View Full Version : Hillary Clinton: Woman Enough
Are you really asserting that opposition to tyranny is an exclusively 'Confederate' virtue???
While your claim is patently false, since opposition to tyranny is a universal value shared by all real men and women, were your claim true (and it's not), then the Confederacy would have ben justified in their actions...Citizen Rules, you're not attempting to justify the actions of the CSA (by employing false premises), are you???
O-M-G who repped you?! :eek: LOL!
Nostromo87
10-25-16, 11:59 PM
Let's also not forget the Napoleonic Laws did away with the patchwork of feudal laws
More and more I'm convinced most people have little clue when it comes to the historical comparisons they make
DAnconiaLead
10-26-16, 12:04 AM
Donald Trump; Libera et impera, Acerbus et ingens!!!!
Donald Trump; Libera et impera, Acerbus et ingens!!!!
What the hells all this? You summoning rain now?
DAnconiaLead
10-26-16, 12:08 AM
What the hells all this?
Culture....
DAnconiaLead
10-26-16, 12:17 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hkgoWXNh-8
Frightened Inmate No. 2
10-26-16, 12:36 AM
can someone please ban this guy?
can someone please ban this guy?
"this guy" banning - seconded :up:
DAnconiaLead
10-26-16, 12:46 AM
can someone please ban this guy?
https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2013-09/enhanced/webdr01/23/9/enhanced-buzz-1504-1379943854-7.jpg
As is typical, when certain people discover that their arguments and positions lack merit they seek to censor the individual(s) who point this out rather then taking a moment for intersection and examining their (flawed) positions...
Nostromo87
10-26-16, 12:54 AM
Napoleon, a soldier... a regular corporal, rising to the position of leader, was a victory for the common man over the elitist class of his day.
Even though Trump is not a commoner, he is using the position he has to fight for the outsiders... Against America's ruling class, which led America into the garbage it's in now. That's who Hillary represents
Altogether, Napoleon... well, I like him compared to our leaders who like to talk a lot but really only serve their donors
As is typical, when certain people discover that their arguments and positions lack merit they seek to censor the individual(s) who point this out rather then taking a moment for intersection and examining their (flawed) positions...
I assume you mean introspection, something everybody needs to do for a lot longer than a moment to come up with a valid world view.
Even though Trump is not a commoner, he is using the position he has to fight for the outsiders... Against America's ruling class, which led America into the garbage it's in now.
Who he supported financially and rhetorically for decades, sometimes as recently as a few years ago.
Here's Donald Trump, in 2008, "leading us into the garbage we're in now":
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cl0w8fzWYAAbQJD.jpg:large
Citizen Rules
10-26-16, 02:17 PM
Let's also not forget the Napoleonic Laws did away with the patchwork of feudal laws
More and more I'm convinced most people have little clue when it comes to the historical comparisons they makeI was comparing Trump to Napoleon's delusional, pompous persona with his visions of grandeur. Not to Napoleon's military campaign record or any other aspect of his life....other than his self absurdness.
I was comparing Trump to Napoleon's delusional, pompous persona with his visions of grandeur. Not to Napoleon's military campaign record or any other aspect of his life....other than his self absurdness.
How dare you question Trumps abilities, dont you know he's said things?! ;)
I hope Hillary wins. I also hope they pick up on trash day too. bleah! Bernie Sanders said hes gonna be a thorn in Hillary Clintons side throughout her Presidency. Good.
I wish Trump instead openly financially backed someone other than himself, but his agenda is to always to be on TV. Not to make America great again.
Who he supported financially and rhetorically for decades, sometimes as recently as a few years ago.
Here's Donald Trump, in 2008, "leading us into the garbage we're in now"
Another example, this one even more recent:
https://twitter.com/TimJHanrahan/status/791755996423041024
Literally the exact opposite of what he's saying now. So what's the argument: he was totally ignorant when he said that, but now he's informed, and now he's sincere?
Nostromo87
10-27-16, 10:14 PM
I wouldn't say a Trump one-liner from 8 years ago is something that actually had an effect on the country, which it would have to be... to be something that led to our problems or whatever
Nostromo87
10-27-16, 10:46 PM
I was comparing Trump to Napoleon's delusional, pompous persona with his visions of grandeur. Not to Napoleon's military campaign record or any other aspect of his life....other than his self absurdness.
Interesting you term it like that
Could be that is a trait that is required to actually change the world, rather than be a more average individual who just talks and achieves little.
Reminds of the Gandhi quote
http://oi68.tinypic.com/17tvm1.jpg
McConnaughay
10-27-16, 11:27 PM
Another example, this one even more recent:
https://twitter.com/TimJHanrahan/status/791755996423041024
Literally the exact opposite of what he's saying now. So what's the argument: he was totally ignorant when he said that, but now he's informed, and now he's sincere?
More "facts" from Crooked Yoda, don't you know Orange is the New Black!? **** Hill-dog, it's time we sound the trumpets! :p Pretty soon we'll be able to grab women by the pussy with our baby hands whenever we want!
I wouldn't say a Trump one-liner from 8 years ago is something that actually had an effect on the country, which it would have to be... to be something that led to our problems or whatever
1. It wasn't just a one-liner: he gave them money. And we have many such statements.
2. One of them was from just five years ago.
3. It's indicative of what he thought. So even if the statements themselves are not directly responsible, it shows that he encouraged the things he (and you) decry.
Bernie Sanders would have made America great again.
Hillary Clinton can make America tread water hopefully.
Donald Trump would use our nation as a platform to be seen from, knows how to keep the masses entertained.
https://flixchatter.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/gracchus_gladiator.jpg?w=660
Nostromo87
10-28-16, 12:30 AM
Trump has said he gave money to previous election campaigns, I'm sure that happened. Doesn't mean he didn't form a different campaign strategy based on what he learned
Maybe Trump adapted.
Frightened Inmate No. 2
10-28-16, 12:38 AM
at this point, even you can't be delusional enough to think trump actually believes what he says. i think hillary has adapted since mishandling her emails!
Trump has said he gave money to previous election campaigns, I'm sure that happened. Doesn't mean he didn't form a different campaign strategy based on what he learned
Different "campaign strategy," or different belief? If you mean campaign strategy, then you're admitting he doesn't believe what he says. If you mean belief, then it means he was fine with all these terrible things for his entire adult life, even as recently as a few years ago.
Maybe Trump adapted.
Maybe his supporters have "adapted" their conservative principles, too.
I'd love to know the difference between a politician who lies and one who "adapts," and how you think you know the difference.
Nostromo87
10-28-16, 01:55 AM
At what point do you and Tongo admit you simply hate Trump and will say anything to undermine him
That's all it is
Also, keep a spot open for me in baseball next year
At what point do you and Tongo admit you simply hate Trump and will say anything to undermine him
That's all it is
Also, keep a spot open for me in baseball next year
Why dont you admit youre using Trump as nothing but an excuse to troll.
You just say "stuff" then disappear.
This is the longest exchange Ive had with you in a thread for almost a year, if you dont disappear.
Nostromo87
10-28-16, 03:09 AM
Tongo, go make another thread that gets no reps, like this one (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=47098)
Tongo, go make another thread that gets no reps, like this one (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=47098)
Ive lost the will to live. :rolleyes:
Derek Vinyard
10-28-16, 03:18 AM
Talking politics on a forum is always a bad idea...
Talking politics on a forum is always a bad idea...
Itd be nice to find out, he hasnt done it yet. ;)
Nostromo87
10-28-16, 03:27 AM
Tongo thinks when he puts an emoji at the end of his post that someone agrees with him, sad
He's pretty much a big gorilla baby, it's okay, I don't hate him.
Tongo thinks when he puts an emoji at the end of his post that someone agrees with him, sad
He's pretty much a big gorilla baby, it's okay, I don't hate him.
Looks like someones trying to "get their troll on". :laugh: Anything else? Do realize nobody was blown away by our pics and gifs to vote for Trump, not that you ever cared.
Nostromo87
10-28-16, 04:19 AM
"Troll" = Opposition
"Troll" = Opposition
If you think typing that piddle is an appropriate response to how youve handled yourself throughout this campaign, well thats "not smart". So were you trying to get either me or Yoda riled so you could play "victim" again and say youre leaving the forum again? :laugh: Ignore User for you, your spams not worth the aggravation.
At what point do you and Tongo admit you simply hate Trump and will say anything to undermine him
At what point do you admit that you can't reconcile his contradictions and will say anything to deflect them?
That's all it is
I'm not sure why this is supposed to undermine my criticism of him. I hate him for sensible, legitimate reasons: because I dislike what he says and does. Do you not hate lying? Do you not hate ignorance?
Also, keep a spot open for me in baseball next year
First open spot's yours.
Nostromo87
10-28-16, 09:23 PM
It works both ways is how I think of it. One side hates Trump so much that they don't want to have to look at anything optimistic about him, and the other side likes him and is tired of the ostracism that's plastered everywhere- and certainly don't want to add to it.
Meanwhile Hillary's back under investigation by the FBI. I knew there wouldn't be any posts about it, haha
It works both ways is how I think of it.
It really doesn't, because I'm not defending Hillary at all. Heck, even the people supporting her in this thread have admitted she's a flawed candidate. You're literally the only one who refuses to concede anyone could have a reasonable concern or objection to your preferred candidate.
One side hates Trump so much that they don't want to have to look at anything optimistic about him
I can't look at something you can't show me. And I didn't hate Trump in utero. My opinion of him is a response to his deeds. I have no idea what yours is in response to, other than just really really wanting him to be someone he manifestly isn't.
Meanwhile Hillary's back under investigation by the FBI. I knew there wouldn't be any posts about it, haha
Yeah, the fact that the site crashed today, and I have a sensitive upgrade scheduled later, and news just broke an hour ago on a Friday evening, definitely doesn't have anything to do with that. It's because I secretly love Hillary.
Nostromo87
10-28-16, 09:53 PM
*high-fives Nostromo*
You just joined an elite - and growing very large - club.
TONGO's Ignored MoFos Club!
I thought Tongo had already ignored us a week ago...
http://oi65.tinypic.com/fwprmt.jpg
Guess we made the club a second time!
Captain Steel
10-28-16, 11:01 PM
Yeah, the fact that the site crashed today, and I have a sensitive upgrade scheduled later, and news just broke an hour ago on a Friday evening, definitely doesn't have anything to do with that. It's because I secretly love Hillary.
:D LOL! :D
Every day I reach a new level of disbelief with this Presidential race. It really is like something happened to reality as we know it and everything has been turned into a Reality TV show. It's like some magical restructuring of real life that only Mr. Myxzptlk could do!
It demonstrates the level of idiocy, apathy, distraction, indolence, immorality and incompetence modern Americans have been reduced to ... that THESE are the two "front-runners" that the people have chosen and thus ended up with:
A criminal who laughs during 9/11 memorial services, who lies to the parents of fallen military heroes, who attacked the victims of her husband's sexual assaults (while claiming she stands for women's rights to be heard and believed), who wantonly threw national security under the bus due to her own carelessness, ignorance or perhaps just plain avarice, who's lied continuously about her crimes yet has the ego-driven gall to run for the Presidency while under investigation for actions that have landed others in jail, and who has created falsehoods and deflected in every way possible to cover her crimes.
And...
An ego-centric, arrogant, billionaire who's so careless with his words that he's continually called a racist, bigot, xenophobe, and Islamophobe by his detractors, and who has continually inflated every accusation hurled at him with responses of sophomoric rhetoric that only seem to give credibility to the accusations. A man who claims to have grand plans for the country but cannot expound on them beyond saying "it's going to be so good" or "believe me." A man who has literally insulted his way to the position of a party nominee for Presidential candidate. A man who views women as hand puppets and has traded in his former wives for newer models when they begin to age.
https://img.ifcdn.com/images/1b8d41eef5ef772933bc86fba9dcadce1b431df568b8adc0f5cfd8251b6279d9_1.jpg
Nostromo87
10-28-16, 11:53 PM
Quite sure I didn't suggest anyone isn't free to tear down the candidate they want to if that's what they like to spend their time doing
You're literally the only one who refuses to concede anyone could have a reasonable concern or objection to your preferred candidate.
That's not the same thing as not seeing what the big deal is about repeating flaws everyone's heard a thousand times. Especially when I don't see them as backbreaking as they're made out to be.
matt72582
10-29-16, 08:56 AM
I was going to watch a movie yesterday, but I couldn't keep my eyes off the news.... I hope Hillary loses so badly! Maybe they can start running real Democrats for a change.
DAnconiaLead
10-29-16, 09:21 AM
https://img.ifcdn.com/images/1b8d41eef5ef772933bc86fba9dcadce1b431df568b8adc0f5cfd8251b6279d9_1.jpg
http://www.polyvore.com/cgi/img-thing?.out=jpg&size=l&tid=150114022
On November 8th, please be an ADULT...
Iroquois
10-29-16, 10:13 AM
http://www.polyvore.com/cgi/img-thing?.out=jpg&size=l&tid=150114022
On November 8th, please be an ADULT...
...by completely disregarding the billionaire who inherited his wealth? Got it.
cricket
10-29-16, 12:12 PM
Can someone please fix the thread title.
It should read, "Hillary Clinton: Woman Enough for Prison".
Can someone please fix the thread title.
It should read, "Hillary Clinton: Woman Enough for Prison".
Hillary Clinton: Orange Is The New Black
That's not the same thing as not seeing what the big deal is about repeating flaws everyone's heard a thousand times.
There are a few of problems with this:
1) Doing something over and over is worse than doing it once. It makes it harder to dismiss it as a fluke, conspiracy, or anything else. New examples of the same flaw also suggest compulsiveness, and are highly relevant.
2) It's not like you respond to the first ones, anyway.
3) If you think something is "not a big deal," you should be willing to say that. The fact that you don't want to makes me think you don't really believe that, when confronted with specifics. Case in point:
Especially when I don't see them as backbreaking as they're made out to be.
You don't think sexual assault is a big deal? Lying about which wars you supported? Lying to your donors about your own level of investment? Mocking the disabled? Insulting POWs? Bragging about sleeping with married women?
Please, tell me with a straight face that none of these things are particularly important, let alone the confluence of them.
Hillary Clinton: Orange Is The New Black
This is so clever I want to spit.
DAnconiaLead
10-29-16, 08:54 PM
In an unparalleled display of "strength and bravery", a mob of Hillary supporting SJW's physically attacked an elderly woman who supported Donald Trump and then attempted to blame the elderly woman for the attack, claiming that she "triggered" them...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJV41gS2c8M
When they leave this earth, the gates of Valhalla will open for none of the 'people' who attacked this woman...
There's really nothing to infer from that video other than "wow, those specific people are terrible."
gandalf26
10-29-16, 08:58 PM
That FBI Director is gonna have a super career when Hilary wins.
cricket
10-29-16, 08:59 PM
Yea there's a lot of scum in that video but you can find it on both sides.
Not only can you find it on both sides, but out of the two sides, only one has a candidate who's specifically encouraged it and offered to pay for the offenders' legal fees. So Trump supporters going after Hillary for this is even dumber than Hillary supporters lambasting Trump for sexual assault.
Captain Steel
10-29-16, 10:07 PM
The proof that Hillary is unqualified to be President is the very fact that she's running.
Any person who actually cared about this country would have recused themselves from this race a long time ago, rather than choosing to drag the country through all their dirt & scandal by trying to secure the top (and what should be the most accountable) position in the land when their record is as stained & questionable as hers is; with new investigations into her illegal activities and more lies & corruption being exposed every day.
She knows her baggage, she knows her dirty laundry, she knows her crimes. Any half way reasonable person would realize that they should not subject the country to this.
And any person trying to at least appear patriotic would step down from the race even if they feel their basket load of scandals, exposed lies and mountains of evidence regarding criminally negligent activity is all greatly exaggerated - it's still enough to make any intelligent person say, "Hey, I'm not going to put the country through this right now."
But her level of avarice & hunger for power which prevents her from doing the right thing is the very evidence that she is not qualified to be President of the United States.
Guaporense
10-29-16, 11:25 PM
Well if she dropped out them Trump wins which would also be a very dangerous thing. Hillary is corrupt to the bone yes but she is a professional and would work well as a president that does what the world and the congress expects her to do, she has no ideas of her own but just works as a transmission cable of the whole political atmosphere into actions, essentially she is a representative and not a personality.
Guaporense
10-30-16, 06:27 PM
This is the reason why Hillary is not winning by 30 points in the polls:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlqKFlU7YAs
donniedarko
10-30-16, 06:32 PM
Not only can you find it on both sides, but out of the two sides, only one has a candidate who's specifically encouraged it and offered to pay for the offenders' legal fees. So Trump supporters going after Hillary for this is even dumber than Hillary supporters lambasting Trump for sexual assault.
Having a supporter punch a man dressed in KKK at your own rally is much different than paying instigators to incite violence at your opponenets rallies. The left has always been more violent. All the rioters, most the portestors, most the assaults they come from one side. Why does the "tolerant" side tend to do that?
donniedarko
10-30-16, 06:32 PM
Trump offered to pay legal fees at his own rally, Hillary paid instigators at his. Come on Yoda there's a huge difference
Captain Steel
10-31-16, 04:26 PM
Today it was announced that Donna Brazile resigned as a CNN contributor after being exposed for helping Hillary cheat in debates.
Just last week she was on TV utterly denying she gave debate questions to Hillary Clinton in advance (and getting all flustered when called out because she obviously couldn't keep all her lies straight).
What is with these people and the lying lying lying? Just constant lying - then they get caught and they're like, oh well I'll just resign.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/31/media/donna-brazile-cnn-resignation/index.html
Having a supporter punch a man dressed in KKK at your own rally is much different than paying instigators to incite violence at your opponenets rallies.
That is, of course, one example. There have been plenty of others where the people injured weren't doing anything nearly that provocative.
The left has always been more violent. All the rioters, most the portestors, most the assaults they come from one side. Why does the "tolerant" side tend to do that?
I think a dispassionate assessment of which side is more violent is really hard to make. It's going to be based almost entirely on anecdotal evidence. That said, I don't have to think conservative activists are more violent in order to simply say that Clinton hasn't encouraged this as overtly as Trump has.
Trump offered to pay legal fees at his own rally, Hillary paid instigators at his. Come on Yoda there's a huge difference
I've been having difficulty finding this substantiated outside of very fringe-y sites. But from what I've seen (which may not be as much as you have, so feel free to correct me), they didn't explicitly pay people to be violent, so much as to protest. That's pretty bad in its own way, because it's more deliberate and systematic than Trump's encouragements. But it's also less explicit and less direct than Trump's incitement.
Regardless, my only point was that this isn't really a road Trump supporters want to go down. Virtually every criticism his supporters have of Hillary, he himself is guilty of, and this is no exception.
Having a supporter punch a man dressed in KKK at your own rally is much different than paying instigators to incite violence at your opponenets rallies. The left has always been more violent. All the rioters, most the portestors, most the assaults they come from one side. Why does the "tolerant" side tend to do that?
I realize there have been some supporters attacked on all sides, yes that includes the Trump camp, but theTrumpets also have falsified some attacks which supposedly took place, and for the love of gosh......black folks from Watts riots are laughing their balls off at the "atrocious abuse" the Trumpets claim theyve endured. :rolleyes: Enough of all that please.
Friendly Mushroom!
10-31-16, 06:08 PM
That is, of course, one example. There have been plenty of others where the people injured weren't doing anything nearly that provocative.
I think a dispassionate assessment of which side is more violent is really hard to make. It's going to be based almost entirely on anecdotal evidence. That said, I don't have to think conservative activists are more violent in order to simply say that Clinton hasn't encouraged this as overtly as Trump has.
I've been having difficulty finding this substantiated outside of very fringe-y sites. But from what I've seen (which may not be as much as you have, so feel free to correct me), they didn't explicitly pay people to be violent, so much as to protest. That's pretty bad in its own way, because it's more deliberate and systematic than Trump's encouragements. But it's also less explicit and less direct than Trump's incitement.
Regardless, my only point was that this isn't really a road Trump supporters want to go down. Virtually every criticism his supporters have of Hillary, he himself is guilty of, and this is no exception.
Yoda, I just want to say that just about everything you have said in these political threads is more insightful than what any active journalist or anyone else I can find on the internet has to say. You are very intelligent.
Thank you for explaining this world we live in to me and everyone else here.
Captain Steel
11-01-16, 12:43 AM
Here's my prediction: a few days before the election, Comey or someone from the FBI will come out and say that they found nothing of any import in the latest e-mail investigation. Then the Clinton surrogates will start overwhelming the airways with "I told you so's." They'll say that Hillary was telling the truth the whole time and that now - after more false accusations against her - she's even more honest than anyone ever suspected. She's the fountain of $&#*! integrity! Then they'll play the victim card - poor Hillary, she's been falsely attacked, Trump was probably behind it, even though she's a victim she's still hanging tough and she'll stand just as strong if you vote for her.
This is all set up to try to sway the undecideds and independents at the last minute.
It's all rigged. Well played Mrs. Clinton, well played.
donniedarko
11-01-16, 12:52 AM
That is, of course, one example. There have been plenty of others where the people injured weren't doing anything nearly that provocative.
I think a dispassionate assessment of which side is more violent is really hard to make. It's going to be based almost entirely on anecdotal evidence. That said, I don't have to think conservative activists are more violent in order to simply say that Clinton hasn't encouraged this as overtly as Trump has.
You're right that we don't have statistics but just look at who the hecklers on college campuses are. I've never seen that from a conservative side. Or who burns down cities. If you look up violence from Trump supporters and then from anti-Trump the difference is significant
I've been having difficulty finding this substantiated outside of very fringe-y sites. But from what I've seen (which may not be as much as you have, so feel free to correct me), they didn't explicitly pay people to be violent, so much as to protest. That's pretty bad in its own way, because it's more deliberate and systematic than Trump's encouragements. But it's also less explicit and less direct than Trump's incitement.
Regardless, my only point was that this isn't really a road Trump supporters want to go down. Virtually every criticism his supporters have of Hillary, he himself is guilty of, and this is no exception.
In the James O'Keefe (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-17/caught-tape-clinton-funded-democrat-operatives-inciting-anarchy-trump-rallies) leaks you can specifically hear Foval say "Conflict engagement in the lines, we're starting anarchy here". Among other straight references of instigation.
They also say Hillary knows of all this
donniedarko
11-01-16, 12:54 AM
And today Donna Brazzille was officially let go from CNN after wikileaks released specific emails of her sending the campaign debate questions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/donna-brazile-wikileaks-cnn.html?_r=0
Sorry Bernie folks, your election was rigged in every way possible. Your "honorable and always honest" candidate sold his soul to the devil, who is against everything he ever stood for
donniedarko
11-01-16, 12:55 AM
Here's my prediction: a few days before the election, Comey or someone from the FBI will come out and say that they found nothing of any import in the latest e-mail investigation. Then the Clinton surrogates will start overwhelming the airways with "I told you so's." They'll say that Hillary was telling the truth the whole time and that now - after more false accusations against her - she's even more honest than anyone ever suspected. She's the fountain of $&#*! integrity! Then they'll play the victim card - poor Hillary, she's been falsely attacked, Trump was probably behind it, even though she's a victim she's still hanging tough and she'll stand just as strong if you vote for her.
This is all set up to try to sway the undecideds and independents at the last minute.
It's all rigged. Well played Mrs. Clinton, well played.
And the democrats will again praise Comey and the GOP will go back to bashing him
You're right that we don't have statistics but just look at who the hecklers on college campuses are. I've never seen that from a conservative side.
Well, this is more a reflection of how little conservatism is accepted on campus to begin with. But we weren't talking about "hecklers."
In the James O'Keefe (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-17/caught-tape-clinton-funded-democrat-operatives-inciting-anarchy-trump-rallies) leaks you can specifically hear Foval say "Conflict engagement in the lines, we're starting anarchy here". Among other straight references of instigation.
They also say Hillary knows of all this
I gotta be honest, I think "conflict engagement in the lines" is a far cry from "punch 'em in the mouth," and "carry them off in stretchers." I think very little of both, but for very different reasons.
I think Clinton's done far more underhanded things in this election, but I think Trump has more explicitly encouraged violence. It's really hard to top open threats and direct financial incentives from the candidate's own mouth.
You don't think sexual assault is a big deal? Lying about which wars you supported? Lying to your donors about your own level of investment? Mocking the disabled? Insulting POWs? Bragging about sleeping with married women?
Please, tell me with a straight face that none of these things are particularly important, let alone the confluence of them.
So...no? Yes?
Nostromo87
11-02-16, 04:47 PM
I dismiss the distorted and over-dramatic rhetoric that's been contrived over the last year
You can't respond to specific allegations with a blanket dismissal.
If you have an objection to any of my characterizations, let's hear it. Otherwise, it's not a dismissal, it's just a deflection. And in several of these cases, there's literally nothing to dispute: he's on tape doing exactly what I described.
matt72582
11-02-16, 05:30 PM
That FBI Director is gonna have a super career when Hilary wins.
or a heart-attack!
Cobpyth
11-02-16, 05:59 PM
Now Hillary's campaign is going to try and change the e-mail narrative with a press conference of a woman who was supposedly raped by Trump when she was 13...
What an incredibly vicious campaign. Half of the people of America (or more) is now going to have a person as their new president who they either perceive as a corrupt witch or a fraudulent rapist.
I just saw a documentary about Theodore Roosevelt today, undoubtedly one of the greatest American presidents and effective reformists of all time in my opinion, and I wonder what he would think of what's happening in today's America.
I get that campaigns can get competitive, especially when a race is close, but both candidates are campaiging against unifying the people of their country. I really believe that's how derailed it has become. It saddens me to see that the leadership of the greatest country in the world will fall into the hands of one of these two candidates.
Let's hope a worthy president arises in four years.
Now Hillary's campaign is going to try and change the e-mail narrative with a press conference of a woman who was supposedly raped by Trump when she was 13...
What an incredibly vicious campaign. Half of the people of America (or more) is now going to have a person as their new president who they either perceive as a corrupt witch or a fraudulent rapist.
I just saw a documentary about Theodore Roosevelt today, undoubtedly one of the greatest American presidents and effective reformists of all time in my opinion, and I wonder what he would think of what's happening in today's America.
I get that campaigns can get competitive, especially when a race is close, but both candidates are campaiging against unifying the people of their country. I really believe that's how derailed it has become. It saddens me to see that the leadership of the greatest country in the world will fall into the hands of one of these two candidates.
Let's hope a worthy president arises in four years.
Agreed.
Teddy woulda rooted for Bernie. ;)
Captain Steel
11-02-16, 06:34 PM
The root of the problem is that people in business and politics just suck these days.
There would be few people that could run for President in this day and age that you wouldn't be able to find the most horrendous "dirt" on.
It's due to a breakdown in morals and values. These are the people modern society has produced - maybe they weren't always this way, but they've been corrupted by keeping up with the times and trying to compete in the current environment.
We've allowed the media, the liberal progressives, the rap culture, commercialism, the celebrity culture of idolatry, the anti-family activists, soul-disintegrating technology, the generation of entitlement, and the PC double standards to destroy and degrade traditional values and the ethics that were supported by them.
donniedarko
11-02-16, 07:40 PM
Well, this is more a reflection of how little conservatism is accepted on campus to begin with. But we weren't talking about "hecklers."
Right, I'm just saying when you look at disruption of an opponent it's usually coming from the left. Whether it's violence, heckling, rioting, etc
I gotta be honest, I think "conflict engagement in the lines" is a far cry from "punch 'em in the mouth," and "carry them off in stretchers." I think very little of both, but for very different reasons.
I think Clinton's done far more underhanded things in this election, but I think Trump has more explicitly encouraged violence. It's really hard to top open threats and direct financial incentives from the candidate's own mouth.
The key difference is, Trump supported a guy who punched a man at his own rally.
Hillary sends people to instigate at Trumps rallies
I really don't care that he encouraged good for him.
If some f*cker came to your church Sunday and started heckling your preacher, I would fully understand how someone would punch him. Hell I don't care if these obnoxious get hecklers get punched, good on Trump for paying the legal fees (if he's actually doing so)
I would however had an Issue if Trump's campaign sent hecklers and instigators to a Hillary Rally, and God knows the media would blow up if this became news.
But alas it's the "tolerant and friednly" left who did that
Clinton leads Trump by 6 points, same as before FBI announcement: Reuters/Ipsos
Hillary Clinton led Republican Donald Trump by 6 percentage points among likely voters, according to a Reuters/Ipsos daily tracking poll released on Wednesday, the same advantage the Democratic presidential nominee held before an FBI announcement that reignited the controversy about her email practices.
The Oct. 28-Nov. 1 opinion poll was conducted almost entirely after FBI Director James Comey notified Congress last Friday his agency would examine newly discovered emails that might pertain to Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.
Comey said he did not know whether the emails were significant and released no information other than that they existed. His announcement drew outrage from Democrats who voiced concern it would unfairly influence voters so close to next week's election. Trump and other Republicans seized on the news to revive questions about Clinton's credibility.
Among 1,772 people who have either voted already or were identified as likely voters in the Nov. 8 election, 45 percent said they supported Clinton, while 39 percent said they backed Trump. On Thursday, the day before Comey's announcement, Clinton led Trump by 43 percent to 37 percent.
In a four-way poll that included alternative party candidates, Clinton led Trump by 8 percentage points among likely voters. Forty-five percent supported Clinton, while 37 percent backed Trump. Five percent supported Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and 2 percent backed Jill Stein of the Green Party.
Other national polls have shown Clinton's lead shrinking over the past week. RealClearPolitics, which averages most major opinion polls, showed Clinton's lead had narrowed to 1.7 points on Wednesday from 4.6 points last Friday.
The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted online in English in all 50 states. It had a credibility interval, a measure of accuracy, of 3 percentage points.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-leads-trump-by-6-points-same-as-before-fbi-announcement-reuters-ipsos/ar-AAjNqFS?li=BBnb7Kz
Nostromo87
11-02-16, 11:40 PM
I dismiss the distorted and over-dramatic rhetoric that's been contrived over the last year
You can't respond to specific allegations with a blanket dismissal.
If you have an objection to any of my characterizations, let's hear it. Otherwise, it's not a dismissal, it's just a deflection. And in several of these cases, there's literally nothing to dispute: he's on tape doing exactly what I described.
It's not up to me to refute something you haven't proven. And getting reps from Trump-haters doesn't make you right, however good it makes you feel
We've been on a rocky poll ride like this before
http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAjNF2B.img?h=680&w=1019&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=914&y=935
WASHINGTON — Charles Franklin is hardly a household name, but for a few minutes Wednesday, the full spotlight of the 2016 presidential campaign focused on the veteran pollster and political scientist as he unveiled the latest results from his closely followed poll of Wisconsin voters.
When he announced the verdict: Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump 46 percent-40 percent — almost identical to the margin the poll had found in early October — sighs of relief from Democratic activists could be heard from Brooklyn to Santa Monica, Calif.
For Democrats, who, as a tribe, seem more inclined to election-season night terrors than their Republican foes, these are anxious days.
After the final presidential debate last month, they had begun to pinch themselves and talk of landslides. No more. In recent days, once high-flying polls for Clinton have come back to earth.
Indeed, in an ironic — yet, in hindsight, predictable — fashion, the 2016 campaign, after all the controversy and twists, is ending in a familiar way, almost identical to the last days of the race four years ago. The Democratic nominee is moving down the final stretch with a small lead while the Republican scrambles to find a way to flip blue states.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/weve-been-on-a-rocky-poll-ride-like-this-before/ar-AAjNC7g?li=BBnb7Kz
It's not up to me to refute something you haven't proven.
Is this a joke? On Libya, I literally showed you the video. You said nothing. If you think I've mischaracterized something, let's hear it. Be specific.
Nostromo87
11-03-16, 01:16 AM
Yea, it's twisted that you'd use Libya as a strike against Trump, it's the events in Benghazi Libya where Hillary got herself into the FBI mess she's in now
I think you should answer for how you're tougher on the supporters of a candidate who *ISN'T* under investigation by the FBI
Yea, it's twisted that you'd use Libya as a strike against Trump, it's the events in Benghazi Libya where Hillary got herself into the FBI mess she's in now
See? You just changed the subject. A minute ago you were dismissing the accusations. Now, when I press you to actually explain that, you completely abandon it and talk about Hillary. Literally none of the things I said are affected by what Hillary has or hasn't done. This is a blatant bait-and-switch.
I made claims. You claimed to dispute them. Several are backed by video evidence. What is your response to that?
I think you should answer for how you're tougher on the supporters of a candidate who *ISN'T* under investigation by the FBI
You mean the way I answered it here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1594164#post1594164)? Or here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1581474#post1581474)? Or four other times before that?
Seems clear to me you simply ignore the answers, presumably so you can trot this out as a deflection any time a difficult question is asked. But you realize it's not a defense, right? I could be a total hypocrite about this, and it still wouldn't explain Trump's contradictions. But I guess that's fine, because the only point of the accusation is to take the focus off of him.
Nostromo87
11-03-16, 02:55 AM
The results in Libya have far more to do with Hillary than Donald, that's why the attention *should* be reflected back on her in her thread
And you've spent NO time on Hillary being back under the gun by the FBI since Friday. And you've rarely hit her supporters hard about that making you weak
"In her thread." So why'd you ignore the same arguments in his thread?
This is just absurd, dude: you just said the accusations against Trump were inaccurate, and when I asked you why, you immediately changed the subject. You are literally pretending to have arguments and then bailing on them. That's not arguing in good faith. And neither is leveling the same flimsy, ad hominem charge over and over, ignoring all the times I've answered it.
Nostromo is proving by just saying stuff and avoiding the truth wins arguments. He was very open with the Post Comments or PMs, but a thread where the other person can actually defend themselves? No. :dodgy:
Yeah, changing the subject can persuade people. But he must realize he's doing it. That's the part I don't get: how does that work, internally? I'm sure I'm capable of rationalizing a bad answer to a difficult question, but I could never just shove it to the back of my head and change the subject. Even if nobody else noticed, I would notice.
Yeah, changing the subject can persuade people. But he must realize he's doing it. That's the part I don't get: how does that work, internally? I'm sure I'm capable of rationalizing a bad answer to a difficult question, but I could never just shove it to the back of my head and change the subject. Even if nobody else noticed, I would notice.
I dont know how to say this delicately - Hes just wanting to make you look like a "bully". Thats the fiction he and Sexy are selling in thread or PMs. Pretty sure the reason why a certain longtime poster that got banned was in such a lather when it happened.
donniedarko
11-03-16, 01:06 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoX-bDnmI1M
Really powerful ad, exploitative though. Powerful none the less
Yeah, there've been some really good, really devastating anti-Hillary ads. The first handful were pretty clumsy, but the last couple of months they've presumably had someone else in charge of them, because they've gotten much better.
Clinton up 47-44 in Post-ABC Tracking Poll, despite Trump’s 9-point edge on dealing with corruption
Hillary Clinton holds a narrow three-point edge over Donald Trump as supporters of each candidate lock in to their candidate as the best equipped to handle a variety of national issues, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll .
http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAjT3KM.img?h=699&w=1019&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f
http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAjT6l2.img?h=1080&w=1920&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-up-47-44-in-post-abc-tracking-poll-despite-trump’s-9-point-edge-on-dealing-with-corruption/ar-AAjTbtS?li=BBnb7Kz
Fox News apologizes for falsely reporting that Clinton faces indictment
Fox News anchor Bret Baier apologized Friday for reporting that federal investigators had determined that Hillary Clinton’s private email server had been hacked and that an investigation would lead to an indictment of Clinton after the election.
In fact, Baier said, after checking with his sources, there is no evidence at this time for either statement.
Baier, the anchor of Fox’s evening newscast “Special Report,” went on the air Wednesday to report that the FBI had determined that Clinton’s private server, which she used while serving as secretary of state, had been hacked by “five foreign intelligence agencies.”
He further said on Thursday, during an interview with Fox’s Brit Hume, that a separate FBI investigation — of the charitable Clinton Foundation — would “likely” lead to an indictment of Clinton after Tuesday’s election.
Both statements, if true, would be explosive developments in the late stages of the presidential campaign between Clinton and Republican rival Donald Trump. Trump has repeatedly invoked the alleged atmosphere of corruption around the Clinton Foundation and the security risks involved in Clinton’s use of a private server while secretary of state as reasons not to vote for Clinton.
But neither of his reports about Clinton were accurate, Baier acknowledged Friday morning in a “Fox News alert” conversation with Fox News anchor Jon Scott.
Baier said he relied on a single anonymous source within the FBI for his report about an alleged hack of the server: “I was quoting from one source about his certainty that the server had been hacked by five foreign intelligence agencies. . . . As of today there still are no digital fingerprints of a breach, no matter what the working assumption is within the bureau.”
He added, “All the time, but especially in a heated election, on a topic this explosive, every word matters no matter how well sourced.”
He went on to describe his comment to Hume about an indictment — which he has previously called “inartful” — as more than that.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fox-news-apologizes-for-falsely-reporting-that-clinton-faces-indictment/ar-AAjUiXP?li=BBnb7Kz
https://scontent.ftpa1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p320x320/14992011_10157811083965571_931490478115046627_n.jpg?oh=3fb091a31520a2f4a01de3707405bb72&oe=589AB13E
Citizen Rules
11-05-16, 12:51 PM
You know Dan Rather lost his head (news anchor job) after he admitted he made a mistake in the news story about President Bush preferential treatment in the National Guard as a way for young Bush to avoid going to Vietnam. This is covered in the movie Truth (2015)...So why in the hell hasn't Fox News anchor Bret Baier been dismissed!
Probably because Baeir seems to have made an honest mistake and quickly owned up to it, whereas Rather accepted something uncritically and actually tried to maintain he was right even when it was revealed he had no evidence.
Captain Steel
11-06-16, 02:30 AM
Truth about Huma:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgheRzhCTkc
FBI Director Comey says agency won’t recommend charges over Clinton email
FBI Director James B. Comey notified key members of Congress Sunday afternoon that after reviewing all of the newly discovered Hillary Clinton emails the agency stands by its original findings against recommending charges.
Comey wrote that investigators had worked “around the clock” to review all the emails found on a device used by former congressman Anthony Weiner that had been sent to or from Clinton and that “we have not changed our conclusions expressed in July.”
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fbi-director-comey-says-agency-won’t-recommend-charges-over-clinton-email/ar-AAjYuAg?li=BBnb7Kz
Phew, what a relief. Now the people that support her can go back to pretending it doesn't matter and the people that don't can continue to say she should be in jail. Oh wait.
Phew, what a relief. Now the people that support her can go back to pretending it doesn't matter and the people that don't can continue to say she should be in jail. Oh wait.
I looked at both from a worst case scenario. I would rather have a competent crook in office than a dangerous idiot.
murica'
I looked at both from a worst case scenario. I would rather have a competent crook in office than a dangerous idiot.
murica'
I get it. The closer we get the more frustrated I become. I can't wait for it to be over but the next four years will be long for me. I ain't scared but I know my wish list is out the window either way.
Citizen Rules
11-06-16, 05:13 PM
I'm don't follow politics (well only on MoFo:))... so I'm not sure what the buzz is all about Hillary deleting her emails? I'm guessing it's suppose to show that she had forewarned knowledge of the attacks in Benghazi and failed to act on them? Is that it in a nutshell?
I'm don't follow politics (well only on MoFo:))... so I'm not sure what the buzz is all about Hillary deleting her emails? I'm guessing it's suppose to show that she had forewarned knowledge of the attacks in Benghazi and failed to act on them? Is that it in a nutshell?
No, the FBI stuff is more about her unsecured server. They are looking to see what kind of classified info got out. You get any emails form her when she was Madame Secretary?
Citizen Rules
11-06-16, 05:24 PM
...You get any emails form her when she was Madame Secretary? Just the basic Seasons Greetings email... You know...'Here's a pic of me, Bill and Chelsea playing in the snow'... I'm sure everyone gets those;)
Just got a completely unsolicited text from the Clinton campaign. Not pleased.
I'm not sure if this is illegal, but if it is, that means both campaigns have done it to me now (with Trump it was a robocall). That really sums it up, huh?
The Final Push: Clinton
http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAjYzrJ.img?h=680&w=1019&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=1284&y=710
With the presidential election just a few days away, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are making their final appeals with multiple stops in key swing states.
In our experience, we have found that facts are stretched more than usual in the final, desperate days of a close presidential campaign. And that is certainly the case this year. In stump speeches this week, the messaging was clear. Clinton stuck to the theme that Trump is “unqualified and unfit to be president,” while Trump hammered at the theme that Clinton is “corrupt.”
In this story, we will look at a sampling of the misleading claims made by Clinton during speeches this week.
In a separate story, we have a sampling of misleading statements by Trump (which you can read here). Some academics argue that politically motivated reasoning may lead you to only read one of these stories. Prove them wrong.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-final-push-clinton/ar-AAjUAB4?li=BBnb7Kz
My dad voted for Kasich in the primaries. Started getting calls from that campaign the next day and they didn't stop till Kasich was out. Not cool and can't be a coincidence.
They could have had people by the polling place. People will often stand outside and ask you your address when you go on. They want to know which voters are actually showing up, so they can better model turnout and voter targeting efforts.
I don't dislike that they do this, but I do very much dislike the way they do it: they often sit by the entrance, sometimes even inside the building, so that it seems like they're actually working the polls and that you have to answer in order to proceed (you don't), when they're really just with one of the parties and you're free to walk right past them. I usually make them confirm this to me before I answer.
Some of this is just public record, too. Your vote isn't, of course, but a lot of other stuff is.
Captain Steel
11-06-16, 09:42 PM
I'm not touting FOX or Judge Jeanine, but she makes some points here that everyone should at least listen to.
The real issues will arise on the world stage if Hillary wins revolving around how she is viewed by the rest of the world, including allies, rogue countries, enemies and terrorists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8RpPUnjJsQ
matt72582
11-07-16, 07:22 AM
I worked for Bernie Sanders, so someone had my number, but got a few calls and e-mails from Hillary's campaign or the Michigan Democratic Party. Last time I talked to someone on the phone, I was asked if they could count on my support for Hillary. And I replied, "Hillary?" (like I never heard of her) then said "I'm voting for Trump" and I heard an "oh" with horror and wasn't called back.
What an idiot! :rolleyes: As if everything thats been done or said about her that shed even care about this! Just a new batch of memes that wouldve been made anyway...
Julian Assange Threatens to Release Photos of Hillary Clinton’s Middle School Goth Phase
http://i1.wp.com/thehardtimes.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/assange.jpg?w=1200
Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder and internet outlaw who has been confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London since mid-2012, announced today he intends to release a last-minute, potentially election-shaking leak from Hillary Clinton’s emails: photos from her embarrassing middle school goth phase.
The photos, which are rumored to have circulated on the dark web for some time, have not been proven to be authentic.
“The time has come for the American people to know the truth about who they vote for,” Assange said from a balcony. “It is time for the public to know how easily swayed Clinton’s sense of fashion was by The Cure. Are you going to trust someone like that with the nuclear codes?”
Clinton herself avoided references to the latest October surprise at her rally in North Carolina today, but her campaign was quick to issue a statement.
“It’s important to remember these unverified photos are the result of a foreign nation hacking American institutions in an effort to sway the election,” campaign spokesperson Karen Finney said. “And let’s also not forget that everyone experimented with other subcultures in their youth. It was a mistake, and Ms. Clinton is now focused on the issues, not defending her admittedly poor decision to style her hair in a deathlock for her 7th grade yearbook picture.”
http://thehardtimes.net/2016/11/07/julian-assange-threatens-release-photos-hillary-clintons-middle-school-goth-phase/
That can't be true. She was in middle school before goth was a thing.
That can't be true. She was in middle school before goth was a thing.
Youre right! :laugh: I was thinking it would actually help her campaign if there were any and he released them, she'd look more human
Movie Max
11-09-16, 09:55 AM
From Kanye to Trump to Hillary... http://www.loser.com/
Well, at least we're done with the Clintons now.
Bottom line
People that were appalled by Trump should have voted Hillary. If they had, she'd be President.
I guess that was pushing themselves too much to do something uncomfortable. :mad: WERE SPOILED!
Hell we couldnt even unite to stop Trump. Now were gonna pay for it.
https://twitter.com/jbarro/status/796400606483202048
Pretty hard to argue with it now, I guess.
I dunno what would've happened with Bernie, and I think his supporters are way too confident about what his chances would've been. But I feel pretty darn comfortable saying Joe Biden would've won. No way do rural white voters turn out at this level to stop Joe Biden.
Movie Max
11-09-16, 02:04 PM
Editorial, written by Marie Whitaker about how her Trump prediction was based on three things...
Thirdly, I never believed America would elect a woman President.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/analysis-rural-america-silent-majority-powered-trump-win-n681221
I agree.
Citizen Rules
11-09-16, 02:05 PM
Editorial, written by Marie Whitaker about how her Trump prediction was based on three things...
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/analysis-rural-america-silent-majority-powered-trump-win-n681221
I agree. Any Republican candidate could have beat Hillary. I think Hillary was a rouse to get Trump elected;)
But I feel pretty darn comfortable saying Joe Biden would've won. No way do rural white voters turn out at this level to stop Joe Biden.
Yeah he would have, I would have wanted to vote for him. Poor guy lost his son though, nobody can blame him for not running.
Maybe in 4 years he'll want to... :)
Movie Max
11-09-16, 02:54 PM
Any Republican candidate could have beat Hillary. I think Hillary was a rouse to get Trump elected;)
I'm sure her recent erratic and unpredictable body movements, expressions, falls and seizures did not personify strength, health and competence. Originally, I figured it was just the long campaign that was taking its toll on a physically weaker candidate. After seeing some footage, I started to lean toward her having a few malfunctioning synthetic human body doubles. It did not bode well for the confidence of voters.
Daniel M
11-09-16, 03:23 PM
Just looking at some of her email stuff, thought this was interesting about environmental activists.
https://i.gyazo.com/47416bf82fa4aa630538678e4cb4d955.png
donniedarko
11-09-16, 03:51 PM
I guess she wasn't woman human enough.
.
donniedarko
11-09-16, 03:54 PM
I think Bernie is the reason Clinton lost. Hard to keep up with the loon to the left of you promising to give everything away for free. If the democrats never added the $15 minimum wage and debt free college to the agenda (alongside following along with the brain dead black lives matter movement) I probably would've voted Clinton.
Captain Steel
11-09-16, 05:14 PM
Well, at least we're done with the Clintons now.
Hallelujah!
I always wonder what things would be like if, as in the first couple U.S. elections, the loser became the winner's Vice President?
So we would've had the Bush / Kerry administration; Obama / McCain, Obama / Romney, and now Trump / Clinton.
Apparently that system was so flawed that it didn't work and was quickly done away with, but it sure forced the people in charge to "reach across the aisle".
Iroquois
11-10-16, 02:56 AM
I think Bernie is the reason Clinton lost. Hard to keep up with the loon to the left of you promising to give everything away for free. If the democrats never added the $15 minimum wage and debt free college to the agenda (alongside following along with the brain dead black lives matter movement) I probably would've voted Clinton.
why
donniedarko
11-10-16, 03:01 AM
The democratic platform has gone too fiscally left for me- and many others- to take it seriously. You can thank the Bern man for that
Iroquois
11-10-16, 03:25 AM
It was more of an exhausted/rhetorical "why" (as evidenced by my deliberate abandoning of proper grammar to visually indicate the proper emotion) but thanks for answering, I guess. Referring to Black Lives Matter as "braindead", though...that's a whole other kind of messed up.
Movie Max
11-10-16, 07:21 AM
http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=27761&stc=1&d=1478776838
Clinton’s stunning loss Tuesday night showed that issues of culture and class mattered more to many American women than their gender. The sisterhood, as real sisterhood tends to be, turned out to be riddled with complications.http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-couldnt-win-over-white-women/
Heather, 43, Kansas, small business owner
Until this election I was independent. This election I declared myself Republican for the first time. My friends are mostly liberal Democrats. They say I’m the poorest Republican they know. I hope that the silent majority stops being bullied by the loud minority.https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/why-did-people-vote-for-donald-trump-us-voters-explain
matt72582
11-10-16, 10:56 AM
I think the Democratic Party has wayyy too far to the right.. Siding along with Republicans.
War, Wall St., Patriot Act, Banks, Prison for Profit.... A lot of this is the right-wing of Hillary, but I don't see many Democrats abandoning her like Republicans did with Trump.
Even with Obama, instead of cutting back on a missile or two, he cut $500 MILLION in food stamps, removing the $2 TV dinners out of a kid's mouth for more weapons.
As a left of center, I also like Hillary lost so that the DNC thinks those days are over and start running someone like FDR.
donniedarko
11-10-16, 03:18 PM
It was more of an exhausted/rhetorical "why" (as evidenced by my deliberate abandoning of proper grammar to visually indicate the proper emotion) but thanks for answering, I guess. Referring to Black Lives Matter as "braindead", though...that's a whole other kind of messed up.
Really? I replaced another word I used with braindead to make it more polite.
The leaders of that sh*t, exploitative, organizations could get run over during one of their highway blockage protests and I'd be a happy man.
Maybe that is a kind of messed up, but f*ck those guys
Iroquois
11-10-16, 10:56 PM
You disgust me.
Really? I replaced another word I used with braindead to make it more polite.
The leaders of that sh*t, exploitative, organizations could get run over during one of their highway blockage protests and I'd be a happy man.
Maybe that is a kind of messed up, but f*ck those guys
:rolleyes:
murica'
Captain Steel
11-10-16, 11:15 PM
Can we just BAN all of this political talk on the forum? It's making the forum all ugly.
Sad but true. My suggestion is making the forum consist only of threads about how you feel a movie is kind of mediocre or even lousy, even though most other people and critics thought it was great and gave it a really high rating! ;)
Political talk is not the problem. Instigating and accelerating the talks when they have nothing to say is the problem. Personally singling out people as biased and smearing them is the problem. Political talk is just one of many topics this has been done. Dont blame a thread :nope:
Movie Max
11-10-16, 11:41 PM
Can we just BAN all of this political talk on the forum? It's making the forum all ugly.
Hope not. I'm really enjoying finally hearing from the silent majority.
Friendly Mushroom!
11-10-16, 11:46 PM
Political talk is not the problem. Instigating and accelerating the talks when they have nothing to say is the problem. Personally singling out people as biased and smearing them is the problem. Political talk is just one of many topics this has been done. Dont blame a thread :nope:
I think the promblem is that 4 political threads are going on simultaneously. ;)
I think the promblem is that 4 political threads are going on simultaneously. ;)
Yeah the election should have had its own section in the forum its gotten so much volume. Kinda overkill :sick:
Citizen Rules
11-10-16, 11:53 PM
Can we just BAN all of this political talk on the forum? It's making the forum all ugly.I agree.
Iroquois
11-11-16, 12:00 AM
Can we just BAN all of this political talk on the forum? It's making the forum all ugly.
What do you expect from such ugly politics?
Daniel M
11-11-16, 12:12 AM
Exactly, it's making the world ugly, and this forum is just a part of that.
Captain Steel
11-11-16, 12:17 AM
I'm not for banning anything.
"Well, in all my years I ain't never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be TALKED about. Hell yeah! I'm for debating anything. Rhode Island says yea!"
- Stephen Hopkins (from the movie 1776)
I think have one thread for ALL political talk. :) We can have it be the "Donald Trump For President?" thread since he won, and change the title. Just a thought :shrug:
Citizen Rules
11-11-16, 12:43 AM
I think have one thread for ALL political talk. :) We can have it be the "Donald Trump For President?" thread since he won, and change the title. Just a thought :shrug: Good idea, Yoda please can you make it so? There's too many duplicate threads over the board about Trump and it's causing division, when us MoFo's need to be more of a community.
Citizen Rules
11-11-16, 12:48 AM
I'm bored with talk about Trump vs Hillary....SC tell us how you and Trump are alike.
Citizen Rules
11-11-16, 12:52 AM
Suit yourself it would have been fun for you, fun for us too.
I'm bored with talk about Drumpf vs Hillary....SC tell us how you and Drumpf are alike.
I ain't talking to you, Citizen Rules, until you start acting a little nicer towards Drumpf.
That's one way.
Citizen Rules
11-11-16, 01:05 AM
Yes, I show. I don't tell. Yes and that's how I know why you admire Trump so. I do believe you are sincere in your unwavering admiration for Trump.
Captain Steel
11-11-16, 01:07 AM
Maybe the new thread could be titled "Overrated Candidates that other people liked, but you thought stunk"?
gbgoodies
11-11-16, 01:22 AM
I can't contain myself about it, can I? Other people might be embarrassed to admit they like Trump. I'm still not even 100% certain that everybody here knows I like Trump. Has everybody heard? Is it as attached to me as Jake Gyllenhaal now?
Not until you've had about a million different Trump avatars. :lol:
Captain Steel
11-11-16, 01:41 AM
Not until you've had about a million different Trump avatars. :lol:
Speaking of which - I'm not fond of Sexy's new avatar. (I'll take Jake over Whoopi any day.)
donniedarko
11-11-16, 05:01 AM
You disgust me.
Flattered
Speaking of the Anti Trump protesters blocked the road on my campus tonight :laugh:
I'll post videos tomorrow
donniedarko
11-11-16, 05:09 AM
But tell me what good does crap like that do? Blocking people from getting to class and work. Holding up traffic just because you're upset with what candidate won. Its liberal reaction like that, which gave Trump the win.
I
Good idea, Yoda please can you make it so? There's too many duplicate threads over the board about Trump and it's causing division, when us MoFo's need to be more of a community.
Lemme think about this. Maybe just merge two. Earlier, they had distinct purposes, but admittedly now they're covering a lot of the same stuff.
Movie Max
11-11-16, 09:52 AM
Well, at least the optimism was there, even if the votes weren't...
http://a5.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/w_652/nlpog0qvaiadg1jsdwea.jpg
Citizen Rules
11-11-16, 12:27 PM
I'm sure this has already been said on MoFo....but here's why I think Hillary Clinton lost.
It was said that Clinton needed to put together a coalition of voters from minorities, liberals, young people and women in order to win the election. The same coalition that helped elect President Obama. Historically young people and minorities have lower voter turn out than older white Americans do. With Hillary's popularity at an all time low, she didn't get the minority and young voter turn out. Plus she alienated many a liberal Bernie Sander supporters and lost their votes too.
In a nutshell, Hillary's voter base staid home. After a life time in public office and the public's eye she had too many warts to make her appealing, especially at a time when 'the outsider' candidate was appealing to voters who were tired of the career politician.
Yep.
For all the talk of Trump triumphing, it looks like he's either going to barely match Romney, or actually fall short of his numbers. This election was a straight-up rejection of Hillary. Millions of Obama voters just didn't turn out for her.
Yeah, that's just about it. Trump only got about 100k votes more than McCain did in 2008 and about the same as Romney did in 2012, but Clinton got about 9 Million less than Obama did in 2008 and about 5 mililion less than he did in 2012. A good chunk of the people that voted for Obama either voted for another candidate or didn't vote at all.
Not saying any of that is exact but it's how it looks.
Movie Max
11-11-16, 01:16 PM
Hillary having a lower voter turnout in states and cities she should have and would have won anyway, skews things a bit. I think a large number of Americans for Republicans and for Democrats stayed home in urban areas. The thick strokes in this analysis are overwhelmingly red...
Clinton won almost 90 percent of urban cores, while Trump won the vast majority – between 75 and 90 percent – of suburbs, small cities and rural areas. Though these latter geographies are more sparsely populated, they were home to the majority of voters this election.https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/election-results-from-coast-to-coast/
This difference between Clinton’s run and Obama’s in 2008 — when his urban support overwhelmed his weakness in rural areas — is especially clear in Virginia and North Carolina.
And along racial lines, Clinton did eight points worse than Obama in Virginia’s majority white precincts.https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/election-results-from-coast-to-coast/
Yep.
For all the talk of Trump triumphing, it looks like he's either going to barely match Romney, or actually fall short of his numbers. This election was a straight-up rejection of Hillary. Millions of Obama voters just didn't turn out for her.
Yknow, I think it was simply a case of personality. I felt this during the notorious Gore/Dubya election that Gore should have destroyed W after 8 years under Clinton, but I was amazed by how much personality he lacked. I mean wooden as wooden can get. :eek: Hillary isnt as bad as Gore in regards to dullness, but she is. Neither had Obamas intelligent swag, or Clintons smooth way of selling it, or even Reagans raw charisma, Dubyas good ol boy demeanor, or George Seniors aura of competency.
Charisma counts. They cannot ignore this anymore.
cricket
11-11-16, 01:32 PM
She took a lot of votes for granted. Not visiting Wisconsin may have been a serious blunder.
With so many people voting simply based on likability, I think she should have put more focus towards her image. I think the time and ads she used attacking Trump's character were a waste of resources. The media was already doing that for her. I think she needed to show a lighter, more personable side. Go host SNL, throw out a first pitch, things like that. Being visible while people are enjoying themselves can have great subconscious psychological effects.
She took a lot of votes for granted. Not visiting Wisconsin may have been a serious blunder.
With so many people voting simply based on likability, I think she should have put more focus towards her image. I think the time and ads she used attacking Trump's character were a waste of resources. The media was already doing that for her. I think she needed to show a lighter, more personable side. Go host SNL, throw out a first pitch, things like that. Being visible while people are enjoying themselves can have great subconscious psychological effects.
Completely agree. He was getting enough bad press, she shouldnt have gone negative. Damn, he was throwing so much out it was hard to resist though, but youre right.
Movie Max
11-11-16, 01:40 PM
Republican vs. Democrat gains since last election (see where Hillary's blue wall used to be)...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/precinct-results/img/gain-chart-980.jpg?c=206
Friendly Mushroom!
11-11-16, 01:47 PM
I think another reason why Trump won because he had distinct style in talking. Hillary didnt have a style when she talked while Trump had many personable words (deals), phrases ( we need to x right now) and emotional pulls. Hillary never had a personality.
Citizen Rules
11-11-16, 01:53 PM
She took a lot of votes for granted. Not visiting Wisconsin may have been a serious blunder.
With so many people voting simply based on likability, I think she should have put more focus towards her image. I think the time and ads she used attacking Trump's character were a waste of resources. The media was already doing that for her. I think she needed to show a lighter, more personable side. Go host SNL, throw out a first pitch, things like that. Being visible while people are enjoying themselves can have great subconscious psychological effects.Bears repeating! Totally agree, that's one of the best post I've seen. Good advice for anyone running.
Movie Max
11-11-16, 02:02 PM
For all the talk of Trump triumphing, it looks like he's either going to barely match Romney, or actually fall short of his numbers.
I'm reading that he outperformed Romney among minorities.
She took a lot of votes for granted. Not visiting Wisconsin may have been a serious blunder.
With so many people voting simply based on likability, I think she should have put more focus towards her image. I think the time and ads she used attacking Trump's character were a waste of resources. The media was already doing that for her. I think she needed to show a lighter, more personable side. Go host SNL, throw out a first pitch, things like that. Being visible while people are enjoying themselves can have great subconscious psychological effects.
Agree with a lot of this. She was a very troubled candidate with a lot of baggage, and I think she and others didn't take that seriously enough. She doesn't have a reputation of being particularly pleasant, for one. It's also very hard to ignore her convenient flip-flopping; I wasn't sure which Hillary I'd be voting for.
The investigations really hurt, too. I have my own feelings about the whole Benghazi thing, but what's clear is the scandal really took root in people's minds. I have a friend who's been trying hard to make the point that Hillary Clinton was twice absolved by the FBI, but he can't see that he's beating his head against the wall. It doesn't matter. The suggestion of wrongdoing was proof enough.
But yeah, she just never seemed very likeable anyway. She put on a smiling face, but it was rehearsed. Guarded. It felt like a put on. By contrast, Barack Obama has a natural easygoing charisma. Most seem to agree that he's a nice guy, political views aside. Maybe Hillary Clinton thought everyone regarded her in the same way.
I'm reading that he outperformed Romney among minorities.
That wouldn't be surprising, since minorities went heavily for Obama. But that pretty clearly has more to do with Obama than Romney. It appears to be a dead cat bounce as much as anything, as he still lost them as badly as most recent Republican candidates have (despite his promises that he would do very well with them).
Taken on the whole, he simply didn't win by bringing lots of new voters to the polls: he won because Obama's voters didn't turn out for Hillary, and to a lesser extent because he traded some votes in non-swing states for those in swing-states, which turned out to be just enough to flip them.
Clinton Up Almost 400K In Popular Vote
As Republican and president-elect Donald Trump continues to transition toward his first term in the Oval Office, his now former opponent Hillary Clinton has opened up an almost 400,000-vote lead in the latest reported popular vote totals.
Democratic nominee Clinton, whose failure to capture the so-called “blue wall” of Midwest states like Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan and Ohio ultimately handed Trump a 290-232 electoral college victory. But she currently leads the popular vote 60,467,245 to Trump’s 60,071,650 for a difference of 395,595, or 47.7 percent to 47.4 percent, respectively, according to CBS News, CNN, and NBC News.
Clinton has seen her popular vote total increase from more than 233,000 on Thursday.
It’s a striking difference between the election’s ultimate loser and its winner, though the gap is not a record. In 2000 -- the most recent case of the electoral college winner being unable to garner the popular vote -- Republican George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Democrat Al Gore by 547,398. However, the electoral college result was far closer than Trump and Clinton’s matchup, with Bush claiming 271 to Gore’s 266 and the election coming down to a single state: Florida.
Trump managed to clear Florida by nearly 120,000 total votes, or 1.3 percentage points on Election Day. He also swiped Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania, each of which had voted blue for now-President Barack Obama in 2012.
It’s important to note that votes are still being tabulated around the country and that none of the three news outlets have called Michigan for either Trump or Clinton. However, Michigan’s Department of State is showing that, with 100 percent of precincts reporting, Trump is owning a 13,107-vote lead over Clinton.
Ever since Bush and Gore in 2000, many Americans have called for abolishing the electoral college. The push has gained support across the country, mostly from states that traditionally lean Democrat, according to CBS News. In the last decade, plans to make the popular vote the main avenue towards picking the president have been presented in 50 state legislatures, 10 of which have passed the measure -- a total of 165 electoral votes.
But the measure has only built up momentum in typical Democratic strongholds like Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, Vermont, Washington state and Washington, D.C. It's also popular in California, which in the wake of Trump's election has seen a groundswell of voters calling for a secession from the U.S. by referendum called “Calexit.”
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-up-almost-400k-in-popular-vote/ar-AAkbfsf?li=BBnb7Kz
Movie Max
11-11-16, 04:08 PM
And yet, despite a lack of popularity, Bush still managed a full 8 years.:confused:
Clinton blames FBI's Comey for her defeat in call with donors
http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAkdUF7.img?h=662&w=1019&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=399&y=342
Hillary Clinton blamed FBI director James Comey for her stunning defeat in Tuesday's presidential election in a conference call with her top campaign funders on Saturday, according to two participants on the call.
Clinton was projected by nearly every national public opinion poll as the heavy favorite going into Tuesday's race. Instead, Republican Donald Trump won the election, shocking many throughout the nation and prompting widespread protests.
Clinton has kept a low profile since her defeat after delivering her concession speech on Wednesday morning.
On the phone call with supporters on Saturday, Clinton said her campaign and the national party had raised $900 million from more than 3 million individual donors, according to the two participants who spoke to Reuters.
Clinton said Comey was at fault for her loss after he decided to send a letter to Congress only days before the election announcing that he was reinstating an investigation into whether she mishandled classified information when she used a private email server while secretary of state from 2009 to 2012.
Comey announced a week later that he had reviewed emails and continued to believe she should not be prosecuted, but the political damage was already done.
Clinton told donors that Trump was able to seize on both of Comey's announcements and use them to attack her, according to two participants on the call.
While the second letter cleared her of wrongdoing, Clinton said that reinforced to Trump's supporters that the system was rigged in her favor and motivated them to mobilize on Election Day.
A spokesperson for Clinton could not immediately be reached for comment.
(Reporting by Ginger Gibson in Washington and Luciana Lopez in New York; Editing by Leslie Adler)
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-blames-fbis-comey-for-her-defeat-in-call-with-donors/ar-AAkdFc9?
Captain Steel
11-12-16, 05:57 PM
I can't say she's wrong on that account.
She never should have entered the race with so many past scandals, exposed lies, accepted donations from terrorist regimes, unmasked pay for play schemes, revealed campaign & debate tampering by inner circle supporters, admitted negligence in regards to national security, obvious perjuries and ongoing criminal investigations hanging over her head.
Cobpyth
11-12-16, 06:01 PM
No, Hillary. It's your own fault.
The turnaround on Comey is in the Clintons pocket to he's an American hero was amazing. Vice-Versa with the Dems who defended him til he reopened the investigation. Noone here as far as i'm aware, still though.
My favourite has been the Republicans defending the Electoral System and the Dems criticizing it since Hilary had the votes. Neither side is up for admitting if situations were reversed their talking points would be reversed, I know i'm just stating the obvious but it is so amazing to watch, if i could visit an alternate universe this would be the first thing i'd observe haha.
The turnaround on Comey is in the Clintons pocket to he's an American hero was amazing. Vice-Versa with the Dems who defended him til he reopened the investigation. Noone here as far as i'm aware, still though.
My favourite has been the Republicans defending the Electoral System and the Dems criticizing it since Hilary had the votes. Neither side is up for admitting if situations were reversed their talking points would be reversed, I know i'm just stating the obvious but it is so amazing to watch, if i could visit an alternate universe this would be the first thing i'd observe haha.
This guy gets it. Preach brother Camo.
The turnaround on Comey is in the Clintons pocket to he's an American hero was amazing. Vice-Versa with the Dems who defended him til he reopened the investigation.
Yup. The Comey thing might as well have been constructed to show how silly and kneejerk most partisanship is. Both sides flipped on it within a week.
Captain Steel
11-12-16, 06:43 PM
The turnaround on Comey is in the Clintons pocket to he's an American hero was amazing. Vice-Versa with the Dems who defended him til he reopened the investigation. Noone here as far as i'm aware, still though.
My favourite has been the Republicans defending the Electoral System and the Dems criticizing it since Hilary had the votes. Neither side is up for admitting if situations were reversed their talking points would be reversed, I know i'm just stating the obvious but it is so amazing to watch, if i could visit an alternate universe this would be the first thing i'd observe haha.
I will admit that I've been for eliminating the Electoral system (one of the few things I've ever agreed with Hillary about when she suggested the same years ago).
If I had my way (regarding the Electoral College) then Hillary would be President Elect right now - and I think I've made it clear how I'd feel about that (although I wouldn't take to the street or gang up with thugs to rip much older, defenseless Clinton supporters out of their cars, and beat them to a bloody pulp).
I will also admit that I do not fully understand the Electoral system - and it may have certain necessary advantages that support maintaining it. But from what I remember, its original purpose was based on the fact that in olden times the country was largely rural & agrarian, and people could not get to the polls, and this was a way for states to have more balanced representation - is that correct?
earlsmoviepicks
11-12-16, 07:35 PM
You should change the thread title to: "Hillary Clinton. Enough, woman"
Citizen Rules
11-12-16, 08:01 PM
Hillary Clinton is soooo last Tuesday! :D
I will admit that I've been for eliminating the Electoral system (one of the few things I've ever agreed with Hillary about when she suggested the same years ago).
I will also admit that I do not fully understand the Electoral system - and it may have certain necessary advantages that support maintaining it. But from what I remember, its original purpose was based on the fact that in olden times the country was largely rural & agrarian, and people could not get to the polls, and this was a way for states to have more balanced representation - is that correct?
I can't verify the accuracy of this map, but I have seen it floating around over the past week. It does offer some argument for keeping the Electoral College; without it, one can imagine that major metropolitan cities would essentially elect the president.
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j38/iusreview/population_zpsljzvaans.jpg
Obviously there are a lot of pitfalls to that alternative: candidates would ignore entire swathes of the U.S. during their campaigns, mayors would suddenly wield incredible political influence, etc. But there are some fundamental advantages to the popular vote, as well: namely, individual votes would suddenly matter more than they currently do, which could lead to a more engaged, energized voting public.
Doesn't the popular vote actually make individual votes matter less? In a single count of over 130-140 million, the odds of your vote being the deciding vote are much smaller than they are in each individual state.
Doesn't the popular vote actually make individual votes matter less? In a single count of over 130-140 million, the odds of your vote being the deciding vote are much smaller than they are in each individual state.
Perhaps, but I would think that's only true of battleground states. If you're a Republican living in a state that consistently comes out blue, or vice-versa, it's hard to believe your vote really helps your candidate.
For example, in my state (Kentucky), Hillary Clinton handily won Jefferson County because Louisville is a fairly liberal city. Yet, Kentucky was the first to be decided and came out resoundingly for Trump, due to the state's many rural counties that heavily lean conservative.
EDIT: By the way, that's not sour grapes. I didn't vote for Clinton. But I know several Kentuckians who did, and who are now feeling a bit helpless about the value of their votes.
Movie Max
11-14-16, 01:35 PM
I thought this was interesting, because I personally never considered protesting against Obama...
On average, the counties that voted for Obama twice and then flipped to support Trump were 81 percent white. Obama strongholds that supported Clinton were just 55 percent white.https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/obama-trump-counties/
http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=27801&stc=1&d=1479144800
http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=27800&stc=1&d=1479144791
Perhaps, but I would think that's only true of battleground states. If you're a Republican living in a state that consistently comes out blue, or vice-versa, it's hard to believe your vote really helps your candidate.
Well, it doesn't, but then, it wouldn't have if they lost the popular vote, either. All losing votes are invalidated by the result, by definition.
I think the difference you're describing is psychological, more than mathematical. Mathematically, smaller groups of votes being bundled together into winner-take-all larger ones (IE, electoral votes) makes each individual vote matter more. It feels like the vote matters more under the popular vote because the outcome doesn't feel predetermined, the way most individual states do.
Well, it doesn't, but then, it wouldn't have if they lost the popular vote, either. All losing votes are invalidated by the result, by definition.
I think the difference you're describing is psychological, more than mathematical. Mathematically, smaller groups of votes being bundled together into winner-take-all larger ones (IE, electoral votes) makes each individual vote matter more. It feels like the vote matters more under the popular vote because the outcome doesn't feel predetermined, the way most individual states do.
I can see your logic, for sure. Personally, I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other about the Electoral College. In general, it's fair and it works the way it's supposed to. I'm just saying the current system has the capacity to produce discrepancies (i.e. the candidates splitting the popular vote and the electoral vote), whereas the popular vote would, conceivably, leave no question.
I think you're somewhat right about the psychological perspective (that's certainly the more immediately felt response), but I still don't believe that's the whole story. In a very real sense, the Electoral College doesn't accurately project the will of voters. Kentucky didn't vote entirely for Trump; 32% voted Democrat. Yet Trump received all eight electoral votes. Would it be a more accurate reflection if, say, Trump received five electoral votes and Clinton received three?
Yeah, apportioning electoral votes on a more granular basis is an interesting idea, and they already have floating electoral votes like that in Nebraska and Maine. It's worth looking at. I'd very likely prefer that to abolishing it. Despite all the derision it gets, it exists for very good reasons, some of which you touched on.
All of this weirdness makes more sense when you think of states as something halfway between counties and countries of their own, though. But obviously we've been moving away from the "laboratories of democracy" model for a very long time, both culturally in the judicial branch. And I'm pretty convinced that's the single biggest reason for the cultural tension we're living in. What did everyone expect by trying to centralize so many rules on so many controversial issues? Good fences make good neighbors, and all that.
Another thought on this, as I was struggling earlier to convey what I really meant:
Under the Electoral College, you're not really casting a vote for president. You're casting a vote to try to win your state's electors for your candidate. If you vote for a candidate and that candidate loses your state, then your vote is nullified. It's as if you never voted. If, however, your preferred candidate wins your state, then your vote means something: your voice is being carried forward by electors and represented in the actual contest (the race to 270).
If the U.S. were to eschew the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote, when you voted for a candidate, your vote would count for that candidate. Period. Full stop. This is what I meant by individual votes counting for more under the popular vote: your vote is not simply trying to get through an airlock; it's actually having a cumulative, mathematical impact on the viability of your candidate to win.
Good stuff. Going to answer these in reverse order, because the first reply kinda speaks to both:
This is what I meant by individual votes counting for more under the popular vote: your vote is not simply trying to get through an airlock; it's actually having a cumulative, mathematical impact on the viability of your candidate to win.
I'm not entirely sure what a "cumulative, mathematical impact on the viability of your candidate to win" means, but I know it's distinct from having an impact on the actual outcome. Because in terms of the outcome alone, every vote for a losing candidate is invalidated, and every vote beyond the deciding vote is unnecessary. Switching to the popular vote just trades one airlock (majority in a state) for another (majority in the country).
If you vote for a candidate and that candidate loses your state, then your vote is nullified. It's as if you never voted.
But the same is true with the popular vote, no? The outcome of a 51-49% election is identical to the outcome of a 100-0% election. It's as if all those people never voted. It's always binary.
Even putting that aside, the alternative to having it be "as if you never voted" is for it to be as if we don't have states any more. So we'd be dismantling the core strength of our system for a psychological benefit that actually decreases the likelihood of any one vote mattering. I am less than enthused with that trade.
Slappydavis
11-15-16, 01:04 PM
This might actually be a perspective difference between living in PA and living in CA, but a lot of people out here don't vote because the state is decided (I try my best to talk about propositions, and local measures; 2016 has a teaching moment for voting in local elections as one of my local measures failed to reach a 67% threshold by 11 votes), and those people will often specifically cite a yearning for popular vote.
For me, the primary problem with the electoral college is some votes matter more than other votes. Elections are their core should have the function of equalizing people, and even if there's an unequal ability to influence elections, when it comes down to it, we should at least have equal impact on the election.
So even if there's a infinitesimal chance of being THE deciding vote in an election, it's the infinitesimal chance we all share.
Not that the electoral college will go away. It'd take 38 states to ratify an amendment, and I can think of at least 20 states off the top of my head that either 1) are swing states that benefit from their disproportionate influence on the election or 2) low population states that benefit from having a higher elector-to-voter ratio because of their 2 senate electors (like wyoming).
For me, the primary problem with the electoral college is some votes matter more than other votes. Elections are their core should have the function of equalizing people, and even if there's an unequal ability to influence elections, when it comes down to it, we should at least have equal impact on the election.
Hmmmm. I'm pretty sure I disagree with the terminology, and possibly with the underlying logic.
Re: terminology. You say people should have an "equal impact on the election." But they do...it's just the state's election. To say they should have an equal impact on the national election may be a legitimate position, but that's the thing that actually needs to be addressed: why/whether it's better to elect Presidents directly, rather than preserve the autonomy of the states.
The obvious comp is the United Nations: larger nations don't get more votes, because the entire idea is to put them on more equal footing. The same is true of the states. Individual state elections have the function of equalizing people. The election of the President has the function of equalizing states. It all makes perfect sense when we think of the states as something as close to their own countries as they are just different areas of the same country. That's how the system was designed. People can argue it should be designed differently, but let's be upfront about that: it's not just a "let's swap electoral votes for votes." It's literally an argument that American government should be fundamentally altered.
Re: logic. Should elections have the function of "equalizing" everyone? That may sound like a truism, but taken to its logical extreme, we'd have mob rule and an incessant number of referendums. I think we all agree that having representatives is good, even though it inarguably skews the direct and immediate will of the people. In fact, that's kind of the point. And it's the point of the electoral college, too.
I realize it sounds very unpopular to dispute this kind of thing, and it's undoubtedly good rhetoric to champion it. But I'm not sure it's good government.
So even if there's a infinitesimal chance of being THE deciding vote in an election, it's the infinitesimal chance we all share.
I dig. And really, that's the argument to make: that it's necessary to satisfy some principle or ideal. I don't agree, but I find that more compelling/cohesive than the idea that people's votes are being nullified by the electoral college.
Not that the electoral college will go away. It'd take 38 states to ratify an amendment, and I can think of at least 20 states off the top of my head that either 1) are swing states that benefit from their disproportionate influence on the election or 2) low population states that benefit from having a higher elector-to-voter ratio because of their 2 senate electors (like wyoming).
Aye, this is pretty academic.
cricket
11-17-16, 01:37 PM
I've heard a little bit about how Clinton would have won if we went by popular vote, and I'd have to disagree with that. The two candidates campaigned knowing how the process works, and that's what they based their strategy on in going after particular states. Had popular vote been the decided factor, you would have seen Trump campaign harder in democratic states like Massachusetts and California. There's no point in chasing people's votes in a state you can't win, under the current system.
I half-agree with that. The half-agreement part is that he would've campaigned differently. The half-disagree part is that I don't think he'd be able to make up a ~2 million vote deficit (or whatever it ends up being) by doing so, in part because she would've campaigned differently, too. And probably in ways (like base rallying) that ended up being directly related to her defeat.
cricket
11-17-16, 01:59 PM
Yes that's right, it goes both ways, although I think there may have been a bigger difference in this particular election which played out in a way we haven't seen before. My guess is that he'd be able to steal more votes from her than the other way around, just because that seemed to be how it went. She may have come out on top, but to say she would have won with the popular vote is just a guess.
I even wonder if more visibility from her would have turned more people away from her, as uninspiring and unlikable as she is.
Slappydavis
11-17-16, 02:35 PM
Re: terminology. You say people should have an "equal impact on the election." But they do...it's just the state's election. To say they should have an equal impact on the national election may be a legitimate position, but that's the thing that actually needs to be addressed: why/whether it's better to elect Presidents directly, rather than preserve the autonomy of the states.
I think that my point didn't come out clearly, so I'll put it in a more concrete way; I would trade my presidential vote for a presidential vote in Michigan. That's a cost. Possibly a cost not worth fixing because of other consequences, but a cost, and it stops people from voting.
The obvious comp is the United Nations: larger nations don't get more votes, because the entire idea is to put them on more equal footing. The same is true of the states.
Except it's not the same as the UN: larger states DO get more votes in the electoral college (California's 55 to Wyoming's 3). And honestly the issue isn't even really a small state vs big state issue, it's a swing state vs non-swing state. In 2016 vote in Iowa was more valuable than a vote in California, but not more valuable than a vote in Michigan.
Now, I'm actually fine with the prospect that convincing a voter could be more or less valuable contingent on their likelihood to vote, that makes sense (though I would also like to raise the likelihood of all people to vote in general). But once the vote is cast, it really feels like that vote should be just as valuable as any other votes for the same issues.
Also I'm curious, let's just stick to a single state, would you want your vote to go a state electoral college when deciding the senate race? Where your vote goes towards a county total and elections are decided by tallying up county totals (essentially, you'd be put in the same situation where swing counties would have the more valuable votes).
Re: logic. Should elections have the function of "equalizing" everyone? That may sound like a truism, but taken to its logical extreme, we'd have mob rule and an incessant number of referendums. I think we all agree that having representatives is good, even though it inarguably skews the direct and immediate will of the people. In fact, that's kind of the point. And it's the point of the electoral college, too.
I'll definitely take your side with saying referendums are dangerous (especially here in CA, where they take on the power of CA constitutional amendments, making them incredibly hard to work around), and I'm for the trustee model over the delegate model of rep democracy (and it's definitely much better politics to say you're running as a delegate model rep). But unless you're saying that the electors should only take the votes within their state as advice but vote as they want, it's not actually a representative model.
As an example, let's say that referenda votes went to a single elector who has the power to say yes or no to all referenda, but that elector is bound by the popular vote within the state to say yes or no, that's not suddenly representative government; it's still functionally direct democracy.
Edit: Also Re: whether or not Trump would still win if he had campaigned under a popular vote election- I'd say it's unclear. At best you could say it'd be different.
matt72582
11-17-16, 02:59 PM
They both ran under the same system, state by state, so the popular vote doesn't mean much since they were battling over the same 5-10 states (just like last election).. If we had a different system, they would be campaigning much differently.
I think that my point didn't come out clearly, so I'll put it in a more concrete way; I would trade my presidential vote for a presidential vote in Michigan. That's a cost. Possibly a cost not worth fixing because of other consequences, but a cost, and it stops people from voting.
It stops people on that end of the trade from voting. But doesn't that mean, logically, that it would encourage people in Michigan to vote all the more? You're describing a cost to you, but not necessarily a net cost to voting overall.
Also, I'm not sure how well this general posture holds up if we expand it. For example, instead of states, substitute countries, and instead of Democrats/Republicans, substitute full-blown libertarians/communists. Those people have their votes effectively nullified by living and voting here, too, but I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) you don't see that as a problem. I assume, in that case, you just see it as part of living in a democracy.
Except it's not the same as the UN: larger states DO get more votes in the electoral college (California's 55 to Wyoming's 3).
Aye, but doesn't this just enhance the point? It's actually less extreme than the UN example.
It'd be a bit much for Wyoming to have exactly the same influence as California, but it shouldn't be written off almost entirely, either. So we weight for size in one branch, but not in another, and we reduce their power in the third area (Presidential elections). It seems like a solid compromise.
Now, I'm actually fine with the prospect that convincing a voter could be more or less valuable contingent on their likelihood to vote, that makes sense (though I would also like to raise the likelihood of all people to vote in general). But once the vote is cast, it really feels like that vote should be just as valuable as any other votes for the same issues.
But they aren't the same issues! That's the whole idea. Michigan's concerns are not California's, and failing to equalize the states in any way pretty much guarantees, over time, that the latter's concerns are going to swamp the former's. And at that point, you have to think a country as large and diverse as America has a much higher likelihood of fragmentation or secession.
Also I'm curious, let's just stick to a single state, would you want your vote to go a state electoral college when deciding the senate race? Where your vote goes towards a county total and elections are decided by tallying up county totals (essentially, you'd be put in the same situation where swing counties would have the more valuable votes).
No, because states have plenary power, and counties don't.
My chief concern--and that of the architects of this system--is limiting centralized power, which has a horrendous long-term track record in nearly all things throughout human history. We can quibble reasonably about exactly how narrowly we should be granting legal autonomy to different areas (IE: should be counties rather than townships? Townships rather than states?), but my first concern is principle-based: that it exists at all. My second concern is logistical: it should not be so diffuse that virtually any travel subjects you to wild fluctuations in law and custom.
I'll definitely take your side with saying referendums are dangerous (especially here in CA, where they take on the power of CA constitutional amendments, making them incredibly hard to work around), and I'm for the trustee model over the delegate model of rep democracy (and it's definitely much better politics to say you're running as a delegate model rep). But unless you're saying that the electors should only take the votes within their state as advice but vote as they want, it's not actually a representative model.
As an example, let's say that referenda votes went to a single elector who has the power to say yes or no to all referenda, but that elector is bound by the popular vote within the state to say yes or no, that's not suddenly representative government; it's still functionally direct democracy.
Yeah, this part's my fault: it probably sounded like I was describing electors as representatives, but I was really just talking about any abstraction between the direct will of the people and the result.
I hold it as sacred that the people must have ultimate control. I don't hold it as sacred that a direct majority in anything must win out, immediately. I'm fine with the people's will having some lag time, or being measured in ways that require it be sustained or definitive.
Slappydavis
11-18-16, 09:05 PM
It stops people on that end of the trade from voting. But doesn't that mean, logically, that it would encourage people in Michigan to vote all the more? You're describing a cost to you, but not necessarily a net cost to voting overall.
Honest question: even if it were true that net voting stayed neutral, are you actually okay with that? That voters in one state are discouraged at the expense of another state getting extra motivation? Do you not consider that a cost?
This kind of cuts to the heart of the issue for me; votes for the same office shouldn't be more or less valuable than others (whether it's on the federal level, state level, municipal level, whatever) because it seems to imply that some people are better suited to select a president.
(by the way, I also think it's unfair/unwise that Iowa and New Hampshire have exaggerated effects on the primary process as well).
Also, I'm not sure how well this general posture holds up if we expand it. For example, instead of states, substitute countries, and instead of Democrats/Republicans, substitute full-blown libertarians/communists. Those people have their votes effectively nullified by living and voting here, too, but I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) you don't see that as a problem. I assume, in that case, you just see it as part of living in a democracy.
You're going to have to be more detailed, because it's not the same issue. I mean, even the votes for third parties have different values between the states (even when voting for the same candidate). And it's not about people with drastically different values. If I cloned myself, and one of me lived in MI and one in CA, Michigan me's vote matters more than California me's vote.
Aye, but doesn't this just enhance the point? It's actually less extreme than the UN example.
It'd be a bit much for Wyoming to have exactly the same influence as California, but it shouldn't be written off almost entirely, either. So we weight for size in one branch, but not in another, and we reduce their power in the third area (Presidential elections). It seems like a solid compromise.
Wyoming already has a place in government where they wield disproportionate power; and it's not just a solid compromise, it's a great one. (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/greatcomp.htm)
But they aren't the same issues! That's the whole idea. Michigan's concerns are not California's, and failing to equalize the states in any way pretty much guarantees, over time, that the latter's concerns are going to swamp the former's. And at that point, you have to think a country as large and diverse as America has a much higher likelihood of fragmentation or secession.
I think you misunderstood what I meant by "issues". I've tried to be consistent that votes for the same office or referendum or whatever should be equal.
And again, it's not about large versus small. Michigan is much bigger than North Dakota, and their votes are more valuable. The "small states deserve a more equal playing field" line of logic doesn't work for this. If you are arguing for the electoral college you are arguing that votes (and by extension, voters) in swing states should have more valuable. Plenty of small states get screwed by it too.
My chief concern--and that of the architects of this system--is limiting centralized power, which has a horrendous long-term track record in nearly all things throughout human history. We can quibble reasonably about exactly how narrowly we should be granting legal autonomy to different areas (IE: should be counties rather than townships? Townships rather than states?), but my first concern is principle-based: that it exists at all. My second concern is logistical: it should not be so diffuse that virtually any travel subjects you to wild fluctuations in law and custom.
You're going to need to make a case of why the popular vote, which makes every vote in the country equal to one another, constitutes centralized power. Right now specific people have more voting power than others, under popular vote, all votes have equal power.
I hold it as sacred that the people must have ultimate control. I don't hold it as sacred that a direct majority in anything must win out, immediately. I'm fine with the people's will having some lag time, or being measured in ways that require it be sustained or definitive.
I agree with all of this. But I also think that ultimate control manifests in votes, which should be equal.
I do want to say though, there are a dozen things I'd do to increase turnout first before changing to popular vote.
Honest question: even if it were true that net voting stayed neutral, are you actually okay with that? That voters in one state are discouraged at the expense of another state getting extra motivation? Do you not consider that a cost?
I don't, for two reasons. One theoretical and one practical:
Theoretical: swing states fluctuate. I'd have a problem if any state were always more valuable, but they swing over time. So if their existence is a wash in terms of net voting in this election, the same logic would apply across multiple elections. (FYI, I'm not convinced more net voting is necessarily good to begin with.)
Practical: I don't think anybody votes because they think theirs will be the deciding vote, and reforming the system this way only decreases those odds, anyway. So we're talking about a hypothetical person who doesn't care about the likelihood they'll make a difference (since it's higher with the EC), but does care about the vague symbolism of their vote counting, but somehow cares about that without caring enough to vote as-is. I have trouble believing even one such person exists, let alone enough to suggest that the system needs to be reformed.
This kind of cuts to the heart of the issue for me; votes for the same office shouldn't be more or less valuable than others (whether it's on the federal level, state level, municipal level, whatever) because it seems to imply that some people are better suited to select a president.
I don't think the system should statically or systematically select people based on this, but...well, maybe they are better suited to it. Behind the veil of ignorance, which person would you want choosing the President: someone surrounded by the like-minded, or someone who lives in a state split down the middle?
There's something interesting, and self-balancing about the idea that the electoral college essentially incentivizes people to live around more people who disagree with them. I don't want it etched in stone, but if you're just asking if swing state voters would generally make better choices, I'd say: yeah, probably. They're less likely to live in a bubble.
Wyoming already has a place in government where they wield disproportionate power; and it's not just a solid compromise, it's a great one. (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/greatcomp.htm)
Slow clap.
I think you misunderstood what I meant by "issues". I've tried to be consistent that votes for the same office or referendum or whatever should be equal.
Well, whether you meant "issues" or not, it's still the crux of the thing: as long as we have a large, diverse country, different areas of it will have vastly different considerations. So, to me, they're not really voting for the same thing, the way two people living side-by-side in New Mexico are. They're often voting for completely different reasons, and the electoral college is a way to reflect that.
And again, it's not about large versus small. Michigan is much bigger than North Dakota, and their votes are more valuable. The "small states deserve a more equal playing field" line of logic doesn't work for this. If you are arguing for the electoral college you are arguing that votes (and by extension, voters) in swing states should have more valuable. Plenty of small states get screwed by it too.
Agreed, it's not really about size: it's about diversity of issues. It's just that smaller states would presumably get the short end of that stick more often compared to population centers. I think we can all agree the campaign would not be improved by taking place almost entirely in and around major cities. If you think there's an anti-elite backlash now...
Put another way: the point of voting is not to express our highest civic notions, it's to produce good results. A popular vote may feel closer to the former, but I think the electoral college forces the diversity of issues that is more conducive to the latter.
Also, this isn't dispositive for me, but I'm pretty smitten with the idea that, before you can become the most powerful person in the world, you have to speak in a freakin' barn in Iowa, shiver shaking hands in New Hampshire, and stain your shirt with BBQ sauce in South Carolina. I like that you have to generally humble yourself around people you'd never have reason or occasion to meet otherwise.
You're going to need to make a case of why the popular vote, which makes every vote in the country equal to one another, constitutes centralized power.
Because it bypasses the states. Things get a little fuzzy here because, technically, you could just have a popular vote that bypasses the states in this one area and stop right there. But I don't think that's how things work in reality: in reality, when we breach lines like that for one thing, we eventually come to think and act like they aren't there at all.
In this case, I'd actually say the push for a popular vote (such as it is) is more the symptom than the disease: it's only a discussion because people have already stopped thinking of states as being largely independent. So in one sense you have a very good point: if we're already trampling on the 10th Amendment, if we already have lots of Federal oversight, and if the Supreme Court can strike down state referendums by reading between the Constitutional lines...then sure, the popular vote seems like a positively quaint trespass over states' rights. But it's one of the few Federalist fronts left, so it's important by default for anyone who cares about this.
I agree with all of this. But I also think that ultimate control manifests in votes, which should be equal.
It all comes down to whether you think of the entity voting as the person or the state. I think of it as the state, because that's how it was originally conceived and that system has obvious benefits. Also because (per the paragraphs just above) that's the position more in need of support right now.
I do want to say though, there are a dozen things I'd do to increase turnout first before changing to popular vote.
Yeah, same.
I might feel differently about all this if I felt we had an actual choice between higher turnouts and the electoral college. I'd still have structural objections, but that would be a clear trade-off, at least. But I think we're at the point where people's disinterest goes way beyond things like the electoral college.
Something I hadn't considered:
https://twitter.com/PatrickRuffini/status/801228908838481920
Heh.
https://twitter.com/THRMattBelloni/status/806568401615220736
Because it bypasses the states. Things get a little fuzzy here because, technically, you could just have a popular vote that bypasses the states in this one area and stop right there. But I don't think that's how things work in reality: in reality, when we breach lines like that for one thing, we eventually come to think and act like they aren't there at all.
In this case, I'd actually say the push for a popular vote (such as it is) is more the symptom than the disease: it's only a discussion because people have already stopped thinking of states as being largely independent. So in one sense you have a very good point: if we're already trampling on the 10th Amendment, if we already have lots of Federal oversight, and if the Supreme Court can strike down state referendums by reading between the Constitutional lines...then sure, the popular vote seems like a positively quaint trespass over states' rights. But it's one of the few Federalist fronts left, so it's important by default for anyone who cares about this.
Wanted to follow-up on this and point out that there's a proposal (http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/) to make the popular vote the de facto method of choosing the President without actually diluting states' rights, at least not technically. This doesn't really "fix" my concerns, because part of the problem is how we think about states to begin with (and I think it's kind of messy, in that I assume it could flip back if enough states change their minds, so to speak), but I will say I prefer it to just changing the whole thing.
I think the whole thing is the symptom of larger problems, as I mentioned, but credit where it's due: we need more people who are willing to speak up for process and precedent, and not just look the other way on it because doing so produces the desired outcome (saw this a lot with the gay marriage ruling), and this is at least a nod in that direction.
cricket
12-26-16, 05:56 PM
You know who is woman enough?
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Vick%20Crick_zpsgnkbslen.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Vick%20Crick_zpsgnkbslen.png.html)
Miss Vicky for MoFo President!
Movie Max
01-04-17, 11:06 AM
This one is pretty good, too...
http://media-cdn.timesfreepress.com/img/photos/2016/11/21/161122fpramirez1015378995_t755_h72a575e4938cad00e4c61d3ef57bf286e9710e3e.jpg
Slappydavis
01-04-17, 02:18 PM
I'm surprised that I'm surprised at how lazy that is, good lord that's low effort, even for Michael Ramirez.
Such as Wyoming being 4 times the size of Georgia when Georgia has almost 20 times the population of Wyoming.
It's also kinda funny that the implication of the cartoon is that the problem with getting rid of the electoral college is that it'd increase the power of a few key states when that's exactly what swing states have under an electoral college.
Prefer the cartoonist to be more honest and not make a poor attempt at portraying a fairness issue and just come out and say that he doesn't like some states.
We have too many states anyway. Let's consolidate and solve the problem that way
DOJ watchdog investigating FBI decisions in Clinton email probe
http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBnD912.img?h=697&w=1019&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=912&y=782
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. government watchdog said on Thursday it would examine whether the Federal Bureau of Investigation followed proper procedures in its probe of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server.
The inspector general’s announcement comes amid outcry from Democrats who say Clinton’s loss to President-elect Donald Trump was in part due to Comey's bringing Clinton's emails back into the public spotlight less than two weeks before the 2016 election.
The Justice Department's Office of Inspector General said its probe would focus in part on decisions leading up to public communications by FBI Director James Comey regarding the Clinton investigation, and whether underlying investigative decisions may have been based on "improper considerations."
Although the FBI ultimately decided not to refer Clinton’s case for prosecution, Comey aroused suspicion that may have diminished trust in Clinton among voters.
The controversy involved Clinton's use of a private email server for official correspondence when she was secretary of state under President Barack Obama, including for messages that were later determined to contain classified information.
Comey publicly announced the status of the agency's investigation into Clinton's emails two times in 2016.
In July, Comey held a press conference and testified before Congress to explain why the FBI had decided not to refer Clinton for prosecution, explaining that she was "extremely careless" but should not be charged with gross negligence or any other federal crime.
In October, less than two weeks before the Nov. 8 election, Comey said the FBI was continuing the investigation because of new emails found on the computer of disgraced former Representative Anthony Weiner, the husband of one of Clinton's top aides.
On Nov. 6, Comey said the investigation into Weiner's computer produced no new evidence that would incriminate Clinton.
Brian Fallon, Clinton's spokesman, told MSNBC on Thursday that Comey's actions "cried out for an independent review."
It is the usual practice of prosecutors and law enforcement, including the FBI, not to disclose information about investigations that do not end in criminal charges.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-watchdog-investigating-fbi-decisions-in-clinton-email-probe/ar-AAlOaGO
Movie Max
01-15-17, 11:18 PM
Sexism 'alive and well'
"I'm starting to cry because it's still hard," she said after a pause. "It's a punch in the gut that yet again a well-qualified woman lost to a mediocre man. That's the hardest part."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-loss-good-for-women-politics-1.3910591
Per the discussions earlier about Clinton selling access: the Clinton Foundation is shutting down (https://labor.ny.gov/app/warn/details.asp?id=5801) amid dwindling donations (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/16/clinton-global-initiative-lays-off-22-as-donations/), in part from foreign governments pulling their money after the election.
Pretty darn hard to see this and not conclude that the allegations here were spot on.
Movie Max
01-31-17, 09:46 AM
The comedy show continues...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlFi0QUboxs
ash_is_the_gal
01-31-17, 11:12 AM
...boooring. i stopped caring about the Clintons when it became official that she would no longer be making any decisions that would affect my life.
Yoda
I know you want this locked.
John McClane
02-06-19, 12:55 PM
Would this be a bad place to tell y'all that I like movies?
Thanks. Yeah, I usually lock all controversial threads after months of inactivity, but I miss plenty.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.