2016 Presidential General Election Thread

[buzzard]

Originally Posted by Disco King

Fuzzy got stuck at the fourth word of your post, furrowing his brow in a vain effort to sound it out as the syllables "chaw-fur-red" stumbled from his lips. Then he got bored and opened is tab of Jason Bourne showtimes.

I feel like fuzzy is that perfect combination of wildly impressionable and intellectually relaxed that it was really only a matter of social coincidence in that one year of the mid-to-late nineties during which his entire personality was developed that he didn't end up a born-again Christian or full-fledged juggalo.

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

wow

you'd excuse everything else short of genocide

Says the enabler of a present tyrant who could be accused of genocide through her efforts as Sec. of State with the gun-running and supporting terrorist and the fraud of the Arab Spring, which she owns along with Obama.

Trump's never been in such a seat of power, so the jury's out.

Also, genocide is one of the main reason's I think the Bush's should be in jail.

[vixnix]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

You've hit on the one of the few issues that would make me balk at considering voting for Trump. I've researched some allegations against him in this realm, will have to check this one later.


The reason it hasn't been brought up is because the elites, including the Bush's and Clinton's, are alleged pedo participants of which there is A LOT of evidence to back up these assertions. Billy-boy was on the "Lolita" express over 2 dozen times to Jeffrey Epstein's Island. Epstein spent a year under house arrest for child-sex trafficking.

I could believe this. Bill Clinton went to Africa with him, too, didn't he? The fact that he's fraternising with Wall St. bankers is bad enough without organised sex crimes against children. I have quite strong feelings about appropriate consequences for sexual abuse of children by culpable adults, so I won't get into that. But I don't trust any of those people. They have some kind of empathy gene missing, or something. Trump included. Trump has said some creepy shit about Ivanka, too.

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by vixnix

Bill Clinton went to Africa with him, too, didn't he? The fact that he's fraternising with Wall St. bankers is bad enough without organised sex crimes against children.

I'll assume you were aware of the Sandusky Foundation over at Penn St. You may even recall the first Judge in that case, who quickly let Sandusky out on bail initially, was a member of that foundation. She got recused and was replaced. Later on former FBI chief Louis Freeh was hired by the college to expertly cover up the pedo-ring and make Sandusky the fall guy...oops, I mean, investigate the Foundation further to see how far it went.


Now imagine a far more sophisticated and protected network within the political structure, one that would make Jimmy Savile blush, and you'd be on the right track to what's really going.

[vixnix]

I do remember Sandusky but not the judge. I don't doubt there are all kinds of payoffs and cover ups. And yeah at that level it would be bigger and better organised. Why do people have to be disgusting creeps. I feel like they really are a different breed. Homo lizardus maybe.

[The Omega Concern]

lizardus...yah...must be, because...Adrenochrome...strongest in youth with fear///not a pleasant topic

[buzzard]

That stuff makes mescaline seem like ginger beer, man.

[redbreegull]

the Democratic nom was not "stolen." Anyone saying that looks like an idiot because either they don't know what stolen means or they didn't read past the headlines on the email hack.

Political parties in the US are like private clubs. This is why many states don't allow open primaries. The Democratic Party is a club you join and then participate in. Bernie Sanders wasn't even a Democrat. Imagine you're the head of a club and some outsider joins your club and then immediately decides to run for your seat as chair of the club. It's not really that hard to understand. Was it corrupt yes was it against their charter yes. should it be surprising holy fuck no are you retarded. was the election stolen, I dunno why don't you open a fuckin dictionary

[ninsp]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

the Democratic nom was not "stolen." Anyone saying that looks like an idiot because either they don't know what stolen means or they didn't read past the headlines on the email hack.

Political parties in the US are like private clubs. This is why many states don't allow open primaries. The Democratic Party is a club you join and then participate in. Bernie Sanders wasn't even a Democrat. Imagine you're the head of a club and some outsider joins your club and then immediately decides to run for your seat as chair of the club. It's not really that hard to understand. Was it corrupt yes was it against their charter yes. should it be surprising holy fuck no are you retarded. was the election stolen, I dunno why don't you open a fuckin dictionary

much edge, wow

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by ninsp

much edge, wow

honestly I think a lot of people are under the impression that the parties are somehow beholden to the government or the constitution or something

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

the Democratic nom was not "stolen." Anyone saying that looks like an idiot because either they don't know what stolen means or they didn't read past the headlines on the email hack.

[The Omega Concern]

Hedge-Fund Handouts: Hillary Clinton $48,500,000 - $19,000 Donald Trump

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Poots

The Constitution guarantees a republican form of government not only nationally but for states as well. It is assumed that it implies a fairly elected representative government. Rigging a primary isn't holding to the spirit of the Constitution.

You're acting like political parties are cowboy groups that have special permission to act outside of the law and Constitution. Finding ways to fuck up the democratic process is certainly not what they are supposed to be doing.

yeah you don't really understand bud. the spirit of the constitution? you sound like a politician yourself now. political parties are not even mentioned in the constitution and certainly do not have some obligation to act "in the spirit of the constitution" whatever that even means. the liberties laid out in the constitution are restrictions on what the GOVERNMENT can do to its citizens. Your argument is basically like don't infringe on my free speech by shaming me bro. Bone up on the history of parties in the US and see if you have the same expectations.

[redbreegull]

well I'm right, they don't have that legal obligation which is what you are implying when you invoke the founding LEGAL document of our country

[ninsp]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

honestly I think a lot of people are under the impression that the parties are somehow beholden to the government or the constitution or something

So what you're saying is that they're un-Democratic and need to be eradicated?

[redbreegull]

mmmm whatcha say

[The Omega Concern]

That you're already shilling for the Stalinist takeover of the upcoming election.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by ninsp

So what you're saying is that they're un-Democratic and need to be eradicated?

They are undemocratic. I would support replacing them if someone actually came up with an operational way to do so without committing national suicide and starting over. I don't buy this argument that throwing us into total chaos and causing people unbridled pain and misery would be worth it to try and maybe do things better next time. Usually revolution leads to something the same or worse. Successful revolutions, violent or no, are the exception.

[The Omega Concern]

Irregularities Tied to E-Voting Machine Companies that Donated to Clinton Fund

It seems that Hillary did especially well in which states where the owners of two of the three companies that make and support e-voting machines, donated to the Clinton Fund.

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by Elphenor

R u serious

@fuzzy

There are few musicians that should be taken less seriously than frontman of RHCP

Well, it seems like every notable band that's come out to support anyone has inexplicably been all over Hillary's vagina. So it's nice to at least see a rocker come out and point out what a shit candidate she is instead of the whole Trumps the Devil! Clintons our savior! bullshit.

To most musicians credit, there's an extreme lack of anyone coming out with an opinion this election cycle than theres ever been before. I think because under the public eye your damned if you do, damned if you dont... Makes fiscal sense to not even go there.

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by Disco King

I'd still like to hear Dave Grohl's opinion before I make up my mind.

I imagine Dave Grohls gonna be all: " VOTE FOR HILLARY! THE FACT THAT THERE'S GONNA BE A WOMAN PRESIDENT FUCKING ROCKS MAN! \m/"

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

the Democratic nom was not "stolen." Anyone saying that looks like an idiot because either they don't know what stolen means or they didn't read past the headlines on the email hack.

Political parties in the US are like private clubs. This is why many states don't allow open primaries. The Democratic Party is a club you join and then participate in. Bernie Sanders wasn't even a Democrat. Imagine you're the head of a club and some outsider joins your club and then immediately decides to run for your seat as chair of the club. It's not really that hard to understand. Was it corrupt yes was it against their charter yes. should it be surprising holy fuck no are you retarded. was the election stolen, I dunno why don't you open a fuckin dictionary

You're missing the whole point RBG. It's supposed to come down to the will and the vote of the people. If some random person can't technically run for president then we may as well just admit that you live under a dictatorship... The only difference is you have a choice between a few different hopeful dictators.

The tactics that were used against Bernie were fucked up and malicious. Yes, It's no surprise, but it's a great wake-up call to any of the positive minded people who actually believed that America was ran under a democracy.

[buzzard]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

are people in other countries as obsessed with voting on personality and whether a candidate is like a good role model or some shit as americans?

From my perspective, your elections seem to come as a disturbing extension of celebrity culture. The fact that the star of a mindless reality television program, brought to such fame by little more than his wealth and outward megalomania, might actually lead your country for at least the next four years reflects incredibly poorly upon the entire nation.

Although the personal records of senior party figures in my country are certainly taken into account, where recent scandals or gaffes will similarly tend to permeate media coverage during elections, our political system is designed in such a way that it's the party we must vote for and where voting for individuals is limited to the local electorate. This helps ensure that it is at least our often vague impressions of actual policy differences that determine the outcome.

[buzzard]

Honestly, I find it hard to avoid thinking that fuzzyroes likes Trump purely because he enjoyed watching The Apprentice.

This mentality would probably also explain why we've seen him make references to Scott Bao, Anthony Kiedis, Snoop Dogg, Lena Dunham, Alicia Keys and America Ferrera in a thread about politics while mostly electing to sidestep fact-based arguments and logical coherence in general.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Poots

They certainly do have an obligation to their members not to fuck them over. Legal or not is beside the point. It's supposed to be a democracy.

that's not really what you said first though.

you are expressing an ideal which I agree with but which has never been reality in US politics

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by fuzzyroes

You're missing the whole point RBG. It's supposed to come down to the will and the vote of the people. If some random person can't technically run for president then we may as well just admit that you live under a dictatorship... The only difference is you have a choice between a few different hopeful dictators.

The tactics that were used against Bernie were fucked up and malicious. Yes, It's no surprise, but it's a great wake-up call to any of the positive minded people who actually believed that America was ran under a democracy.

totally ignoring the crazy infighting of the republicans trying to politically sabotage each other

[buzzard]

74% of Trump voters think Clinton should be in prison, to only 12% who disagree. By a 66/22 margin they say Clinton is a bigger threat to the United States than Russia. And 33% think Clinton even has ties to Lucifer, to 36% who say they don't think so, and 31% who are unsure either way.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...al_7302016.pdf

[Disco King]

Originally Posted by buzzard

Although the personal records of senior party figures in my country are certainly taken into account, where recent scandals or gaffes will similarly tend to permeate media coverage during elections, our political system is designed in such a way that it's the party we must vote for and where voting for individuals is limited to the local electorate. This helps ensure that it is at least our often vague impressions of actual policy differences that determine the outcome.

Though Canada also has a parliamentary system in which voters cast ballots for MPs rather than for the leader of the party (unless they live in his or her constituency, of course) and don't directly choose the prime minister, I'm under the impression that most voters still see it as "voting for the prime minister" and don't pay much attention to their local representative, as the party whip is quite strong and those MPs are merely an extension of the prime minister's policies, anyway.

I don't know if most people in Canada are aware of policies and issues, but voter-turnout is usually so low that those who care enough to vote probably do know.

Just today, I was informed by an elderly customer that the reason grocery stores have "gone nuts" with this "organic food stuff" (which he refuses to distinguish from non-organic produce on the basis that it was "all grown in the same atmosphere" and wasn't "grown on Mars" [also, please don't take this as me having an interest in defending organic food, I simply understand the fact that the distinction is based on criteria set forth by state agricultural regulations]) is because "we voted for that Trudeau," who won because his promise to legalize cannabis motivated "potheads to vote for the first time in their lives."

I'm unsure if he is emblematic of the average Canadian, but I encounter his sort often, and know them as "fuzzies."

Originally Posted by fuzzyroes

You're missing the whole point RBG. It's supposed to come down to the will and the vote of the people. If some random person can't technically run for president then we may as well just admit that you live under a dictatorship... The only difference is you have a choice between a few different hopeful dictators.

The tactics that were used against Bernie were fucked up and malicious. Yes, It's no surprise, but it's a great wake-up call to any of the positive minded people who actually believed that America was ran under a democracy.

Sanders can still run for president. As an independent. But he's choosing not to.

The Democratic Party didn't prevent him from running for president. Any random "natural-born" citizen over the age of 35 who has been living in the country for at least 14 years and is not a felon can run for president.

American political parties are just groups of people who decide amongst themselves who they want to put forward as one of those candidates. There are no laws surrounding just how they are allowed to decide amongst themselves who they want to support and let carry their banner. They can draw straws if they want.

I'm not defending what the DNC did, but what they did wasn't electoral fraud. They didn't rig the actual national election. They just had a private pseudo-election amongst themselves in which they acted unfairly. If Netphoria decided to form a political party, and to choose its candidate through a '90s alt-rock trivia game, and you won that game but still didn't get nominated because nobody likes you and we picked Catherine Wheel instead, that would not constitute a betrayal of the American democratic system.

Originally Posted by vixnix

I could believe this. Bill Clinton went to Africa with him, too, didn't he? The fact that he's fraternising with Wall St. bankers is bad enough without organised sex crimes against children. I have quite strong feelings about appropriate consequences for sexual abuse of children by culpable adults, so I won't get into that. But I don't trust any of those people. They have some kind of empathy gene missing, or something. Trump included. Trump has said some creepy shit about Ivanka, too.

There are enough convincing sexual misconduct and abuse allegations against Bill to believe that he is a perpetrator. I would think his victims would primarily be those whose occupations put them in a position of proximity and vulnerability to the former president, rather than some sort of sex slaves, only because the former situation is more common than the latter. But you never know with rich people, they can afford to do shit regular pervs can't. But I do feel that if anything were that organized, it would be hard for Clinton to keep it under wraps due to political rivals with an interest in exposing him. I mean, they tried to impeach him for consensual adultery, imagine what they would do to him for rape and sex tourism. The only reason he was never nailed for possibly attacking Juanita Broadrick is that she was unfortunately too traumatized to come forward, even at the insistence of Republicans.

Christopher Hitchens (pre-crazy neocon) once published a book on what he saw as Bill Clinton's moral defects as a president and person.

[buzzard]

Originally Posted by Disco King

Though Canada also has a parliamentary system in which voters cast ballots for MPs rather than for the leader of the party (unless they live in his or her constituency, of course) and don't directly choose the prime minister, I'm under the impression that most voters still see it as "voting for the prime minister" and don't pay much attention to their local representative, as the party whip is quite strong and those MPs are merely an extension of the prime minister's policies, anyway.

It's probably more or less inevitable that the leader will serve as a sort of poster child for the party as a whole. That said, I find that popular attention will tend to encompass a selection of core party figures in our case and this attaches to each party a sense of continuity from one election to the next that could not be avoided without some unprecedented personnel overhaul.

On an only semi-related note, I can imagine you enjoying the British television series named The Thick of It.

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

totally ignoring the crazy infighting of the republicans trying to politically sabotage each other

No moron. They were trying to politically sabotage Trump. The Neo-Cons lost there, but won with Hillary on the other side.