Look at all the non hillary supporters defending her lying yet again
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)
- Thread starter Bughouse
- Start date
- Status
So Bryan Pagliano skipped yet another subpoena hearing. If you don't recognize the name I'll detail him for a bit and help you understand. He worked in the state department during Hillary's tenure. He also set up her personal email servers. He loves being secretive about everything unless under full immunity sparking zero skeptical looks from non hillary supporters.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...es-5th-more-than-125-times-in-deposition.html
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article101507937.html
Also fun note about him, nearly 4 years of IT work at the state department and there are less than 20 emails of his left. The rest have suddenly disappeared. Move along peasants, your job is to vote for Hillary not question her positions, qualifications, or past criminal activity.
And just for laughs
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...es-5th-more-than-125-times-in-deposition.html
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article101507937.html
Also fun note about him, nearly 4 years of IT work at the state department and there are less than 20 emails of his left. The rest have suddenly disappeared. Move along peasants, your job is to vote for Hillary not question her positions, qualifications, or past criminal activity.
And just for laughs
The idea that you (read: anyone voting for Trump) would rather vote in to power a Climate Change denier who doesn't understand why using nuclear weapons is a bad thing, as opposed to someone who held an email server rather than use official servers (like, for example, the Bush administration did) is truly hideous. Trump is literally so terrible a candidate that everywhere aside from America literally thought it was a joke, and worldwide the sensation currently is "surely they cant all be stupid enough to elect him". No matter your thoughts on Hillary, Trump is worse in almost every way, and it is comical to the point of terror that you consider him an acceptable candidate.
I must defend Hillary by accusing anyone who attacks her as being a Trump supporter. I also must use a completely different and less severe scandal and give them equal ground.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...ia-reaction-george-w-bushs-email-controversy/
It's very easy to rip on Trump and those who vote for him need a proper explanation. Anything other than knowing Hillary Clinton is the worst candidate in over 20 years needs to be properly examined. When the same scrutiny is applied to Hillary, those who claim to hate Hillary and will only vote for her because Trump is the worst candidate since Hillary ran in 2008 instantly jump to her defense or downplay scandals that should be career ending. That is the part that disgusts me
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...ia-reaction-george-w-bushs-email-controversy/
It's very easy to rip on Trump and those who vote for him need a proper explanation. Anything other than knowing Hillary Clinton is the worst candidate in over 20 years needs to be properly examined. When the same scrutiny is applied to Hillary, those who claim to hate Hillary and will only vote for her because Trump is the worst candidate since Hillary ran in 2008 instantly jump to her defense or downplay scandals that should be career ending. That is the part that disgusts me
I dont even care about Hillary that much, you could have almost anyone and it would be favourable to Trump. She's done some stupid things (although nothing I would call outright career ending) that would hurt her chances in a normal election campaign, but voting for Trump is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
And my post wasn't even specifically directed at your post, but rather at anyone voting for Trump at all.
And my post wasn't even specifically directed at your post, but rather at anyone voting for Trump at all.
They're both awful, no amount of Trump being bad makes Hillary any less bad. Hillary's policies (and voting record) is essentially female Dick Cheney. With that stated. Trump had a couple of recent flops. It is almost as if Trump is a Democrat...but that would be crazy talk. :O
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-says-climate-change-deserves-a-second-look/article/2601678
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/295608-trump-to-call-for-six-weeks-paid-maternity-leave
Hillary's social and economic policies are far away from and republican do your research at least before you claim something. Just look at Hillary's actual record in the senate where she was one of the most liberal members (!) so this idea that she's somehow a republican is just absurd. You do realize there's a reason the right has attacked the Clintons for decades now lol. She doesn't serve their intrests.
I'll give you that Trump isn't a normal Republican but has anyone actually looked at his economic plans? Foreign policy? Judges he'd appoint to SCOTUS? Not to mention is horrible comments towards minorities/women.
You can bitch about Hillary all you want and she's not the perfect candidate or anything, but I'd say she's still substantially better than Trump.
I'll give you that Trump isn't a normal Republican but has anyone actually looked at his economic plans? Foreign policy? Judges he'd appoint to SCOTUS? Not to mention is horrible comments towards minorities/women.
You can bitch about Hillary all you want and she's not the perfect candidate or anything, but I'd say she's still substantially better than Trump.
I should've stated specifically to their foreign policies, whoops.
Undermining women whom accused your husband (Bill) of sexual harassment and rape isn't being a hero to women. Hillary has been a vocal supporter for drug wars, she isn't a champion for minorities either.
He's for a $10 minimum wage...
He wants a 40% tariff on imported goods...
He is for single payer medicine...
He can't name any departments he wants to cut...
He wants the government to waste hundreds of billions to remove tens of millions of people who are vital to the economy...
He has the most anti capitalist immigration views possible... (his wall will never get passed by Congress)
He wants to increase defense spending 50%...
He wants to increase Medicare, social security and infrastructure spending massively...
The CBO projected his tax plan increases the deficit ten trillion over ten years....
Just hand Trump the Democratic nomination.
I'm gna call BS on this stuff. Can you please back up these claims with evidence b/c these baseless claims seem to be misleading, if not false.
http://www.theonion.com/article/newly-redesigned-hillaryclintoncom-allows-users-to-53942
The funny thing is, there is so much truth in this satirical article
Edit
Just another fun compilation of Hillary lying
The funny thing is, there is so much truth in this satirical article
Edit
Just another fun compilation of Hillary lying
Last edited:
It's starting to look a little like the little debates me and my father.
I've concluded that yes Hillary is corrupt, and she should never have been the nominee. The polls tells that much alone. And I understand the anger, and her unpopularity. I hate admitting more than anyone that because of our <deleted expletives> electoral college system, which should have been discontinued in favor of the popular vote after the fiasco that was the 2000 election (or supplemented with a run-off system, so you could vote for both the candidate you really want, while also being able to vote for the candidate who you know can defeat the candidate you really hate, without taking a risk or hating yourself).
But the fact of the matter that if you vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson who doesn't stand a chance, you're just enabling Trump. Trump, who people, such as ghost writer of The Art of the Deal Tom Schwartz are saying stands a significant chance of starting a nuclear holocaust if he gets his tiny little hands on the nuclear football (or variation thereof). My father takes this threat very seriously, and he thinks we will all die in a nuclear war if Trump is elected, while he and his family will be safe in their bunker. I hate admitting this, and it isn't the voters fault. It is the fault of the media for making this a close race for high ratings and money, and our politicians who want to force us to choose between Republican and Democrat, without giving us the changes we really need. If we let the Democratic party implode (which they probably deserve), they might well take the country with them.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to wash my hands. In bleach. I'll probably wash myself in bleach after voting for Hillary. There just doesn't seem to be any other way of beating this bastard.
P.S. To those of you who are voting for Trump, please, just don't. He isn't worth it. And make sure your friends and family won't either. We can survive Hillary. But not Trump. Whatever he is offering you, it is just a lie to get your vote, or it won't be worth the cost. Please don't flag me or such. I just don't want to die in a nuclear war, or under an authoritarian regime. That's not too much to ask for.
I've concluded that yes Hillary is corrupt, and she should never have been the nominee. The polls tells that much alone. And I understand the anger, and her unpopularity. I hate admitting more than anyone that because of our <deleted expletives> electoral college system, which should have been discontinued in favor of the popular vote after the fiasco that was the 2000 election (or supplemented with a run-off system, so you could vote for both the candidate you really want, while also being able to vote for the candidate who you know can defeat the candidate you really hate, without taking a risk or hating yourself).
But the fact of the matter that if you vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson who doesn't stand a chance, you're just enabling Trump. Trump, who people, such as ghost writer of The Art of the Deal Tom Schwartz are saying stands a significant chance of starting a nuclear holocaust if he gets his tiny little hands on the nuclear football (or variation thereof). My father takes this threat very seriously, and he thinks we will all die in a nuclear war if Trump is elected, while he and his family will be safe in their bunker. I hate admitting this, and it isn't the voters fault. It is the fault of the media for making this a close race for high ratings and money, and our politicians who want to force us to choose between Republican and Democrat, without giving us the changes we really need. If we let the Democratic party implode (which they probably deserve), they might well take the country with them.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to wash my hands. In bleach. I'll probably wash myself in bleach after voting for Hillary. There just doesn't seem to be any other way of beating this bastard.
P.S. To those of you who are voting for Trump, please, just don't. He isn't worth it. And make sure your friends and family won't either. We can survive Hillary. But not Trump. Whatever he is offering you, it is just a lie to get your vote, or it won't be worth the cost. Please don't flag me or such. I just don't want to die in a nuclear war, or under an authoritarian regime. That's not too much to ask for.
https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/777895206846955520
Time for everyone to read that and lose brain cells
Time for everyone to read that and lose brain cells
You do realize Trump supporters are saying that a vote for Johnson or Stein is a vote for Clinton, right? Can we stop with this bullshit? A vote for Gary Johnson isn't a vote for Trump or for Clinton. It's a vote for Gary Johnson. By saying third-party supporters are essentially voting for "the other guy", you're essentially saying you'd rather they not vote at all than have the option to cast a vote that shows their dissatisfaction with our two-party system.
This whole vote for me so the other person doesn't win is bullshit. A candidate should be earning your vote by what they themselves do, not what the other guy has said. What have any of the candidates done that has earned your vote?
Okay, this is a quote from my father, who wants to use me as an intermediary to get the point across that he has made to me at least once a week. You don't have to like it, and I know this will probably start a serious discussion. So be it.
"I do trust 538 Politics who have polling proof that Bernie Sanders supporters are voting for Johnson (mostly) and Stein. Trumps numbers have remained steady amongst the Sanders supporters while Clinton's have dropped by about the same exact number as the millennials supporting Johnson and Stein. Of course the media is saying the exact same thing but in this case their sourcing is sound and proven by the numbers. We can only conclude a 3rd part vote is absolutely a vote for Trump. No doubt about it. I cannot look at myself in the mirror if I cast a vote, however well meaning that results in this awful candidate and his despicable family ruining my country. Also, the more research I do, the more I see that the Clinton's have lied about a lot of stuff where they get hurt but Trump's lies have ruined the lives of thousands of his employees, contractors and those conned by Trump U and his many other scams."
IMO, the (main) problem isn't with the voters (even though my father begs to differ, as he said above), it's the electoral system. Frustratingly enough, there is no way to fix the system between now and election day to take this unfair pressure off of the voters.
And I agree wholeheartedly that someone should have to earn your vote. And Hillary is failing to do that, and is dropping in the polls. I hate the system and her as much as you do. But we seriously need to start asking some questions. How do we beat Trump, guaranteed, who must not become President?
It seems like we have a DemExit in progress, as has been threatened months ago. And Hillary is bleeding points day by day. Maybe we can pressure her campaign in a way that best represents her interests. I know many will say she will just play chicken, and refuse to adapt to earn Sander's voters, but maybe to avoid putting herself and her family at risk of dying in a nuclear war, maybe grassroots groups can pressure her into adapting additional flanks in her platform. I've heard that one of the problems is that she is pro-fracking. Maybe she should go out to North Dakota like Jill Stein, and join the protectors there to show she is pro environmental protection. Maybe would that help earn voters who are leaning away from Trump, but her as well? I honestly think should be doing that anyways.
And I'm sure there are also other policy problems that many would want to see changed before anyone else would think of voting for her.
And you don't need to tell me about the trust issue. I'm well aware of that we might need to work with Sanders to make sure she carries out her promises.
Attack ads have always been a thing. None of the candidates hide their positions, it's not as if you are unable to research candidates.
I've always found the idea of a candidate having to "earn your vote" to be somewhat laughable and melodramatic. Guess what? Each candidate has to earn the vote of millions of people across the country. You're never really going to align perfectly with someone, and often times your preferred candidate isn't going to get the nomination. Do you sacrifice 90% of your ideology for 10%? Does a candidate have to appeal specifically to you to earn your vote? No, that has never been the case.
I think the notion comes from policies that are non-sensical, and only appear to be there to appeal to special interests. It appears that supporting fracking is a common grievance against Hillary. I've seen it many times.
Given that many policies now a days seems to be decided by those who foot the bill for a politician's campaigns, I can see where the notion is appealing.
In short: Avoiding policies that support the greedy fat cats>----->than taking major contribution monies, at the possible cost of having to scratch the donator's back later.
That is the point of "earning one's vote" I guess. Did I get that basically right Manodelrey?
I think your father's argument is a bit one-sided. He's mentioning only the support Johnson is pulling from Clinton and absolutely none of the support he's pulling from Trump. With how sizable the #NeverTrump camp is, even among Republicans, you cannot argue with a straight face that Johnson isn't pulling support from Trump. But, to get more information, let's go back to another year where a third-party candidate was shamed for allegedly acting as a spoiler: 2000. When Bush won Florida by 537 votes, the Gore camp immediately shunned Ralph Nader, alleging that he spoiled the election for Gore. However, looking into the spoiler claim seriously shows no solid evidence that Nader spoiled the election; virtually all pre-election polling movement was between Bush and Gore, not Gore and Nader.
For Johnson to seriously be considered a spoiler, you would essentially have to show polling movement between Clinton and Johnson exceeding polling movement between Clinton and Trump; hell, you should also include movement between Trump and Johnson as it's cherry-picking otherwise. Looking at fivethirtyeight shows that Johnson's support has remained relatively flat since June; the only major fluctuations are with Clinton and Trump. I just can't see how that would suggest any polling movement between Clinton and Johnson exceeding polling movement between Trump and Johnson; major movements have to be between Clinton and Trump.
Honestly, though, I think anyone who is going to shun Johnson/Stein voters for allegedly enabling Trump needs to stop, regardless of whether or not there's a legitimate claim that Johnson could act as a spoiler. They should instead think long and hard about the issues which led people to cast their vote for a third-party candidate, namely that both major-party candidates are unlikable (Trump moreso, but still.)
Last edited:
Ok first point, both candidates have alienated about half the population with their retoric.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html
As for researching candidates, that bland line normally works in elections but we have two candidates who change their positions so frequently its impossible to know what they truly feel about the issue. Trump usually changes his every couple of days and Hillary pretends like she has never had any other position except the one she currently holds (I would say she lies about it, but Hillary would NEVER lie).
As for aligning with someone, nobody aligns perfectly with about 99.9% of the politicians. The point about winning votes is to create show that you are worthy of support from the voting base, or those who didn't support you in the primaries. The 08, and 12 elections highlighted that pretty well considering the conservative movement that is part of the #NeverTrump was able to side with both McCain and Romney despite neither of them being fully conservative.
Trump hasn't won any votes by attacking war veterans and their families, nor did he win any votes when he accused a primary rival's father of killing JFK and continue to attack him after the convention. His strong arm tactics of vote for me or else I will ruin you is not how you win over voters, and voting for him will only encourage that behavior.
As for Hillary, she can't well win over voters from the Sanders campaign when she voted for the Iraq War and came out against gay marriage in the early 2000s and then claim she was with them all along. Pretty hard to fight wall street when they pay you oogles of cash to speak for private sessions. And she has some instant twitch to lie the second she is hit with any adversity inspires confidence in whom? Not to mention the fact that she has paraded herself around as the most qualified candidate to ever run for office, yet under oath admitted she didn't know the C stood for classified. And since she rigged the primaries, if she gets the full support, what will happen next primary? Your vote for her only encourages the democrat elite to keep rigging elections for people they want not what the people want.
So yeah, they need to earn the vote. It's really not that hard to do it, but it seems like this election cycle has produced candidates who just expect votes to fall into their lap because reasons and stuff
My father referred specifically to our age group (millenials) who turned out massively to vote for Sanders, and is angry at us for not supporting the candidate he has endorsed, who is slowly loosing to Trump. Other age groups is another story, though not completely irrelevant IMO.
Some of those are points above are ones that I've made before to my father (or tried. He likes to cut me off while emphasizing his points). Especially considering the reason why people seem to be carrying out the long rumored DemExit. En mass. Clinton is plummeting like a poor bastard thrown into the nearest pier by the local mob with cinder blocks around his (or in this case, her) feet. There are so many reasons this is the case.
Sure, binary-wise, Trump is 1000% worse, but why the hell should Hillary automatically get the people's votes just to defeat Trump? Is that really democracy? This is the reason I don't want to go out and tell people if you don't vote for Hillary, you're voting for Trump. Because I understand the anger and resentment. At the whole damned thing. And you would have every right to feel angry at me for demanding you to do so, and throw a fit. If I get kicked off of those pages for sharing that sort of message, I'll be sad, but I'll also understand the resentment, and the perception that I am turning my back on the principles that we share. At times, I feel my sanity escaping my noggin too!
Basically, he wants all of us who are members of third party Facebook groups to vote for Hillary, because it might be the only way to stop Trump, who has a significant chance of starting WW-III. That notion of a nuclear holocaust is what is causing my father to be hard on me and anyone else to even thinks of voting for anyone but Hillary.
The Iraq War vote isn't a smoking gun. Many Senators were mislead into voting for that fiasco. You can accuse her of being part of some shadowy group that wanted the war, but you'd need evidence.
I've seen video of the gay marriage issue though. I think it is fair to say that she flip-flopped when it was politically convenient.
A valid point. If the paid speeches were perfectly innocent, she should release them. From a neutral point of view, it seems to be idiotic to not release them in full.
And only Trump lies more than her. He has raised lying to an art form. Trouble is, people still seem to be lining up for vote for him. You probably should have included a link where she said she was one of the most qualified candidates in history, for maximum damage.
Where is there evidence the Hillary herself rigged the election? There is evidence that the primaries were rigged against Sanders, and that he was supposed to loose from the start. But is there even evidence that she know they were rigged, let alone that she was the master mind?
Of course, if she did, that would be the dumbest thing in the history of presidential candidates ever done (well, except for Alexander Burr's plot I guess).
I think she might be aware of it, but she didn't order the rigging. Some shadowy organization (the Illuminati? Definitely the wealthy fat pigs) had it done, because they wanted Hillary as President, who they could control.
But I honestly think that Hillary was likely just a knowing and willing puppet at best. But even then, there is no evidence of this that I know of that links Hillary to the election fraud, other than that she benefitted from it.
And this is a major dilemma. If we don't vote for her, and Trump becomes President, he might cause WW-III, maybe even intentionally. If we do, we will encourage the continuation of this sort of behavior.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Of course, they might rig the general election in favor of Clinton. And if the Trump voters violently revolt, all the better (for them. For us, it will be hell). They don't like democracy or civil rights anyways, and they will have an excuse to push those who have the authority to declare martial law. Hopefully, any call for a violent revolt if it's Clinton is just bluster, or they might ruin it for everyone!
And I think that the Democratic elite (and the Republican elites) are just puppets who are happy to play their part in exchange for power and wealth. I've heard that some of the suspects who hack the electoral machines are CIA, but that to me is just a rumor.
Boy, did this post go down the rabbit hole! My father would probably think that we are just crazy conspiracy theorists, but I've been looking into this for years! I'd be happy to be wrong about this!
"Trump will definitely start a nuclear war"
Trump's a rotten egg in quite a few ways, but he's nothing if not selfish. He has nothing to gain from a nuclear war. So he won't start one.
Trump's a rotten egg in quite a few ways, but he's nothing if not selfish. He has nothing to gain from a nuclear war. So he won't start one.
She can claim that she was against the Iraq war, but she has 4 years as secretary of state that doesn't help her case that she was fooled into voting for the Iraq war.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/07/obama-clinton-qualified-president-160727233030311.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...lary-clinton-over_us_57930be0e4b0e002a3134b05
I will pick a post that people can't claim is biased for this one. Even the huffington post claimed the election was rigged.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/24/debbie-wasserman-schultz-immediately-joins-hillary/
That is something you do after they helped rig an election for you.
How does he cause WW3? Just curious. The best way I can see it happening is through North Korea and Trump going at it and China getting involved to back North Korea, but in all likelihood I would be worried about other factors in causing a major war like that. The United States has so many alliances that can't be destroyed within 4 years without intentionally doing so, making the possibility of WW3 seem a little absurd. Also like Kirby pointed out, he has nothing to gain from starting a war, he wants to commit war crimes by going after terrorist families but starting wars doesn't seem to be a motivation of his. Maybe him being too friendly with Russia could be your charge against him but
https://www.yahoo.com/news/addressi...umps-rhetoric-helps-terrorists-151157399.html
"The language Mr. Trump has used has given aide and comfort to our adversaries."- Hillary Clinton
So tell me again about Trump being the only one with violent rhetoric, I would love to hear it after Hillary just accused him of treason without probable cause
- Status