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

[cr47t]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/genius-reponse-to-trump-voters-who-think-election-is-rigged_us_58028780e4b0162c043c69dd

 

And guys, can we please debate and discuss the election without attacking eachother? Stop the fighting. You heard Dad.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/genius-reponse-to-trump-voters-who-think-election-is-rigged_us_58028780e4b0162c043c69dd

 

And guys, can we please debate and discuss the election without attacking eachother? Stop the fighting. You heard Dad.

 

Politifact rated this as false back in march, I trust they will redo their assessment 

 

Respond to my post first please, it's like you're refusing to read anything the other side puts out Crt, I literally put out a video of the NY Election commissioner saying there IS fraud. A DEMOCRAT. And another commissioner in FL talking about ripping up republican absentee. Huffpo literally runs their stories by Clinton first before publishing them. Give me a funking break. 

 

It's honestly tiring af when y'all keep doing this man

[cr47t]

Huffpo literally runs their stories by Clinton first before publishing them

Well sh**

 

I aint reading any news that previews their stories with any candidate first

 

Should I go back to WaPo then? (Note: If you can, people, just give me a list of nonpartisan news networks for me to use because that's what I would like to use, but I usually avoid Fox and Breitfart on principle since they Fox is partisan right and Breitfart is alt/far-right)

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Winter I'm sorry but I'm not going to be able to keep up with the hundreds, literally, of things you throw into this thread.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

AP and Wikileaks are the only things worth Trusting

 

Politico was good, but a lot of their reporters got caught colluding with HRC

 

USA Today and WSJ are partisan but very centrist (left and right respectively)

 

 

I understand CowCow but the election commissioner was one of the biggest and most damning things.

 

The video of bird digging is huge btw, watch it

Edit:

MSM lied: Trump just bought a 2Mill ad buy in VA. He didn't pull out. He moved funds out of Fairfax county (he's lost that) and Southern VA (he won)

[Sunshine Jesse]

I looked into the voter fraud thing more in-depth and can't find anything that proves Alan Schulkin's claims. Admitting it doesn't mean much when there are dozens of reasons as to why it just wouldn't work. There's just too many holes in it for it to be anything conclusive, and thinking it is conclusive with no other evidence seems like an appeal to authority.

 

also lmao @ democrats launching a national trolling campaign, that's the funniest s*** and I thought that was the territory of Trump supporters on /pol/.

[Aerion Brightflame]

New York Times isn't exactly treating both candidates fairly, but it does have really good journalism occurring (For the most part, it's had stumbles like some of this sexual assault coverage). It gave the tax returns, the charitable donation records and one other piece of fraud that I can't recall off the top of my head. So whilst it's still anti-Trump, you can generally find slightly higher quality and researched articles there. As always check the history of the actual writer though some are good, some are shitty. 

 

Wikileaks isn't exactly a great place to go to alone, because it's completely biased. It might not make judgements because it is just releasing emails and documents, but it's only releasing dirt on Hillary. So don't trust it by itself, try to place the emails in context of the fact Hillary is a politician. There are certain things that politicians are going to do in the line of work that look shady, but aren't. Some of the news collaboration is that - The News does just run stuff by politicians because politicians could otherwise shut them out of big events. It's not necessarily shady because there job is made significantly easier by not pissing people off. 

 

Otherwise funk knows. Stay away from Fox, CNN, Huffington, and in general any web only sheet since that's usually shady. BBC can be okay for some of the bigger stuff as well, but it's not as knowledgeable because you know... it's a british site. Apply your general level of scepticism to the sites you are looking through and it should be fine tbh. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I looked into the voter fraud thing more in-depth and can't find anything that proves Alan Schulkin's claims. Admitting it doesn't mean much when there are dozens of reasons as to why it just wouldn't work. There's just too many holes in it for it to be anything conclusive, and thinking it is conclusive with no other evidence seems like an appeal to authority.

 

also lmao @ democrats launching a national trolling campaign, that's the funniest s*** and I thought that was the territory of Trump supporters on /pol/.

May I inquire what type of research you were doing into the matter? His claim was there there was a couple thousand fraudulent votes in NYC area and that the higher ups were complicit. 

 

Surely the fact that instead of investigating the matter, they want to fire him should raise alarm bells? What is the motivation for a Democrat to say they're committing fraud, I'm not seeing the end game here where he's lying

 

It's not a troll campaign, y'all were bashing Trump for his violent supporters, and now we find out the protesters were all coached on how to irritated Trump supporters to get a media spotlight. Trolling is filling someone's twitter feed with pepe memes, this is called Bird Digging. It's different

 

 

How about this? Ripping up ballots? Are you ok with that?

 

 

New York Times isn't exactly treating both candidates fairly, but it does have really good journalism occurring (For the most part, it's had stumbles like some of this sexual assault coverage). It gave the tax returns, the charitable donation records and one other piece of fraud that I can't recall off the top of my head. So whilst it's still anti-Trump, you can generally find slightly higher quality and researched articles there. As always check the history of the actual writer though some are good, some are shitty. 

 

Wikileaks isn't exactly a great place to go to alone, because it's completely biased. It might not make judgements because it is just releasing emails and documents, but it's only releasing dirt on Hillary. So don't trust it by itself, try to place the emails in context of the fact Hillary is a politician. There are certain things that politicians are going to do in the line of work that look shady, but aren't. Some of the news collaboration is that - The News does just run stuff by politicians because politicians could otherwise shut them out of big events. It's not necessarily shady because there job is made significantly easier by not pissing people off. 

 

Otherwise funk knows. Stay away from Fox, CNN, Huffington, and in general any web only sheet since that's usually shady. BBC can be okay for some of the bigger stuff as well, but it's not as knowledgeable because you know... it's a british site. Apply your general level of scepticism to the sites you are looking through and it should be fine tbh. 

NYT reporters have been cross referencing with HRC too, their major stockholder is a Clinton Foundation doner. If you want accurate but anti-Trump go to to WaPo.

 

I'm sorry Tom, Bill Clinton accepting a 1Mill dollar birthday present from Qatar after HRC affirms that both it an Qatar are funding ISIS, and then subsequently having Qatar make a killing off Haiti relief money are not what I would call "certain things"

 

If this is the norm, the system need to be purged. That's unacceptable 

 

I actually like the Telegraph strangely enough. But my usual read is WSJ to get the right perspective and USAToday to get my left view. BBC's coverage of brexit and how pro-remain it was concerns me about their treatment for Trump.

 

Actually funk Politico, this came out today

 

 

 

 

This is ILLEGAL. There is no way to spin this. If you can find a republican who does this, hang him/her too. If you can find Trump doing this, I WON'T vote for him. But I suspect you won't be able to. 

[Sunshine Jesse]

May I inquire what type of research you were doing into the matter? His claim was there there was a couple thousand fraudulent votes in NYC area and that the higher ups were complicit. 

 

Surely the fact that instead of investigating the matter, they want to fire him should raise alarm bells? What is the motivation for a Democrat to say they're committing fraud, I'm not seeing the end game here where he's lying

 

It's not a troll campaign, y'all were bashing Trump for his violent supporters, and now we find out the protesters were all coached on how to irritated Trump supporters to get a media spotlight. Trolling is filling someone's twitter feed with pepe memes, this is called Bird Digging. It's different

It's not damning to want to fire someone for spreading damaging falsehoods. The motivation to do so would be to create incentive for voter registration laws.

 

I'm not saying any of this is true, I'm just making up a logical reason for it that doesn't necessarily fit in with the narrative you have in your mind.

 

And no, "bird digging" is no different than trolling. Trolling is baiting someone to incite incendiary responses from them, and that's exactly what they did. The fact that Trump supporters are so easily riled up reflects poorly on them, especially considering how a large number of them are anti-PC and get mad at people who get offended at things. (once more, I'm going off what I see on /pol/ and The_Donald)

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It's not damning to want to fire someone for spreading damaging falsehoods. The motivation to do so would be to create incentive for voter registration laws.

 

I'm not saying any of this is true, I'm just making up a logical reason for it that doesn't necessarily fit in with the narrative you have in your mind.

 

And no, "bird digging" is no different than trolling. Trolling is baiting someone to incite incendiary responses from them, and that's exactly what they did. The fact that Trump supporters are so easily riled up reflects poorly on them, especially considering how a large number of them are anti-PC and get mad at people who get offended at things. (once more, I'm going off what I see on /pol/ and The_Donald)

If you call me a Nazi to my face over and over, or call me a race traitor I'm gonna get upset. At the very least the narrative that Trump supporters were beating up innocent people needs to be re-evaluated

 

 

Still doesn't answer why a lifelong Democrat would try to spread "falsehoods" So again, I'm asking you what research did you do to confirm that the commissioner was lying

 

Need I remind you that a couple thousand votes can swing an election, or do you not remember 2000? Hell 2012 Florida was close af, not that romney would have won even if he got FL, but it's srs

 

And how to you answer the charges that of the Florida official talking about cutting up ballots? I don't care he was talking about grabbing ass, because I hold them to the same standard I hold Trump to w/ his pussy comment

 

About PC culture: Being against PC is fighting bigotry. 

 

big·ot·ry ˈbiɡətrē/ intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself

 

For an example, I see it as OK for people to hold the opinion that Homosexuality is a sin. I disagree with it, but I'm ok with them thinking that. PC culture would not let you do so. It's left wing fascism.

 

There's a difference between that and getting upset after a white guy calls you a nazi race traitor for supporting Trump because you have brown skin

[Sunshine Jesse]

If you call me a Nazi to my face over and over, or call me a race traitor I'm gonna get upset. At the very least the narrative that Trump supporters were beating up innocent people needs to be re-evaluated

 

Still doesn't answer why a lifelong Democrat would try to spread "falsehoods" So again, I'm asking you what research did you do to confirm that the commissioner was lying

 

Need I remind you that a couple thousand votes can swing an election, or do you not remember 2000? Hell 2012 Florida was close af, not that romney would have won even if he got FL, but it's srs

 

And how to you answer the charges that of the Florida official talking about cutting up ballots? I don't care he was talking about grabbing ass, because I hold them to the same standard I hold Trump to w/ his pussy comment

1. I never thought Trump supporters beat up innocent people.

 

2. I didn't confirm he was lying, I was researching whether or not his claim was true and I couldn't find anything other than an endless amount of sites reporting that he said. He presented no evidence other than a claim and "why would he lie" isn't evidence.

 

3. It's a problem. True or not, it's a huge foot-in-mouth moment that does nothing but increase tension. He needs to answer for what he said regardless of what he said after, especially considering that Florida is an infamous swing state. It certainly holds more weight than maybe election fraud in a state that swings one way by such a large margin that simple voter fraud can't account for it. Florida could go either way. New York doesn't and never could.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Trump is now pulling out of Virginia, which is terrible for the GOP. Even if Trump wasn't going to win the state, it insults the Republican base there, which is still fairly large. It may seal the deal that Virginia is a "likely blue" state now.

 

http://axiomstrategies.com/abc/loudoun/

 

Virgina is a tough lift, I will admit, but her lead in Loudoun is dropping. But he's certainly not pulling out

 

 

1. I never thought Trump supporters beat up innocent people.

 

2. I didn't confirm he was lying, I was researching whether or not his claim was true and I couldn't find anything other than an endless amount of sites reporting that he said. He presented no evidence other than a claim and "why would he lie" isn't evidence.

 

3. It's a problem. True or not, it's a huge foot-in-mouth moment that does nothing but increase tension. He needs to answer for what he said regardless of what he said after, especially considering that Florida is an infamous swing state. It certainly holds more weight than maybe election fraud in a state that swings one way by such a large margin that simple voter fraud can't account for it. Florida could go either way. New York doesn't and never could.

A lot of people were ragging on that Black Trump supporter for punching a protester in Klan Garb. May not be you specifically but MSM has been non-stop talking about about the crazy Trumpsters

 

+/- 10K votes in NYC wouldn't really matter. Its easy to disguise. I agree that NY isn't gonna happen for Trump, but Upstate is pretty solidly behind him. It's the margin from Downstate that's pulling him down. I can see it being a lot closer than it was with Romney or the kind. 

 

Ok, at least we're in agreement there. 

 

Update:

 

 

 

DOCUMENT: FBI 302 which says that State Department Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy contacted the FBI during e-mail investigation

 

Documents released Monday morning revealed that two FBI officials told investigators Kennedy had pressured the agency to alter the “top secret” classification of an email regarding possible arrests in the Benghazi attacks because it “caused problems.”

 

Kennedy allegedly petitioned officials to declassify the document and place it under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption that “would allow him to archive the document in the basement of [the Department of State] never to be seen again.”

 

According to the two unnamed officials, there was some discussion about a potential quid pro quo arrangement under which the FBI would declassify the document in exchange for expanded authority in Iraq.

 

The email, from Nov. 18, 2012, remains classified and has since been made public with redactions.

 

 

 

This is a big funking deal. A bigger deal since networks are/were ignoring it. 

[Aerion Brightflame]

Actually f*** me, I got the Washington Post and the NYT mixed up there. The Washington Post are indeed the ones who've run really good stories like the whole 'go through 500 different charities and check to see if Trump donated to them'. So yeah discount my mentioning of the New York Times, go Washington Post instead. Terribly sorry. 

 

The BBC was 'pro-Remain' because more things came out in favour for Remain than Leave. It has no obligation to give the campaigns equal share of time (Because Objective treatment is not fair treatment), and if you remember rightly far more people and institutions spoke to remaining than to leave. Hence coverage should have been more Remain focused. The BBC is a little more left shifted than it used to be, but not by that much. It's still a remarkably impartial news organisation. 

 

If Quatar and SA are allies, I see no issue with them making donations to whatever, same as any other allied nation. If only because I don't think such donations affect policy in favour of ISIS (Not that I actually care about ISIS as an issue because you know, I don't think they are the greatest threat facing the world currently nor will they ever be). I think that SA and Quatar have there own agenda's that they seek, and that whilst they do fund ISIS, it's not because they are beholden to the ideals of ISIS simply that ISIS have some goals in parralel, same as the UK or the US when we arm and fund various rebel groups. 

 

So I personally think you make too big a deal of Hillary accepting donations from an allied nation (A donation that is still technically a small portion of the total donations to the Clinton Foundation) is not as big a deal as you are making it out to be, nor is it a sign of corruption anymore than any politician taking a donation is. I agree that it isn't something that should exist in an ideal world, but I won't begrudge Hillary for it specifically because it's a standard in American politics. The standard should change, but I won't hold her down for not meeting a higher standard because to me it still places her above the standard of her opponents. If she was still against Sanders, I would hold her to a higher standard. But sadly that's no longer the case, and about 20% of the population have determined the discussion is about the best of two shitty candidates. 

 

Essentially it's just even if Hillary is awful, she's an experienced politician who was Secretary of State and First Lady - She understands International Politics presumably well because of that, and will have an understanding of domestic politics. Even if her personal opinions on things can be... worrysome, I trust that she would listen to advisers and that she would pick good advisers more so than Trump, because the man has both assembled lousy panels of advisers, but appeared to almost never listen to anyone's advice on anything. Even a random person with frankly no understand of politics who was willing to trust well qualified advisers and such is someone I would trust more than a man who essentially laughs them off. Simply because the President is never going to be the most qualified and knowledgeable individual person in all fields, so she/he should at least be willing to listen to those with a greater understanding than themselves. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The pt about the BBC I was trying to make is that 

 

 

Tom it's not just even SA even if you are willing to brush the fact that one of our "allies" 1) Had involvement in 9/11 2) Is bastardizing Islam into a death Cult 3) Now funding ISIS. I think ISIS is a really big deal, maybe you don't. But w/e

 

 

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15201

 

She's really beholden to the few, and that's not something I'm comfortable with.

 

Actually that 1M birthday gift to Bill wasn't actually traceable to the Clinton Foundation. They don't know where it went. Qatar made a killing off the Haiti relief fund. "Friends of Bill" got a first crack at the funds. That's not OK. The Clinton Foundation is acting like a giant slush-fund.  

 

You're talking about a 1M check being tiny, you do realize that dwarfs anything the Trump foundation did right? 

 

Mate, that's not good experience, she's had exp destroying peace everywhere, I'll pass on that

 

 

Edit:

 

http://www.azfamily.com/story/33411278/police-investigating-threat-at-az-gop-headquarters

 

Lovely

 

Edit #2:

 

Just now in his WI speech

 

He finally talked about the 5 year plan. Thank god. Congress and Executive branch members cannot lobby for 5 years. They also cannot lobby for foreign power EVER. It's about time we talk about campaign finance 

 

Thank god 

 

Edit #3:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/10/17/hillary-clinton-foundation-donors-lobbyists-state-department/92285652/

 

Drip drip drip

 

Edit #4:

 

 

 

PROOF THAT THE HILLARY CAMPAIGN HAD THE PROTESTER FROM THE O'KEEFE VIDEO DIRECTLY ON THEIR PAYROLL. CROSS REFERENCED HER CAMPAIGN EXPENSES AND ZULEMA RODRIGUEZ SHOWED UP.

 

GOING RATE FOR A RIOTER: $1,610.24 and a free phone.

 

https://beta.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?two_year_transaction_period=2016&recipient_name=ZULEMA+RODRIGUEZ&min_date=01%2F01%2F2015&max_date=12%2F31%2F2016

[cr47t]

Actually f*** me, I got the Washington Post and the NYT mixed up there. The Washington Post are indeed the ones who've run really good stories like the whole 'go through 500 different charities and check to see if Trump donated to them'. So yeah discount my mentioning of the New York Times, go Washington Post instead. Terribly sorry. 

 

The BBC was 'pro-Remain' because more things came out in favour for Remain than Leave. It has no obligation to give the campaigns equal share of time (Because Objective treatment is not fair treatment), and if you remember rightly far more people and institutions spoke to remaining than to leave. Hence coverage should have been more Remain focused. The BBC is a little more left shifted than it used to be, but not by that much. It's still a remarkably impartial news organisation. 

 

If Quatar and SA are allies, I see no issue with them making donations to whatever, same as any other allied nation. If only because I don't think such donations affect policy in favour of ISIS (Not that I actually care about ISIS as an issue because you know, I don't think they are the greatest threat facing the world currently nor will they ever be). I think that SA and Quatar have there own agenda's that they seek, and that whilst they do fund ISIS, it's not because they are beholden to the ideals of ISIS simply that ISIS have some goals in parralel, same as the UK or the US when we arm and fund various rebel groups. 

 

So I personally think you make too big a deal of Hillary accepting donations from an allied nation (A donation that is still technically a small portion of the total donations to the Clinton Foundation) is not as big a deal as you are making it out to be, nor is it a sign of corruption anymore than any politician taking a donation is. I agree that it isn't something that should exist in an ideal world, but I won't begrudge Hillary for it specifically because it's a standard in American politics. The standard should change, but I won't hold her down for not meeting a higher standard because to me it still places her above the standard of her opponents. If she was still against Sanders, I would hold her to a higher standard. But sadly that's no longer the case, and about 20% of the population have determined the discussion is about the best of two shitty candidates. 

 

Essentially it's just even if Hillary is awful, she's an experienced politician who was Secretary of State and First Lady - She understands International Politics presumably well because of that, and will have an understanding of domestic politics. Even if her personal opinions on things can be... worrysome, I trust that she would listen to advisers and that she would pick good advisers more so than Trump, because the man has both assembled lousy panels of advisers, but appeared to almost never listen to anyone's advice on anything. Even a random person with frankly no understand of politics who was willing to trust well qualified advisers and such is someone I would trust more than a man who essentially laughs them off. Simply because the President is never going to be the most qualified and knowledgeable individual person in all fields, so she/he should at least be willing to listen to those with a greater understanding than themselves. 

 

I agree, but take the most successful third party candidate in at least 50 years' word for it; "I hire people who are smarter and much more talented than I am." -Ross Perot

 

Actually that 1M birthday gift to Bill wasn't actually traceable to the Clinton Foundation. They don't know where it went. Qatar made a killing off the Haiti relief fund. "Friends of Bill" got a first crack at the funds. That's not OK. The Clinton Foundation is acting like a giant slush-fund.  

 

But they still do charitable stuff, at least. On the other hand, the Trump Foundation is a slush fund.

 

(May edit this post.)

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2604717/

 

FBI: Witnesses found 'sensitive' Clinton file on Romanian server

 

But she was never hacked

 

Edit:

 

​DONALD J. TRUMP’S FIVE-POINT PLAN FOR ETHICS REFORM

“It’s Time To Drain The Swamp In Washington, D.C. That’s Why I’m Proposing A Package Of Ethics Reforms To Make Our Government Honest Once Again.” - Donald J. Trump

First: I am going to re-institute a 5-year ban on all executive branch officials lobbying the government for 5 years after they leave government service. I am going to ask Congress to pass this ban into law so that it cannot be lifted by executive order.

Second: I am going to ask Congress to institute its own 5-year ban on lobbying by former members of Congress and their staffs.

Third: I am going to expand the definition of lobbyist so we close all the loopholes that former government officials use by labeling themselves consultants and advisors when we all know they are lobbyists.

Fourth: I am going to issue a lifetime ban against senior executive branch officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.

Fifth: I am going to ask Congress to pass a campaign finance reform that prevents registered foreign lobbyists from raising money in American elections.

Not only will we end our government corruption, but we will end the economic stagnation.

 

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/trump-details-ethics-reform-p

 

They'll probs ask about a term limits push in the 3rd Debate

 

Edit:

 

Guy coordinating the Bird Dogging was fired by the Pro HRC group. Plausible deniability won't work here since wikileaks shows that it went to the highest levels, so not sure what they're tryna pull

 

 

This was on Twitter, idk if it's doctored 

[Francis Urquhart]

Hmm...I actually have to agree with Mr. Trump regarding lobbyists and the power lobbies have over our legislature. I personally have quite the disdain for former politicos selling their souls to work against the American people.

[Aerion Brightflame]

None of that looks like it actually addresses the issue with Lobbying. Corporations and such will still wield relatively massive levels of influence due to a simply higher level of capital to fall back on for the purposes of Lobbying. That's the issue with lobbying as it stands, the people who do it matter far less than the interests they represent. What does it matter if it's a former congressman lobbying, or a former investment banker? They are doing so for a specific interest group, they are going to have a specific knowledge set of the people they are trying to lobby anyway. 

 

In my (somewhat uninformed) opinion, if you want to really address lobbying, and to really make for an 'honest' government, a government acting in the interests of the people, you drastically alter the way campaign finance works. I.E. You assign fixed limits of air time and money that can be spent by any candidate or party, or any affiliates. If you really want to go nuts, you make it state funded. Because if Politicians don't have to raise such randomly gigantic amounts of money, they can focus on the policy of the voting base instead of 

 

On top of that, you assign fixed limits (That are in line with this new amounts) that any one lobbyist can attempt to spend on candidates. That way you can still have some level of lobbying (Because it is not by itself a terrible thing, you get lobbying for great causes), it just means that smaller interest groups can't get outspent as easily. You can't eliminate it entirely because it's a derivative form of free speech, but you can make it more 'fair'. And I don't see what Trump's proposed reforms do to change that element of fairness. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

That's a bunch of baloney Tom. More people are going to listen if Bill Clinton tells them to do something than if I tell them to do something. Who they are absolutely matters. Remove the revolving door from politics to lobbying removes power players from the game so you can't walk into the game with connections all set

 

What Trump's proposal would do is solve the revolving door so to speak. A congressman serves 5 terms, that's 10 years. If he goes into lobbying at that pt, he knows what buttons to push to get a bill through. A rando from law school fresh into the business would not

 

Wonderful, rapists everywhere 

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

That's a bunch of baloney Tom. More people are going to listen if Bill Clinton tells them to do something than if I tell them to do something. Who they are absolutely matters. Remove the revolving door from politics to lobbying removes power players from the game so you can't walk into the game with connections all set

 

 

Wonderful, rapists everywhere

 

Where is your proof? You demanded it for Trump, so I'd say it's only fair.

 

And cool, I will make sure not to vote for Marlon Marshall.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Where is your proof? You demanded it for Trump, so I'd say it's only fair.

 

And cool, I will make sure not to vote for Marlon Marshall.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/16137#efmAP_AR6AWCAYL

 

Bigger problem is mook being chummy with the man. Honestly Idc, but they'll air every accusation against Trump and his people to hell and back, but they'll never mention any of Clinton's guys doing so

 

I've already told you I'm not tryna get you to vote one way or another Giga, why do you keep making it seem like I am

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

That isn't proof.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

That isn't proof.

Ofc not, it's allegations, exactly the same stuff y'all are piling on Trump. HRC hasn't fired him, so I trust y'all are disgusted 

 

I don't care when these baseless allegations are made against Trump and I likewise don't care when they're made vs HRC or her people

 

There's a sad lack of consistency on the far left political spectrum y'all represent

 

 

 

 

"voter fraud doesn't exist"

 

 

Hillary campaign had conference call about Bill Clinton's secret lover known as the 'Energiser'

 

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15935

 

This is just funny

[Aerion Brightflame]

That's a bunch of baloney Tom. More people are going to listen if Bill Clinton tells them to do something than if I tell them to do something. Who they are absolutely matters. Remove the revolving door from politics to lobbying removes power players from the game so you can't walk into the game with connections all set

 

What Trump's proposal would do is solve the revolving door so to speak. A congressman serves 5 terms, that's 10 years. If he goes into lobbying at that pt, he knows what buttons to push to get a bill through. A rando from law school fresh into the business would not

 

And more people will listen to the you offering 100,000 dollars to there reelection campaign than Bill Clinton offering nothing. You are right, in that the name of the person lobbying matters to an extent I will concede, but it's not to underlying issue. Trump's changes don't do anything about lobbying being a corrupting influence (Other than influence from foreign nations which is fair). It's like reapplying the peeling paint in your house as it burns down - You address one problem, but not the root of the issue. It's going to creep back, maybe not senators or congressmen, but aides and members of staff instead. 

 

A lobbyist represents interest groups, any connections said lobbyist builds he will also build with said group. Because people having been lobbied will be familiar with that group, they are more likely to turn to it when in need. So to an extent, you don't need intimate connections to be a lobbyist if you represent a big enough interest group because the name and wealth of the group backing you gets you into a room. You might get into less rooms at first, but you will still get into rooms and build your connections there unless you are incompetent. And you won't be a lobbyist long if you are incompetent. 

 

You still leave the advantage with the groups that have the most to spend, which is the problem currently. That the whole point of lobbying gets minimised when rich interests groups can vastly outweigh the amount of influence smaller groups have to spend. 

 

So tell me how Trump is actually addressing that element of lobbying, not trying to skirt around the issue by cutting easy connections - The connections are going to be made no matter what happens. 

 

Ofc not, it's allegations, exactly the same stuff y'all are piling on Trump. HRC hasn't fired him, so I trust y'all are disgusted 

 

I don't care when these baseless allegations are made against Trump and I likewise don't care when they're made vs HRC or her people

 

There's a sad lack of consistency on the far left political spectrum y'all represent

 

No one here is far left, and being 'far left' wouldn't mean we have aligned views on every subject. Political spectrum are not that simple. 

 

If you mean the double standard about this guy compared to Trump, there is the difference that Trump is a presidential candidate and thus held to a higher standard than basically anyone else in the nation. And if you mean Hillary and Trump are held to different standards it's because most people like Trump less as an individual so they expect more bad from him and justify more sheet in HRC's defence. The same occurs in reverse as well. 

 

If you mean a double standard in more general terms; We are human beings, human beings are really funking good at holding double standards. Happens in the left, happens in the right. Happens with everyone, so you know we should all embrace the fact we are terrible terrible subjective bastards. 

 

 

Now for a fun little bit of attempting to broaden the horizon and demonstrate this point:

 

[spoiler=Trump speaking positively of Clinton]

 

 

 

 

 

Enclosed is a 54 second video of Trump talking about Clinton in 2012. Where he talks very positively of her and Bill, and almost goes so far as to endorse her as a candidate for 2016. Watch it, because you need to to understand my point. To those of us aligned against Trump - Look how much more agreeable he is in that video. How he almost seems like a decent human being right? It's not due to his manner of speaking, because other than a lack of vitriol he actually speaks in the same very general and non committal terms as he does nowadays.

 

It's simply because he's saying sheet you disagree with now, so you find more to hate about the man. The way he speaks becomes less charming, his lack of focus becomes slightly less endearing to your perception, but it hasn't changed that much. 

 

Because of a strong disagreement with what the candidate stands for, everyone in the thread against Trump views him in a more negative light. I imagine the same is true for the people who don't support Hillary, that a large part of the dislike comes from the fact you disagree with her strongly. And that's to be expected right? But... It helps understand why people can stand with the candidates as strongly as they do when to your perception they seems evil or whatever adjective you wish to use. 

 

There's not really a big point to this bit, because it's just about trying to get people think about how much of the vitriol you feel is due to this issue of perception and how much is actually justified. Think about it. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

More has come out against HRC. Forget 2012 I was ecstatic about her as recent as 2015

 

M8, I'm center left by every political test ever any by voting history

 

Y'all make me look like a rabid redneck here. We've been over the Brit vs US thing, they seem center to you, but a lot of people here are "far left"

 

As for Trump, how about getting rid of foreign involvement? That seems like it'd remove a large portion of money from the system. And throwing an ever larger amount of cash crossed racketeering and gift lines