Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Madiel]

The fact that Hillary cannot put this race away against someone as flawed as Trump speaks to the inherent weakness of her campaign.

What does that say about everyone else who ran for the Republican nomination?

[PerfectWagnerite]

What did Hilary have to gain by using a private server for her e-mail? Her obvious motivation was that it would make it easier to do her job, and it wouldn't be a problem. In my view it was a case of poor judgement, not dishonesty. Other high officials, including many Bush Administration staffers made a similar error in judgment. My main reservation about Hillary is her association with the status quo in U.S. big business, which I think has to change.

Also 99% of so called "classified" material is bullshit junk with no relevance to national security or anything else anyway, the govt routinely overclassify everything. They make it sound like she leaked the codes to launch nuclear missiles or something.

[Madiel]

Last week I heard something that was actually said much earlier this year, and now I can't unhear it.

It was essentially this: that Trump's manner and method of arguing is that of a 10-year old boy. He doesn't argue the merits of a point of view. He blusters and uses whatever comeback he can think of.

Right now it's "the questions were unfair" and "the microphone was faulty". We've had suggestions the election is rigged. People who agree with him are great, people who don't are bad or sad. Yes, I know Clinton went with "deplorable" once recently, but with Trump it is a constant theme of judgement of people based entirely on whether they're on his side or not.

Make any kind of point against him, and the response is either or both of two things:

1. "Hey, they're being mean to me!"

2. "Oh yeah? Well, you SMELL!"

[(poco) Sforzando]

I see a man utterly without integrity.

Or relevant experience. But after all, "what have you got to lose"? You will remember that a key argument against Obama is that he lacked political experience; now a key argument for Trump is that he lacks political experience.

[North Star]

Separately, for anyone too lazy to search YouTube for trump sniffing montage on their own:

https://www.youtube.com/v/5TBsoYp33WY

[(poco) Sforzando]

From today's NY Times, which of course being the mainstream media is inaccurate. biased, liberal, and unfair:

Donald J. Trump lashed out wildly on Tuesday in the aftermath of a disappointing first debate with Hillary Clinton, scolding the moderator, criticizing a beauty pageant winner for her physique and raising the prospect of an all-out attack on Bill Clinton's marital infidelities in the final stretch of the campaign.

Having worked assiduously in recent weeks to cultivate a more disciplined demeanor on the campaign trail, Mr. Trump decisively cast aside that approach on Tuesday morning. As Mrs. Clinton embarked on an ebullient campaign swing through North Carolina, aiming to press her newfound advantage, Mr. Trump vented his grievances in full public view.

Sounding weary and impatient as he called into a Fox News program, Mr. Trump criticized Lester Holt, the NBC News anchor, for asking "unfair questions" during the debate Monday evening, and speculated that someone might have tampered with his microphone. Mr. Trump repeated his charge that Mrs. Clinton lacked the "stamina" to be president, a claim critics have described as sexist, and suggested that in the future he might raise Mr. Clinton's past indiscretions.

And defying conventions of civility and political common sense, Mr. Trump leveled cutting personal criticism at a beauty pageant winner, Alicia Machado, whom Mrs. Clinton held up in Monday night's debate as an example of Mr. Trump's disrespect for women.

Mr. Trump insisted on Fox that he had been right to disparage the former Miss Universe because of her weight. "She was the winner and she gained a massive amount of weight, and it was a real problem," said Mr. Trump, who was the pageant's executive producer at the time. "Not only that — her attitude. And we had a real problem with her."

And this is why he deserves to be elected.

[drogulus]

 
    Why Hillary Clinton Deleted 33,000 Emails on Her Private Email Server

     She was asked if she wanted to keep the personal stuff after they separated the work related ones, she said no, she had no use for them.

     One point about the deletions and the choice of what shouldn't be deleted. No one has said that Clinton issued improper instructions about what to delete, or that she even knew except in a very general way what would be deleted. She did not place a folder full of work emails in with a bunch of personal stuff. She had no involvement at that level. No one has suggested she did. No one has offered any reason why she would instruct people to comply with investigators then, perhaps in the dead of night delete emails herself. Really, she did that? Who witnessed it? Who will the Repubs call to testify to this?

[snyprrr]

Yes, we shall see.  But I suspect Trump will be better at president than candidate.   The specter of Hillary Clinton as president, who will probably turn out to be more conniving and grasping of power than Nixon, is so scary for enough people I think Trump will squeak out a victory despite his inexperience as professional politician.

Trump wins 100% of the Vote, but Hill wins the Electoral College. That could be one way it was rigged from the get go...

2) Trump working for Soros/Hill already...

3) Trump wins, America sees quick Platinum Age, then...BOOM!!...

4) Hill wins and it's like 1975+1985+1996+2008... sludgy ennui, grey clouds, wars and rumors of wars... 1979-1981??

4) Hill wins, and then something reeeally bad happens

5) Trump wins, and then something reeally bad happens

6) Hill wins, and shortly after, guns are illegal, crime explodes, migrant/refugee masssive influx, open borders, laws, soon religions' on watch list, all globalist entities dictating US interests and home front is ffffucked up!!

7) Trump wins, again, I see a brief Platinum Age, then... well, if he's actually a "good guy" and actually starts doing some kind of my-way good, I don't see how the status quo power brokers powers that be UN EU Bilderboogers CFR whatever... "those" people... "that crew"... whatever ReidBoehner... they just can't have it...  maybe

If Hill wins, there will IN NO WISE be any kind of Recovery. "America" as everyone has known it will be complete toast. If you thought Kid Rock pandering was bad, just wait for this Era of Fake Positivism.

9) FOUR YEARS LATER:

Something will have happened, "outside" of the president's power, so, no matter, no one would have been able to save us from whatever it is that's coming. If Hill wins, I'd have to say she probably had something to do with it, or knew. For Trump, it should be easy for the world to martyr him. Four years later, no matter what, the US country will be so ever more messed up than it is now- no, wait, it will be the logical conclusion of what has BEGUN here in 2016. I would hazard a guess that all commenting here today would not care to revisit this Page in 2020.


If you all can't see that the die (is that right?) is already cast for our future, and that the globalist powers have marshaled all their might and resource to ..."re-direct" Western Civ101, by the curiously military tactic of overwhelming foreign "invasions" by the great horde of people who apparently won't stay in their own countries and fight our weapons backed rebels. What's up with that?


Take a look at that Spielberg film "8mm", set in 1979. Whatever the film's other merits, or not, he certainly conjures the Image of what 1979 seemed to be in American History, the total end of innocence. The film is so cozy with Americana, one longs for the LazyBoy! Check it out.

Now, back to 2016. I dunno, seems just a touch shittier, eh? Even though, of course, we're living in "the Greatest Time in History" and all that good stuff. I mean, we are in the Best of Times/Worst of Times coming up here shortly, gulp.

Denzel 2016

[snyprrr]

    Why Hillary Clinton Deleted 33,000 Emails on Her Private Email Server



No one has offered any reason why she would instruct people to comply with investigators then, perhaps in the dead of night delete emails herself. Really, she did that? Who witnessed it? Who will the Repubs call to testify to this?

You're a TrueBeliever, aren't you?  GodBless






Tell me, do you solemnly believe that Hill has ever had a single class of yoga ever in her life? How about 15,000 emails worth of yoga? Just curious






btw- Trump brilliantly played TheMockFool and lured Hill into the 3rd Debate!! Brilliant!! (sorry, couldn't resist!!)

[drogulus]

     

You're a TrueBeliever, aren't you?  GodBless

     I just put myself in her place. I'm supposed to preserve anything even arguably work-related, so I instruct the appropriate staffers to carry it out, they do, come back and ask me what I want done with the personal stuff, I say I don't want them, delete them, done. As for how exactly that task is accomplished, I find that out later when the whole affair blows up.

     This is how things happen in the real world. If you don't think she's trustworthy on the basis of this incident then don't vote for her. It's actually a legit reason not to. I think once burned, twice shy, and she's got a lot going for her, though I think there are ways she's slightly evil, around the edges, so to speak.

[zamyrabyrd]

Okay, I'll say the obvious:  the fact that you oppose Clinton on the merits of her policies, does not mean that sexism is not perniciously at play in this election.
Any more than, the fact that neither you nor zb are racist means that there is nothing to the argument that the engine of El Tupé's candidacy is white supremacist rage.

As a happy outsider, I was reading through this thread, glad I wasn't expending precious time and energy trying to convince anyone of anything and stumbled upon my initials.

OK, two points. Did anyone notice the socialist message embedded in practically everything the Secretary was saying? Her father was middle-class as opposed to Trump Sr. She was espousing the Robin Hood steal from the rich and give to the poor (pure, unadulterated socialism) as her "plan" to revive the economy, talking about "fair share" taxation while no one said a word about the sneaky mammoth Clinton Foundation laundering money right and left. She was mouthing bromides that may as well been lifted from Lenin's (or Alinsky's) notebook with no substance, like "come together, jobs for millions", blah, blah, hypnotizing anyone who would rather believe than think.

Trump did manage to put his foot in his mouth several times. However, he was more specific about the dire economic situation and what to do about it. Somehow, I think these issues managed to go over the heads of many who were just there to be soothed or coddled into "everything is going to be all right because she has a plan". This is where he missed and she gained because he was not reassuring and she was. However, the bad news will not go away.

The second point has to do with racism and alleged sexism. She is a bad example of a career woman, stepping over actual dead bodies to get what she wants by way of ambition. But more than that, I wonder if in the scale of oppressed minorities whether it would be preferred to vote for a white woman or white man. There is no black man in the race. This may be the tipping point why she won't get the golden ring. All these race and female issues may just come back to bite her in the end.

[Herman]

OK, two points. Did anyone notice the socialist message embedded in practically everything the Secretary was saying? Her father was middle-class as opposed to Trump Sr. She was espousing the Robin Hood steal from the rich and give to the poor (pure, unadulterated socialism)

So, how many ways do you want to have it. One the hand she is in hock with Wall St and on the other hand she's a "pure unadulterated socialist"? How does a person do this?
In reality HRC is so much a moderate Dem that she could have been a Republican thirty years ago. (And she came from a Republican family, as I recall.)
Far right Americans start to cry "socialism" as soon as anything approaching a civil society comes up in conversation, but that's only because they've moved so far to the fringe, and have zero experience of the real world.

Trump did manage to put his foot in his mouth several times. [...] However, the bad news will not go away.

much of the bad news actually has gone away. The economy is growing, unempoyment is shrinking, crime is down, things are looking up. However Trump and the GOP want you to be very very scared and sleep under your bed in fear for crime, terrorism and the bugaboo (socialists!).

She is a bad example of a career woman, stepping over actual dead bodies to get what she wants by way of ambition.

It goes without saying (for you) that ambition is a very unbecoming thing in a woman, but the 'actual' dead bodies, those have been made up. Unless you mean that if somebody dies in HRC's lifetime, it has to be her fault.

[Herman]

Best description of Trump's debate performance:

"It was like watching the Titanic hit the iceberg, and back up to hit it again, just for fun."

[zamyrabyrd]

So, how many ways do you want to have it. One the hand she is in hock with Wall St and on the other hand she's a "pure unadulterated socialist"? How does a person do this?

Cheating, connections, privileged insider knowledge, laundering money overseas - all the stuff that politicians do.

[Herman]

Cheating, connections, privileged insider knowledge, laundering money overseas - all the stuff that politicians do.

Look, I don't think anyone is saying Clinton is perfect, but she has been investigated for pretty much 25 years now and nothing actionable turned up. And you can rest assured that if she's elected the investigations will continue as long as she's around (and my guess is nothing actionable or impeachable will surface).

But the real question is, in what way do you fool yourself into thinking that Trump doesn't do these bad things to the nth degree, more than anyone else? After all, he bragged about both making extraordinary amounts of money and paying no federal taxes.

Same with the misogyny and the racism. Or the phony charity, which will come up some next time. It's one thing to do bad immoral things. But it's quite another thing to be proud of 'em and actually think it's good to steal large amounts money from the community and treat women and non-whites as second rate people.

[Karl Henning]

He gibbers.  Absolutely.

"I have a son. He's 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it's unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it's hardly do-able. But I will say, we are not doing the job we should be doing, but that's true throughout our whole governmental society."

"Look at the mess that we're in. Look at the mess that we're in. As far as the cyber, I agree to parts of what Secretary Clinton said, we should be better than anybody else, and perhaps we're not."

"I think Secretary Clinton and myself would agree very much, when you look at what Isis is doing with the internet, they're beating us at our own game. Isis. So we have to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare."

So part of what is going on is, I'm going to vote for someone I know gibbers, because he's not Clinton.

Going to vote for someone whose public response to his performance Monday night is exactly the loser-talk he contemns ("the mic was defective").  Wherever the buck stops, it ain't by him.

[Madiel]

The proposition that an American politician I saw described as "centrist" by a Republican newspaper today can be compared with Lenin is... I'm sorry, it's batshit insane.

What do you think Bernie Sanders is, then? I mean, no "establishment" Democrat would even manage to register as left-wing in most other countries in the developed world. Almost all American politics is a little right-wing by international standards. And that's what matters when you start trying to compare an American politician to international figures.

I can't think of anything that could demonstrate a lack of credibility better than declaring that Hillary Clinton is a rampaging communist.

[Karl Henning]

Mike Murphy, a veteran Republican strategist who has been critical of the party's nominee, said Trump's comments about Machado were "hugely tone deaf." The debate overall, he said, was for many Republicans "an 'Oh, crap' moment. If you thought he had a spring in his step for the last few weeks and was getting back in the hunt, that's pretty much gone."

[Karl Henning]

Moderator Lester Holt's question about Trump's birther crusade elicited not only a defense of his efforts but a declaration of pride that he, Trump, had forced President Obama to present his birth certificate.

"I think I did a good job," he said.

This is false, as any serious news consumer knows. But these two examples illustrate two key components of Trump's character — braggadocio and preening pride. Translation: insecurity and weakness. He was proud of two things — paying no taxes and racist pandering — for which most people of conscience would feel shame.

Doesn't matter! We'll vote to put him in the White House because he isn't Clinton!

[Karl Henning]

In today's Wall Street Journal:

With Pageant Winner Dispute, Trump Again Lets Personal Feud Become Campaign Issue

In what has become a recurring theme on the campaign trail this year, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has once again elevated a personal feud to the level of a campaign issue in a way that risks causing lasting damage to his political prospects just six weeks before Election Day.