gotten together, on an online listserv called JournoList, to promote liberalism and liberal politicians at the expense of traditional journalism."​

The only reason the leaks are hurting Hillary is because they reveal the breathtaking perfidity of Clinton and her insiders. There are thousands of people in government who would just look like saints if all their e-mail correspondence was hacked. Clinton's group are not those people.