Election 2016: Trump vs Clinton

[JohnStOnge]

It was really, really stupid for Trump to hire the head of Breitbart.com as his campaign CEO. I am happy about it because I want Trump to be trounced. But it was a REALLY stupid move.

[SDHornet]

What evidence do you have to prove that Putin and the Russians are doing what they're doing to influence the election because they favor Trump and that Trump is directly involved?

I didn't say it's been conclusively proven. I said it is reasonable to believe. Also, I didn't say that Trump is involved either directly or indirectly. Here's an article on the issue:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... s-election

Allegations that the Kremlin is responsible for the damaging hack of Democratic National Committee emails may never be conclusively proven, but there is plenty of evidence suggesting that Donald Trump’s presidential bid can count on at least some backing from Moscow.

Read on after that statement.

To me it doesn't really matter whether Trump is involved or not. I think that the Russians being involved in trying to influence a United States election in order to see Trump as President should give you pause. If they're doing that they're not doing it because they want to see what's best for the United States. And I think that if you don't recognize the possibility that that's going on you are just being intentionally obtuse.

Ahhh there it is. Anyone thinking the Russians are doing this only because they want Trump to win is playing checkers…and the Russians don’t play checkers, they play chess. You need to think about the long game in this, not the short game.

[JohnStOnge]

I didn't say it's been conclusively proven. I said it is reasonable to believe. Also, I didn't say that Trump is involved either directly or indirectly. Here's an article on the issue:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... s-election



Read on after that statement.

To me it doesn't really matter whether Trump is involved or not. I think that the Russians being involved in trying to influence a United States election in order to see Trump as President should give you pause. If they're doing that they're not doing it because they want to see what's best for the United States. And I think that if you don't recognize the possibility that that's going on you are just being intentionally obtuse.

Ahhh there it is. Anyone thinking the Russians are doing this only because they want Trump to win is playing checkers…and the Russians don’t play checkers, they play chess. You need to think about the long game in this, not the short game.

It doesn't matter whether they're playing chess or checkers. If it's true that they want Trump to win and are actually involved in trying to influence the outcome it should give you pause.

[YoUDeeMan]

Ahhh there it is. Anyone thinking the Russians are doing this only because they want Trump to win is playing checkers…and the Russians don’t play checkers, they play chess. You need to think about the long game in this, not the short game.

It doesn't matter whether they're playing chess or checkers. If it's true that they want Trump to win and are actually involved in trying to influence the outcome it should give you pause.

And the Muslin countries that are helping Hillary? Saudi Arabia...the primary exporter of wahhabism doesn't give you pause? The gays don't give you pause? The unwashed, uneducated masses that want people like you to support them don't give you pause? The people that want you to admit your White privilege don't give you pause? The next 4 Supreme Court justices don't give you pause?



You are worried about the Russians.

JFC, you've turned into one of those little yipping dogs that bark incessantly at nothing and everything and are scared of their own shadow.

[UNI88]

What evidence do you have to prove that Putin and the Russians are doing what they're doing to influence the election because they favor Trump and that Trump is directly involved?

I didn't say it's been conclusively proven. I said it is reasonable to believe. Also, I didn't say that Trump is involved either directly or indirectly.

It's also reasonable to believe that Hillary's knew that she would be handling confidential information on her private e-mail server. It's also reasonable to believe that Hillary's IT people told her that her private server was not secure and was contrary to government policy. You completely dismissed those reasonable possibilities because there wasn't direct evidence. Why do you require direct evidence for opposing positions but do not provide it to support your positions? It's hypocritical and intellectually dishonest especially for someone who purports to use a scientific approach.

Allegations that the Kremlin is responsible for the damaging hack of Democratic National Committee emails may never be conclusively proven, but there is plenty of evidence suggesting that Donald Trump’s presidential bid can count on at least some backing from Moscow.

Read on after that statement.

To me it doesn't really matter whether Trump is involved or not. I think that the Russians being involved in trying to influence a United States election in order to see Trump as President should give you pause. If they're doing that they're not doing it because they want to see what's best for the United States. And I think that if you don't recognize the possibility that that's going on you are just being intentionally obtuse.

Do you have proof that Putin and the Russians are doing this because they want Trump to win? Are there any other plausible explanations? Have Hillary and Obama ever disrespected Putin? Yes. Is he a vengeful little sh!t who might look for an opportunity to get payback and send a shot across the bow of the likely next POTUS? Yes.

Trump as POTUS scares the sh!t out of me too but Hillary's track record pretty well indicates that her election carries some pretty scary risk as well.

The government today is the direct result of picking the lesser of two evils for generations. Vote Johnson!

[93henfan]

Limit 3 per customer. Illegal email server sold separately:

https://www.trumpforpresidentbobblehead ... bobblehead

[Ivytalk]

So now it appears that Drumpf's new campaign chief, former Breitbart chair and crony capitalist Steve Bannon, doesn't even live at the Florida address he claims for voting residency purposes.

Can't anyone on the Drumpf Dream Team shoot straight?

Breitbart!

[SDHornet]

Ahhh there it is. Anyone thinking the Russians are doing this only because they want Trump to win is playing checkers…and the Russians don’t play checkers, they play chess. You need to think about the long game in this, not the short game.

It doesn't matter whether they're playing chess or checkers. If it's true that they want Trump to win and are actually involved in trying to influence the outcome it should give you pause.

Huh? Why would Putin want Trump to win? The Russians ran circles around hilldog while she was SoS, they are salivating at the idea of constantly out maneuvering and out witting her on the foreign relations/policy stage. Besides, hilldog gave the Russians tons of stuff via the CF, they'll now have direct access to the WH.

[JohnStOnge]

Huh? Why would Putin want Trump to win?

I'll just use the Washington Post's take on it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 3ce22b2b0e

Here's some quoted language with the bottom line underlined:

Putin has rational motives for wanting Trump to win: Trump champions many foreign policies that Putin supports. Trump’s most shocking, pro-Kremlin proposal is to “look into” recognition of Crimea as a part of Russia. President Obama and nearly every member of Congress — Republican and Democrat — have rejected that idea vigorously. Only Afghanistan, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela have recognized Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Naturally, Putin would love to see the United States join that list.

Russian President Vladimir Putin calls presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump "a flamboyant person" and welcomes his calls to restore US-Russia relations. (Reuters)

Trump also has made clear his disdain for the United States’ alliances around the world. Demonstrating his misunderstanding of how NATO works, Trump has demanded that other NATO members essentially pay us for protection, making many of our allies, especially in the eastern part of Europe, nervous about his commitment to defend them. Trump has also disparaged our allies in Asia, creating new opportunities for Russian influence. On trade, Trump’s promises to disrupt our agreements also play right into Putin’s agenda. From Putin’s perspective, what could be a better way to start the New Year than a trade war between the United States and China or Mexico? Trump’s threats to stop paying our debts also would radically undermine our credibility as a lender, another desirable outcome for Putin.

On the whole, Trump advocates isolationist policies and an abdication of U.S. leadership in the world. He cares little about promoting democracy and human rights. A U.S. retreat from global affairs fits precisely with Putin’s international interests. And if Mr. Trump becomes president, experts on U.S. politics predict a tumultuous period domestically. If a President Trump tried to implement his radical ideas regarding immigration or walling off our southern border, a serious push-back effort would ensue, both in Congress and in the country as a whole. A United States convulsed by infighting over Trump’s deeply divisive policy proposals gives Putin more freedom to act around the world.

If a Trump victory would serve Putin’s interests, a President Hillary Clinton would not. Clinton will never recognize Crimea as part of Russia, seeks to strengthen relations with our allies and speaks out about human rights.

Putin and his government already know Clinton from her four years as secretary of state. They remember the tough line she took in seeking to negotiate a political transition in Syria; her efforts — though failed — to get Russia to support even modest U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding this humanitarian tragedy; and her early advocacy for arming Syria opponents of Bashar al-Assad, Moscow’s ally. They remember her public criticism of irregularities in Russia’s December 2011 parliamentary election, which Putin lambasted as a “signal” to Russian protesters to take to the streets against him. And they remember her portrayal of Putin’s prized foreign policy project — the creation of the Eurasia Economic Union — as a “a move to re-Sovietize the region.” No one should be surprised that Putin and his government would rather see Trump in the White House.

[CAA Flagship]

Huh? Why would Putin want Trump to win?

I'll just use the Washington Post's take on it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 3ce22b2b0e

Here's some quoted language with the bottom line underlined:

Putin and his government already know Clinton from her four years as secretary of state. They remember the tough line she took in seeking to negotiate a political transition in Syria; her efforts — though failed — to get Russia to support even modest U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding this humanitarian tragedy; and her early advocacy for arming Syria opponents of Bashar al-Assad, Moscow’s ally. They remember her public criticism of irregularities in Russia’s December 2011 parliamentary election, which Putin lambasted as a “signal” to Russian protesters to take to the streets against him. And they remember her portrayal of Putin’s prized foreign policy project — the creation of the Eurasia Economic Union — as a “a move to re-Sovietize the region.” No one should be surprised that Putin and his government would rather see Trump in the White House.

[JohnStOnge]

I'll just use the Washington Post's take on it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 3ce22b2b0e

Here's some quoted language with the bottom line underlined:

The point is that there is plenty of basis to believe that the Russians want Trump to win and there is also plenty of basis to believe that they are actively involved in trying to swing the US election in his favor. That's related to plenty of basis for believing the Russians are behind hacking the Democrats.

And on failures of government officials: Trump has never failed as a government official because he's never BEEN a government official. Favoring Trump because he hasn't had that kind of failure is like, to use a previous analogy, hiring a plumber to do heart surgery on you because the only available heart surgeon hasn't had a perfect record of patient survival. Yes, it's true that the plumber has never made a mistake while doing heart surgery. But he also has no idea as to how to do heart surgery.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW I think Trump is putting himself into a no win situation with this "the other candidate is a bigot" tit for tat thing he's getting into. He can't win this. About the best they can do in trying to find something in Clinton's past is where she referred to "predators" when promoting the 1990s crime bill. That's not even a clear cut reference to race. It was interpreted as such. But it's not something you can point to to say, "SEE. She's a racist."

You have to be basically putting your assumptions about the thoughts behind her words. Like this Young Turks guy:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k4nmRZx9nc[/youtube]

Meanwhile Trump, though long ago, was sued for housing discrimination under circumstances where the Justice Department alleged his people were marking Black applicants applications with a "C" for "colored." And Trump's defense? No no no. They weren't trying to discriminate against Blacks. Why, they were JUST trying to avoid renting to people on welfare. Oh yea. That's going to help.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGQEEMKbAvo[/youtube]

And now he's hired Breitbart News’ Stephen Bannon as campaign CEO. During an interview at the Republican National Convention Bannon said of Breitbart.com, "We're the platform for the alt-right." So there are articles like this out there:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... tbart-news

Check out this banner headline of the article:



How easy would it be to make a commercial where that headline and others like it show up? I'd make a really nice still shot in a campaign commercial.

Meanwhile Clinton's first job out of Law School was working for Civil Rights activist Marian Wright Edelman. One of her tasks was to go undercover to investigate whether or not private schools in the South were discriminating against Black students.

She's got stuff like this picture sitting with Edelman and other Civil Rights activists to point to:



And she can get plenty of testimonials about what a good White Woman she is from well known Civil Rights activists. You ask Civil Rights activists who they like between Clinton and Trump and they're not going to say "Trump."

If Trump had any sense at all he would be trying to change the subject away from "who's the racist?" instead of trying to get in a pissing match with Clinton in this area.

[SDHornet]

JSO, you do realize that Russia has used the CF to its benefit right? So again, how would a hilldog presidency not benefit them?

And you think hilldog will stand up to them on Crimea? What, is she going to break out another "reset" button?

[BDKJMU]

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Federal Bureau of Investigation has found breaches in Illinois and Arizona's voter registration databases and is urging states to increase computer security ahead of the Nov. 8 presidential election, according to a U.S. official familiar with the probe.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said on Monday that investigators were also seeking evidence of whether other states may have been targeted.

The FBI warning in an Aug. 18 flash alert from the agency's Cyber Division did not identify the intruders or the two states targeted......."
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fbi-detects-b ... 49761.html

[BDKJMU]

Reminded me of an article I read a couple of weeks ago by Richard Clarke, a donk who is the former National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counter-terrorism under both Clinton and Bush.

"Yes, It's Possible to Hack the Election

".............Those experiences confirm my belief that if sophisticated hackers want to get into any computer or electronic device, even one that is not connected to the internet, they can do so.

The U.S., according to media reports, hacked in to the Iranian nuclear centrifuge control system even though the entire system was air-gapped from the internet. The Russians, according to authoritative accounts, hacked into the Pentagon’s SIPRNet, a secret-level system separate from the internet. North Koreans, computer forensics experts have told me, penetrated SWIFT, the international banking exchange system. Iranians allegedly wiped clean all software on over 30,000 devices in the Aramco oil company. The White House, the State Department and your local fast food joint have all been hacked. Need I go on?

Now consider that a majority of states use some kind of combination of electronic voting and a type of paper trail, but there is no standard nationwide. In most states the data that are used to determine who won an election are processed by networked, computerized devices. There are almost no locations that exclusively use paper ballots. Some states allow direct from home voting over the internet. Others employ electronic voting machines that produce no paper trail, therefore there is nothing to count or recount and no way to ensure that what a voter intended is what was recorded and transmitted.

Some systems produce a paper ballot of record, but that paper is kept only for a recount; votes are recorded by a machine such as an optical scanner and then stored as electronic digits. The counting of the paper ballots of record — when there are such things — is exceedingly rare and is almost never done for verification in the absence of a recount demand.

The verification systems in place in most states can check only two things well. First, they can provide a basis for comparing the number of people who showed up and were allowed to vote at a location with the voter total reported at the end of the day by that precinct. Second, they can compare the total votes for a candidate reported by each precinct to the state capital against the number that the capital says it received from each location.

What they cannot verify without counting paper ballots (if they exist at all) is that your vote for Candidate A showed up in the electronic device tabulating the totals as a vote for Candidate A. The process of recording which person got your vote can — almost always — be hacked.

The ways to hack the election are straightforward and are only slight variants of computer system attacks that we see every day in the private sector and on government networks in the U.S. and elsewhere around the world. Malware can be implanted on voting machines. Almost none of these machines have any kind of malware detection software like those used at major corporations and government agencies. Even if they did, many of those cybersecurity tools are regularly defeated by today’s sophisticated hackers.

At this year's Black Hat cybersecurity conference, the cybersecurity firm Symtantec had a voting booth to demonstrate the various ways to trick the system.

In America’s often close elections, a little manipulation could go a long way.

In 2000 and 2004, there were only a handful of battleground states that determined which presidential candidate had enough Electoral College votes to win. A slight alteration of the vote in some swing precincts in swing states might not raise suspicion. Smart malware can be programmed to switch only a small percentage of votes from what the voters intended. That may be all that is needed, and that malware can also be programmed to erase itself after it does its job, so there might be no trace it ever happened............."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hack-ele ... d=41489017

[houndawg]

It doesn't matter whether they're playing chess or checkers. If it's true that they want Trump to win and are actually involved in trying to influence the outcome it should give you pause.

And the Muslin countries that are helping Hillary? Saudi Arabia...the primary exporter of wahhabism doesn't give you pause? The gays don't give you pause? The unwashed, uneducated masses that want people like you to support them don't give you pause? The people that want you to admit your White privilege don't give you pause? The next 4 Supreme Court justices don't give you pause?



You are worried about the Russians.

JFC, you've turned into one of those little yipping dogs that bark incessantly at nothing and everything and are scared of their own shadow.

I believe you're referring to the breed known as the Cluck Terrier..

[houndawg]

JSO, you do realize that Russia has used the CF to its benefit right? So again, how would a hilldog presidency not benefit them?

And you think hilldog will stand up to them on Crimea? What, is she going to break out another "reset" button?

Step away from the bong, bro. Nobody is going to ever going to stand up for Crimea.

[CID1990]

JSO, you do realize that Russia has used the CF to its benefit right? So again, how would a hilldog presidency not benefit them?

And you think hilldog will stand up to them on Crimea? What, is she going to break out another "reset" button?

Step away from the bong, bro. Nobody is going to ever going to stand up for Crimea.

at least WE shouldnt

let those EU NATO countries with their massive militaries do it if they want


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

Step away from the bong, bro. Nobody is going to ever going to stand up for Crimea.

at least WE shouldnt

let those EU NATO countries with their massive militaries do it if they want


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SDHornet]

Step away from the bong, bro. Nobody is going to ever going to stand up for Crimea.

at least WE shouldnt

let those EU NATO countries with their massive militaries do it if they want


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[YoUDeeMan]

JSO - that whole Wahsington Post piece is really made for someone like you - the uneducated voter.

"Trump also has made clear his disdain for the United States’ alliances around the world. Demonstrating his misunderstanding of how NATO works, Trump has demanded that other NATO members essentially pay us for protection, making many of our allies, especially in the eastern part of Europe, nervous about his commitment to defend them."

Truth: Trump doesn't misunderstand how NATO works at all. Trump asked NATO members to PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE...as they are obligated to do under our treaty. It is the Washington Post, and Hillary, and our defense companies that are making billions by sucking it out of our taxpayers, that misunderstand NATO. We aren't here to blindly defend anyone from anything, especially when we'd most likely be defending Europe from their own stupidity. You are simply parroting a false premise that Trump is anti-NATO. Congrats on being so stupid.

"Trump has also disparaged our allies in Asia, creating new opportunities for Russian influence. On trade, Trump’s promises to disrupt our agreements also play right into Putin’s agenda. From Putin’s perspective, what could be a better way to start the New Year than a trade war between the United States and China or Mexico? Trump’s threats to stop paying our debts also would radically undermine our credibility as a lender, another desirable outcome for Putin."

What kid of paragraph is that? CHINA is our most problematic threat in Asia...not Russia. WaPo jumps from a NATO physical threat while ignoring CHINA's absolute physical threat in Asia. The fact that the WPost tries to tie Asian issues to Putin, while China is a growing monster (one that Trump has repeatedly says he will confront) is, again, a message to the stupid. To state that Putin is happy with a trade war, instead of framing such a trade war as it relates to American workers, is a sad affirmation that the media is in bed with Clinton. A trade war is about American jobs, not Putin. Clinton doesn't give a rat's arse about American jobs. She wants her Wall Street goons to have their profits and overseas work forces (at the expense of American jobs). Jobs for Americans. Americans...not Putin. Get it? Hello.

"On the whole, Trump advocates isolationist policies and an abdication of U.S. leadership in the world. He cares little about promoting democracy and human rights."

You have GOT to be kidding me. DEMOCRACY and HUMAN RIGHTS? Egypt. Sudan. Yemen. Saudi Arabia. Syria. UAE. Bahrain. Libya.

That is the list of Clinton's efforts in DEMOCRACY and HUMAN RIGHTS.

This WaPo article is on par with The Onion.

"Putin and his government already know Clinton from her four years as secretary of state. They remember the tough line she took in seeking to negotiate a political transition in Syria; her efforts — though failed — to get Russia to support even modest U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding this humanitarian tragedy; and her early advocacy for arming Syria opponents of Bashar al-Assad, Moscow’s ally. They remember her public criticism of irregularities in Russia’s December 2011 parliamentary election, which Putin lambasted as a “signal” to Russian protesters to take to the streets against him. And they remember her portrayal of Putin’s prized foreign policy project — the creation of the Eurasia Economic Union — as a “a move to re-Sovietize the region.” No one should be surprised that Putin and his government would rather see Trump in the White House."



Syrai? We treid to take out a democratically elected secular government and replace it with an unholy alliance of Islamists. Early arming of the rebels? You mean the arming of the rebels that Obama denied arming...until that was exposed as just another lie to Americans? Crimea? Ukraine? You mean where we helped spark a violent revolution against another democratically elected government...one that was going to reject an economic alliance with some uber wealthy Western based businesses? And where the supposed Ukrainian good guys that we propped up into power turned out to be oppressive and corrupt (surprise) right wing neo-Nazi loving goons with their own private militias?

JSO, you really need to read up on what is happening in the world. Russia isn't the biggest threat. I've asked you to post concrete reasons why you believe they are a threat...and you continue to ignore that request. Russia, as every other country does, wants to maintain a region of influence. Duh. The US, on the other hand, wants a GLOBAL domination of our interests. We are infringing on their interests...not the other way around. We are the threat to them...not the other way around.

JSO, you are a child who is still afraid of those things that were ingrained in your mind when you were young, weak, and impressionable.

Grow up.

[JohnStOnge]

I've asked you to post concrete reasons why you believe they are a threat...and you continue to ignore that request.

I do think I've posted that Russia has that nuclear arsenal it has. Otherwise, here are some other takes on the issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/opini ... .html?_r=0

The Pentagon’s Top Threat? Russia

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/declar ... etual-war/

In a press conference this week, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter backed up the whistleblowing Lt. Col. as he touted the US Military’s 2016 Posture Statement. In the statement, the US declares Russia the largest threat in the world.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomps ... 9c5fd62b79

Why Putin's Russia Is The Biggest Threat To America In 2015

Russia has way, WAY more capability than the Islamists do right now.

[JohnStOnge]

And BTW you have to really, really have your head in the sand at this point to not realize that the Russians want to see Trump in the White House instead of Clinton. Whatever the reasons may be, it's clear that that's the case. If you don't accept that you're just in denial.

Now, you may be fine with that. But it's absurd at this point to deny that it's the case.

[CID1990]

And BTW you have to really, really have your head in the sand at this point to not realize that the Russians want to see Trump in the White House instead of Clinton. Whatever the reasons may be, it's clear that that's the case. If you don't accept that you're just in denial.

Now, you may be fine with that. But it's absurd at this point to deny that it's the case.

I'll tell you why Putin wants Trump in the WH


because he knows Trump isn't going to be up his ass over things we should not be involved in in the first place. Trump won't try to overthrow Assad and he won't challenge the Russian influence in the Levant - Hillary will - and that entire place has exactly ZERO strategic significance for us

it is as you said - the islamists there arent a threat- but the woman you are shilling for will not only continue to shed blood and treasure over there but she will also continue to be embarrassed by Sergey Lavrov just as Obama was- because it is the statist Democrats (thy name is Hillary) who will continue to insist that we must place anarchic islamist power vacuums over stable dictatorships in the name of "democracy"

I dont see Trump giving two shits about that

what ought to bother you about Trump instead is the fact that he is a fiscal liberal- closer to Bernie Sanders than to Clinton. He's a doctrinaire high tariff protectionist. In light of all this, if you were intellectually honest youd be voting Gary Johnson




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

And BTW you have to really, really have your head in the sand at this point to not realize that Hillary knew she was dealing with classified information on her personal server and knowingly chose to disregard the advice of her technical advisors. She knowingly and willfully put American operations, security and intelligence personnel at risk in order to shield her communications from FOIA requests and any other scrutiny. Whatever the reasons may be, it's clear that that's the case. If you don't accept that you're just in denial.

Now, you may be fine with that. But it's absurd at this point to deny that it's the case.

FIFY dbackJonStOnge