Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[tim_m]

Could someone please sum up this whole Clinton email scandal thingy for me please.   From the outside looking in, it doesn't seem to be such a big deal.

I would be more worried about her past personal life, with Bill.   Do they have an open marriage?  If not why is she still with him after years of adultery.  Are they swingers?  I have heard a couple of these haha

Some people think she may have used her personal insecure server to do official classified business. But they have concluded none of the emails sent were at the time classified information. Some of them were retroactively classified i believe though.

[TheBaconman]

Could someone please sum up this whole Clinton email scandal thingy for me please.   From the outside looking in, it doesn't seem to be such a big deal.

I would be more worried about her past personal life, with Bill.   Do they have an open marriage?  If not why is she still with him after years of adultery.  Are they swingers?  I have heard a couple of these haha

Some people think she may have used her personal insecure server to do official classified business. But they have concluded none of the emails sent were at the time classified information. Some of them were retroactively classified i believe though.

And what would be the big deal if she did?  Did anything happen?  She could just say sorry, woops, my bad wont happen again.   Most government servers tend to be not that secure anyways.

[tim_m]

Could someone please sum up this whole Clinton email scandal thingy for me please.   From the outside looking in, it doesn't seem to be such a big deal.

I would be more worried about her past personal life, with Bill.   Do they have an open marriage?  If not why is she still with him after years of adultery.  Are they swingers?  I have heard a couple of these haha

Some people think she may have used her personal insecure server to do official classified business. But they have concluded none of the emails sent were at the time classified information. Some of them were retroactively classified i believe though.

And what would be the big deal if she did?  Did anything happen?  She could just say sorry, woops, my bad wont happen again.   Most government servers tend to be not that secure anyways.

That some foreign country could've gotten ahold of classified information. There' no evidence that happened though. Basically its a witch hunt. I mean hell Colin Powell used fucking AOL for official and personal business. Also aides of Condaleezza Rice used private server.  http://thehill.com/opinion/lanny-davis/281784-davis-five-undisputed-facts-about-clintons-emails
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/19/politifact-sheet-hillary-clintons-email-controvers/

[pilferk]

Could someone please sum up this whole Clinton email scandal thingy for me please.   From the outside looking in, it doesn't seem to be such a big deal.

I would be more worried about her past personal life, with Bill.   Do they have an open marriage?  If not why is she still with him after years of adultery.  Are they swingers?  I have heard a couple of these haha

Some people think she may have used her personal insecure server to do official classified business. But they have concluded none of the emails sent were at the time classified information. Some of them were retroactively classified i believe though.

And what would be the big deal if she did?  Did anything happen?  She could just say sorry, woops, my bad wont happen again.   Most government servers tend to be not that secure anyways.

That some foreign country could've gotten ahold of classified information. There' no evidence that happened though. Basically its a witch hunt. I mean hell Colin Powell used fucking AOL for official and personal business. Also aides of Condaleezza Rice used private server.  http://thehill.com/opinion/lanny-davis/281784-davis-five-undisputed-facts-about-clintons-emails
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/19/politifact-sheet-hillary-clintons-email-controvers/

So did Bush..and lost something like 20 million emails.

[tim_m]

Could someone please sum up this whole Clinton email scandal thingy for me please.   From the outside looking in, it doesn't seem to be such a big deal.

I would be more worried about her past personal life, with Bill.   Do they have an open marriage?  If not why is she still with him after years of adultery.  Are they swingers?  I have heard a couple of these haha

Some people think she may have used her personal insecure server to do official classified business. But they have concluded none of the emails sent were at the time classified information. Some of them were retroactively classified i believe though.

And what would be the big deal if she did?  Did anything happen?  She could just say sorry, woops, my bad wont happen again.   Most government servers tend to be not that secure anyways.

That some foreign country could've gotten ahold of classified information. There' no evidence that happened though. Basically its a witch hunt. I mean hell Colin Powell used fucking AOL for official and personal business. Also aides of Condaleezza Rice used private server.  http://thehill.com/opinion/lanny-davis/281784-davis-five-undisputed-facts-about-clintons-emails
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/19/politifact-sheet-hillary-clintons-email-controvers/

So did Bush..and lost something like 20 million emails.

Yep and yet no FBI investigation into any of those.

[TheBaconman]

Could someone please sum up this whole Clinton email scandal thingy for me please.   From the outside looking in, it doesn't seem to be such a big deal.

I would be more worried about her past personal life, with Bill.   Do they have an open marriage?  If not why is she still with him after years of adultery.  Are they swingers?  I have heard a couple of these haha

Some people think she may have used her personal insecure server to do official classified business. But they have concluded none of the emails sent were at the time classified information. Some of them were retroactively classified i believe though.

And what would be the big deal if she did?  Did anything happen?  She could just say sorry, woops, my bad wont happen again.   Most government servers tend to be not that secure anyways.

That some foreign country could've gotten ahold of classified information. There' no evidence that happened though. Basically its a witch hunt. I mean hell Colin Powell used fucking AOL for official and personal business. Also aides of Condaleezza Rice used private server.  http://thehill.com/opinion/lanny-davis/281784-davis-five-undisputed-facts-about-clintons-emails
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/19/politifact-sheet-hillary-clintons-email-controvers/

So did Bush..and lost something like 20 million emails.

Yep and yet no FBI investigation into any of those.

Yep this shouldn't be an issue.  What secret information does the government have anyways? 

The biggest issue should be are the clintons swingers or not.  Haha. 

[Dr. Blutarsky]

The coverup seems to be the bigger problem than anything else. Speaks to how Hillary will conduct business as the POTUS.

Some reference to that-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbkS26PX4rc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opPh9uG29cQ

[tim_m]

Could someone please sum up this whole Clinton email scandal thingy for me please.   From the outside looking in, it doesn't seem to be such a big deal.

I would be more worried about her past personal life, with Bill.   Do they have an open marriage?  If not why is she still with him after years of adultery.  Are they swingers?  I have heard a couple of these haha

Some people think she may have used her personal insecure server to do official classified business. But they have concluded none of the emails sent were at the time classified information. Some of them were retroactively classified i believe though.

And what would be the big deal if she did?  Did anything happen?  She could just say sorry, woops, my bad wont happen again.   Most government servers tend to be not that secure anyways.

That some foreign country could've gotten ahold of classified information. There' no evidence that happened though. Basically its a witch hunt. I mean hell Colin Powell used fucking AOL for official and personal business. Also aides of Condaleezza Rice used private server.  http://thehill.com/opinion/lanny-davis/281784-davis-five-undisputed-facts-about-clintons-emails
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/19/politifact-sheet-hillary-clintons-email-controvers/

So did Bush..and lost something like 20 million emails.

Yep and yet no FBI investigation into any of those.

Yep this shouldn't be an issue.  What secret information does the government have anyways? 

The biggest issue should be are the clintons swingers or not.  Haha. 

If we knew it wouldn't be classified and secret lol.

[GeorgeSteele]

In a perfect world, everyone is honest, transparent, with nothing to hide and a lifetime of good deeds.  But that not being the case, isn't 'the coverup being worse than the crime' better than the alternative?  I'd rather my daughter lie to me about how much candy she ate than be honest with me about stabbing her brother. 

[Dr. Blutarsky]

In a perfect world, everyone is honest, transparent, with nothing to hide and a lifetime of good deeds.  But that not being the case, isn't 'the coverup being worse than the crime' better than the alternative?  I'd rather my daughter lie to me about how much candy she ate than be honest with me about stabbing her brother. 

There is more than one alternative.( Voting for others besides Hillary and Trump and also just leaving that section of the ballot blank.) Trumps actions dont condone Hillary's actions.

[GeorgeSteele]

In a perfect world, everyone is honest, transparent, with nothing to hide and a lifetime of good deeds.  But that not being the case, isn't 'the coverup being worse than the crime' better than the alternative?  I'd rather my daughter lie to me about how much candy she ate than be honest with me about stabbing her brother. 

There is more than one alternative.( Voting for others besides Hillary and Trump and also just leaving that section of the ballot blank.) Trumps actions dont condone Hillary's actions.

That's a fair option for anyone who doesn't like what either candidate brings to the table in terms of proposed policy.  But for anyone like me, who likes the progressive policies that Hillary is running on, her purported 'scandals' don't remotely rise to the level of writing her off as a candidate.  But if someone doesn't like her policies, then sure, don't vote for her.  The rest is noise. 

That said, I don't think the same can be said of Trump.  A conservative can agree with most of the policies that Trump supports but would be right to not vote for him on the basis that he's a deplorable racist, misogynist, fascist con-artist.  So for that voter, I could see how a Gary Johnson would be a reasonable option.   

[pilferk]

There is more than one alternative.( Voting for others besides Hillary and Trump and also just leaving that section of the ballot blank.) Trumps actions dont condone Hillary's actions.

Yes. Idealistically, true.  And I'm with you, largely.

But lets be realistic.  One of those two candidates is going to win. If you're voting for Johnson, Stein, Godzilla, or Cthulhu, you are lodging a protest vote....with, potentially, an eye on accomplishing a goal other than electing a president (more funding for a 3rd party?).  Which is totally OK as long as you understand that...and can live with the outcomes.

I'm in a situation where, luckily, my vote isn't going to matter.  Hillary leads in CT by 15 points or so. I can cast a protest vote and have zero effect on the outcome. She will walk away with "our" electoral votes, never to be heard from again in our state (which is funny, since she got her political start here, to some extent).

Were I in a different situation..with, say, Hillary ahead by 5 or behind by 5...I'd feel the burden of responsibility a bit more heavily.  At that point, my votes value, and my sense of civic responsibility, wouldn't let me lodge that protest vote. At that point, I feel I would have to decide which candidate I find less onerous, and vote accordingly. YMMV.

In that light, Trumps actions do "condone" Hillary's. Or, if not condone, add context to them.

Yes, it sucks that I would feel forced into voting "against" someone, rather than for someone.  But thus is the state of our democracy.  I think (and every day, just about everything he says, or we discover about him re-enforces this for me) Trump is actually a dangerous choice.  Not a bad choice. But a choice of potential fascism, with overtones of a police state.  His rhetoric around these bombings (carried out, allegedly, by a US citizen), which poo pood due process and borderline called for violations of the Constitution, are a perfect example.  He continues to say these types of things over and over and over again.

He also continues to demontrate, on the campaign trail, what an utter disaster he would be when handling foreign policy.  His continued verbal miscues, inability to actually restrain his verbal diahrea, and unwillingness to compromise or change position based on new information....it's a recipe for global disaster.  And yes....I know that's precisely why some folks want to vote for him (which is scary).  Because they want someone to tell those (Illegal aliens/Chinese/Islamic Extremists) "to go fuck themselves" (yup, a Trump speech quote). They're mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore.  The problem is...I honestly don't think they've thought through what happens afterwards.  Or, if they have, they've come to the WRONG conclusion if they think Trump can bully his way through...IDK...North Korea's Nuclear threat (which he doesn't care about...we'll just use ours, right?) or the Chinese Trade violations (we win in the WTO every time, but Trump would be trying those cases, daily, on twitter...which would accomplish exactly nothing).  Trumps bravado and rhetoric is a DETRIMENT, not a BENEFIT, in Foreign policy.  And we see it play out at least twice a week on the trail.

I dislike Hillary.  I don't trust her, in general, and thinks she will likely engage in various shady political machinations if she is elected president. She is hardly my ideal candidate.  I do not have any real desire to vote for her. BUT I don't think she's actually dangerous, in terms of attempting to implement a fascist police state or in terms of causing outright global hostility that would destroy our country.  You can sit there and argue that's not what Trump will do...have at it.  But if you listen to his words (and lack of actual content), those are the types of things that keep creeping into his speeches and conversations.  There is way too much "I", and nowhere near enough "we". There is way too much bombastic, inflamatory rhetoric, and not nearly enough substance.  Every time he says "Believe me", I cringe...because I don't.  He's given people no reason to....other than the fact that he (like them) hates Hillary.

So here we sit, at the bottom of two piles of shit, one of whom is going to eventually lead this country. Great.  I'll take the one who I think I have the best chance of voting out, next time, rather than having to FIGHT to get out.  I'll probably vote for neither of them, and hope the one that I find less dangerous wins.

As an aside...if any Republican candidate for president, from the 1980's forward, with the EXCEPTION of GWB, ran this election, I'd vote for them over these two chuckle heads.  That includes a dead Reagan, a wheelchair bound Bush Sr, and a compromised Dole.  CERTAINLY Romney or McCain (though preferably without Palin).  If they could have put ANYONE of that ilk on the ballot, they would have won in a landslide.  If they had put CHRISTIE on the ballot, bridge scandal and all, I would have voted for him over Hillary. But such is life...

Context: Registered independent. I've voted for mostly Dems for president (Perot in 92, Clinton in 96, Nader in 00, Kerry in 04, Obama in 08 and 12)...though I would have voted Bush in '88 if I'd been old enough.  I'm a Reagan admirer.  I've voted mostly Republican candidates for Governor in CT, and pretty much split Dems/Repubs for Senate/House over the years (Nancy Johnson, our Repub Rep for most of my life, was AWESOME!!)

[pilferk]

Seriously....Trump used his chartable foundation to make donations to settle lawsuits. A foundation he barely contributes anything to....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html

[TheBaconman]

Here in Canada, we have multiple parties that run.  You vote for the local rep of your party, they party votes for its leader and with that you have a lot more local representation    Its is not even close to good, but at least there is more than 2 choices.

How come in the states you guys are so black and white/two parties.  When the world isn't so......   

Jessie the body, would of been a great prez though

[AxlsMainMan]

Seriously....Trump used his chartable foundation to make donations to settle lawsuits. A foundation he barely contributes anything to....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html

His son is also now comparing immigrants to rotten Skittles

[pilferk]

Here in Canada, we have multiple parties that run.  You vote for the local rep of your party, they party votes for its leader and with that you have a lot more local representation    Its is not even close to good, but at least there is more than 2 choices.

How come in the states you guys are so black and white/two parties.  When the world isn't so......   

Jessie the body, would of been a great prez though

Good question.

The answer is the answer to most questions: Money, with a healthy dose of political power/control.

It's a catch 22.  The only way to get public funding for a third party (which means the only way for it to be realistically successful) is to consistently get 15% to 20% of the vote.  And the only way to get 15% to 20% of the vote is to have enough money to run a national campaign that gets your party in front of more eyeballs....which is tough when you don't have public matching funds to support you when you're starting out.

It's a crap system.  But the proletariot establishment has no interest in seeing it change, since they're the ones consistently in power.  Why change a system that benefits you and figures you get a 50/50 shot at being in control?

And, tbh, there are too many rah rah ditto head (on both sides) sheep, unwilling to break away from party doctrine, and take a break from cheering on their favorite sports...I mean political....team, to see that only having 2 choices actually hurts us.

In a nutshell.

[pilferk]

His son is also now comparing immigrants to rotten Skittles

Whats REALLY funny about this (aside from the offensive correlation between refugees and candy) is his scale is off by about a factors of a billion?

Odds are about 1 in 3 billion that you get murdered by a Syrian (or any other islamic) refugee.

So, those 3 poison skittles would have to be amongst about 9 billion "normal" skittles, or enough to fill (to heaping) an olympic sized swimming pool.

Yeah, suddenly that analogy doesn't seem quite so apt (or scary) anymore.  You're more likely to get hit by a car, crossing the street, and die.

[C0ma]

His son is also now comparing immigrants to rotten Skittles

Whats REALLY funny about this (aside from the offensive correlation between refugees and candy) is his scale is off by about a factors of a billion?

Odds are about 1 in 3 billion that you get murdered by a Syrian (or any other islamic) refugee.

So, those 3 poison skittles would have to be amongst about 9 billion "normal" skittles, or enough to fill (to heaping) an olympic sized swimming pool.

Yeah, suddenly that analogy doesn't seem quite so apt (or scary) anymore.  You're more likely to get hit by a car, crossing the street, and die.

I completely agree with you that the message is wrong, but I think your numbers are off. His 'you' is not a single person, it is the American people... His bowl of 'skittles' are the 10,000 refugees being accepted by the current administration and support by the Clinton campaign. What he is saying is should the American people accept 10k people knowing that a percentage of them (his 3 out of a bowl is certainly off too) are radicalized. He is not saying that you in your town in CT or me in my small town in MA are going to be killed by a Syrian... he is saying that there are radicals there and we should deny them all (I disagree)... While not a factor of billions, from the pool of refugees you are probably looking at 1/100th of a percent of that population is a radicalized terrorist. Odds of winning the Powerball are less likely than being killed falling out of bed or being struck by lightning, but inevitably someone in West Virginia wins it...

[pilferk]

His son is also now comparing immigrants to rotten Skittles

Whats REALLY funny about this (aside from the offensive correlation between refugees and candy) is his scale is off by about a factors of a billion?

Odds are about 1 in 3 billion that you get murdered by a Syrian (or any other islamic) refugee.

So, those 3 poison skittles would have to be amongst about 9 billion "normal" skittles, or enough to fill (to heaping) an olympic sized swimming pool.

Yeah, suddenly that analogy doesn't seem quite so apt (or scary) anymore.  You're more likely to get hit by a car, crossing the street, and die.

I completely agree with you that the message is wrong, but I think your numbers are off. His 'you' is not a single person, it is the American people... His bowl of 'skittles' are the 10,000 refugees being accepted by the current administration and support by the Clinton campaign. What he is saying is should the American people accept 10k people knowing that a percentage of them (his 3 out of a bowl is certainly off too) are radicalized. He is not saying that you in your town in CT or me in my small town in MA are going to be killed by a Syrian... he is saying that there are radicals there and we should deny them all (I disagree)... While not a factor of billions, from the pool of refugees you are probably looking at 1/100th of a percent of that population is a radicalized terrorist. Odds of winning the Powerball are less likely than being killed falling out of bed or being struck by lightning, but inevitably someone in West Virginia wins it...

Those odds are actually taken not from me, but from the actual likelihood (based on events) of being killed by a radicalized refugee in the world.  I had read this somewhere other than vox..but it was the first google popup.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/20/12986886/donald-trump-jr-terrorist-skittles-wrong

I get his point (which is problematic in itself)...his scale is just so far off as to make the analogy meaningless.

Again, you are FAR more likely to get hit by a car, crossing the street.  And your same logic would apply: It's going to happen to someone, inevitably...until it doesn't.

[tim_m]

No refugee has ever committed a terrorist act on american soil ever. Could it happen? Of course, but i could die after typing this too.