US Elections 2016 Part II: The Debates & General Election

[Irenicus]

Objectively speaking you conspiracy theorists really are something. Velvet Underground lyrics? Armrests? What next, Ancient Aliens? The Times does not publish these kinds of stories lightly.

We victim-blaming now. Disgusting.

[Brother Coa]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Do you even read your own link?

I do, and in the end it all came down to same thing - Russian can hack US election databases and rig the elections. They didn't said that directly but speculation is such. Enough for them to render these election non-valid in chance that Hilary lose to Trump.

[sasoras]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Objectively speaking you conspiracy theorists really are something. Velvet Underground lyrics? Armrests? What next, Ancient Aliens? The Times does not publish these kinds of stories lightly.

We victim-blaming now. Disgusting.

Her story was that she was in first class where he lifted the armrests to reach up her dress.

First class armrests in the 80's do not lift up.

All the details she provided is less likely to happen, from various circumstantial evidence compounded. The 80's song bit was because it was interesting to point out.

Your misplaced righteous indignation can be saved when the story is more plausible.

Your use of the term victim blaming is incorrect, as I did not blame her for being sexually assaulted, I am casting doubt based on the information she provided. All the things I said can be researched INDIVIDUALLY by any average person.

If you decided to activate critical thinking mode, even you would find this article suspect. Not everything against trump is real, and not everything against hillary is real, but for you to accept everything as real is naive as an adult.

This election cycle has been muddied water startegy.

The corruption of the clinton foundation has been muddied by the corrupt trump foundation, the hillary audio hsa been met with the trump audio, the bill sex scandal/ and hillary victim blaming the people bill raped, is being countered with the trump rape allegations. Not one of them has the moral high ground, and certainly not you, to actually call me a victim blamer on a highly dubious claim for various obvious reasons.

I admit I stopped being critical since my candidate is gone, but you must be intellectually dishonest, if you do not seriously see the flaws in that article, and interview.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by sasoras

Her story was that she was in first class where he lifted the armrests to reach up her dress.

First class armrests in the 80's do not lift up.

All the details she provided is less likely to happen, from various circumstantial evidence compounded. The 80's song bit was because it was interesting to point out.

Your misplaced righteous indignation can be saved when the story is more plausible.

Your use of the term victim blaming is incorrect, as I did not blame her for being sexually assaulted, I am casting doubt based on the information she provided. All the things I said can be researched INDIVIDUALLY by any average person.

If you decided to activate critical thinking mode, even you would find this article suspect. Not everything against trump is real, and not everything against hillary is real, but for you to accept everything as real is naive as an adult.

This election cycle has been muddied water startegy.

The corruption of the clinton foundation has been muddied by the corrupt trump foundation, the hillary audio hsa been met with the trump audio, the bill sex scandal is being countered with the rape allegations. No one of them has the moral high ground, and certainly not you, to actually call me a victim shamer on a highly dubious claim for various obvious reasons.

Your "armrest" argument comes straight off of Trump surrogate Katrina Pierson's bizarre defense.

You claimed I should "activate" my critical thinking, yet -- and I usually hate to do this to people, but screw it -- you were VERY ready to believe Hillary Clinton called Bernie Sanders supporters Bucket of Losers, proven demonstrably false.

I posted an article from the New York Times, a reputable journalistic institution. Yours is Infowars level.

You are complicit in casting doubt to these women's characters and their experiences. They knew exactly that this will happen. They knew they will be questioned -- hence, to another common sexual assault apologist excuse your original post, why they may have been discouraged from making a case of it years ago (against a legendarily litigious Donald Trump...oh, I wonder why). Everything they've ever done slightly wrong will be used by scum from Infowars & Breitbart to try and destroy them, while people like you, desperate to believe it, promptly serves to propagate the attacks. Big red targets for the worst of America are painted on them now. Rape threats and death threats incoming at fiber optics speed.

And yet they spoke up.

For what? Are they bought out by Evil Mastermind Clinton?

Or maybe they -- and this is quoted directly by the Times' interview -- were pissed off beyond measure at Trump's blatant fakeout after Anderson Cooper pushed him on the tape at the debate?

And to your last paragraph: I have said it before and I will say it again, piss off with the false equivalency bullshit. The Clinton Foundation is a legitimate charitable organization that does real, important work out in the world. The Trump Foundation doesn't even file the most basic of forms. Bill Clinton's sex scandals came straight from the 90's Republican propaganda campaigns, and while I will refrain from questioning the character and accusations of the women whom Trump brought up (I hardly know enough to), their stories were long well known and Bill is coincidentally not running for President. Trump is.

I will not take this Infowars shit. I will not accept sexual predator excuses. Fuck. No.

[Newhope]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

They fucking did not? All the evidence pointed to some DNC staffers badmouthing Sanders. Oh the horror, someone doesn't like someone. Absolutely no real evidence of any sort of voter or election fraud. Stop spreading lies.

So thats why all the DNC heads resigned when it was leaked, gotcha nudge nudge wink wink.

Come on we aren't stupid most of us know they're trying to rig election for Clinton to win, I just thank the gods next to nobody listen to the bought and paid for mainstream media shills anymore hell more people watch and listen to idiots like Alex jones those days.

[sasoras]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Your "armrest" argument comes straight off of Trump surrogate Katrina Pierson's bizarre defense.

You claimed I should "activate" my critical thinking, yet -- and I usually hate to do this to people, but screw it -- you were VERY ready to believe Hillary Clinton called Bernie Sanders supporters Box of Losers, proven demonstrably false.

First of all I just admitted I stopped being critical since my candidate lost, second of all Clinton already called me a basement dweller, so another nickname wasn't a big deal. It wasn't substantive things like RAPE allegations, corruptions or illegal activities.

Originally Posted by Irenicus

I posted an article from the New York Times

A jjournalistic institution known in this election cycle as a source with conflict of interests, expected hit pieces, and proven collusion. U.S.A media in general is not the most reliable of sources, especially during an election cycle.

Originally Posted by Irenicus

You are complicit in casting doubt to these women's characters and their experiences. They knew exactly that this will happen. They knew they will be questioned -- hence, to another common sexual assault apologist excuse your original post, why they may have been discouraged from making a case of it years ago (against a legendarily litigious Donald Trump...oh, I wonder why).

The doubt was cast because they chose so long to do it, at a time that was suspicious, and gave information that did not fit the setting, and that is still not victim blaming in which you accuse me of. If enough circumstantial evidence was given, that would be for the courts to decide."

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Everything they've ever done slightly wrong will be used by scum from Infowars & Breitbart to try and destroy them, while people like you, desperate to believe it, promptly serves to propagate the attacks. Big red targets for the worst of America are painted on them now. Rape threats and death threats incoming at fiber optics speed.

People like me would be judging based on the merit available in the claims, since sexual assault is a strong subject, thus should have added scrutiny, as lives and reputations can be destroyed, and knwo i'm not talking about trump as his rep isn't all that great to begin with, but as a general standard. Relying on breitbart or infowars is asking someone else to narrate for you, and tell you what they think. It is defiantly not fact, same for huffington or mother jones. When raw information is available to you, it is better to watch over it yourself, if you let them dictate what they saw, it's hardly partisan.

Words are easily phrased to fit a certain narrative, leading to something being neutral, important or even a non issue, the average American is for a lack of a better word easily is manipulated.

If facts disagree with you change the methodology, if polling is a problem change the phrasing and sampling, if public research results not going what you want, adjust the variables. If a person is bad but you want to make them good, muddy the waters. If you want to trivialize something, insert fake equivalency.

How long has it been going down the drain, 50? or 60? yrs ago.


I have no idea why you even talk about those things, the issue is probability and substance. Those death threats, and rape threats aren't even a part of the discussion.

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Unfortunately for you,

And yet they spoke up.

For what? Are they bought out by Evil Mastermind Clinton?

Objectively speaking if it was done to favor Clinton it would be by a surrogate, and not her specifically.

Unfortunately for me what? They spoke up fine, if they want people to believe them then that would depend on the substance of the given information which I found lacking. Also I did not say it didn't happen, I said it was less probable do not confuse absolute with low probabilities.

Fuzzy memories, forgotten details, or mistakes are not surprising, it just make them less credible.

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Or maybe they -- and this is quoted directly by the Times' interview -- were pissed off beyond measure at Trump's blatant fakeout after Anderson Cooper pushed him on the tape at the debate?

No idea, I didn't really watch the debate, it's a shit show without real policy substance, and the result would be a tie or a close win for trump during the 2nd debate.

Hillary won the first 2nd half of the first debate, and ended up being a slightly overall winner.

so all in all really a draw.

Originally Posted by Irenicus

And to your last paragraph: I have said it before and I will say it again, piss off with the false equivalency bullshit. The Clinton Foundation is a legitimate charitable organization that does real, important work out in the world.

Ignoring TARP, Ambassadorships auctions, circumstantial donations that resulted in a policy changes, or armament sales to those same countries than sure.

Originally Posted by Irenicus

The Trump Foundation doesn't even file the most basic of forms.

I have no idea why you would even tell me this, as I also calling trump foundation corrupt.

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Bill Clinton's sex scandals came straight from the 90's Republican propaganda campaigns, and while I will refrain from questioning the character and accusations of the women whom Trump brought up (I hardly know enough to), their stories were long well known and Bill is coincidentally not running for President. Trump is.

That was why he was impeached, as the semen was still on her dress. The scandal relations is because Hillary was attacking them publicly, and bill would be apart of her administration.

Originally Posted by Irenicus

I will not take this Infowars shit. I will not accept sexual predator excuses. Fuck. No.

Actually the information is a bunch of people who did independent research, as well as people who rode first class. Inforwars, breitbart. w.e I have no idea why you think of those two outlets.

It wasn't highly technical because, for anyone who is familiar with planes or first class, it would be an obvious red herring detail.

[Jaden]

At least some of the accusations against Bill Clinton were certainly instructed by neo-con plotters. In Trump's case it's as likely that the accusers are simply individuals, sufficiently enraged by the 'sexist pig' to get out there and take him down a notch.

Whether these accusations have substance, I don't really want to get into. Best thing to do is let them be heard in court.

I did say it before, but people with wealth and political power tend to be perverts. JFK was famous for being a compulsive womanizer. Bill Clinton certainly. The Bushes seemed very into that Bohemian Grove stuff. Nixon called everybody else a faggot and a pervert, probably projection. Obama seems relatively innocent, but who knows. Trump would obviously fit in this club perfectly. Hillary is the only one that seems prim and proper. Not just 'cause she's a woman...I could imagine Jill Stein in an LSD fueled orgy.

[monir]

Originally Posted by Newhope

I wouldn't put to much stock in the mainstream polls if I was you it's already been proven they use weighted data, same thing happened with Brexit they used biased polling to show a healthy remain win and look what happened with that.

I would if I were you just because your candidate does. In fact, did you know that your candidate based his entire campaign on the polls? That's why he never relented from saying those crazy things cause it helped him bigly ( ) in the polls up until the first debate.

As for the Brexit, the polling were showing it was a very tight race where the result were within the margin of error, meaning it could have gone to either side. US election, on the other hand, the average polling numbers are giving Clinton with 87% (including conservative outlet such as FOX) chance to get to 340+ electoral votes. You would have a point if the polling showed these two are neck in neck in the race, but that's not the case. And finally, we're better than the Britts (sorry Haak, but it's true).

Originally Posted by Jaden

I did say it before, but people with wealth and political power tend to be perverts. JFK was famous for being a compulsive womanizer. Bill Clinton certainly. The Bushes seemed very into that Bohemian Grove stuff. Nixon called everybody else a faggot and a pervert, probably projection. Obama seems relatively innocent, but who knows. Trump would obviously fit in this club perfectly. Hillary is the only one that seems prim and proper. Not just 'cause she's a woman...I could imagine Jill Stein in an LSD fueled orgy.

Don't forget LBJ who liked his women well endowed and his own share of White House escapades.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by sasoras

First of all I just admitted I stopped being critical since my candidate lost, second of all Clinton already called me a basement dweller, so another nickname wasn't a big deal. It wasn't substantive things like RAPE allegations, corruptions or illegal activities.

If you aren't critical (anymore) then what is the point of discussing things with you?

Originally Posted by sasoras

No idea, I didn't really watch the debate, it's a shit show without real policy substance, and the result would be a tie or a close win for trump during the 2nd debate.

Hillary won the first 2nd half of the first debate, and ended up being a slightly overall winner.

so all in all really a draw.

People made the same point about the first debate. 'It was a draw', 'Trump won the argument but lost the debate' and similar. The reality however is that there was no draw and it wasn't even close.

Originally Posted by sasoras

Ignoring TARP, Ambassadorships auctions, circumstantial donations that resulted in a policy changes, or armament sales to those same countries than sure.

Ambassadorships aren't uncommon. The republican list likely looked the same as Hillary's back when Bush became president.

Originally Posted by sasoras

I have no idea why you would even tell me this, as I also calling trump foundation corrupt.

Because you put the two foundations on the same level when one of them is doing actual charitable work while the other one is a money laundering scheme.

Originally Posted by sasoras

It wasn't highly technical because, for anyone who is familiar with planes or first class, it would be an obvious red herring detail.

There is no red herring involved. The armchairs don't lift argument has been proven false already.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

He even declared that, as PotUS, that he would remove Paul Ryan from being Speaker of the House

This has been a goal of Steve Bannon's since Ryan was elected Speaker.

YouTube

https://youtu.be/5OV-HHyDFJw

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

I would have linked to the story at TheHill itself, but my browser kept hanging when I went there even with ad-blocking and Ghostery turned off.

Originally Posted by sasoras

It wasn't substantive things like RAPE allegations, corruptions or illegal activities.

Who did Hillary Clinton rape?

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Jaden

Surely he knew his dirt would get out...he was a muckraker himself during previous elections.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/tr...ching-his-past

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump rebuffed political aides’ requests to research his past

Now, obviously this came from a secret source so take it with a grain of salt. But the idea of Trump hiding his own past from his OWN staff members, is just stupid enough to be believable.

So, Trump knows he has dirty laundry. And instead of warning his political helpers and help them help HIM to prepare a counter, he banned them from doing the research at all instead.

I really can't understand that. If that is true, then the scandals in the last few weeks were a total surprise to Trump's own group.

[sasoras]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

If you aren't critical (anymore) then what is the point of discussing things with you?

Who are you? Are you multi accounting? The issue of the claim will dictate higher scrutiny. I have no horse in the race, technically, maybe a throwaway vote. So have not been digging too deeply into attacks or defense on the candidates, and parroting non-issues. So I'm being selective on what to invest in.

I made a review of the article provided, and found it lacking. That's simply it.

It reminded me of a person I was arguing with giving me a republican thinktank website detailing how raising the minimum wage was bad, and using simplistic survey of "economists" without facts or figures. It went like do you think raising the minimum wage is bad yes or no, do you think it will negatively impact the growth of the economy yes or no, with a basic pie charts and elementary bar graphs.

That was the same feeling I got from that article. If the journalist was serious in proving the subjects claim, theirs is alot of things the journalist could have investigated to lend credence to said subjects claim in the article. Instead what you have is an article of mainly quotes. What you have is basically three possibilities:

A)False Claim
B)Rushed article, so facts and figure could not be interjected
C)True claim but would be at higher scrutiny due to timing.

Could she have been sexually assaulted? Sure, the possibility exists. Could it be false? Sure, the timing was just too perfect for an election, and the time stamp too long. At the moment less credence is being give to A), new information will change the scope. If more information comes in supporting C), then that's that.

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

People made the same point about the first debate. 'It was a draw', 'Trump won the argument but lost the debate' and similar. The reality however is that there was no draw and it wasn't even close.

The only argument here is how big you believe she won, a non issue.

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Ambassadorships aren't uncommon. The republican list likely looked the same as Hillary's back when Bush became president.

Likely the same, but nothing you can prove. One has documents to show it, the other doesn't, and the republicans that you should hate as much as trump are jumping ship to back hillary.

Oh I believe republicans are probably worse than dems, but both being bad isn't a net positive. Also it is likely trumps is as bad as clinton's or worse, but that does not excuse either or.

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Because you put the two foundations on the same level when one of them is doing actual charitable work while the other one is a money laundering scheme.

Sure they spent around 10% of it's budget on charity, where do you think the rest went? Trumps scam was simply less efficient. One sketchy activity does not pardon another. It merely normalizes it, which is a bad thing to do. We as a society are effectively lowering the bar of what is acceptable and what is not.

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

There is no red herring involved. The armchairs don't lift argument has been proven false already.

I'm trying to find articles about it in duckduckgo not seeing anything. Never mind found one on vox, but the defense was that she might have gotten confused on the details since it was thirty years ago. I highly doubt kat pierson was the one that came up with the defense, she merely parroting it.

Oh btw here's an actual conspiracy theory:

Bill Clinton met trump before trump decided to run for presidential nomination.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/05/politi...016/index.html

Pied piper strategy of the DNC Wikileaks elevated trump, so they could crush him in the general.

http://www.inquisitr.com/3572960/wik...-trump-in-gop/


If you fear trump, should you not be angry a party who propped him up as a weapon against you, to run against HRC?

This is me being a conspiracy theorist. The strategy is actually sound though, so I don;t blame them for using it at all. Just think anyone terrified of him, well you have an outlet to blame.



Sid note:Oh btw, the image i posted before on leeds was debunked so i deleted it.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Now, obviously this came from a secret source so take it with a grain of salt. But the idea of Trump hiding his own past from his OWN staff members, is just stupid enough to be believable.

I had a conversation about this with a friend just the other day. I wondered why the Trump campaign hadn't done "oppo" research on itself so that they would be ready for problems when they arose. My guess was that the campaign was simply too amateurish to do so, but now it seems the real source of the problem was Trump himself.

[Harbinger]

A while ago, Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to resign because she gamed the system against Bernie to favor Clinton.

The new DNC, Donna Brazile, does a similar thing by sharing a debate town-hall question in advance for Clinton...

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

[sasoras]

Originally Posted by Harbinger

A while ago, Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to resign because she gamed the system against Bernie to favor Clinton.

The new DNC, Donna Brazile, does a similar thing by sharing a debate town-hall question in advance for Clinton...

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Welcome to an ever increasing Orwellian society.

[Harbinger]

Originally Posted by sasoras

Welcome to an ever increasing Orwellian society.

Got to blame Russia for that

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by sasoras

Oh btw here's an actual conspiracy theory:

Bill Clinton met trump before trump decided to run for presidential nomination.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/05/politi...016/index.html

Pied piper strategy of the DNC Wikileaks elevated trump, so they could crush him in the general.

http://www.inquisitr.com/3572960/wik...-trump-in-gop/

If you fear trump, should you not be angry a party who propped him up as a weapon against you, to run against HRC?

This is me being a conspiracy theorist. The strategy is actually sound though, so I don;t blame them for using it at all. Just think anyone terrified of him, well you have an outlet to blame.

I've heard the theory before, but it doesn't make sense to me.. It seems to me like Trump has all the wealth he could ask for, so he's looking to add presidency to his legacy. And I suppose he believes he can help his country as well. It's unbelievable that he would just be a mole for the Clintons. Also, he's going really hard on the Clintons in his campaign.

There's even a chance he's going to win...though it would be pretty funny if he was a mole, and somehow ended up winning anyway.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by sasoras

Who are you? Are you multi accounting? The issue of the claim will dictate higher scrutiny. I have no horse in the race, technically, maybe a throwaway vote. So have not been digging too deeply into attacks or defense on the candidates, and parroting non-issues. So I'm being selective on what to invest in.

This is the first time I have been accused of being a multi-account Anyway what I am saying (and what you completely ignored) is that if you aren't critical you also aren't objective or logical anymore.

Originally Posted by sasoras

The only argument here is how big you believe she won, a non issue.

Even Fox News had to admit that Hillary came out ahead.

Originally Posted by sasoras

Likely the same, but nothing you can prove. One has documents to show it, the other doesn't, and the republicans that you should hate as much as trump are jumping ship to back hillary.

Oh I believe republicans are probably worse than dems, but both being bad isn't a net positive. Also it is likely trumps is as bad as clinton's or worse, but that does not excuse either or.

I have absolutely no idea how you arrived at the conclusion that I hate republicans. On the issue of ambassadorships, some of them have certainly proved to be a bad choice. There have also been some who have been exceptional. Just because there were some unqualified people doesn't make the whole practice bad.

Originally Posted by sasoras

Sure they spent around 10% of it's budget on charity, where do you think the rest went? Trumps scam was simply less efficient. One sketchy activity does not pardon another. It merely normalizes it, which is a bad thing to do. We as a society are effectively lowering the bar of what is acceptable and what is not.

Care to back up your 10% with facts? A quick search brought up 88% instead by Charity Watch who also gave them a A rating which is the second highest out of eleven and four out of four stars by CharityNavigator.

Originally Posted by sasoras

I'm trying to find articles about it in duckduckgo not seeing anything. Never mind found one on vox, but the defense was that she might have gotten confused on the details since it was thirty years ago. I highly doubt kat pierson was the one that came up with the defense, she merely parroting it.

It doesn't matter who came up with that 'defense'. Pierson didn't just mix up some small details, she used factually wrong arguments.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Jaden

I did say it before, but people with wealth and political power tend to be perverts.

Everyone has vices. Money and power increases access to those vices and enables them to be better hidden and less likely to be jailed. Unless you rip off or screw over other rich and powerful people. Then you're not cool anymore.

[MCAL]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-med...-number-229738
Just in case anyone was wondering why woman don't admit they were sexually assaulted immediately...