US General Election Megathread: Trump vs Clinton

[Maurepas]

I honestly don't think she's going to be indicted. I would be surprised if Loretta Lynch actually let that happen while staring a Trump Presidency in the face. I mean, that might be cynical, but I think that's what it's going to come down to.

Well, I doubt they'd be investigating this long and throughly if their was nothing their. And while its not an indictment, obviously, the recent State Department report (from the Obama State Department) looks pretty damning, from what I've seen.

Yeah, but an independent agency being thorough isn't necessarily indicative of what the Attorney General is going to do is my point. I'm not even saying there isn't anything there, I'm saying playing politics I think will come first.

[New Jerzylvania]

Well, I doubt they'd be investigating this long and throughly if their was nothing their. And while its not an indictment, obviously, the recent State Department report (from the Obama State Department) looks pretty damning, from what I've seen.

Yeah, but an independent agency being thorough isn't necessarily indicative of what the Attorney General is going to do is my point. I'm not even saying there isn't anything there, I'm saying playing politics I think will come first.

Dog bites man, film at 11 tonight on Seeeeeeee-BS.

[The United Territories of Providence]

Well, we're only 7 weeks out from the convention. I'm pretty sure that if the leading candidate of a major political party was indicted by the Justice Department, that would fuck the party all the way down the ticket. Because now, no matter the candidate, we are the corruption party for the next few years. Think 1974 and 1976. Nixon fucks the party, so Democrats increase their Senate Majority 5 seats and House Majority 49 Seats. Then Ford loses to Carter 2 years later. There were other factors, and Watergate was a hell of a lot more complicated than this e-mail nonsense...but the principle is the same. You can't have the leader of your party, or rather next in line, implicated in something that is criminal. If Bernie Sanders got the nomination that way, he'd lose in a landslide. Most Americans haven't been paying attention to the primary, and they haven't formed an opinion of him. So these high favorable would more than likely, fall through the floor if Hillary is indicted, because that will be the only thing that most voters will know. They didn't watch the debates, or even vote in the primaries, they just know that the Democrats almost ascended a criminal to the top of their ticket. Not only that, a criminal was supported by 14 million democrats, nearly every democratic senator, governor, and house member and probably the President of the United States. Then Republicans will make the argument, and it'll be a good argument...

Reince Priebus, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, and All of the Former GOP candidates: "How can we trust anyone these people put forward? She kills 4 Americans in Libya, she lies, she enables a sex offender, she is horribly corrupt, she's the symbol of dynastic politics and now she's going to jail. That's who the party says represents them. Does she represent you? A lying, corrupt, career politician? You may have your differences with Mr.Trump, but he's no criminal. We Republican would never stand behind someone who would put Americans at risk like she has, and by the way, we didn't indict her. People appointed by her boss indicted her. So we're not saying she's a criminal, Obama is. Obama never indicted Donald Trump"

An indictment should've come....Before Iowa, and Michigan at the latest. Now? We'd be Fucked with a capital F.

Meanwhile Bush 43 and pals are wanted for war crimes in several nations.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/3 ... war-crimes
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/po ... ar-crimes/
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/201 ... -absentia/
https://www.darkmoon.me/2015/germany-pl ... ar-crimes/

Hillary's e-mails? Her fucking e-mails are the problem?
Ha-ha-ha!

1. Voters don't care
2. Republicans haven't won a National Election since 2004, so maybe you've proved my point that one person can fuck a party for literally a decade.
3. I wish voters would take the time to compare "I did dumb shit with emails" to "I committed war crimes". Then maybe these polls wouldn't be so close. Because it's a fair comparison to make, because there is fake outrage over "corruption" vs..you know...war crimes.

[New Jerzylvania]

Meanwhile Bush 43 and pals are wanted for war crimes in several nations.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/3 ... war-crimes
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/po ... ar-crimes/
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/201 ... -absentia/
https://www.darkmoon.me/2015/germany-pl ... ar-crimes/

Hillary's e-mails? Her fucking e-mails are the problem?
Ha-ha-ha!

1. Voters don't care
2. Republicans haven't won a National Election since 2004, so maybe you've proved my point that one person can fuck a party for literally a decade.
3. I wish voters would take the time to compare "I did dumb shit with emails" to "I committed war crimes". Then maybe these polls wouldn't be so close. Because it's a fair comparison to make, because there is fake outrage over "corruption" vs..you know...war crimes.

1. Voters are totally jaded and partisan as hell, more so than ever before.
2. Proof? That was my intention. I know where the "proof lies." Get it? "Proof Lies."
3. Polls are wrongest in May of an election year. Best ones are taken in February until the August ones come out. Outrage as fake as comparing a Chinese Rolex versus a fake orgasm. I'd rather be stuck with the fake orgasm or the e-mails. lmao.
http://election.princeton.edu/2016/05/2 ... il-august/

[USS Monitor]

Meanwhile Bush 43 and pals are wanted for war crimes in several nations.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/3 ... war-crimes
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/po ... ar-crimes/
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/201 ... -absentia/
https://www.darkmoon.me/2015/germany-pl ... ar-crimes/

Hillary's e-mails? Her fucking e-mails are the problem?
Ha-ha-ha!

1. Voters don't care
2. Republicans haven't won a National Election since 2004, so maybe you've proved my point that one person can fuck a party for literally a decade.
3. I wish voters would take the time to compare "I did dumb shit with emails" to "I committed war crimes". Then maybe these polls wouldn't be so close. Because it's a fair comparison to make, because there is fake outrage over "corruption" vs..you know...war crimes.

Hillary supported the war that those war crimes charges are based on.

[Geilinor]

1. Voters don't care
2. Republicans haven't won a National Election since 2004, so maybe you've proved my point that one person can fuck a party for literally a decade.
3. I wish voters would take the time to compare "I did dumb shit with emails" to "I committed war crimes". Then maybe these polls wouldn't be so close. Because it's a fair comparison to make, because there is fake outrage over "corruption" vs..you know...war crimes.

Hillary supported the war that those war crimes charges are based on.

Voting for it and being in charge and carrying out the war at the time are very different. The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal is also a kangaroo court.

[Maurepas]

Hillary supported the war that those war crimes charges are based on.

Voting for it and being in charge and carrying out the war at the time are very different.

Also, I mean, she was basically sold false information by the Bush Administration. If the stuff they were saying was true then, while I might not necessarily support it, I at least understand why someone might. The culprit there, as always, were the people selling us on the false pretenses, and the people who carried it out, ultimately.

[New Jerzylvania]

1. Voters don't care
2. Republicans haven't won a National Election since 2004, so maybe you've proved my point that one person can fuck a party for literally a decade.
3. I wish voters would take the time to compare "I did dumb shit with emails" to "I committed war crimes". Then maybe these polls wouldn't be so close. Because it's a fair comparison to make, because there is fake outrage over "corruption" vs..you know...war crimes.

Hillary supported the war that those war crimes charges are based on.

Which means... exactly what in this context? Did Senator Clinton or any other approve of the waterboarding, the removal of prisoner's fingernails etc, etc?

[New Jerzylvania]

Voting for it and being in charge and carrying out the war at the time are very different.

Also, I mean, she was basically sold false information by the Bush Administration. If the stuff they were saying was true then, while I might not necessarily support it, I at least understand why someone might. The culprit there, as always, were the people selling us on the false pretenses, and the people who carried it out, ultimately.

Exactly. Now we'll all have a piece of yellow cake for dessert!

[USS Monitor]

Hillary supported the war that those war crimes charges are based on.

Voting for it and being in charge and carrying out the war at the time are very different.

They aren't different except in the length of sentence that someone deserves if convicted.

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal is also a kangaroo court.

Stopped clocks, right twice a day.

[USS Monitor]

Voting for it and being in charge and carrying out the war at the time are very different.

Also, I mean, she was basically sold false information by the Bush Administration. If the stuff they were saying was true then, while I might not necessarily support it, I at least understand why someone might. The culprit there, as always, were the people selling us on the false pretenses, and the people who carried it out, ultimately.

If I knew the truth before the invasion took place, which I did, there was no excuse for someone voting on it not to know.

There was never a time when it was reasonable to think the invasion of Iraq was justified. There were only a lot of oblivious people making indefensible decisions.

[New Jerzylvania]

Voting for it and being in charge and carrying out the war at the time are very different.

They aren't different except in the length of sentence that someone deserves if convicted.

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal is also a kangaroo court.

Stopped clocks, right twice a day.

What kind of court did Chelsea Manning get? Or what kind of courtroom proceedings is waiting for Julain Assange or Edward Snowden. Bet there is an outback quality to them.

[New Jerzylvania]

Also, I mean, she was basically sold false information by the Bush Administration. If the stuff they were saying was true then, while I might not necessarily support it, I at least understand why someone might. The culprit there, as always, were the people selling us on the false pretenses, and the people who carried it out, ultimately.

If I knew the truth before the invasion took place, which I did, there was no excuse for someone voting on it not to know.

There was never a time when it was reasonable to think the invasion of Iraq was justified. There were only a lot of oblivious people making indefensible decisions.

It's called a rush to judgement. Perhaps a stampede as the shock doctrine needs to manifests itself.
http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/the-book
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
https://vimeo.com/26718047

[The United Territories of Providence]

1. Voters don't care
2. Republicans haven't won a National Election since 2004, so maybe you've proved my point that one person can fuck a party for literally a decade.
3. I wish voters would take the time to compare "I did dumb shit with emails" to "I committed war crimes". Then maybe these polls wouldn't be so close. Because it's a fair comparison to make, because there is fake outrage over "corruption" vs..you know...war crimes.

Hillary supported the war that those war crimes charges are based on.

No, she voted for the Resolution. The Resolution did indeed authorize President Bush, under strict requirements of the 1973 War Powers Act, to use force, Section 3(b) of the Act also required that sanctions or diplomacy be fully employed before force was used, i.e. force was to be used only as “necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,” and to do so only upon the President certifying to Congress that “diplomatic or other peaceful means” would be insufficient to defang Saddam. If Hillary bears any blame for the resulting war, it is because she placed too much reliance on legislation that was actually designed to check a president’s war-making ability but instead inadvertently gave that president cover to run roughshod over the interests of both Congress and the public at large.

She said this, on the floor of the senate in 2002 in the days leading up to the vote.
"Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections. This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. … My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our Nation, the rule of international law, and the peace and security of people throughout the world. This is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort."

[Maurepas]

Also, I mean, she was basically sold false information by the Bush Administration. If the stuff they were saying was true then, while I might not necessarily support it, I at least understand why someone might. The culprit there, as always, were the people selling us on the false pretenses, and the people who carried it out, ultimately.

If I knew the truth before the invasion took place, which I did, there was no excuse for someone voting on it not to know.

There was never a time when it was reasonable to think the invasion of Iraq was justified. There were only a lot of oblivious people making indefensible decisions.

I think that's probably a bit of a stretch. I mean, it's quite the assumption in 2002 that the Bush Administration was explicitly lying to you. I guess maybe blind partisanship might lead one to that conclusion by default, but they claimed to have actual evidence that he was about to use WMDs on his own people and neighboring countries.

Obviously now we know they wanted that narrative to begin with and tortured what they wanted out of prisoners to confirm it, but I don't think it's fair to blame Hillary for not assuming that someone who claimed to care about this country would do that.

[Geilinor]

She said this, on the floor of the senate in 2002 in the days leading up to the vote.
"Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections. This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. … My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our Nation, the rule of international law, and the peace and security of people throughout the world. This is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort."

This is good. She thought about it carefully and always wanted to try diplomacy first. It was not, looking at this, a reckless decision and it was clearly thought through. I've never accepted the idea that Clinton is an unthinking or instinctive hawk.

[USS Monitor]

Hillary supported the war that those war crimes charges are based on.

No, she voted for the Resolution. The Resolution did indeed authorize President Bush, under strict requirements of the 1973 War Powers Act, to use force, Section 3(b) of the Act also required that sanctions or diplomacy be fully employed before force was used, i.e. force was to be used only as “necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,” and to do so only upon the President certifying to Congress that “diplomatic or other peaceful means” would be insufficient to defang Saddam. If Hillary bears any blame for the resulting war, it is because she placed too much reliance on legislation that was actually designed to check a president’s war-making ability but instead inadvertently gave that president cover to run roughshod over the interests of both Congress and the public at large.

She said this, on the floor of the senate in 2002 in the days leading up to the vote.
"Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections. This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. … My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our Nation, the rule of international law, and the peace and security of people throughout the world. This is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort."

Saying that's not a vote for a doctrine of preemption or unilateralism is about as convincing as Hitler saying he only wanted land ceded to Germany, or only wanted to remilitarize the Rhineland, to preserve the peace. Authorizing people in your government to commit war crimes or crimes against peaces gives you a responsibility for whatever they do with that authorization, no matter how much you talk out of your ass and pretend that's not what you're authorizing.

[Maurepas]

Saying that's not a vote for a doctrine of preemption or unilateralism is about as convincing as Hitler saying he only wanted land ceded to Germany, or only wanted to remilitarize the Rhineland, to preserve the peace. Authorizing people in your government to commit war crimes or crimes against peaces gives you a responsibility for whatever they do with that authorization, no matter how much you talk out of your ass and pretend that's not what you're authorizing.

I would say whether or not "preemption or unilateralism"(which actually was not what the Bush adminstration was selling, they claimed a "Coalition of the Willing" and that Saddam had struck his own people first if you recall) counts as "war crimes or crimes against peace" is a different argument though.

[USS Monitor]

If I knew the truth before the invasion took place, which I did, there was no excuse for someone voting on it not to know.

There was never a time when it was reasonable to think the invasion of Iraq was justified. There were only a lot of oblivious people making indefensible decisions.

I think that's probably a bit of a stretch. I mean, it's quite the assumption in 2002 that the Bush Administration was explicitly lying to you. I guess maybe blind partisanship might lead one to that conclusion by default, but they claimed to have actual evidence that he was about to use WMDs on his own people and neighboring countries.

Obviously now we know they wanted that narrative to begin with and tortured what they wanted out of prisoners to confirm it, but I don't think it's fair to blame Hillary for not assuming that someone who claimed to care about this country would do that.

People in the intelligence community were already saying it was a load of shit, and there were a few articles debunking it. It wasn't really that hard to find out if you were paying attention and not blindly accepting every word that came out of Bush's mouth.

[Maurepas]

I think that's probably a bit of a stretch. I mean, it's quite the assumption in 2002 that the Bush Administration was explicitly lying to you. I guess maybe blind partisanship might lead one to that conclusion by default, but they claimed to have actual evidence that he was about to use WMDs on his own people and neighboring countries.

Obviously now we know they wanted that narrative to begin with and tortured what they wanted out of prisoners to confirm it, but I don't think it's fair to blame Hillary for not assuming that someone who claimed to care about this country would do that.

People in the intelligence community were already saying it was a load of shit, and there were a few articles debunking it. It wasn't really that hard to find out if you were paying attention and not blindly accepting every word that came out of Bush's mouth.

I'd like to see some sources for that. I'm not saying it wasn't there necessarily, so much as I don't remember it that way at all. I don't remember the first doubts coming in until after the mission was supposedly accomplished, heh.

[Galloism]

People in the intelligence community were already saying it was a load of shit, and there were a few articles debunking it. It wasn't really that hard to find out if you were paying attention and not blindly accepting every word that came out of Bush's mouth.

I'd like to see some sources for that. I'm not saying it wasn't there necessarily, so much as I don't remember it that way at all. I don't remember the first doubts coming in until after the mission was supposedly accomplished, heh.

Well, I started saying this was probably some kind of twisted revenge for his father almost as soon as he talked about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but, much like the whole prelude to Attila the Hun, nobody listens to me ever just because I was drunk at the time.

[USS Monitor]

Saying that's not a vote for a doctrine of preemption or unilateralism is about as convincing as Hitler saying he only wanted land ceded to Germany, or only wanted to remilitarize the Rhineland, to preserve the peace. Authorizing people in your government to commit war crimes or crimes against peaces gives you a responsibility for whatever they do with that authorization, no matter how much you talk out of your ass and pretend that's not what you're authorizing.

I would say whether or not "preemption or unilateralism"(which actually was not what the Bush adminstration was selling, they claimed a "Coalition of the Willing" and that Saddam had struck his own people first if you recall) counts as "war crimes or crimes against peace" is a different argument though.

Preemption and crimes against peace are different names for the same thing, and that's what I think Hillary deserves to be tried for -- along with a lot of other people in the US political establishment.

War crimes are a different thing, and not applicable to people like Hillary who weren't involved beyond authorizing the war.

[Maurepas]

I'd like to see some sources for that. I'm not saying it wasn't there necessarily, so much as I don't remember it that way at all. I don't remember the first doubts coming in until after the mission was supposedly accomplished, heh.

Well, I started saying this was probably some kind of twisted revenge for his father almost as soon as he talked about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but, much like the whole prelude to Attila the Hun, nobody listens to me ever just because I was drunk at the time.

heh heh heh, I do think there is some merit to that idea, I think they were itching for it since Desert Storm really.

[Maurepas]

I would say whether or not "preemption or unilateralism"(which actually was not what the Bush adminstration was selling, they claimed a "Coalition of the Willing" and that Saddam had struck his own people first if you recall) counts as "war crimes or crimes against peace" is a different argument though.

Preemption and crimes against peace are different names for the same thing, and that's what I think Hillary deserves to be tried for -- along with a lot of other people in the US political establishment.

War crimes are a different thing, and not applicable to people like Hillary who weren't involved beyond authorizing the war.

To be honest I'd probably have a lot of sympathy for that position myself, I just tend to have less ire for the people being lied to than the people doing the lying.

[Galloism]

Well, I started saying this was probably some kind of twisted revenge for his father almost as soon as he talked about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but, much like the whole prelude to Attila the Hun, nobody listens to me ever just because I was drunk at the time.

heh heh heh, I do think there is some merit to that idea, I think they were itching for it since Desert Storm really.

I don't think Desert Storm had much to do with it, honestly.

I think it had to do with the Iraqi government attempting to assassinate George H.W. Bush, and widespread belief that it had the sign-off of Saddam Hussein (which, for all we know, it might have).

Just my opinion, but I'll likely never be able to prove it.