Author Topic: 2016 Election  (Read 225388 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PatMan33

  • Fable Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 28842
  • GREAT SCOTT!!
    • View Profile
    • DuckDuckGo
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1155 on: May 06, 2016, 11:49:54 am »
Maybe the problem isn't him? Maybe the problem is people trying to ascribe a set of beliefs to everyone else around them. Maybe just take what people say at face value instead of trying to analyze it and determine what they REALLY meant but didn't know they meant. All he said was that he likes Hispanics. You know what, I also like Hispanics. So ****ing what?

Also the quote if we've forgotten:

Quote from: Trump
When do we beat Mexico at the border? They're laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they're killing us economically.

The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we're getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They're sending us not the right people.

Not quite as damming as you seem to remember it being, Sam. Certainly unpolished, but he's saying he wants to stop the flow of bad elements from Mexico, of which there are plenty. He says that not all of them are bad and that some are good, but he reiterates that his conclusion is based on what he is being told by the border patrols. Face value. That's what he said. Nothing more, nothing less. He didn't say that Mexicans are rapists. But turn to the news and they won't fact check this or do the bare minimum as I have and post the entire quote. They'll just run the story where Trump says that all Mexican illegals are rapists.

Furthermore, this is a major issue that the electorate wants addressed. It is an issue that our elected officials have neglected since the Nixon administration. He is talking about the issues that people want to talk about, issues that our government has refused to talk about in a meaningful fashion outside of the occasional puff of smoke up our collective ass.

Your time would be better spent if you focus on something worth focusing on. Maybe this:

Quote from: Trump
“Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your ass I would. In a heartbeat. I would approve more than that. It works.”

“… and if it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway for what they do to us”.

At face value he is saying that he wants to torture people despite the fact that we know this method doesn't work or yield meaningful results. Then he doubles-down and says that even if it doesn't work that we should do it anyway because screw those guys. This is a much more sound issue to be anti-Trump about. This kind of quote is what should make you question his qualifications for office.

Offline Krakow Sam

  • Moderator
  • Dungeon Sieger
  • *****
  • Posts: 24440
  • Stern dissaproval
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1156 on: May 06, 2016, 04:38:10 pm »
Well, I don't think Trump is unfit for office because he uses language in a way that suggests he views the world a certain way. That just makes me not like him. The torture and foreign policy stuff is indeed why I sincerely hope he doesn't become your president, because it will impact the whole world. 
Sam is basically right, he's just cranky.

Offline Inkling

  • S.T.U.N. Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8054
  • Not a Squid.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1157 on: May 06, 2016, 08:26:36 pm »
I thought the issue was that tweeting a picture of a "taco bowl" and saying you love Hispanics on Cinco de Mayo is about the same as tweeting a picture of a bowl of Lucky Charms and saying you love Europeans to mark St. Patrick's Day.  It's half assed pandering without caring enough to know anything about the topic.  Kinda like quoting one of your favorite passages from Two Corinthians, groping the flag, or flashing a duckface while you mime shoveling coal out of a ditch.
Probably not a Goat, either.


Offline eropS

  • Out Run Speedster
  • *****
  • Posts: 5117
  • That's right, I went there
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1158 on: May 06, 2016, 09:06:11 pm »
Classic
No, no, he did. In the everything else section, at least. Officially, this makes him king.

Offline PatMan33

  • Fable Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 28842
  • GREAT SCOTT!!
    • View Profile
    • DuckDuckGo
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1159 on: May 06, 2016, 11:51:00 pm »
Well, I don't think Trump is unfit for office because he uses language in a way that suggests he views the world a certain way. That just makes me not like him.

That's cool, I can understand that.

As for the extreme pandering... you're right, it is extreme pandering. Part of me wonders if he is doing it on purpose to sort of stick it in the eye of all the politicians out there that literally fumble over themselves and only manage to come up with exactly the same thing only to have it backfire. But part of me thinks he is just pandering.

All of me thinks it is funny as hell and doesn't gain or lose points. I mean come on... it's great. Really great!

Offline Inkling

  • S.T.U.N. Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8054
  • Not a Squid.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1160 on: May 07, 2016, 12:01:49 am »
Yeah that's the weird thing.  It's the worst pandering ever but it still works.  Or at least it did for the primaries.  How will he do in the general now?  I have no idea, and I was wrong about the primaries so why speculate at this point?  At least I have company in being wrong.
Probably not a Goat, either.


Offline eropS

  • Out Run Speedster
  • *****
  • Posts: 5117
  • That's right, I went there
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1161 on: May 07, 2016, 12:04:43 am »
I think a few of us thought Trump had the legs
No, no, he did. In the everything else section, at least. Officially, this makes him king.

Offline Inkling

  • S.T.U.N. Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8054
  • Not a Squid.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1162 on: May 07, 2016, 12:17:39 am »
Poor Nate Silver.
Probably not a Goat, either.


Offline PatMan33

  • Fable Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 28842
  • GREAT SCOTT!!
    • View Profile
    • DuckDuckGo
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1163 on: May 07, 2016, 12:34:54 am »
I think Trump is gonna keep doing his thing and I suspect it's going to carry him all the way to the White House.


And I mean, there's all this stuff with Hillary. Let's talk about her for a bit. There was a thread over at reddit and someone asked a very cogent question.

Quote from: NebraskaGunOwner
Here's a question I am having trouble finding an answer to. When she left the State Department she effectively became a private citizen. The server wasn't discovered until sometime later. Therefore, as a private citizen she had thousands of classified materials in her possession, as did her aides. As a private citizen she chose to delete 30k emails unilaterally.

If there were any protections of being Secretary of State, wouldn't those be null once she became a citizen? If they don't charge her, aren't they setting a precedent that even if you leave office with thousands of classified documents (marked or not) in your possession, you cannot be charged? Or at minimum they have to prove intent that you planned to leak them. You could just throw your hands up and say "Whoops, my bad. Good thing you have to prove that I had bad intentions with all of this classified material in my possession." And even so, if the materials were leaked, the DOJ would have to prove that it was your intent they be leaked even if you didn't do it? It just seems to setup such a bad example for everyone else in government.

EDIT Essentially, she is claiming that she was permitted to have a private server as Secretary of State - this is very much debated. But is there any argument that she wouldn't be permitted to have a server full of classified material as a private citizen? Even if she continued to have security clearance, that would only allow her clearance to view materials in an authorized location not store classified material on a private homebrew server?

They raise a good point. Clinton had access to the information because of the nature of her job, obviously. She stored the data at home on her server. Once she left her job as Secretary of State she still had the server at her house with all of the data, but not the clearance. As the poster says, even if she retained clearance, that clearance is only to view the data and not store or manipulate that data.

Furthermore, let's take a look at the Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA) that Clinton signed before taking her job with the State Department: Click here for the PDF

Check out Section 8 in particular. I'll post the text of it for you, but look at the whole document yourself rather than just take my word for it.

Quote from: Clinton NDA
I understand that all information to which I may obtain access by signing this Agreement is now and will remain the property of the United States Government unless and until otherwise determined by an appropriate official or final ruing of a court of law. Subject to such determination, I do not now, nor will I ever, posses any right, interest, title, or claim whatsoever to such information. I agree that I shall return all materials that may have come into my possession or for which I am responsible because of such access, upon demand by an authorized representative of the United States Government or upon the conclusion of my employment or relationship with the United States Government entity providing me access to such materials. If I do not return such materials upon request, I understand that this may be a violation of Section 793. Title 18, United States Code.

Seems pretty open and shut. If you check out Section 9 it mentions that unless she is given permission in writing by the appropriate Department or Agency, she cannot breach any aspects of this NDA from the moment it it signed and into perpetuity. And before I close this down, let's check out Section 793. The part we want to see is subsection D.

Quote from: Section 793. Title 18, United States Code
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;

To me it sounds as if Clinton has failed to return her classified data to the officer or employee of the US that is entitled to receive it.

It is also worth noting that there is a hacker that claims to have spent time cruising through Hillary's private server full of US secrets. That gentleman spoke with the FBI today. And wouldn't you know it? There's was one of those great 4PM on a Friday dumps that nobody will hear about until Monday. Gives anyone that needs it a whole weekend to spin and prepare.

What do you guys think? Should we stick a fork in her? Or is she magically going to find that missing authorization that lets her off the hook? Because I really don't see how she hasn't violated the law here. And the violation is a very serious one that carries real penalties. What happens?

Offline eropS

  • Out Run Speedster
  • *****
  • Posts: 5117
  • That's right, I went there
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1164 on: May 07, 2016, 12:58:27 am »
I want to believe she'll be indicted.

I also wanted to believe Bernie would win the nomination.

Deep down I think she'll still walk. Games over and we lost. The mega rich see the writing on the wall with climate change and are getting all they can before **** hits the fan globally and they need to dip out.

Elysium is our future , at least in spirit.
No, no, he did. In the everything else section, at least. Officially, this makes him king.

Offline PatMan33

  • Fable Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 28842
  • GREAT SCOTT!!
    • View Profile
    • DuckDuckGo
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1165 on: May 07, 2016, 10:13:21 am »
Nah. We have guns and overwhelming numbers. Plus the military is on our side. They only have the police.

If they get too uppity, we'll kill/capture them all and install new people into their positions.

Offline Krakow Sam

  • Moderator
  • Dungeon Sieger
  • *****
  • Posts: 24440
  • Stern dissaproval
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1166 on: May 07, 2016, 10:22:54 am »
The military is its own side.
Sam is basically right, he's just cranky.

Offline PatMan33

  • Fable Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 28842
  • GREAT SCOTT!!
    • View Profile
    • DuckDuckGo
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1167 on: May 07, 2016, 10:29:01 am »
Maybe in Egypt, but not here.

The military will stand behind the people every time because the military is largely made up of people that have lived and understand the struggle, if they are not still going through it because of substandard support and care. They understand their position as the first and last line of defense against politicians.

The police on the other hand have been systematically built up over the last few decades to act as an armed wing of the politicians' power. This occurred because the military won't do it. The police are more easily corruptible.


**EDIT**
But here, let's listen to Obama tell us how we can avoid this terrible fate.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxuwazaXOMg" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxuwazaXOMg</a>
« Last Edit: May 07, 2016, 10:32:23 am by PatMan33 »

Offline Brandonazz

  • All Your Base Zero Wing
  • *****
  • Posts: 8912
  • Everything ends.
    • View Profile
    • My Internet Treasure Trove
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1168 on: May 08, 2016, 08:16:10 pm »
He was totally channeling his past professorship in constitutional law. That was great.

Offline Inkling

  • S.T.U.N. Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8054
  • Not a Squid.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Elections
« Reply #1169 on: May 09, 2016, 07:12:24 pm »
How about we try not to have the stress test of who the military sides with.

I did not expect to relate this much with a campaign ad from 52 years ago.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiG0AE8zdTU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiG0AE8zdTU</a>
Probably not a Goat, either.