2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

RobertKK · 03-10-2016 05:31PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

Even the picture says she said it sarcastically. You have to be pretty blinded by hatred to think that's serious.

What picture?

Following Clinton’s alleged drone proposal, another controversial remedy was floated in the State Department to place a reward or bounty for Assange’s capture and extradition to the United States, sources said. Numbers were discussed in the realm of a $10 million bounty. A State Department source described that staff meeting as bizarre. One minute staffers were inquiring about the Secretary’s blue and black checkered knit sweater and the next minute, the room was discussing the legalities of a drone strike on Assange and financial bounties, sources said.
Immediately following the conclusion of the wild brainstorming session, one of Clinton’s top aides, State Department Director of Policy Planning Ann-Marie Slaughter, penned an email to Clinton, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and aides Huma Abebin and Jacob Sullivan at 10:29 a.m. entitled “an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks.”
“Nonlegal strategies.” How did that phrasing make it into an official State Department email subject line dealing with solving Wikileaks and Assange? Why would the secretary of state and her inner circle be discussing any “nonlegal strategies” for anything whatsoever? Against anyone? Shouldn’t all the strategies discussed by the country’s top diplomat be strictly legal only? And is the email a smoking gun to confirm Clinton was actually serious about pursuing an obvious “nonlegal strategy” proposal to allegedly assassinate Assange? Numerous attempts were made to try and interview and decipher Slaughter’s choice of email wording, however, she could not be reached for comment. Insiders said Slaughter is keeping a “low profile” in Princeton, NJ until she is nominated for a position in Clinton’s cabinet if the Democrat is elected in November. Likewise, True Pundit attempted to contact Mills, Abedin, and Sullivan for their perspectives on this story. None commented on the record.

You should just accept that none of the main presidential candidates are nice people, then you will not be so tied to them.
I wonder if some of the emails contain stuff with Clinton wanting to murder civilians...

RobertKK · 03-10-2016 05:32PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Already de-bunked earlier in this thread..

From here

Because anonymously who would know?

Igotadose · 03-10-2016 05:36PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

Even the picture says she said it sarcastically. You have to be pretty blinded by hatred to think that's serious.

It's truepundit, still looking for HRC's invisible earpiece: http://www.mediaite.com/online/fox-news-now-reporting-anonymously-sourced-theory-about-clintons-earpiece/

Overheal · 03-10-2016 05:36PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Because anonymously who would know?

The FEC.

RobertKK wrote: »

What picture?

You should just accept that none of the main presidential candidates are nice people, then you will not be so tied to them.
I wonder if some of the emails contain stuff with Clinton wanting to murder civilians...

The source is TruePundit, the same website that tried to start a conspiracy theory about her having an earpiece in a town hall session.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/fox-news-now-reporting-anonymously-sourced-theory-about-clintons-earpiece/

The people behind the site are also running a $1m bounty for her medical records.

Hardly seems like above board journalism, either in the ethics or objectivity senses.

B_Wayne · 03-10-2016 05:41PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The KKK prefer Hillary 'Goldwater girl' Clinton.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/26/klan-leader-claims-kkk-has-given-20k-clinton-campa/

And that claim has never been proven and is not considered to be credible...
http://www.snopes.com/kkk-endorses-hillary-clinton/

RobertKK · 03-10-2016 05:42PM

Overheal wrote: »

The FEC.

The source is TruePundit, the same website that tried to start a conspiracy theory about her having an earpiece in a town hall session.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/fox-news-now-reporting-anonymously-sourced-theory-about-clintons-earpiece/

The people behind the site are also running a $1m bounty for her medical records.

Hardly seems like above board journalism, either in the ethics or objectivity senses.

Given Wikileaks are having a big event tomorrow about Clinton and her emails.
This suggests Wikileaks may have posted that on twitter as an appetiser, and maybe the whole cancelling the event on the balcony to reveal the information for security reasons, is down to emails about Hillary Clinton wanting to murder him?
Given it is a state email in that piece, maybe it reached them via Wikileaks...

RobertKK · 03-10-2016 05:43PM

B_Wayne wrote: »

And that claim has never been proven and is not considered to be credible...
http://www.snopes.com/kkk-endorses-hillary-clinton/

But we can accept if it was associated with Trump it would be credible.

Overheal · 03-10-2016 05:43PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Given Wikileaks are having a big event tomorrow about Clinton and her emails.

Which they canceled, citing security concerns, but at the moment just smells like "just kidding we had nothing"

RobertKK · 03-10-2016 05:45PM

Overheal wrote: »

Which they canceled, citing security concerns, but at the moment just smells like "just kidding we had nothing"

He is doing it via video inside the embassy instead.

B_Wayne · 03-10-2016 05:46PM

RobertKK wrote: »

But we can accept if it was associated with Trump it would be credible.

Eh, the vast majority of stuff in relation to Donald Trump is backed up. You posted it as fact, it's nothing close to fact.

Overheal · 03-10-2016 05:47PM

RobertKK wrote: »

But we can accept if it was associated with Trump it would be credible.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-29/trump-declines-to-immediately-reject-former-kkkk-leader/7206790

https://twitter.com/astaroska/status/703667646366097409

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/690562515500032000

http://www.startribune.com/trump-s-star-tweet-appeared-on-a-white-supremacist-site/385381121/

RobertKK · 03-10-2016 05:49PM

Overheal wrote: »

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-29/trump-declines-to-immediately-reject-former-kkkk-leader/7206790

https://twitter.com/astaroska/status/703667646366097409

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/690562515500032000

http://www.startribune.com/trump-s-star-tweet-appeared-on-a-white-supremacist-site/385381121/

Doesn't matter, I have said both are not nice people.
I worry for those who think Clinton is the nice person in the election.

Amerika · 03-10-2016 05:51PM

RobertKK wrote: »

He is doing it via video inside the embassy instead.

You think he’s afraid of the ‘Arkansas Flu?’

Overheal · 03-10-2016 05:52PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Doesn't matter, I have said both are not nice people.
I worry for those who think Clinton is the nice person in the election.

I accept your apology :rolleyes:

Christy42 · 03-10-2016 06:05PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Doesn't matter, I have said both are not nice people.
I worry for those who think Clinton is the nice person in the election.

I feel like you are missing the scale. Clinton has a few shady emails and her speeches. She also has a history of going to war too quickly.

Trump has been openly racist, sexist and has a homophobic VP candidate as well as having stated he wants to bomb the **** out of the middle east. He also has his taxes (remember the complaints about Obama and Romney not paying enough...), his conspiracy theories about birth certificates and the Chinese making up global warming. His proposed budget is hilariously unworkable. He is too easily manipulated via his ego. pretty sure I am forgetting stuff here.

Sure Clinton is not my number 1 pick for the presidency bur in terms of not being a nice person she is simply not in the same league as Trump with the added bonus that she has a clue as to what goes on in the world.

Suryavarman · 03-10-2016 06:08PM

So as we all knew already Crooked Trump's charity foundation has been breaking the law. Now the New York Attorney General has ordered the foundation to stop all fundraising.

Brian? · 03-10-2016 06:18PM

RobertKK wrote: »

She didn't step down in protest when under obama the double tap strikes really took off.

So that's your justification? She didn't step down. Earlier in the thread you implied she was directly responsible. She wasn't responsible in any way for drone strikes.

Obama changed his mind on Libya due to Hillary Clinton, he thought she had her coalition of fools and that they would stay the distance with Libya in particular the French and British.
So the red line was crossed in Syria he did nothing which Hillary criticised him for.

She signed off on the $29 billion plus arms deal with Saudi Arabia for their war against Yemen.

She backed the Muslim Brotherhood who support Hamas.

She supports the FSA who are terrorists and anti-western/anti-any religion that is not Sunni Islam.

She backed a coup against a democratically elected leader in Honduras.

She was laughed at Gaddafi's murder, then left the country to rot.

She wanted to bomb Assad out of power as she spoke about it, until the Russians reset the situation by blocking it.

She has only being effective in making things worse.

She laughed at Gaddafi dying, the only fact you've listed.

It's ok though. You hate her and are willing to pin every foreign policy mistake on her, that's fine.

Overheal · 03-10-2016 06:18PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

So as we all knew already Crooked Trump's charity foundation has been breaking the law. Now the New York Attorney General has ordered the foundation to stop all fundraising.

What? Surely you're not telling me Genius Donald J Trump didn't know the law?

Amerika · 03-10-2016 06:22PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

So as we all knew already Crooked Trump's charity foundation has been breaking the law. Now the New York Attorney General has ordered the foundation to stop all fundraising.

Big news, I guess... because it's bad for Trump. Funny though that no one is talking about the reports of criminal investigations into the Clinton Foundation.

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/jack-kelly/2016/08/21/Jack-Kelly-Clinton-not-in-the-clear/stories/201608210074

Brian? · 03-10-2016 06:23PM

Amerika wrote: »

Big news, I guess... because it's bad for Trump. Funny though that no one is talking about the reports of criminal investigations into the Clinton Foundation.

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/jack-kelly/2016/08/21/Jack-Kelly-Clinton-not-in-the-clear/stories/201608210074

Funny that no one is talking about it, except they are and here's a link to a news story? So the media is simultaneously reporting and ignoring it?

Suryavarman · 03-10-2016 06:23PM

Amerika wrote: »

Big news, I guess... because it's bad for Trump. Funny though that no one is talking about the reports of criminal investigations into the Clinton Foundation.

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/jack-kelly/2016/08/21/Jack-Kelly-Clinton-not-in-the-clear/stories/201608210074

Probably because those "reports" are actually an opinion piece in a small newspaper.

Permabear · 03-10-2016 06:32PM

This post has been deleted.

InTheTrees · 03-10-2016 06:45PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If the libertarian party wants to be a viable alternative they need members of congress.
Emerging every four years to challenge for the presidency will never produce a viable third party.
And they've never been able to achieve the success that old Ron Paul was able to create back in their hay day.

Quin_Dub · 03-10-2016 06:58PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Because anonymously who would know?

Because of the bit in bold in my post

According to Schwerin, the campaign has “not received anywhere close to $20,000 in anonymous donations in total, [so] it is impossible that they are telling the truth.” Vocativ independently verified this through FEC filings.

At that time they had not received $20k in total anonymous contributions , let alone a single $20k donation..

So, yes they could have given some money anonymously as you say ,who'd know, but the didn't give $20k so that lie tends to severely weaken the likelihood of any of it being true..

Permabear · 03-10-2016 07:00PM

This post has been deleted.

RobertKK · 03-10-2016 07:01PM

Brian? wrote: »

So that's your justification? She didn't step down. Earlier in the thread you implied she was directly responsible. She wasn't responsible in any way for drone strikes.

She laughed at Gaddafi dying, the only fact you've listed.

It's ok though. You hate her and are willing to pin every foreign policy mistake on her, that's fine.

Are you saying she did nothing as secretary of state?

Brian? · 03-10-2016 07:15PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Are you saying she did nothing as secretary of state?

No. She did quite a lot. I'm saying you don't seem to understand what the Secretary of State is responsible for. You're blaming her for every foreign action of the US government. That's ridiculous.

Black Swan · 03-10-2016 07:24PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

So as we all knew already Crooked Trump's charity foundation has been breaking the law. Now the New York Attorney General has ordered the foundation to stop all fundraising.

Effective 30 September 2016 the Donald J Trump Foundation (Donald Trump Foundation president) has 15 days to file all necessary reports, including several years of required audits, to the State of New York in compliance with its laws. "Failure immediately to discontinue solicitation and to file information and reports required under Article 7-A with the Charities Bureau shall be deemed to be continuing fraud upon the people of the state of New York."

Does this Friday order by the New York State Attorney General's Office remind anyone of Trump University, a "fake" university under New York state law founded by Donald J Trump in 2005 and failed 2010, and whereupon Donald Trump is now a defendant in both the states of New York and California for (alleged) "Fraud, racketeering, and corruption" with first trial date scheduled for 28 November 2016?

Suryavarman · 03-10-2016 07:26PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The American public have been beaten over the head all year about third party candidates and yet the combined support for third party candidates doesn't reach 15%. None of the third party candidates deserve to be on the stage. If Stein and Johnson were on the stage then the time allocated to each candidate would half and less issues would get covered. Is it really worth spending half as much time scrutinising candidates that stand a chance of winning just so Gary Johnson can have another "Aleppo moment" or so Jill Stein can show that she hasn't a clue how QE works?

Third parties like to blame the Republicans and Democrats for not winning elections when the reality is that it's their own fault for electing joke candidates like Stein and Johnson. Ross Perot managed to get included in the debates in 1992 because he was actually somewhat credible and able to communicate effectively unlike Johnson. If not being included in the debates is the problem then why did Johnson poll so poorly after being included in a couple of debates during the 2012 primaries?

AbusesToilets · 03-10-2016 07:36PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

The American public have been beaten over the head all year about third party candidates and yet the combined support for third party candidates doesn't reach 15%. None of the third party candidates deserve to be on the stage. If Stein and Johnson were on the stage then the time allocated to each candidate would half and less issues would get covered. Is it really worth spending half as much time scrutinising candidates that stand a chance of winning just so Gary Johnson can have another "Aleppo moment" or so Jill Stein can show that she hasn't a clue how QE works?

Third parties like to blame the Republicans and Democrats for not winning elections when the reality is that it's their own fault for electing joke candidates like Stein and Johnson. Ross Perot managed to get included in the debates in 1992 because he was actually somewhat credible and able to communicate effectively unlike Johnson. If not being included in the debates is the problem then why did Johnson poll so poorly after being included in a couple of debates during the 2012 primaries?

Remind me again of the in-depth discussion that occurred on "the issues" during the past debate?

No doubt the performance of 3rd party candidates is entirely to do with their qualities, as opposed to a gross imbalance in available funds to allocate towards ads etc. Something that the billionaire Perot didn't have to worry about.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/27/us/the-1992-campaign-campaign-finance-perot-leads-in-40-million-tv-ad-blitz.html

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments