The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[The Romulan Republic]

Jesus, its nice to know so many voters find "she fainted" a more compelling reason not to vote for someone than "he wants to undermine the foundations of our democracy".

You're not that obtuse, you know there's more to it than that.

Like what?

She has pneumonia? People get pneumonia. Doesn't mean she's unfit to be President.

She kept it secret? Clinton keeps secrets. We already knew this. And given how little it should matter, and how its being used against her, in this case at least I can't bloody blame her.

As for all the BS about her having Parkinson's or whatever... until there's solid evidence, its just opposition straw-clutching.

So a little hyperbole on my part, maybe, but its to make a point. Which is that its absurd for this to change anyone's vote.

[Q99]

She kept it secret? Clinton keeps secrets. We already knew this. And given how little it should matter, and how its being used against her, in this case at least I can't bloody blame her.

Especially as, as yet, despite tremendous trying, none of her secrets have actually been more than minor stuff- all the investigations against her rather prove that, if multiple Republican investigations go over a Clinton matter multiple times and can only grumble about conduct with no wrongdoing found or damage caused (and note, I could be describing a number of different 'scandals' there), that's pretty good sign there's nothing there.

She's overly guarded, but it's easy to see why, and it's consistently never panned out to be anything more significant than 'not great at IT' or similar.

As for all the BS about her having Parkinson's or whatever... until there's solid evidence, its just opposition straw-clutching.

So a little hyperbole on my part, maybe, but its to make a point. Which is that its absurd for this to change anyone's vote.

I do kinda wonder if it could help a bit long-run. Someone who gets sick but attends a memorial service anyway, really doesn't fit with the demon-Hillary image of her.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The swastika is a bit more specific (ie drastically so) in construction geometrically and while it does have a history predations Nazism it is no where near a prolific. Nor is it a common component of atistry before or after. The fact is the swastika, as you stated yourself, has been reduced to mean exactly one think in western civilization.
The same cannot be said for a hexagram. It's literally everywhere in thousands of contexts.

Try again.

This post is such a spectacular combination of being completely factually incorrect on the one hand, and demonstrating that the point of my post sailed completely over your head on the other hand, that I barely know where to begin replying to it. The first thing I'll say is that you should reread my post and try to understand it this time; especially the last two sentences. Here, I'll make it easy for you and quote those two sentences here:

"Saying the shape itself isn't racist is hugely missing the point, at the very least. Even if it is malicious, it still shows pretty poor judgment to use a symbol that can potentially carry such connotations (and these aren't super obscure connotations that you wouldn't expect a reasonably socially aware person to not know, like a symbol that offends Zoroastrians, here - even if you don't think the arguments have any merit, you can't possibly be so naive as to not predict a response in that vein to something so loaded)."

Now, to address your factual inaccuracies: you do realize that the swastika is an incredibly prolific symbol, right? For fuck's sake, it is the symbol they put on tourist maps in Japan to mark the location of temples. And it is utterly omnipresent in India. The hexagram is also widely used in India, being an important symbol in Hinduism. Yet, BOTH symbols have different connotations SPECIFICALLY IN WESTERN CULTURE. Whether or not you think those connotations have merit is, quite simply, irrelevant, because an average socially aware human being existing in Western culture can reasonably be expected to understand that those connotations do exist.

[Flagg]

Jesus, its nice to know so many voters find "she fainted" a more compelling reason not to vote for someone than "he wants to undermine the foundations of our democracy".

You're not that obtuse, you know there's more to it than that.

Like what?

She has pneumonia? People get pneumonia. Doesn't mean she's unfit to be President.

She kept it secret? Clinton keeps secrets. We already knew this. And given how little it should matter, and how its being used against her, in this case at least I can't bloody blame her.

As for all the BS about her having Parkinson's or whatever... until there's solid evidence, its just opposition straw-clutching.

So a little hyperbole on my part, maybe, but its to make a point. Which is that its absurd for this to change anyone's vote.

Everyone knows she got pneumonia from drowning Vince Foster in a freezing lake.

[cosmicalstorm]

Politico:

Time to Face It: Trump Really Could Win This

If Democrats are starting to panic, they should. What else do they have to throw at him?

By Rich Lowry

September 14, 2016
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

If you aren’t seriously contemplating the biggest black swan event in American electoral history, you aren’t paying attention.

Fifteen months ago, Donald Trump was a reality-TV star with a spotty business record and a weird penchant for proclaiming he was on the verge of running for president. Now, he’s perhaps a few big breaks and a couple of sterling debate performances away from being elected 45th president of the United States.

Trump has no experience in elected office, and unlike past nonpoliticians elected president, hasn’t won a major war. He barely has a national campaign. He perhaps knows less about public affairs than the average congressman. He has repeatedly advertised his thin-skinned vindictiveness and is trampling on basic political norms, like the convention of candidates releasing their tax returns.

No major political party has ever nominated anyone like this. If Trump were to prevail, it would make Barack Obama’s unlikely rise from unknown state senator to first African-American president of the United States in about four years look like a boringly conventional political trajectory.

Obama seemed to come out of nowhere, but his steps to the presidency — law degree, state office, U.S. senator — were stereotypical. Trump won the Republican nomination despite — or because of? — attributes that would have seemed disqualifying two years ago, such as, to name a few, his personal life, his longtime support for Democrats, his newly minted, hard-to-credit social conservatism, his disdain for Republican orthodoxy, and his basic lack of preparation.

Trump now has a legitimate shot at winning the general because he got the lucky draw of at least the second-worst presidential nominee in recent memory and, pending how she fares over the next two months, perhaps the worst.
07_hillary_clinton_32_gty_1160.jpg

2016
Hillary’s Risky ‘Deplorables’ Strategy

By Bill Scher

All it took for Trump to wipe away most of Hillary’s lead, built at an excellent convention and on Trump’s subsequent weeks of self-inflicted wounds, was acting like a somewhat normal presidential candidate. Have a meeting with a foreign leader. Give some policy speeches. Read from a teleprompter at rallies. Use his NPR voice when appropriate.
ADVERTISING
inRead invented by Teads

None of this required strategic genius, only a decision not to throw away the election with repeated episodes of self-indulgent stupidity. Throw on top of that the FBI’s document dump before Labor Day and Hillary’s near-collapse at New York’s 9/11 memorial, and the race may be headed toward a tie nationally.

Democrats should be feeling a creeping sense of panic:

They are trying to win with a candidate who is loathed and distrusted and has few redeeming qualities. As Yuval Levin, editor of National Affairs pointed out, corrupt and dishonest politicians are often entertaining, and dull politicians are usually earnest and honest. Hillary manages to be boring and corrupt. If she decided to sit out the rest of the campaign and rely on surrogates to hit the trail, she might do no worse and perhaps better.

No one can be certain that her health is what the campaign says it is. If Hillary did have a more serious condition than allergies and walking pneumonia, does anyone believe the Clintons would be forthright about it? Even if nothing else ails her, if Clinton has another episode in public like the one on Sept. 11, the bottom might fall out.

President Obama probably can’t close Hillary’s enthusiasm gap. For entirely understandable reasons (dull, inauthentic and old), the Obama coalition isn’t excited by Clinton. When Obama hit the hustings, we were reminded of what an adept campaigner he is, but there is no evidence Obama ever successfully transferred enthusiasm for himself to another candidate.

If the kitchen sink hasn’t killed off Trump, what else is there? The Clinton campaign has already used his greatest hits of most offensive statements in countless TV ads. I was appalled that Trump mocked a disabled reporter, but even I am sick of seeing the clip every other time I turn on the TV. If none of this has sunk Trump and the race gets even closer, what’s left that is going to have a new and different shock value?

A compelling Trump debate performance could change perceptions of his suitability to be commander in chief. Hillary is trouncing Trump on this attribute by a 2-to-1 margin in the Washington Post/ABC poll. If Trump shows up and seems plausible during the biggest moment of the campaign, he could vastly improve his standing on this basic readiness question.

All this said, Hillary still has an advantage. Presumably, she won’t be as snake-bit the rest of the campaign as she has been the past two weeks. She has a campaign and Trump doesn’t, and that must count for something. Demographics favor her. But if Trump can hoist himself over the bar of acceptability, he might give the voting public enough permission to make this the change election it is naturally inclined to be.

In the primaries, many people (including me) understood intellectually Trump’s odds of winning the nomination, but still had trouble accepting it because initially it seemed so unimaginable. There is even more resistance to taking on board the idea of him as the next president.

Today, in the FiveThirtyEight polls-plus forecast, Trump has a 37 percent chance of winning. This means the odds of him becoming president are about equal to Daniel Murphy of the Washington Nationals, currently hitting .347, getting a base hit in any single at-bat. No one is shocked when Murphy does. He got two hits on Tuesday night.

A Trump victory may not be likely, but it isn’t far-fetched. And, no, stranger things haven’t happened.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... z4KLfp34jv
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

[Crown]

Jesus, its nice to know so many voters find "she fainted" a more compelling reason not to vote for someone than "he wants to undermine the foundations of our democracy".

You're not that obtuse, you know there's more to it than that.

Like what?

Like she just spent 5 days denying she had any health concerns at all despite anyone with eyes being able to tell different. She was cosplaying Monty Python's "It's Just a Flesh Wound!" during an election cycle.

Why is it so difficult for this woman to just own up to something straight away? Why must we go through the most tedious bullshit before the self evident truth comes out? As Jimmy Kimmel succinctly put it; "Clinton health conspiracy theories would be harder to believe if they didn't actually come true".

Colin Powell is right about her; she ruins everything via her own hubris and if she just was honest up front she could get ahead of the story and then put it behind her. Now all the media that was carrying water for her with the articles implying talking about her health is a form of sexism has had to publish very embarrassing articles about how yes her health is a valid concern. CNN are in her pocked because of Time Warner being big donors to her (which also explains their comical 'it was only a stumble' schtick despite the internet having the full clip showing that she had no control over her own body), but the print media just took a hit to their credibility (which could impact sales) so they're gonna be pissed.

Similarly if you're a regular Joe who just spent the previous days swatting away questions from friends/family about her health and then this happened; you just got burned. So yeah, there's a bit more to it (her drop in polling numbers due to her health) then so many voters find "she fainted" a more compelling reason not to vote for someone than "he wants to undermine the foundations of our democracy".

Everyone knows she got pneumonia from drowning Vince Foster in a freezing lake.

Well that's obviously false; if she's too weak to spot John Ashe during a bench press set, she's clearly not holding Vince under water until he drowns ... duh.

[Crown]

You Have Been Trolled. You Have Lost. Have A Nice Day.

Holy shit I just read the article on Hillary's webpage ... it was written by Elizabeth Chan.

Elizabeth Chan
E-liz-a-beth Chan
1-2-3-4 syllables Chan
4Chan



Meme magic is real.

[Wild Zontargs]

Meme magic is real.

Hell, have an entire article on that shit-show.

Here’s How Two Twitter Pranksters Convinced The World That Pepe The Frog Meme Is Just A Front For White Nationalism

JONAH BENNETT
National Security/Foreign Policy Reporter
4:43 PM 09/14/2016

Pepe the green frog meme’s unmitigated rise into pop culture comes amid hysteria that the internet cartoon is little more than a stand-in for white nationalism. But it turns out the original story that prompted the panic is more or less a complete troll job.

The Daily Beast’s Olivia Nuzzi wrote a piece in May striving to describe and trace the genesis of Pepe in the alt-right scene, a nascent, illiberal political movement focused on preserving white identity and Western civilization. In the process, Nuzzi just ended up repeating various made-up stories from the only two people she interviewed from “Frog Twitter”: Paul Town (@PaulTown_) and Jared Taylor Swift (@JaredTSwift).

Frog Twitter is an offshoot, alt-right subculture primarily interested in memes, aesthetics and trolling political figures.

Since then, Pepe as white nationalist has become a meme of its own sort, circulated through liberal circles, cable networks and think pieces. Rounding out this tidal wave of whinery, Pepe made an appearance on Hillary Clinton’s own campaign site as part of an effort by the campaign to try and associate Donald Trump Jr. with white supremacy.

The explainer on Clinton’s site features a direct quote from Jared Taylor Swift, one of the two accounts Nuzzi interview for her story.

“n recent months, Pepe’s been almost entirely co-opted by the white supremacists who call themselves the ‘alt-right.’ They’ve decided to take back Pepe by adding swastikas and other symbols of anti-Semitism and white supremacy,” Hillary Clinton’s explainer notes, quoting “prominent white supremacist” Swift from Nuzzi’s article: “We basically mixed Pepe in with Nazi propaganda, etc. We built that association.”

Months after flippantly giving that quote to Nuzzi, Swift is still having a good laugh about it.

“I think the most ridiculous thing is that a random guy on the internet who trolled a journalist once is now a ‘prominent white supremacist.’ I mean, the only accurate part of that is the ‘white’ part,” Swift told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “And my Italian ancestry means that even that is disputed!”
Swift created his Twitter account in November 2015. His Twitter name is a tribute to Jared Taylor, a white nationalist, alt-right leader and founder of the magazine American Renaissance. Paul Town created his account in January 2016.

The troll consisted of Town and Swift feeding an outrageous narrative to Nuzzi in the hopes she would scoop it up and feature as many quotes as possible– a fairly common practice among various alt-right groups to gain in-group status.

For example, comedian Sam Hyde was able to slip in a reference to his “wife’s son” into a June interview with Forbes. The term, in context, is a subtle reference to cuckoldry—again, another in-group joke used to mock people for some combination of either being in an open relationship or sacrificing one’s own interests for the sake of some fake moral ideal.

Private conversations between Frog Twitter and Olivia Nuzzi provided to The Daily Caller News Foundation show the extent of the troll, which started after she began the Swift interview with, “Can I ask you some stupid questions?”

Nuzzi quoted Paul Town describing how Frog Twitter met for drinks in 2015 to plot appropriating the Pepe meme for white nationalism. Frog Twitter then supposedly coordinated a group effort to seed the meme on various imageboards.

“There was no ‘plot’ to take a cartoon frog and make it a symbol of white supremacy,” Paul Town told TheDCNF. “That’s absurd on the face of it.”

It doesn’t get much better from there for Nuzzi’s narrative.

There was no Frog Twitter meetup — they did not meet for drinks to discuss green frogs. They did not plot in 2015. There was no group experiment. They did not coordinate efforts on /r9k/ or /pol/, two imageboards on 4chan and 8chan, where memes are born and subsequently end up in the public. Jared Taylor Swift says he isn’t actually 19. He doesn’t live on the West Coast. They didn’t turn Taylor Swift, the pop singer, into an “Aryan Goddess.”

And most importantly, it’s just not true that the biggest online supporters of Donald Trump are “white nationalists.”

“Basically, I interspersed various nuggets of truth and exaggerated a lot of things, and sometimes outright lied — in the interest of making a journalist believe that online Trump supporters are largely a group of meme-jihadis who use a cartoon frog to push Nazi propaganda. Because this was funny to me,” Swift told TheDCNF.

“The idea that every major Trump supporter online is secretly a neo-Nazi, for one. I mean, it’s just not true. But it’s the kind of thing that a journalist will readily believe.”

Paul Town agreed.

“The funny thing is that we were helping Olivia’s narrative, so we probably could have added in a bunch of insane stuff and she would have still run with the story,” he told TheDCNF. “Now we have MSNBC and the Clinton campaign citing a troll story about a meme.”

Olivia first started with Swift, who led her on with a hilarious, nonsensical and over-the-top description of Pepe, namely that “Most memes are ephemeral by nature, but Pepe is not. He’s a reflection of our souls, to most of us. It’s disgusting to see people (‘normies,’ if you will) use him so trivially. He belongs to us. And we’ll make him toxic if we have to.”

Swift provided the quote to Olivia just to see if she would print it. She did.

“I was talking like normies were infidels and I was a terrorist or something,” Swift told TheDCNF.

“I made my stuff a lot more tame than Paul,” Swift added. “I wanted her to think I was serious. Seems likely she’d have just run with anything I told her tho.”

After the interview, Swift sent Olivia to Paul for him to provide more inside details of the “plot” behind Pepe.

“More than anything, I wanted to set it up for Paul to sell her on something crazy,” Swift said. “That’s why I enlisted him.”

While Town agreed that the use of a Pepe indicates a small chance that the person could be part of the alt-right, there’s also a near infinitely large sphere of the internet that uses Pepe with absolutely no hint of political connotation at all. Political journalists have come to view Pepe as inextricably tied to white nationalism, but that’s only because they’re often the target of pranksters and trolls. Matt Furie created Pepe in the early 2000s and told The Atlantic the link between Pepe and white nationalism is exaggerated and really not much more than a phase, one out of many evolutionary stages the frog has undergone.

“I think that’s it’s just a phase, and come November, it’s just gonna go on to the next phase, obviously that political agenda is exactly the opposite of my own personal feelings, but in terms of meme culture, it’s people reappropriating things for their own agenda,” Furie said. “That’s just a product of the internet. And I think people in whatever dark corners of the internet are just trying to one up each other on how shocking they can make Pepe appear.”

For Furie, the Clinton campaign explainer is quite amusing.

“I read it, and I thought it was funny,” he said. “Like I said, I think it downplays the fact that Pepe is more than whatever is happening in the news today, especially to younger people and to teenagers.”

Sandwich-maker Jimmy Johns, for example, had no aversion to tweeting out a Pepe, in stark contrast to a swastika– a symbol virtually inseparable from National Socialism. At least at first. Jimmy Johns quickly deleted the tweet after being trolled into believing Pepe was nothing more than a harbinger of white supremacy. Rappers Nikki Minaj and Chief Keef, too, have used the frog on Instagram. And Clinton campaign supporter Katy Perry sent out a Pepe tweet back in 2014.

The stewards of this Twitter world are notoriously capricious and trolltastic. They could even retract this mea culpa of sorts. Either way, this is almost certainly the case: A journalist with a clear lack of healthy skepticism and an added dose of internet dopiness got duped.

“I mean, imagine, some unknown high school Twitter troll lying about the origins of a cartoon frog meme somehow made it onto a presidential campaign’s official website as a ‘prominent white supremacist,'” Swift said. “That’s insane.”

Nuzzi did not respond to a request for comment from TheDCNF.

Nobody does any frigging fact-checking anymore, and news outlets are more than happy to swallow any kind of bullshit that supports their pre-determined narratives.

[SolarpunkFan]

In the meantime I think I'll be making an update to the "Agnew for vice president?" political ad.

https://youtu.be/Qwk_epMblW4

Won't stop the slide into Trump hell, but at least I can die hearing laughter.

[Rhadamantus]

Good news at last.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/t ... birtherism.

Trump doubles down on birtherism, then his campaign releases a statement blaming Hillary clinton.

[Q99]

Ah, Birtherism. In case anyone doubted Trump was a big racist, it's there to clear up doubt.


There's also the discrimination suits against his companies too.

[Crown]

Good news at last.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/t ... birtherism.

Trump doubles down on birtherism, then his campaign releases a statement blaming Hillary clinton.

Bad timing on that article there.

Trump just played the media again, whoops!

[Crown]

Good news at last.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/t ... birtherism.

Trump doubles down on birtherism, then his campaign releases a statement blaming Hillary clinton.

I missed the Edit window, so here's the Telegraph article from 2011 which shows that if the Birther movement didn't start from Hillary herself, it was certainly from one of her surrogates supporters back in 2008.

Hell Chris Matthews called her out on her 'code speech' and 'dog whistling' during 2008 primary as well, I'll see if I can find a clip.

EDIT :: Changed surrogates to supporters due to a better sourcing; here.

[Crown]

Jesus you just scratch the surface a little bit and Hillary's deplorable past actions just shine right through!



And he's doubling down on other tweets as well. I hope this guy doesn't work out or like to take walks by lakes or anything.

A little bit about James Asher source.

CNN can't save Hillary now. The other press is getting fed up with her;

Democrats’ Deplorable Emails

How much to buy an ambassadorship? The answer is in the latest hacked messages.

If the 2016 election is remembered for anything beyond its flawed candidates, it will be recalled as the year of the Democratic email dump. Or rather, the year that the voting public got an unvarnished view of the disturbing—nay, deplorable—inner workings of the highest echelons of the Democratic Party.

What makes the continuing flood of emails instructive is that nobody was ever meant to see these documents. Hillary Clinton set up a private server to shield her communications as secretary of state from the public. She gave top aide Huma Abedin an account on that server. She never envisioned that an FBI investigation and lawsuits would drag her conversations into the light.

The Democratic National Committee and Colin Powell (an honorary Democrat) likewise believed their correspondence secure. But both were successfully targeted by hackers, who released the latest round of enlightening emails this week.

These emails provide what the public always complains it doesn’t have: unfiltered evidence of what top politicians do and think. And what a picture they collectively paint of the party of the left. For years, Democrats have steadfastly portrayed Republicans as elitist fat cats who buy elections, as backroom bosses who rig the laws in their favor, as brass-knuckle lobbyists and operators who get special access. It turns out that this is the precise description of the Democratic Party. They know of what they speak.

The latest hack of the DNC—courtesy of WikiLeaks via Guccifer 2.0—shows that Mrs. Clinton wasn’t alone in steering favors to big donors. Among the documents leaked is one that lists the party’s largest fundraisers/donors as of 2008. Of the top 57 cash cows 18 ended up with ambassadorships. The largest fundraiser listed, Matthew Barzun, who drummed up $3.5 million for Mr. Obama’s first campaign, was named ambassador to Sweden and then ambassador to the United Kingdom. The second-largest, Julius Genachowski, was named the head of the Federal Communications Commission. The third largest, Frank Sanchez, was named undersecretary of commerce.

Keep in mind what an earlier leak revealed: a May 18, 2016, email from an outside lawyer to DNC staffers in which the attorney suggests a call to “go over our process for handling donations from donors who have given us pay to play letters.” Add this to what the Clinton and Abedin emails have shown to be a massive pay-to-play operation at the Clinton Foundation, in which megadonors like the crown prince of Bahrain got special access to the secretary of state.

And there are also all those Clinton speeches, for which they were paid millions. News comes this week that despite the Clintons’ promises to distance themselves from their foundation, they will first be holding what sounds like one last fire sale on future presidential access: a belated birthday bash for Bill Clinton, with a glitzy party at the Rainbow Room in Manhattan. A donation of $250,000 gets you listed as “chair” of the party, while “co-chair” costs $100,000. Foundation officials are refusing to say who has donated, or how much.

So which political party is all about money, influence and special access? The Republican Party held a true, democratic primary. Seventeen candidates battled it out, and the voters choose a nominee that much of the party establishment disliked.

Leaked emails show that the Democratic Party hierarchy retreated to a backroom to anoint Hillary Clinton and then exercised its considerable power to subvert the primary process and kill off the Bernie Sanders campaign. In one email, Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall suggested sliming Mr. Sanders on religion: “Can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.” How’s that for deplorable?

Perhaps most revealing are Mr. Powell’s emails, which show, undisguised, how Clinton supporters think. Specifically, the emails demonstrate that this crowd recognizes the Clintons as a menace—and yet they are willing to excuse away anything. “I would rather not have to vote for her,” Mr. Powell wrote to a friend. “A 70-year person with a long track record, unbridled ambition, greedy, not transformational, with a husband still [sleeping with] dicking [the actual quote re-inserted by Crown] bimbos at home.”

Unpack that. Mr. Powell is saying that Hillary is old; that she is a scandal factory; that she will cut any corner to win and do anything for a buck; that she won’t help the country; and that her husband remains a liability. And yet other emails suggest Mr. Powell nonetheless was (is?) debating giving her a boost with a well-timed endorsement in the fall.

This is the modern Democratic Party. The more it has struggled to sell its ideas to the public, the more it has turned to rigging the system to its political benefit. Don’t take Republicans’ word for it. Just read the emails.

[The Romulan Republic]

Crown: Doing his part to make America a fascist state.

Until you have, let's say, footage of Clinton gunning someone down in the street, its pretty clear who's the worse candidate here.

And yes, in the real world, their are only two viable options. The time to change those options is the primaries. We had our shot at that, and we'll get another in about three years.

[Crown]

Crown: Doing his part to make America a fascist state.

Facts make you feel uncomfortable? Sad.

Until you have, let's say, footage of Clinton gunning someone down in the street, its pretty clear who's the worse candidate here.

Well she did vote for the Iraq war ... that shit show in Libya and well the less said about Syria the better. What's the sum total of Trump's bodycount again?

And yes, in the real world, their are only two viable options. The time to change those options is the primaries. We had our shot at that, and we'll get another in about three years.

If the DNC has any brains they would drop her right now and put Bernie on the ticket (but they'll probably try Biden instead). But the DNC has no brains so now they'll have to hope and pray Trump kicks a baby or something. Anything less and he will be the next president of the United States of America. And this is all self inflicted.

[The Romulan Republic]

Facts make you feel uncomfortable? Sad.

Its not about just facts. I know perfectly well that their are a lot of problems with Clinton- you may recall everything I posted about her during the primary season. But you're all but cheerleading for Clinton's downfall, when any informed person with a smidgen of a brain can tell what the consequence of that would be.

Even leaving aside how difficult it can be to parse which of the claims about Clinton and her associates are real and which are manufactured, there is still really only one choice here.

Hillary Clinton, or American Erdogan/Duterte.

You practically cheerleading for Clinton's downfall suggests that you prefer the latter.

Well she did vote for the Iraq war ... that shit show in Libya and well the less said about Syria the better. What's the sum total of Trump's bodycount again?

So Trump is presumed to be better because he hasn't yet been handed as big an opportunity to fuck up?

The man actually had the audacity and idiocy to ask why America can't use its nuclear weapons. Do you want to give him the chance to show how high his bodycount can go?

Never mind how ludicrous it is to imply that Clinton's "bodycount" includes all the dead of Iraq, Syria, and Libya, as if she is personally responsible for every death when she is but one of many players involved and similar decisions would likely have been made with or without her involvement.

If the DNC has any brains they would drop her right now and put Bernie on the ticket (but they'll probably try Biden instead). But the DNC has no brains so now they'll have to hope and pray Trump kicks a baby or something. Anything less and he will be the next president of the United States of America. And this is all self inflicted.

1. The shear chaos to the campaign that would be caused by trying to switch nominees now would probably be catastrophic in and of itself. Not to mention the many Clinton voters who don't like Bernie and would understandably feel robbed and cheated at having their nominee replaced after she won the primary votes, and in many cases might not vote for Bernie. There's no time left to smooth over those divisions if we tear them open again now.

I backed Bernie as long as he had any shot at winning the pledged delegates, but this is just denial and clutching at straws now. And to think people gave me so much shit for supporting his campaign until June.

2. You don't abandon a nominee because she's only leading by a couple points. That's absurd.

3. I'm not even sure they could replace her like that. Not just as a matter of internal party rules, but legally. Aren't we past the point where you can get someone on the ballot in many states? How does that work if Clinton is replaced?

4. I am a world-class pessimist at times, and even I think that it is way, way too early to regard Clinton's defeat as inevitable. Polls generally still give her a slight lead, and its a month and a half and three debates out.

All such defeatist bullshit (or in your case, perhaps wishful thinking) does is aid American Erdogan and his cohorts.

And you know, speaking as a progressive and socialist, I actually despise the Busters more than the Trumpers in a way. The Bernie or Bust idiocy would destroy this country and everything Bernie stands for out of stubbornness or spite, and discredit our movement in doing so.

If the Tea Party and Trump have taught us anything, it should be that the greatest danger to a movement or organization is its own internal extremists.

[Patroklos]

Crown: Doing his part to make America a fascist state.

What exactly is fascist in his last dozen odd posts? Or is this just you using words you don't understand again?

[The Romulan Republic]

Crown: Doing his part to make America a fascist state.

What exactly is fascist in his last dozen odd posts? Or is this just you using words you don't understand again?

I have half a mind to just ignore you, given your habit of popping your head up every time you see a chance to take a cheap shot at me or misrepresent my posts, but what the hell.

Trump supports policies and employs rhetoric at least highly reminiscent of fascism. Racial/religious scapegoating, fear-mongering combined with promises to restore the nation to greatness, proposed violations of civil liberties, incitement of violence from his supporters... even, arguably, an emerging cult of the leader built around his personal image as a strong man.

Given the nature of our political system, their are only two remotely realistic possibilities in this election- President Clinton, and President Trump.

Therefore, weather or not it is ones' intent (and I am sure it is not Crown's intent), if you oppose Clinton, you are helping to move this country closer to fascism.

I understand that that seems a very absolutist position, and that it will offend a lot of people. It is not one that I would adopt under normal political circumstances. But Trump is not normal circumstances.

[The Romulan Republic]

And in case anyone's wondering, the irony of me defending Hillary Clinton is not lost on me. I think I've made it pretty clear that I have little liking for her.

I simply have enough understanding of reality to not delude myself that there's a magical third option because I want their to be.

That ship has sailed with the end of the primaries. It will return to port in either three or seven years.

[Crown]

Its not about just facts.

Well, there's a surprise.

I know perfectly well that their are a lot of problems with Clinton- you may recall everything I posted about her during the primary season. But you're all but cheerleading for Clinton's downfall, when any informed person with a smidgen of a brain can tell what the consequence of that would be.

Even leaving aside how difficult it can be to parse which of the claims about Clinton and her associates are real and which are manufactured, there is still really only one choice here.

Hillary Clinton, or American Erdogan/Duterte.

You practically cheerleading for Clinton's downfall suggests that you prefer the latter.

I don't share your view point ridiculous narrative. I don't see any meaningful difference between Trump or Clinton in terms of 'harm' but I am getting great pleasure watching a hideous corrupt monstrosity implode in on itself.

So Trump is presumed to be better because he hasn't yet been handed as big an opportunity to fuck up?

No, Trump hasn't caused (or been culpable in causing) the deaths of hundreds of thousands possibly millions of people. Hillary has. What, exactly are you too stupid to recognise about that?

Let me quote Jill Stein to you; "Donald Trump wants to bar Muslims from entering into this country, but Hillary Clinton has been very busy bombing Muslims in other countries" [source]. I'm not really ecstatic about either of these choices but can you spot which is more deplorable?

The man actually had the audacity and idiocy to ask why America can't use its nuclear weapons. Do you want to give him the chance to show how high his bodycount can go?

Nixon asked the exact same thing. It doesn't fill me with warm feelings, but then again he might have been given the correct answer; because then we'd die.

Never mind how ludicrous it is to imply that Clinton's "bodycount" includes all the dead of Iraq, Syria, and Libya, as if she is personally responsible for every death when she is but one of many players involved and similar decisions would likely have been made with or without her involvement.

Right, "ludicrous" to imply that Clinton's bears some measure of culpability for the outcomes of her decisions, but not "ludicrous" to imply because Trump asked 'why America can't use its nuclear weapons' that this means he will bring about nuclear Armageddon. Jesus fuck off you prat.

By the way; I take it that the answer to my questions was zero, right?

1. The shear chaos to the campaign that would be caused by trying to switch nominees now would probably be catastrophic in and of itself. Not to mention the many Clinton voters who don't like Bernie and would understandably feel robbed and cheated at having their nominee replaced after she won the primary votes, and in many cases might not vote for Bernie. There's no time left to smooth over those divisions if we tear them open again now.

I backed Bernie as long as he had any shot at winning the pledged delegates, but this is just denial and clutching at straws now. And to think people gave me so much shit for supporting his campaign until June.

She's tanking. She is behind by 6% nationally in the LA Daybreak Poll and Trump has flipped Ohio. Short of him kicking a baby, she's done. What more can she throw at him? Her birther narrative just reversed into her face.

2. You don't abandon a nominee because she's only leading by a couple points. That's absurd.

No you abandon a nominee because unfortunately her pneumonia has developed complications (or whatever other polite euphemism they choose to use), but not to worry we have someone who's just as good and not a crook!

3. I'm not even sure they could replace her like that. Not just as a matter of internal party rules, but legally. Aren't we past the point where you can get someone on the ballot in many states? How does that work if Clinton is replaced?

Well in that case; prepare yourself for four years of a Trump presidency.

4. I am a world-class pessimist at times, and even I think that it is way, way too early to regard Clinton's defeat as inevitable. Polls generally still give her a slight lead, and its a month and a half and three debates out.

She cannot survive another week like this and there are more DNC emails to come. Get her out of the spotlight already.

All such defeatist bullshit (or in your case, perhaps wishful thinking) does is aid American Erdogan and his cohorts.

SJW tactic; virtue signal and try to paint others as deplorable.

And you know, speaking as a progressive and socialist, I actually despise the Busters more than the Trumpers in a way. The Bernie or Bust idiocy would destroy this country and everything Bernie stands for out of stubbornness or spite, and discredit our movement in doing so.

If the Tea Party and Trump have taught us anything, it should be that the greatest danger to a movement or organization is its own internal extremists.

Stop being so melodramatic. First; you're living in the Matrix if you believe that stopping Trump will make any kind of positive difference in your country. The DNC is a criminal cartel with a pay to play system that's happy to pay lip service to meaningless bullshit that SJW nut jobs like you lap up while they sell off everything about you and your future right under your nose (and just to be clear the GOP is no fucking better, they're just meaner about it when they do it).

Trump is a con-man, but he ain't any worse than what you've had before and he might accomplish the following; destroy the GOP, destroy the DNC, put an end to two political dynasties and stop the Zodiac killer in one election cycle. You gotta admit, that's a little adorable right?

P.S. Obama just gave Mexico $74 million to help them deport illegal immigrants [source]. Just thought you should know.

[Crown]

Crown: Doing his part to make America a fascist state.

What exactly is fascist in his last dozen odd posts? Or is this just you using words you don't understand again?

I have half a mind to just ignore you, given your habit of popping your head up every time you see a chance to take a cheap shot at me or misrepresent my posts, but what the hell.

Trump supports policies and employs rhetoric at least highly reminiscent of fascism. Racial/religious scapegoating, fear-mongering combined with promises to restore the nation to greatness, proposed violations of civil liberties, incitement of violence from his supporters... even, arguably, an emerging cult of the leader built around his personal image as a strong man.

Given the nature of our political system, their are only two remotely realistic possibilities in this election- President Clinton, and President Trump.

Therefore, weather or not it is ones' intent (and I am sure it is not Crown's intent), if you oppose Clinton, you are helping to move this country closer to fascism.

I understand that that seems a very absolutist position, and that it will offend a lot of people. It is not one that I would adopt under normal political circumstances. But Trump is not normal circumstances.

So the answer to Patroklos's question was ... nothing. Nothing was fascist in my last dozen odd posts.

[Grumman]

And in case anyone's wondering, the irony of me defending Hillary Clinton is not lost on me. I think I've made it pretty clear that I have little liking for her.

That's not irony. That's exactly the bullshit that Crown's quotes are talking about:

Perhaps most revealing are Mr. Powell’s emails, which show, undisguised, how Clinton supporters think. Specifically, the emails demonstrate that this crowd recognizes the Clintons as a menace—and yet they are willing to excuse away anything. “I would rather not have to vote for her,” Mr. Powell wrote to a friend. “A 70-year person with a long track record, unbridled ambition, greedy, not transformational, with a husband still [sleeping with] dicking [the actual quote re-inserted by Crown] bimbos at home.”

Unpack that. Mr. Powell is saying that Hillary is old; that she is a scandal factory; that she will cut any corner to win and do anything for a buck; that she won’t help the country; and that her husband remains a liability. And yet other emails suggest Mr. Powell nonetheless was (is?) debating giving her a boost with a well-timed endorsement in the fall.

[Wild Zontargs]

Crown: Doing his part to make America a fascist state.

Dude, if the United States is so thoroughly fucked that the only thing preventing its slide into fascism is an unending stream of lies, propaganda and cover-ups in order to prop up the less-populist and more business-as-usual-corruption party, then it's time to burn it all down and start over. Seriously, call Buckingham Palace and ask the Queen if she can get Canada to torch the White House for you again. If one rogue businessman can do all that, despite all the checks and balances supposedly built into your system, you're already done for, because the "good guys" apparently can't be bothered to use the same loopholes to accomplish anything worthwhile.

[Mr Bean]

Crown: Doing his part to make America a fascist state.

Dude, if the United States is so thoroughly fucked that the only thing preventing its slide into fascism is an unending stream of lies, propaganda and cover-ups in order to prop up the less-populist and more business-as-usual-corruption party, then it's time to burn it all down and start over. Seriously, call Buckingham Palace and ask the Queen if she can get Canada to torch the White House for you again. If one rogue businessman can do all that, despite all the checks and balances supposedly built into your system, you're already done for, because the "good guys" apparently can't be bothered to use the same loopholes to accomplish anything worthwhile.

Hmm something something military general purge never mind he can't appoint his own people after.

Listen if there something RR is a fan of it's wild hysterics about Trump because in his world a Trump victory causes the House and Senate to commit spekku and let God Emperor Trump rule supreme and unchecked. Thus spoke the Prophet the Romulan Republic.