The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[Crown]

Taken during Trump's Rickroll today ... say if you can see it picture.

I can't, this is too much! Is this real life?

[The Romulan Republic]

Your ridiculousness aside, Bean, I find your faith in a Republican Congress acting as an adequate check on Trump after a decade of pandering to the Tea Party to avoid getting primaried rather... cute.

Edit: And I just love how I'm called hysterical for saying things not that far off what prominent Democratic politicians have said about Trump.

[Mr Bean]

Your ridiculousness aside, Bean, I find your faith in a Republican Congress acting as an adequate check on Trump after a decade of pandering to the Tea Party to avoid getting primaried rather... cute.

Edit: And I just love how I'm called hysterical for saying things not that far off what prominent Democratic politicians have said about Trump.

Again the Democratic must have committed Spekku and Paul Ryan's block of support also having fallen under the Great Leader's Divine Sway.

Also I'm not sure if your aware of this but the prominent Democratic politicians are running against Donald Trump and for Hillary Clinton. This tends them towards saying hysterical things about Donald Trump.

I can also offer you statements from prominent Republicans about how Hillary Clinton is planning to sell us out to Russia.

[Crown]

Your ridiculousness aside, Bean, I find your faith in a Republican Congress acting as an adequate check on Trump after a decade of pandering to the Tea Party to avoid getting primaried rather... cute.

Edit: And I just love how I'm called hysterical for saying things not that far off what prominent Democratic politicians have said about Trump.

Prominent Democratic politicians are attacking the GOP nominee for the White House? You don't say.

[The Romulan Republic]

Your ridiculousness aside, Bean, I find your faith in a Republican Congress acting as an adequate check on Trump after a decade of pandering to the Tea Party to avoid getting primaried rather... cute.

Edit: And I just love how I'm called hysterical for saying things not that far off what prominent Democratic politicians have said about Trump.

Again the Democratic must have committed Spekku and Paul Ryan's block of support also having fallen under the Great Leader's Divine Sway.

Also I'm not sure if your aware of this but the prominent Democratic politicians are running against Donald Trump and for Hillary Clinton. This tends them towards saying hysterical things about Donald Trump.

I can also offer you statements from prominent Republicans about how Hillary Clinton is planning to sell us out to Russia.

The Republicans have a strong majority in Congress. I doubt that will change in a hypothetical election where Trump wins. I have no faith in any Republican Congressman to stand up to Trump when their career is on the line, unless they have already publicly refused to endorse him.

And if Trump wins, other Trumpers will ride into office on his coattails.

I'd love to be wrong, but frankly, Congressional Republicans, as a whole, have not earned any trust in this of late.

[Crown]

The Republicans have a strong majority in Congress. I doubt that will change in a hypothetical election where Trump wins. I have no faith in any Republican Congressman to stand up to Trump when their career is on the line, unless they have already publicly refused to endorse him.

And if Trump wins, other Trumpers will ride into office on his coattails.

I'd love to be wrong, but frankly, Congressional Republicans, as a whole, have not earned any trust in this of late.

Congressional Republicans will do whatever the Koch brothers tell them to do and they fucking loath Trump ... but they'll probably screw you over anyway.

[Flagg]

The Republicans have a strong majority in Congress. I doubt that will change in a hypothetical election where Trump wins. I have no faith in any Republican Congressman to stand up to Trump when their career is on the line, unless they have already publicly refused to endorse him.

And if Trump wins, other Trumpers will ride into office on his coattails.

I'd love to be wrong, but frankly, Congressional Republicans, as a whole, have not earned any trust in this of late.

Congressional Republicans will do whatever the Koch brothers tell them to do and they fucking loath Trump ... but they'll probably screw you over anyway.

Paul Ryan makes an empty suit look like the HulkBuster, so yeah, he'll essentially be the Koch's and <insert rich group here> puppet.

[Rhadamantus]

Crown, you're a moron. Trump saying he know believes that Obama was born in the US in no way excuses his deplorable behavior. It is also not comparable to one Hillary supporter saying some sort-of racist things years ago. Replacing Hillary with Bernie would be dumb as fuck, given his general unelectability, and the literal impossibility of it. Your idiotic ranting about SJWs is also not enhancing your credibility.

Mr. Bean, while it is true that Trump can't usher in fascism by himself, the us under him and a republican Congress could get us dangerously close, espically given that both parties seem to place partisanship over honor.

[Terralthra]

Jill Stein offering a false comparison? No way!

Mr. Trump has been explicit that he's going to bomb Muslim countries not just as much as the current administration, but more. So, the comparison is someone who uses bombs against Muslims in other countries, or someone who uses more bombs against Muslims in other countries and wants to deport, surveil, and ban Muslims from immigrating. Gee, you're right, one of those looks way more deplorable than the other!

As for the editorial you post, forgive me for not taking very seriously the words of someone who calls the Republican Secretary of State for a Republican President an "honorary Democrat". If Colin Powell said horrible things in his emails, let that reflect on the party of which he is a member, the GOP.

Jim Asher's assertion that Sidney Blumenthal said President Obama was born in Kenya is worth exactly as much evidence he presented: none. Some supporters of Sec. Clinton circulated emails is a claim the article you posted makes, but again, it presents no evidence for that. There's no evidence that she or her campaign, in any year, ever promoted it. FactCheck and Politifact, among others, have all found this. The Birther movement didn't have any real traction or momentum until after she conceded in 2008.

[Crown]

Crown, you're a moron. Trump saying he know believes that Obama was born in the US in no way excuses his deplorable behavior.

I'm not excusing anything. I'm applauding at his ability to play a clearly biased media like a fiddle to do his bidding. We used to have the following quote underneath the banner of the forum; "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~ Aristotle

Here's a succinct summary of what he just did from Ben Shapiro (who while obviously conservative is no Trump fan);

Trump: The sky is not blue.
Media: Is it blue?
Trump: Tell you tomorrow.
*hourlong full coverage*
Trump: It's blue.
Media: Dammit!

It is also not comparable to one Hillary supporter saying some sort-of racist things years ago.

That doesn't refute the Donald's claim that birtherism started out of her camp; to which they now claim it was 'one rogue staffer who we fired' in 2007 but not an actual tactic we used (CNN). Except for the fact a photo of Barak in African/Muslim garb was leaked by her staff in 2008, to which the Obama staff quickly pointed out it was meant to feed into narrative but the Clinton staff responded 'totally coincidental' honest.

If you want the staff minutes of the secret email of Clinton and her advisors openly discussed starting the birther movement; I haven't got it. I'll hold my hands up to that (I do have the emails from the DNC openly discussing using Bernie's atheism against him though if you want those, just FYI). But the birther whispers began during the primary, there is avoiding that.

Replacing Hillary with Bernie would be dumb as fuck, given his general unelectability, and the literal impossibility of it.

Every single poll I remember during the primaries showed that in a head to head Bernie Sanders destroyed any candidate the Republican party put him up against. If I am wrong, or I don't remember correctly or of course any polling now suggests otherwise, then I concede.

Your idiotic ranting about SJWs is also not enhancing your credibility.

1+1 = 2. Also SJWism is mental disorder and a social cancer. Question; does 1+1 not equal 2 anymore because of my 'credibility'?

[Crown]

Jill Stein offering a false comparison? No way!

Mr. Trump has been explicit that he's going to bomb Muslim countries not just as much as the current administration, but more. So, the comparison is someone who uses bombs against Muslims in other countries, or someone who uses more bombs against Muslims in other countries and wants to deport, surveil, and ban Muslims from immigrating. Gee, you're right, one of those looks way more deplorable than the other!

So business as usual then? Or did I miss the announcement that Hillary is going to disband the NSA surveillance program, not continue Obama's state sanctioned drone assassination programs and stop funding opposite sides of a civil war in Syria?

As for the editorial you post, forgive me for not taking very seriously the words of someone who calls the Republican Secretary of State for a Republican President an "honorary Democrat". If Colin Powell said horrible things in his emails, let that reflect on the party of which he is a member, the GOP.

Colin Powell also said that birtherism was solely driven by racism ... now lets test if you're intellectually consistent; is this view then to be taken as a reflection 'on that party of which he is a member, the GOP'?

What a nonsense critique.

Jim Asher's assertion that Sidney Blumenthal said President Obama was born in Kenya is worth exactly as much evidence he presented: none.

Well he's gone from saying I had a one-on-one with Sid to we also dispatched a reporter to Kenya to determine the legitimacy of the claim which turned out to be false [source], so this goes more than a he-said-he-said conversation.

Some supporters of Sec. Clinton circulated emails is a claim the article you posted makes, but again, it presents no evidence for that[1]. There's no evidence that she or her campaign, in any year, ever promoted it[2]. FactCheck and Politifact, among others, have all found this. The Birther movement didn't have any real traction or momentum until after she conceded in 2008.

This is adorable. You've linked (as evidence) the same thing I already linked (which suggests you fail at reading) and you're trying to refute brand new allegations with articles that haven't been updated since 2015 (which suggests you don't understand how linear time works).

As I linked above; her former campaign manager admits that a staffer circulated the conspiracy back in 2007 (but they totally fired him and everything) [CNN] so there's your evidence for item [1].

As for item [2] the following called out her campaign for the dog whistling and double speak; Chris Matthews, 60 mins, Morning Joe and the mother fucking Guardian. But as I said to Rhadamantus I don't have "the staff minutes of the secret email of Clinton and her advisors openly discussed starting the birther movement" so if that's the only level of evidence you'll accept then I'll just have to forever live in regret that I can't meet up to it (or wait until the next round of DNC leaks ).

[Terralthra]

Jill Stein offering a false comparison? No way!

Mr. Trump has been explicit that he's going to bomb Muslim countries not just as much as the current administration, but more. So, the comparison is someone who uses bombs against Muslims in other countries, or someone who uses more bombs against Muslims in other countries and wants to deport, surveil, and ban Muslims from immigrating. Gee, you're right, one of those looks way more deplorable than the other!

So business as usual then? Or did I miss the announcement that Hillary is going to disband the NSA surveillance program, not continue Obama's state sanctioned drone assassination programs and stop funding opposite sides of a civil war in Syria?

You don't seem to be answering my point. Trump has promised more bombing, more surveillance, deportations of Muslims, and a ban on Muslim immigration (and depending on when you ask, even Muslim tourists and visitors). I may be mistaken, but I don't think there is currently an official program of specifically-targeted religious surveillance, deportation, immigration, and tourism bans. Is there? If not, then the vote is between "the status quo" - unconstitutional mass surveillance, drone strikes, and unofficial discrimination by TSA employees and airline employees, and Trump's promises - carpetbombing of ISIS-held regions, bans on Muslim immigration and tourist visas, and a program of surveillance and potential deportation for Muslims already here based only on their religion. Again, one of those seems worse, and it's not the status quo candidate.

I wanted Sen. Sanders, but I'll take Sec. Clinton over Mr. Trump.

As for the editorial you post, forgive me for not taking very seriously the words of someone who calls the Republican Secretary of State for a Republican President an "honorary Democrat". If Colin Powell said horrible things in his emails, let that reflect on the party of which he is a member, the GOP.

Colin Powell also said that birtherism was solely driven by racism ... now lets test if you're intellectually consistent; is this view then to be taken as a reflection 'on that party of which he is a member, the GOP'?

Sec. Powell, along with plenty of other GOP members, has said that Birtherism is explicitly racist. For example, Gov. Jeb Bush, or Sen. Lindsey Graham. The editorial you linked refers to Sec. Powell's emails as part of a DNC scandal on the basis that Sec. Powell is an "honorary Democrat", I guess on the basis that he hasn't fallen in line behind Mr. Trump. No True Republican, I guess.

Jim Asher's assertion that Sidney Blumenthal said President Obama was born in Kenya is worth exactly as much evidence he presented: none.

Well he's gone from saying I had a one-on-one with Sid to we also dispatched a reporter to Kenya to determine the legitimacy of the claim which turned out to be false [source], so this goes more than a he-said-he-said conversation.

Their dispatching a reporter to investigate the claims doesn't mean Sidney Blumenthal said anything. Many people were making claims about President Obama's birthplace in 2008. Mr. Blumenthal has denied the claim categorically.

Some supporters of Sec. Clinton circulated emails is a claim the article you posted makes, but again, it presents no evidence for that[1]. There's no evidence that she or her campaign, in any year, ever promoted it[2]. FactCheck and Politifact, among others, have all found this. The Birther movement didn't have any real traction or momentum until after she conceded in 2008.

This is adorable. You've linked (as evidence) the same thing I already linked (which suggests you fail at reading) and you're trying to refute brand new allegations with articles that haven't been updated since 2015 (which suggests you don't understand how linear time works).

First, I was responding to your Guardian article, which provides no evidence at all. The volunteer evidence was in the link you added at edit, which I thank you for adding. Second...did Clinton's campaign suggest President Obama's birthplace was Kenya this year? Seems like a bizarre statement for a campaign to make in an election in which President Obama is not running. Has new evidence come to light? No? No? Then why does it matter if they haven't been updated? The atomic composition of a water molecule hasn't been updated for centuries, but remains true. The facts are that GOP members have been promulgating the lie that Sec. Clinton or her campaign are responsible for the Birther movement for nearly a decade now, and those claims are no more substantiated nor true now than they were in 2008. The GOP continues to make such claims because it knows it can rely on gullible people to espouse that a fired volunteer is somehow a campaign spokesperson, rather than admit that the GOP is responsible for making the Birther movement a part of perceived-legitimate political discourse in this country.

As I linked above; her former campaign manager admits that a staffer circulated the conspiracy back in 2007 (but they totally fired him and everything) [CNN] so there's your evidence for item [1].

A volunteer, in 2007, who was immediately fired for it. A lot of people volunteered for Sec. Clinton in 2008. Do all of them speak for her? The act of firing said volunteer seems a pretty explicit way of saying "this person doesn't speak for us."

As for item [2] the following called out her campaign for the dog whistling and double speak; Chris Matthews, 60 mins, Morning Joe and the mother fucking Guardian. But as I said to Rhadamantus I don't have "the staff minutes of the secret email of Clinton and her advisors openly discussed starting the birther movement" so if that's the only level of evidence you'll accept then I'll just have to forever live in regret that I can't meet up to it (or wait until the next round of DNC leaks ).

Oh, I can point to specific examples of, for example, President Clinton saying, of President Obama's primary win in South Carolina, "Well you know Al Sharpton won South Carolina." It was clearly a racist dogwhistle statement to anyone paying attention. When some reporter asked Sec. Clinton if President Obama was a Muslim, she said "I don't think so," rather than "No," or "That doesn't matter," which, again, dogwhistle to be sure. But "she and her campaign dogwhistled" and "her campaign started the Birther movement" are a pretty substantial distance apart.

[Flagg]

Republicans don't have any credibility attacking Hillary Clinton, nor does the media. The Republicans had prominent members pushing the libel and slander that Hillary Clinton murdered suicidee Vincent Foster (including shooting melons to "prove" it).

The media ridiculed her in '98 or '99 when she said the attacks on her and her husband were part of a vast right wing conspiracy, despite the fact that there was a pretty open vast right wing conspiracy which culminated in impeaching Bill over having his dick in a Jews mouth on Easter and using illegally obtained recordings by that child eating troll Linda Tripp to prove he lied in a deposition about something which was no ones goddamned business.

And who cares where the seed of birtherism was planted? It's been the GOP and Trump especially providing the manure for it to grow and blossom.

[maraxus2]

snip

Obama also made her Sec. State, and the third/sometimes-second highest ranking person in his cabinet. Obama knows that this birther shit is barely-concealed racism better than anyone, yet he still felt the desire to make the alleged-originator of birther shit his third/sometimes-second highest ranking person in his cabinet. Setting aside the fact that her campaign she didn't start the birther shit, the fact that Obama himself clearly doesn't think she did is enough reason to dismiss this notion out of hand. It seems to me that people who propagate Clinton's alleged Birtherism fulfill one of three categories: A. they personally dislike Clinton and don't want her to be the nominee, B. They don't want the Democratic candidate to win in the 2016 election, or C. Both.

I think there are lots of reasons to be worried if you're progressive. The odds of the Dems retaking the House are practically nil, and the odds of the Dems taking back the Senate are getting longer. I think that Hillary is still the odds on favorite to win, but it won't be by a large enough margin to thoroughly repudiate Trump and Trumpism.

Fwiw, I also think that Crown and Bean can also be safely discounted.

Crown's idea that the Dems would be best off if they dumped Hillary (how?) and replaced her with Bernie (why?) or Biden (why????) is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. I also think his idea that Ryan would fight President Trump because he "loathes him" is equally stupid. A Trump Presidency will be a Presidency that surrenders policymaking to Congress, since Trump manifestly has no policy platform, nor do any of the people around him give much of a shit about policy. In the event of a Trump Presidency, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell will be making policy for at least two years. They've given us the benefit of demonstrating the kinds of policy they'd pass if they didn't have to deal with the Presidential veto. We know exactly what that would look like because we have seen it in a lot of other states. They'd continue to gut voting rights, they'd kill the right to unionize, they'd kill Obamacare and all the good it's done, and they'd pass a law saying that we have to swear allegiance to the flag and the memory of Ronald Reagan, or something.

I also think Bean's interpretation of Hillary's illness can be discounted, mainly because he's such an obvious anti-Hillary partisan. He was certain that she'd get indicted up until she didn't.

As a partisan hack, I hope that Hillary wins. As a poll-watcher, I think that she will, simply because she has a two month lead time on campaign organization and Trump doesn't. People are already voting, and I thoroughly believe that Hillary will get more of her people to the polls in the early voting period than Trump.

This kind of thing doesn't matter much in a landslide election, but it does in a close one. I'd put far more money on Hillary winning a dead-heat election than Trump.

[Crown]

So business as usual then? Or did I miss the announcement that Hillary is going to disband the NSA surveillance program, not continue Obama's state sanctioned drone assassination programs and stop funding opposite sides of a civil war in Syria?

You don't seem to be answering my point. Trump has promised more bombing, more surveillance, deportations of Muslims, and a ban on Muslim immigration (and depending on when you ask, even Muslim tourists and visitors). I may be mistaken, but I don't think there is currently an official program of specifically-targeted religious surveillance, deportation, immigration, and tourism bans. Is there? If not, then the vote is between "the status quo" - unconstitutional mass surveillance, drone strikes, and unofficial discrimination by TSA employees and airline employees, and Trump's promises - carpetbombing of ISIS-held regions, bans on Muslim immigration and tourist visas, and a program of surveillance and potential deportation for Muslims already here based only on their religion. Again, one of those seems worse, and it's not the status quo candidate.

I wanted Sen. Sanders, but I'll take Sec. Clinton over Mr. Trump.

Fundamentally I don't think Trump is going to do any of that (i.e. times everything by two!) while I believe Clinton is already guilty of being culpable in most of it. The hysteria around Trump's statements while conveniently ignoring Clinton's actions is getting tiresome. However, that shouldn't be read as anything more as to why I'm finding this election so entertaining rather than losing my mind over it. I view them as distinctions without any real differences.

As for the editorial you post, forgive me for not taking very seriously the words of someone who calls the Republican Secretary of State for a Republican President an "honorary Democrat". If Colin Powell said horrible things in his emails, let that reflect on the party of which he is a member, the GOP.

Colin Powell also said that birtherism was solely driven by racism ... now lets test if you're intellectually consistent; is this view then to be taken as a reflection 'on that party of which he is a member, the GOP'?

Sec. Powell, along with plenty of other GOP members, has said that Birtherism is explicitly racist. For example, Gov. Jeb Bush, or Sen. Lindsey Graham. The editorial you linked refers to Sec. Powell's emails as part of a DNC scandal on the basis that Sec. Powell is an "honorary Democrat", I guess on the basis that he hasn't fallen in line behind Mr. Trump. No True Republican, I guess.

That's not what we're discussing/I'm arguing. You tried to carte blanche ignore an editorial which laid bare how corrupt the DNC is because of one small phrase "honorary Democrat", I pointed out what a nonsense critique that was (i.e. Powell's views should paint the GOP in a bad light because that's the party he is a member of, not the Democrats) and now you're trying a 'no true Scotsman' on me

Well he's gone from saying I had a one-on-one with Sid to we also dispatched a reporter to Kenya to determine the legitimacy of the claim which turned out to be false [source], so this goes more than a he-said-he-said conversation.

Their dispatching a reporter to investigate the claims doesn't mean Sidney Blumenthal said anything. Many people were making claims about President Obama's birthplace in 2008. Mr. Blumenthal has denied the claim categorically.

The point is that it's gone from 'one person claims X' to 'one person still claims X but is also showing that there is a trail of them investigating'. While yes this doesn't show that the meeting even took place, if we find that his claims of sending a reporter to fact check the allegation are true it certainly increases his credibility. But you know that, and you're engaging in this tedium back and forth for God knows what reason.

Some supporters of Sec. Clinton circulated emails is a claim the article you posted makes, but again, it presents no evidence for that[1]. There's no evidence that she or her campaign, in any year, ever promoted it[2]. FactCheck and Politifact, among others, have all found this. The Birther movement didn't have any real traction or momentum until after she conceded in 2008.

This is adorable. You've linked (as evidence) the same thing I already linked (which suggests you fail at reading) and you're trying to refute brand new allegations with articles that haven't been updated since 2015 (which suggests you don't understand how linear time works).

First, I was responding to your Guardian Telegraph [~Crown] article, which provides no evidence at all. The volunteer evidence was in the link you added at edit, which I thank you for adding. Second...did Clinton's campaign suggest President Obama's birthplace was Kenya this year? Seems like a bizarre statement for a campaign to make in an election in which President Obama is not running. Has new evidence come to light? No? No? Then why does it matter if they haven't been updated? The atomic composition of a water molecule hasn't been updated for centuries, but remains true. The facts are that GOP members have been promulgating the lie that Sec. Clinton or her campaign are responsible for the Birther movement for nearly a decade now, and those claims are no more substantiated nor true now than they were in 2008. The GOP continues to make such claims because it knows it can rely on gullible people to espouse that a fired volunteer is somehow a campaign spokesperson, rather than admit that the GOP is responsible for making the Birther movement a part of perceived-legitimate political discourse in this country.

This is bizarre; you do realise that we would revisit the atomic composition of a water molecule if new evidence came to light right (or to be fair to you a new accuser)? The point is; James Asher just made these claims, using sites from before he made them as a way to debunk him is like trying to debunk Copernicus by waiving Ptolemy's model under my nose.

Those sites call the claim 'false' because there were 'nebulous' reports of Clinton staffers generating/leaking the email, but no witnesses or any sources backing that up. We now have one; James Asher. Should he be trusted outright? Of course not, but linking to sites which are over a year old and thus did not take his accusation into consideration in their decision matrix of true/false as a way to pretend that everything is fine is bizarre.

As I linked above; her former campaign manager admits that a staffer circulated the conspiracy back in 2007 (but they totally fired him and everything) [CNN] so there's your evidence for item [1].

A volunteer, in 2007, who was immediately fired for it. A lot of people volunteered for Sec. Clinton in 2008. Do all of them speak for her? The act of firing said volunteer seems a pretty explicit way of saying "this person doesn't speak for us."

Immaterial; you claimed that there was no evidence of any leak originating from Clinton or any of her staff. Her former campaign manager has now admitted that an email was indeed circulated from her campaign back in 2007/8 and they fired the person responsible. This satisfies your demand for evidence, all the other fact checking websites were treating it as a rumour, it now isn't. You are well within your rights to accept Clinton's former campaign manager at face value on this claim, it is now substantiated.

As for item [2] the following called out her campaign for the dog whistling and double speak; Chris Matthews, 60 mins, Morning Joe and the mother fucking Guardian. But as I said to Rhadamantus I don't have "the staff minutes of the secret email of Clinton and her advisors openly discussed starting the birther movement" so if that's the only level of evidence you'll accept then I'll just have to forever live in regret that I can't meet up to it (or wait until the next round of DNC leaks ).

Oh, I can point to specific examples of, for example, President Clinton saying, of President Obama's primary win in South Carolina, "Well you know Al Sharpton won South Carolina." It was clearly a racist dogwhistle statement to anyone paying attention. When some reporter asked Sec. Clinton if President Obama was a Muslim, she said "I don't think so," rather than "No," or "That doesn't matter," which, again, dogwhistle to be sure. But "she and her campaign dogwhistled" and "her campaign started the Birther movement" are a pretty substantial distance apart.

As I said; I don't have the smoking gun. Conceded.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Even if she were terminally ill, that's why the vice president is a thing. Presidents have been known to die. Hillary Clinton's less horrid than Trump by any metric an honest person can name, and her choice of vice president is also exceedingly more presidential than Darth Spraytan. I'd vote for a dying Hillary Clinton before I'd vote for Donald Trump.

[The Romulan Republic]

Ditto.

The only things that would make me seriously reconsider voting for Clinton would be:

a) conviction (not suspicion, conviction, or at least being charged) for a major felony.
b) solid evidence of mental illness or cognitive issues such that she would be unable to perform the duties of the Presidency.
c) her suddenly embracing positions as abhorrent as Trump's.

And even then, it would take quite a lot in any of those categories for her to rival Trump.

[The Romulan Republic]

The Republicans have a strong majority in Congress. I doubt that will change in a hypothetical election where Trump wins. I have no faith in any Republican Congressman to stand up to Trump when their career is on the line, unless they have already publicly refused to endorse him.

And if Trump wins, other Trumpers will ride into office on his coattails.

I'd love to be wrong, but frankly, Congressional Republicans, as a whole, have not earned any trust in this of late.

Congressional Republicans will do whatever the Koch brothers tell them to do and they fucking loath Trump ... but they'll probably screw you over anyway.

Well, of course they have biases and ulterior motives. Who doesn't?

My point is that people like Martin O'Malley (who called Trump a fascist during the primary) and Robert Reich (recently speculated on Facebook about weather Trump would peacefully concede if defeated) are not just fringe conspiracy theorists, but people with many years of experience in responsible positions in government who appear otherwise relatively reasonable and informed.

Oh, by the way, since you brought up Jill Stein defending Trump vs. Clinton on Muslims- she is about the least credible person here who isn't actually a Trump supporter. It is in her political interests (as irrelevant as they might be) to convince people that Clinton is worse than Trump, and she has sought to drive a wedge between Sanders supporters and Clinton, and, I think, between Sanders supporters and Sanders himself.

As to Trump's positions- they can admittedly be hard to pin down, since he jumps all over the map. That's not really a point in his favour though. At best, he's not really as evil/insane as his worst comments make him appear, but either willing to pretend and encourage such sentiments for personal gain, or too stupid to have consistent positions.

[Terralthra]

Crown, you continue to conflate "a volunteer for the campaign" and "Clinton's staff"/"Clinton's campaign". In 2007-8, then-Senator Clinton had many tens of thousands of volunteers, if not a few hundred thousand. In late 2007, one of them sent a birther email. In 2008, her campaign manager said "yeah, that happened, we fired said volunteer immediately." I'm pretty sure that of those tens of thousands of volunteers, at least a few hundred of them snorted cocaine. A bunch more of them probably sent unsolicited dick pics. Statistically, at least a couple hundred of them committed rape during the campaign. Would you say "the Clinton campaign supports drug use, sexual harassment, and rape"?

That is essentially what you're doing by saying that her campaign did any such thing based on the volunteer email. The fact-checking sites didn't treat said volunteer's actions as a rumor; as stated, in 2008 the campaign manager admitted the incident occurred. Politifact, FactCheck, et al. simply think, as I do, that one volunteer who was immediately fired doesn't constitute the campaign promulgating it.

This Sidney Blumenthal thing is certainly more serious, though at present, it's he-said/he-said. One wonders why Mr. Asher hasn't mentioned this meeting at any of the previous dozen or so times that prominent Republicans blamed Sec. Clinton for the Birther movement, but one also wonders what motive Mr. Asher might have for making it up now.

[Crown]

snip

Obama also made her Sec. State, and the third/sometimes-second highest ranking person in his cabinet. Obama knows that this birther shit is barely-concealed racism better than anyone, yet he still felt the desire to make the alleged-originator of birther shit his third/sometimes-second highest ranking person in his cabinet.

Politics makes for strange bed fellows. The Clintons and the Obama's loath each other [DNC leaks], the fact that he made her Sec. State isn't an indicator of anything other than he made her Sec. State. Interestingly he (or his administration) flat out banned/refused to let her hire Sid Blumenthal in any capacity.

Setting aside [1] the fact that her campaign [2] she didn't start the birther shit, the fact that Obama himself clearly doesn't think she did is enough reason to dismiss this notion out of hand. It seems to me that people who propagate Clinton's alleged Birtherism fulfill one of three categories: A. they personally dislike Clinton and don't want her to be the nominee, B. They don't want the Democratic candidate to win in the 2016 election, or C. Both.

[1] : Snopes claims that the earliest 'point of origin' for the Birther movement was from 1 March 2008. Hillary's campaign manager just said that one of Clinton's volunteer coordinator/staffer spread an email in 'late 2007'. Last I checked, late 2007 is before 1 March 2008 [CNN], Snopes is out of date.

[2] : Politifact has at least got the story correct about the 2007 incident (you have to click through the article to get to it) so it's already doing better than Snopes, but has nothing on James Asher's claims.

A Trump Presidency will be a Presidency that surrenders policymaking to Congress, since Trump manifestly has no policy platform, nor do any of the people around him give much of a shit about policy. In the event of a Trump Presidency, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell will be making policy for at least two years. They've given us the benefit of demonstrating the kinds of policy they'd pass if they didn't have to deal with the Presidential veto. We know exactly what that would look like because we have seen it in a lot of other states.

Yeah, that shit is horrifying no argument there.

As a partisan hack, I hope that Hillary wins.

How much does CTR pay by the way?

As a poll-watcher, I think that she will, simply because she has a two month lead time on campaign organization and Trump doesn't. People are already voting, and I thoroughly believe that Hillary will get more of her people to the polls in the early voting period than Trump.

This kind of thing doesn't matter much in a landslide election, but it does in a close one. I'd put far more money on Hillary winning a dead-heat election than Trump.

I think we're about to see a presidential election be decided by autistic neckbeards from 4Chan and Reddit. If Obama was the YouTube president, Trump is going to be the troll President, for crying out loud she yelled at a cartoon frog. Christ.

[Flagg]

Even if she were terminally ill, that's why the vice president is a thing. Presidents have been known to die. Hillary Clinton's less horrid than Trump by any metric an honest person can name, and her choice of vice president is also exceedingly more presidential than Darth Spraytan. I'd vote for a dying Hillary Clinton before I'd vote for Donald Trump.

No, sorry. If a candidate were terminally ill (or know they will be unable to do the job) they should drop out and have the party choose a replacement.

If you can't do the job for 4 years due to health reasons you are not qualified. And if you know it, then you're defrauding the American people. I'm voting for Clinton to be President with what's his face to be VP only to take the office of POTUS should an unforseen event occur that renders the POTUS unable to do thier duties, not "when my degenerative disease I've known about for months or years before the election renders me unqualified after I'm sworn in".

[Crown]

Crown, you continue to conflate "a volunteer for the campaign" and "Clinton's staff"/"Clinton's campaign". In 2007-8, then-Senator Clinton had many tens of thousands of volunteers, if not a few hundred thousand. In late 2007, one of them sent a birther email. In 2008, her campaign manager said "yeah, that happened, we fired said volunteer immediately." I'm pretty sure that of those tens of thousands of volunteers, at least a few hundred of them snorted cocaine. A bunch more of them probably sent unsolicited dick pics. Statistically, at least a couple hundred of them committed rape during the campaign. Would you say "the Clinton campaign supports drug use, sexual harassment, and rape"?

That is essentially what you're doing by saying that her campaign did any such thing based on the volunteer email [1]. The fact-checking sites didn't treat said volunteer's actions as a rumor; as stated, in 2008 the campaign manager admitted the incident occurred. Politifact, FactCheck, et al. simply think, as I do, that one volunteer who was immediately fired doesn't constitute the campaign promulgating it.

[1] : That is a fare criticism and I accept the rebuke if that's the impression that I'm giving. My point is you said "Some supporters of Sec. Clinton circulated emails is a claim the article you posted makes, but again, it presents no evidence for that". So we both now agree that there is indeed this evidence right?

Okay, that's it. Lets move on.

This Sidney Blumenthal thing is certainly more serious, though at present, it's he-said/he-said. One wonders why Mr. Asher hasn't mentioned this meeting at any of the previous dozen or so times that prominent Republicans blamed Sec. Clinton for the Birther movement, but one also wonders what motive Mr. Asher might have for making it up now.

Which was why I was careful to link the details of who Mr. Asher was in my post under his tweet, if this was a Breitbart editor 'at large' (who by the way are making hilarious hay out of this) I wouldn't have bothered. This man is the exact opposite of that.

[The Romulan Republic]

Even if she were terminally ill, that's why the vice president is a thing. Presidents have been known to die. Hillary Clinton's less horrid than Trump by any metric an honest person can name, and her choice of vice president is also exceedingly more presidential than Darth Spraytan. I'd vote for a dying Hillary Clinton before I'd vote for Donald Trump.

No, sorry. If a candidate were terminally ill (or know they will be unable to do the job) they should drop out and have the party choose a replacement.

If you can't do the job for 4 years due to health reasons you are not qualified. And if you know it, then you're defrauding the American people. I'm voting for Clinton to be President with what's his face to be VP only to take the office of POTUS should an unforseen event occur that renders the POTUS unable to do thier duties, not "when my degenerative disease I've known about for months or years before the election renders me unqualified after I'm sworn in".

I'd like to ask a question about this, because I've seen a lot of speculation on-line but not much in the way of solid, reliable answers.

What happens if a candidate has to be replaced and its past the deadlines to get someone's name on the ballot? Do they run someone else under the old candidate's name? Surely they don't just hold the election with only one major candidate getting to run?

Its unlikely, of course, and hopefully it doesn't happen, but it is always possible, and so I would presume its one that the parties have procedures for.

[maraxus2]

snip

You quote, approvingly, both Milo Yiannapoulos and Ben Shapiro. You rail against SJWs. I see no reason whatever to take you seriously.

I'd like to ask a question about this, because I've seen a lot of speculation on-line but not much in the way of solid, reliable answers.

What happens if a candidate has to be replaced and its past the deadlines to get someone's name on the ballot? Do they run someone else under the old candidate's name? Surely they don't just hold the election with only one major candidate getting to run?

Its unlikely, of course, and hopefully it doesn't happen, but it is always possible, and so I would presume its one that the parties have procedures for.

We don't have procedures for that in place. In theory, the party could sue to have the name replaced on the ballot, but there aren't provisions for this yet.

Theoretically, the national party gets to decide who's on the ticket should someone die between now and January, but there aren't any hard-and-fast rules for this. There aren't explicit rules for this since this hasn't happened yet. The 20th amendment lays out a path to power in the event that a nominee dies before they're inaugurated. In that case, the Veep gets to be president until a President is named. This would presumably be the Veep. The processes are pretty ill-defined, and the choices made to name the President would set precedent for future cases.

Fortunately, neither Hillary nor Trump are in danger of dying between November 9th and January 20th, so the point is moot.

[TimothyC]

Every single poll I remember during the primaries showed that in a head to head Bernie Sanders destroyed any candidate the Republican party put him up against. If I am wrong, or I don't remember correctly or of course any polling now suggests otherwise, then I concede.

Point. I don't have time to dig before I head into work, but there were several polls were Kasich was tied or one point ahead of Sanders. He was the only one who could make that claim - neither Trump, Rubio, Cruz, or Bush could get within 3 points of Sanders.