[RESULTS ARE FINAL] 2016 Election for President of the United States | Donald Trump Victory

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

And yet you still sing him praises to high heaven and, unless this was just another attempt to sound opressed, told us yourself the only reason you voted Clinton instead of Trump was "because of pressure to do so"? And wow someone's a bit touchy. Guess I hit a nerve there. I wonder why.

 

Pot meet Kettle

 

And no, Bernie's actually a real politician, he's held office for several years already, unlike Trump, so intrinsicly they're not equal in terms of just raw experience in the field, and I'm also gonna do you a curteousy and ignore that last bit.

Hillary in turn, yes she has experience, I wont deny that, but she also has time and time again shown truly despicable behaviour both in terms of being able to manage a country, and as a person in general. Yes she's a politician, but she's not someone I would ever consider fit to rule a country.

 

 

 

I dont know if you're just honestly not giving enough of a s*** to think about it, so let me spell this out for you,

and I'll do it nice and short so maybe you'll pay attention this time.

 

Sander's supporters are in upproar because the election is objectively corrupt and being manipulated to silence them from expressing their voice. The odds of them actually being some form of problem once the election ends is slim to none, so yes, it isnt a problem Sanders didnt condemn the actions immediately. Also, news flash, not everyone has the details! Maybe they wanted to be more informed before making a statement on the matter, did you think about that? Trick question, ofcourse you didnt

 

I dont think I need to go into details for just what kind of moral views the Klan have, and franqly, I still am not satisfied with how Trump has attempted to distance himself from them, because it still lacks any kind of acknowledgement why the things the Klan stands for is wrong, and how it's absurd that their morals would be found within Trump's campaign (Helloooooo mass deportation of immigrants)

 

 

Last but not least, nice stinger. Now grow up if you intend to keep playing this game. 

That way I'll atleast have a challenge in proving you wrong

No, I voted Clinton instead of Trump, because I realize that it took Hitler from 1942 onwards to cruelly mass murder 11 million people; to humanely deport that many is insensible, and frankly not needed since only the violent fucks needs to go

 

In addition, Trump, at the time Tennessee held its primary, did not have a coherent plan for building the wall, so he was honestly running on nothing

 

I have always been critical of Trump. From day 1, I have not supported either his pro-life or pro-DP stances. I praised some of his policies because I agree with them, but I have never praised him entirely as you paint me to have done

 

Yes, I praise his initiative to deport illegals, because in the end it will compromise down to deporting the violent ones. Forgive me, but I'm not a fan of having the rapists, murderers, and drug dealers here.

 

I'm not oppressed, never have been, if I was oppressed I wouldn't so vehemently and proudly support Trump. 

 

Are you serious? It's not a problem? You guys ranted about that one black trump supporter throwing a punch at a protester dressed up in klan costume, but when Bernie supporters throw chair because they feel wronged it's justified? Bernie lost 3 delegates, Trump lost 30 to Cruz in Colorado, notice how their supporters reacted different??

 

Burning Republican Registration Cards/A rally of demanding the election to be put back in place

 

vs

 

Death Threats and throwing chairs

 

There's noting un-objective about a Black man reacting to the KKK or Colorado GOP canceling the funking election. I'm not saying sanders supporters are gonna torch the place if Trump/Clinton wins, I'm saying the fact that they threw out death threats to children, and Sander's campaign manager only disavowed AFTER the Senate Minority leader met with Sanders to discuss it is a problem. What more of a detail do you need than that?

 

How much clearer can you get than "I unequivocally disavow"

 

But thanks for the ad hom at the end, knew it was gonna find itself in there somehow

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Except... I didn't talk about specifically Sander's being screwed by electoral fraud. I talked about it in general. It's just a gigantic problem across all branches of the election. The difference is that this specific example for Sanders, which was relevant to a point raised earlier, that was caught on tape. Which makes it a great example to show how f***ed up s*** is. 

 

And the reason there are some people hold a double standard about that s***, is because there is at least one documented instance of Trump actively supporting support violence against protesters: 

 

"If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them," Trump said. "Just knock the hell — I promise you, I'll pay the legal fees."

 

Which is unlike Sanders or Hilary. Yes, he has disavowed comments like this, but you can understand why people take a double standard with Trump. It is not a good thing to do, but you can see why they have comments to base it from. 

 

And I've talked about in other places why the KKK support required more dismissal than this did from Bernie, because Trump's campaign has a greater association with racism and intolerance than Sander's does for violence say even without that nomination. 

 

But again - Arguing about who gets screwed by the system more is a pretty shitty thing for us to be arguing. Because it's actively impeding us (And people in general) from say improving the god damn system instead. Instead, as I said before, accept there is a sheet tonne of stuff wrong with the state of affairs right now, and let's all try to to change that. 

 

Because that's something Trump and Sanders have in common. Both groups of supporters are tired of the system and want to see it change. They are suggesting radically different changes, and I agree with one set far more than the other, but they both want major change. 

Throwing tomatoes is acceptable now? Uh, throwing objects at people while they're excising their constitutional right of free speech isn't Ok.

 

But I won't disagree with you on that, what Trump said is shameful, he should have left the pettiness to the protesters. Regardless of what Trump said, and what Sanders didn't, populism inflames passions which lead to situations like this.

 

It's NEVER right, and it should not take the highest democrat in the senate holding your hand for you to disavow it. Regardless of whether I can empathize, which I can after Colorado, double standards are logical fallacies and erode your argument

 

I'm not entirely sure that Laz understands this is more a trend of populism rather than just Trump, that ignorance bothers me. I'll however disagree that punishing criminals, which are what illegals are, (people who broke a law), is intolerance. That's just justice. Closing the borders till we understand ISIS better likewise isn't intolerance, but security. And might I remind, the house already passed a bill to /basically/ stop the refugee flow?

 

Agreed on a broken system, but that's unlikely to change. Hillary will 75% win this. Trump has a much better chance, however small, of beating Hillary in the general than Bernie does of beating Trump now

[Dad]

If we're suggesting that campaign managers need to be the ones responsible for disavowing violence--even though Bernie said so a long time before this--then can we move on?  Bernie trashed his far extremist left supporters several months ago.  And he never once stooped to Trump's "beat the hell out of them" stance.

 

So you're reaching.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

If we're suggesting that campaign managers need to be the ones responsible for disavowing violence--even though Bernie said so a long time before this--then can we move on?  Bernie trashed his far extremist left supporters several months ago.  And he never once stooped to Trump's "beat the hell out of them" stance.

 

So you're reaching.

I'm saying that 

 

1) Trump should not be held to some higher standard, because violence is violence, advocated or not. The fact that Bernie's supporters are willing to resort to violence even without support or promotion is potentially more troubling (That being said, Trump should not have said that EVER. And he has likewise been trashed over and over for it, and I'll bet my left hand Hillary will bring it up too)

 

2) Sanders, like Trump, should have to disavow every time. Nobody gets a blanket statement. Why the hell did it take multiple days AND Harry Reid to talk to Bernie before his campaign apologized about it?

 

I'm not reaching, I'm just saying this is populism, it's not a Trump thing, it's not a Bernie thing, it's just inherent 

[Aerion Brightflame]

Throwing tomatoes is acceptable now? Uh, throwing objects at people while they're excising their constitutional right of free speech isn't Ok.

 

When did I say it was acceptable? Or when did anyone here say it was acceptable? I posted the quote to show Trump showing an instance of verbally approving violence by his supporters. I did not comment upon whether the actions of the protesters is acceptable. It is not relevant to the point I was making. Kindly don't put words into my argument. 

 

My arguments are simply highlighting why people take a double standard with respect to Trump. I am not justifying it. I am simply explaining where there is a basis to do so. 

 

So stop trying to make that into to argument. There is a double standard in place - We get it it pisses you off. Coincidentally there's also double standards in place surrounding Hilary and Bernie among the Democratic side of things. It's all s***, and it's all a god-damn problem. You don't need to go on about the instances of it occurring to Trump, and you especially don't need to do that by being negative towards Sanders. It would actually be most constructive to your argument to draw favourable parallels to the treatment between the two because then you unite two disfranchised groups of voters behind an idea, which means change can actually happen. Because the reason people are arguing with you here is because you are framing this s*** as an argument against another candidate, rather than drawing parallels to both and going 'Hey this s*** is happening to a lot of people, maybe it's a bigger problem than anyone candidate' 

 

In essence, if you want to make comments about the issues multiple candidates are facing across this election, it's generally not a good idea to being accusatory about it. 

 

And you know that part of this election cycle is about making people give a f*** about politics beyond the general? Like you know voting in the House of Representatives so that institutional change can start to happen. Because a new generation of voters with very different ideas getting involved in politics from a basic level will get these kinds of ideas to filter through, and start to turn the wheels to get change to occur. (Which as I've said before is something Sander's is pushing more than Trump. Sanders has said that he cannot achieve all his policies by himself, he needs people get involved and stay involved.) 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I mean, I came off overly negative, for Trump's black support to drop from 25% in 2015 to 12% now demonstrates he didn't play all his cards right, and he did note that in his interview with Megyn Kelly.

 

All I was trying to say is that populism in general create passion, and ignoring all that and painting it on just Trump is unfair and wrong (as you noted). It's a damn trait of populism, so stop being ignorant and realize that

 

Look at Colorado. They have their proper primary back next year. Clearly peaceful protest does work. It's hard to come to the center and work together when the double standard scale is openly tipped in you favor and is regularly used to trash my side. It's really hard to join up with someone when they spend most of their time shouting "bigot" at me

 

For the record, you isn't you (Tom) specifically it's just the general sentiment of the left side of the conversation, nothing here is directly targeting an individual unless I mention them by name. And yes, Laz did support the protesting earlier on, which was what I was referring to in "is it ok to throw objects"

 

All I can see is, it's 2016 and we're behaving like it's 1500

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/18/who-are-the-11-people-on-donald-trumps-short-list-for-the-supreme-court/

 

Huhn, 3 women, not awful, couple peeps significantly more conservative than me, but nothing like a cruz nomination *gag*

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://datatargeting.com/POTUS/

 

barty is def right on the system being broke

[ihop]

What's so bad about Clinton, anyway?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

What's so bad about Clinton, anyway?

Nothing much. Bill Clinton should be in the top 10 for his presidency. Her policies, even the ones I disagree with, are very well flushed out. I might not like them, but they are rational and feasible, unlike some of the policies that Trump and Bernie have suggested which are not

 

That being said, the general complaint is that she has taken money from wall-street. But for the record, neither Trump or Bernie have released their returns so who the funk knows

 

She had a private email server, so did a sheet ton of other people including Colin Powell

 

She mishandled Lybia, 2 white men mishandled Vietnam...hell the ambassador was hand picked by her, people saying she let it happen are cold hearted bastards

 

Or if you believe that she let Bill get off on abusing women...that's a thing too

 

Basically, she's not bad at all, but is establishment and most people don't like a strong woman

[Aerion Brightflame]

What's so bad about Clinton, anyway?

She's basically a figurehead for establishment politics. She has very few discernible values, and generally flip flops on every issue to grab the popular opinion. There's evidence of a lot of different ways she violates the set donation limit for how much an individual can donate to a political campaign through the Clinton Foundation. As well as consitently hosting 'Charity dinners' for big big bucks instead of meeting and greeting the people voting for her. 

 

The Libya situation was bad enough, but she's been videoed as personally cheering and joking about Gaddifi going down before and after the man died... Which kinda frames her as being uncaring of the fact she technically figureheaded a whole region of the Middle East becoming really f***ing unstable.

 

Her campaign itself has done a lot of things that aren't strictly legal, so people get pissed about that, and she frequently gets away with s*** in the media that any other candidate can (And has been) crucified for. Most notably being self contradictory a really big amount, and not releasing the transcripts for her Wall Street Speeches. Simply because of connections to the owners of a lot of new agencies. Like CNN is jokingly nicknamed The Clinton News Network because of there stance on this stuff.

 

Oh and she probably committed treason over the email scandal. Either Treason or a terrifying example of gross negligence. When Winter says 'She had a private email server' he is underplaying the issue massively. Though that in and off itself is enough to strip her security clearance if she wasn't a Clinton. 

 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/279764-email-clinton-abandoned-secure-line-to-use-home-phone

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/05/11/jake-tapper-fact-check-clinton-emails-origwx-jm.cnn/video/playlists/race-to-2016/

 

Simply out of convenience she may have used a non secure line to receive classified information. There is aides being told to remove the classified heading from files and then emailing them to her. She has also allegedly been sending emails through the unsecure email address 'clintonemail.com'. Additionally, I believe Russia came out as saying that they actually had accessed a lot of Clinton's emails during state visits due to this unsecure account, which if true means that her actions directly caused classified information to fall into the hands of other nations. 

 

This is such a serious matter that CNN of all f***ing places had to run a negative piece about her on it. Which also means it has legs. I think there's even evidence to suggest she might have been acting (Either intentionally or unintentionally) as a mole in the state department a few years back. 

 

http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_Timeline- Bigass time-line of the whole affair.

 

Either way - She's a establishment candidate under FBI investigation whose brought out a tonne of dirty tricks and has generally shown a disregard for the common man. She's not the worst politician around, and would probably be a decent president following the path of Obama, but she's the part of politics most people hate right now.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Had to like that just cause it's well written if nothing else. Treason seems harsh, maybe poor judgment like Obama said. Anyway, Bernie is likely hoping for an Inditement? No other point staying in. He's not going to win the pledge count, the state count, or the vote count. If anything he'll sway the Supers and become a victim of his own claim of subverting the voice of the people.

 

Just want say. Inditement=\=Guilty sooo there's nothing stopping Hillary from running. She'll be an acceptable president much like Obama, which is more more than I can say about adding 30 Trill to the debt

[Aerion Brightflame]

'Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.'

 

Treason as defined by your constitution. In 1917, it was amended to include espionage. I believe these are the things that were added to include:

 

• To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. 
• To convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies when the United States is at war, to cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or to willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States. .

 

Clinton meets at least one of these criteria by intentionally declassifying materials just for convenience if they did actually end up in the hands of either Russia or China. (Ironically so does Bush for the Iraq war, but that's a matter for a different discussion). Additionally, given she was f***ing Secretary of State she would have been given a security brief on all of this s*** and the consequences of say declassifying something for convince means either she's a f***ing moron, she thinks the rules do not apply to her, or she's just grossly negligent. None of these things are becoming of a President. 

 

Thank you for bringing up Obama by the way - The fact Obama's best defence for Clinton in this matter is 'poor judgment' is also evidence of a kind because it shows he cannot actually deny the damn allegations, and that the best thing he can muster to defend her in a lapse of judgement. A Lapse of Judgement you can argue amounts for treason on a woman running for one of the leaders of the free world. 

 

One of the key factors of being found guilty of treason is that you cannot run for office in the United States. Which means Clinton running whilst under a series investigation is a huge bombshell waiting for the DNC. Either a) She gets a formal charge, and steps down in which case the DNC look like morons for supporting a candidate under FBI investigation. b) She still runs in hope of getting into the office and formally dismissing her own charges. Because if she gets formally charged you can bet your arse there is almost insurmountable evidence against her. 

 

Even if she doesn't get charged - The RNC has months of free cannon fire to kill her goodwill with the people. Additionally, if they wish, they could impeach her within seconds of her entering office. 

 

There's so many ways this ends poorly for the DNC. 

 

A formal charge is one of the three or four miracle situations for Bernie yes. 

[vla1ne]

so essentially, the DNC is supporting somebody who is incredibly liable to get charged with treason, and the main reason (i assume ) said person has not been arrested yet is because they are connected to people who sit in, or have sat in, the highest seats on the nation. clinton's liable to go on trial in the near future, and said potential trial will be used as massive ammo for the whomever wins the RNC (by now, trump) to destroy her in debates and elsewhere.

[Goose]

so essentially, the DNC is supporting somebody who is incredibly liable to get charged with treason, and the main reason (i assume ) said person has not been arrested yet is because they are connected to people who sit in, or have sat in, the highest seats on the nation. clinton's liable to go on trial in the near future, and said potential trial will be used as massive ammo for the whomever wins the RNC (by now, trump) to destroy her in debates and elsewhere.

 

She cannot and will not be charged with treason so let's not bring that up.  We can talk about things she might be charged with, but treason is not possible.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

She cannot and will not be charged with treason so let's not bring that up.  We can talk about things she might be charged with, but treason is not possible.

She could be charged with tomfoolery and it would be problematic

 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch

 

This isn't looking like a Goldwater and the gap is closer than what Reagan Carter was

 

Clinton is in trouble, and depending on when/if she gets indited Trump could be too

 

Trump can win Independents and even some democrats (13% is a fair bit) from Clinton. That's not gonna happen vs Sanders. It'll be a massacre if it's Trump v Sanders

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I wonder why Trump is pro-brexit. I mean would England be more reliant on the US afterwards?

[cr47t]

I wonder why Trump is pro-brexit. I mean would England be more reliant on the US afterwards?

 

Wait... he is? Have any of the other candidates addressed the matter?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Wait... he is? Have any of the other candidates addressed the matter?

Trump is pro

Hillary and Obama against

I'd assume Sanders would be pro too

[cr47t]

Here's something for you guys.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-income-tax-returns-once-became-public-they-showed-he-didnt-pay-a-cent/2016/05/20/ffa2f63c-1b7c-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html

[Aerion Brightflame]

He's a buisness savy billionare. 

 

If he actually paid the expected amount of tax for his income, I would be amazed. He also would have shoved it in everyone's face. 

 

He seemed to talk himself into a corner, but sadly it will mean jack sheet because the media follows almost everything he does so he just washes this away with some piece of bull that makes him look good instead. And then it's forgotten about - Because Hilary can't raise the issue because we won't give out the speech transcripts. 

[Nathanael D. Striker]

https://johnlaurits.com/2016/05/20/update-the-oregon-primary-strikes-back/

 

A little read from Oregon's primary. Thought it'd be interesting enough to show.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/280994-clinton-allies-blame-bernie-for-bad-polls

 

I wonder if Clinton has taken a look at herself for the reason why she isn't doing so well in the polls. I doubt blaming Sanders is going to help her.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm fine with Bernie and Hillary fighting it out TBH.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Well Trump killed washington

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Paul Ryan endorsed Trump

 

As unpopular as this may be. Hillary won the Washington primary with much larger turn out than the caucus. Democracy right?