US Elections 2016 Part II: The Debates & General Election

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by sasoras

Wikileaks info is vetted and had a 100% accuracy to date. The facts are their, conclusions are drawn by yourself, celebrity status and endorsements are a thing.

Even if Wikileak's info is 100% accurate, a conspiracy theory than only use part of the info will still be false if the rest of the info prove it wrong.

This election is a real mess, with no real good options (counting the 4 bigger parties) the real choices are more as voting for the lesser evil, trying to block the bigger one, hoping than voting for a 3th party will change the system or even not voting at all. None of those choice appealing so expect a low turn-out this year, which is bad new whatever the result end up to be.

[sasoras]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

No, you really haven't. Oliver isn't a cop. Or even a journalist. And taking it as an axiom that Clinton is exactly as bad as Trump, and deserves to be mocked just as much, is absurd.

No one claims he is a cop or journalist, however if you seek journalism avoiding partisan ones tend to be better, and we all know his form of comedy is also meant to inform on issues, which is what a journalist does minus the comedy, and platform.

Why exactly do you think I keep talking about partisan?

Also Clinton is bad, there is no denying it, whether she is the equivalent of trump remains a variable to many.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by sasoras

Wikileaks info is vetted and had a 100% accuracy to date. The facts are their, conclusions are drawn by yourself, celebrity status and endorsements are a thing.

Also imo conspiracy theories wouldn't exist if the government was more transparent, and well all know the hidden dirt the government has been revealed to do.

Wikileaks is run Assange who has a ax to grind against Hillary. Their info are provided by the Russians. How neutral is that?

[sasoras]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Wikileaks is run Assange who has a ax to grind against Hillary. Their info are provided by the Russians. How neutral is that?

The red scare tactic has no real substantial backing to it, other than he said she said, no specific information, documents, or anything to back a claim.

One has a reputation of vetting information for many years, for aiding whistle blowers, and for accuracy, and who also aided Edward snoden to escape the U.S. from being captured.
The other is a classic politician with a sketchy past, married to a husband with a sketchy past, who have done things related to them that are sketchy.

If you choose to believe a politician over a whistle blower with a record to back it, then that's your choice.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by sasoras

One has a reputation of vetting information for many years, for aiding whistle blowers, and for accuracy, the other is a classic politician with a sketchy past, married to a husband with a sketchy past, who have done things related to them that are sketchy.

You forget to mention the your former is also a egocentric than use Wikileak as a personal tool, is contested by members of his own organisation and than have a accusation of rape suspended over his head. Hilary is more than a sketchy politician, it don't mean than her all her critic are angels, heck the GOP attacked her and her husband so many time with made-up scandal (while there's so much real issue about her).

[sasoras]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

You forget to mention the your former is also a egocentric than use Wikileak as a personal tool, is contested by members of his own organisation and than have a accusation of rape suspended over his head. Hilary is more than a sketchy politician, it don't mean than her all her critic are angels, heck the GOP attacked her and her husband so many time with made-up scandal (while there's so much real issue about her).

The validity of information remains, and I do believe in the organization (until new information states I shouldn't).

As for assange himself i'm just using him as a representative of the whole.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by sasoras

The validity of information remains, and I do believe in the organization (until new information states I shouldn't).

Still, as I said before, a half baked conspiracy build on only part of the info, forgetting the rest of the info than disprove the conspiracy, is still false even if based on a real info.

[Newhope]

Wikileaks doesn't even matter, the emails and all the lies she's told alone should be enough to disqualify if not outright jail her.

If I was Trump and I got elected my frist act would be to fully investigate the Clintons as well as the FBI who are covering up.

[Eisdrache]

What does this e-mail prove? I'll spell it out for you: nothing. It could mean a cooperation between the two teams to attack Trump. It could also be nothing more than a simple invitation to an event. There is no way to prove either way yet people are talking as if there were clear evidence.

[Eisdrache]

We are talking about the e-mail with the John Oliv(i)er content which is not classified. You are talking about something else here.

[Newhope]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

We are talking about the e-mail with the John Oliv(i)er content which is not classified. You are talking about something else here.

Yes which is why I said Wikileaks doesn't even matter, the Email scandal alone should have disqualified Clinton.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Newhope

, the Email scandal alone should have disqualified Clinton.

On that I agree with you, the same way than Trump University (and the following ''bridery'' of official) should have disqualified Trump as well. Both should defend themselves in court, not getting elected to the highest office. But now it's probably too late as early voting did occur, so the next president will be either of those 2.

If one would want to find a consolation about this fact, at least the next president won't be Ted Cruz.

[Ithekro]

Assuming a third party (or runner up of the main two parties) doesn't somehow make it over these two, I fully expect calls for impeachment on January 20th, 2017 and them not stopping until the next president takes office. Regardless of which of them wins.

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by Newhope

Wikileaks doesn't even matter, the emails and all the lies she's told alone should be enough to disqualify if not outright jail her.

If I was Trump and I got elected my frist act would be to fully investigate the Clintons as well as the FBI who are covering up.

Violating embargo rules at a specific point in time, frauding lots of people through Trump University, bribing an attorney general, and preaching a treasonous act (calling for a foreign country to hack his own country's government) should have been more than enough to send Trump in jail by now. As for disqualification, the whole rhetoric he spewed against Blacks, Hispanics, women, and disabled should have been more than enough. We talk about HARD EVIDENCE here.

In other news, the woman who was underage when it was claimed that Trump raped her in 1994 has been set a date for hearing by a federal judge:

Judge sets date for hearing of lawsuit accusing Donald Trump of underage rape

[MCAL]

^
Don't forget about the poll watching.

[Galaxian]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

The things conspiracy theorists will come up with. What do you even think John Oliver is? A secret World Government operative with a mind control machine?

Everyone knows that Colbert is the one with the mind control machine.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

That's a good analogy. Mind you, we has to acknowledge that Clinton, as a powerful female politician, is playing a much harder game than Trump.

If it weren't for orange hitler on the other side, I think this matter would be touched on more. A lot of female politicians have to over compensate on foreign policy to be more "manly." That's why I believe she's a bit more hawkish than she would normally be.

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Having said that, because the debate didn't have a clear direction, the "victory" will be won in the press rooms. It is up to which team can spin the debate to fit the prevailing narrative the most. If it remains "what an ugly debate," then Trump did slow down the bleeding. If it becomes "Clinton Wall Street Wikileaks," then Trump won. If the narrative focuses on Trump's sexual assault non-apology, or his jail comment, or his break with Pence, then Clinton won.

Still, I found this debate really disheartening. Ugh.

Honestly, if this election were about convincing Trump voters to switch sides it would be over already. They've long since disregarded facts and spin up conspiracy after conspiracy to smear Hillary Clinton. Thankfully this election is merely about convincing those remain undecided to not completely break Trump's way. For Hillary, tieing this debate is a win. Trump had to slaughter Hillary and that clearly did not happen (And most post debate and post video tape polling indications show he's clearly not doing good). Everyone still needs to go out and vote, can't relax, but Hillary has got this in the bag if there aren't any major blunders in the next month.

[sasoras]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

They've long since disregarded facts and spin up conspiracy after conspiracy to smear Hillary Clinton.

There are many, very real, substantive things to hit her with, they just chose to use some of the dumbest.

Months ago you would think he was deliberately sabotaging his own campaign.

The only person Trump could win against is hillary Clinton, the only person clinton could win against is trump, and ted cruz.

In a way people who want a Clinton presidency should be happy they got trump as the opponent, given all her real baggage, and ignoring republican manufactured ones.

Regardless of what you see as woman politician struggles, Hillary is the most well established, powerful, well connected politicians in the game, backed by a political dynasty, and supported by majority of the media, in a majority left leaning country, widely supported by the higher ups of a major party, name recognition, many celebs, and a woman presidency alone gathers a casual support regardless of policy.

The only struggle she would have would be her past actions, decisions, public/private comments, and even then those can be muddied given her opponent is trump, she has all the advantages to win this since the beginning. This female struggle thing is being played way too strongly by her supporters, it would have been more plausible for any other woman, but not hillary clinton in the present year of 2016.

Many things can be said about her, but in this current year, disadvantaged is not one of them.

[frivolity]

Any news on the Congressional elections? Senate's pretty much a toss-up, but there doesn't seem to be much information on how House races are being affected by the GOP chaos in the presidential elections.

I'll have a good laugh if the executive and both chambers of the legislature end up under Democrat control on November 8.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by frivolity

Any news on the Congressional elections? Senate's pretty much a toss-up, but there doesn't seem to be much information on how House races are being affected by the GOP chaos in the presidential elections.

I'll have a good laugh if the executive and both chambers of the legislature end up under Democrat control on November 8.

Well, what we know for sure, is that a Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson had declared that Trump Voters should refuse to vote down ballet for those who refuse to support Trump.

As far as we know, this is a historical first.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/10/po...-donald-trump/

"I can't keep my phone charged due to the mass volume of texts from people all over the country who will vote Trump, but down ballot, not so much," Katrina Pierson tweeted.

https://twitter.com/KatrinaPierson/s...rc=twsrc%5Etfw