Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

[veiva]

I'm curious what people here who want Hillary indicted think of people like Snowden/Manning who actually, intentionally, and willingly compromised national security since I seem to notice some people that feel that Hillary should be indicted feel like whistleblowers should be pardoned by the government.

Per your example, Snowden and Manning obtained information about ethically unsavory or illegal activities committed by the government. They brought these issues to the public's attention. Snowden, for example, was able to provide substantial evidence of the mass surveillance apparatus of the NSA that was often dismissed as some conspiracy theory prior. This was civil disobedience.

Ideally, I do believe Snowden should have had a trial and and the rest, if he stayed (i.e., "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison." [Thoreau, Resistance to Civil Government]). However, it's not likely Snowden's trial would be, by any means, reasonable, nor his punishment fair, and leaving the United States to seek asylum elsewhere is sacrifice enough. I don't know enough about the specifics of Manning's case, so I have no comments on her situation.

Clinton using a private email server was not a means to bring ethically unsavory or illegal activities committed by the government to the public's attention. She acted as if regulations and standards for government employees were flimsy guidelines and acted in her own authority (which leads to questions about the security of her communications, etc). This was a general case of the rules applying differently based on one's power.

In honesty, your simplification is equivalent to a juvenile comparison of self-defense and murder. In both cases, a person dies, but in one case it's reasonably justifiable, while in the other, it's not. A person being dead isn't how the situation is judged. Similarly, classified information being leaked isn't how the situation is being judged; the reasons behind classified information being leaked is being judged.

 

[JES]

I'm curious what people here who want Hillary indicted think of people like Snowden/Manning who actually, intentionally, and willingly compromised national security since I seem to notice some people that feel that Hillary should be indicted feel like whistleblowers should be pardoned by the government.

I know nothing about Manning, but I am familiar with the Snowden Incident. The fact of the matter is that Snowden leaked an illegal program unconsented by the American people, run by the NSA, which can only mean they feared that if they asked for approval, the answer would be a resounding "no", pointing to a conspiracy against the American people.
And this is still unresolved, and surprisingly hasn't been addressed in this election. Guess it's a blacklisted topic in the debates, or both major candidates support this Big Brother surveillance state we currently live in.

Whatever secrets that Snowden might have sold to Russia in exchange for amnesty (and to avoid the fate of rotting in a Federal prison, if not quietly executed, because the intelligence and military parts of the government do not take kindly to those who expose their conspiracies when they have no way of denying they exist), name one that has had a greater impact than living under a Big Brother state where the government might be logging this thread in an archive right now.

Kim Jong-un is what you're looking for:
-He can wrangle in the crony capitalists by banning capitalism and jailing all of wall st.
-As sexist man alive, Kim Jong-un will charm all others who happen to disagree with his righteous wisdom and limitless intellectual power
-Because he is a god, Kim Jong-un can abolish the constitution, making crime rates fall to near-0 numbers and by reinstating slavery we can bring jobs back to America because our labor markets would be more competitive than the likes of India and China.
-By allowing Kim Jong-un to shift 95% of the budget to the military, we can put an end to terrorism and simultaneously gain control over all of the middle eastern countries' oil
-Kim Jong-un will also bring unemployment rates to 0 because the slave workforce will be too busy building public monuments to the glorious leader.

So ya fuk Trump, Clinton, Gary the Snail, and that other old bitchass that's high on dat good 420 shit and VOTE KIM!!!

If this were to happen, I'd join vote for Giant Meteor 2016. Just end it already if this happens!

Edit:

/snip/

Greninja'd

But yeah, you see we have valid points, yes?

 

[manodelrey]

I can't believe people are defending a person who used yahoo mail to store top national secrets. How blind can you really be to the gross negligence of the law. She should have been indicted by every definition of the law and the ten minutes before Comey realized that his boss was about to start campaigning with Hillary, he laid out every law that she broke.

 

[sunny004]

I can't believe people are defending a person who used yahoo mail to store top national secrets. How blind can you really be to the gross negligence of the law. She should have been indicted by every definition of the law and the ten minutes before Comey realized that his boss was about to start campaigning with Hillary, he laid out every law that she broke.

Dude, yahoo mail is 100% dope ass email 1337/420 would store nuclear football codes on it

--

Anyway you can give a bunch of shit on the people who are defending Hillary, but let's take a step back: With a pretty aloof, disengaged electorate, email security is almost a second-class issue. What's in the forefront of the minds of most US citizens are two issues: Job security and domestic terrorism. Like it or not, most people would rather keep their job instead of letting their LGBT neighbor get married/go to the bathroom they identify as. (Public support is in favor of these things because it promotes equality while simultaneously does not threaten their livelihoods). This is why a candidate such as Trump is so popular; he is a carismatic speaker who is promising both job security and homeland security. Since his appalling restrictions on minority groups don't affect them, they don't really care. Sad, but true. But, I'm getting off track. The reason why Hillary has been garnering lots of support amidst the email scandal is because frankly people don't think her emails are that big of an issue.

This post was kinda written haphazardly so if you have any questions just ask

P.S. I'd also like to say that while Clinton kinda sux she has/had a MUCH better chance to win a general election compared to Sanders, for three reasons. 1) People still are somewhat turned off by a Socialist 2) His far-left views would have turned off moderate/swing voters. 3) In comparison to Clinton, he has received much less heat from Republicans (partially because they were hoping to boost his numbers to a) draw away voters disillusioned by Clinton, like some people above, and b) So they could absolutely shit on him with attacks in a general election. Did you know that he spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union? Major turn off for voters with memories of Cold War)

 

[Oddish is the best]

I do support Hillary and her policies, I just often don't in public/online because of the amount of backlash one usually faces and how hard it is generally to often have discussion about politics that doesn't just say "You're a shill for supporting Hillary". I think this forum does a pretty decent job at it though.



What I mean more with the partisan stuff is just that Republicans have for DECADES been smearing the Clintons and exaggerating/making an issue of something much more severe then it actually is. The case investigating Clinton and the actual CRIMINAL part of her email is all about intent and she clearly did not willingly intend to compromise national security and there was no evidence that her email server was hacked either. The controversial classified emails were about drone strikes that was a highly time sensitive thing and aren't classified anymore. She made a mistake and while something bad could've happened over it (such as getting hacked, leaking info, etc), nothing did. I'd say the FBI's investigation was accurate, it was risky and reckless, but it didn't break any laws because it's about intent and willfully leaking out classified information which she didn't do.


I also think Clinton supporters don't care as much about this because most are people who lived during the Clinton presidency and have heard a lot of these scandals and just don't really care that much even if this issue is/was potentially more serious then the others. That's what constant right wing started investigations against someone does I guess is more to what I'm referring too.


Also sidenote, it'll never not make me laugh when so called "progressive" Bernie supporters use known right wing news sites like Breitbart and Fox News as reliable "sources" against Hillary lol.


Even though I like Hillary (I know hang me) I kind of wish Biden was running at this point since it probably would've been a SAFER pick then Hillary. Regardless I think she'd do a good job as president and she's actually more liberal then Biden anyways (although that probably won't matter since Repubicans will have control of the house till 2022, thanks Gerrymandering!)

 

[manodelrey]

So everyone wants to vote for a lady who has lied multiple times on this case alone? Go back and look at every statement of hers about this email and look at how much she lied. All emails on one server, lie. Didn't have classified information on the email, lie. Turned over all the emails on the server, lie. Didn't delete any classified emails, lie. You are all delusional to think she will be more open if she is given the presidency.

Also love how she is trying to come at this feminist point too. Did no one else laugh when she said every woman should be believed? What a joke. Every woman should be believed, unless they are accusing my husband of rape. Then I will drag your character through the dirt and put you through hell for such an accusation.

Plus you know this

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...on-took-me-through-hell-rape-victim-says.html


Also start around 50 seconds here

Notice how she blames the video and straight up lies to families grieving their dead.

Then of course the internet can find everything on her

Then of course Chinagate
http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/67773448.html

Travelgate
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/05/us/memo-places-hillary-clinton-at-core-of-travel-office-case.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr950227.htm

Whitewater scandal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/timeline.htm

Vince Foster Jr.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...llary-Clintons-close-friend-Vince-Foster.html


Filegate
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/11/us/whitewater-counsel-examining-use-of-fbi-to-get-gop-files.html
http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/hillary-clinton-tries-to-escape-from-on-going-filegate-case

Cattle-Futures
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm


Lootergate
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/feb/10/news/mn-23723


Drug dealers in the whitehouse thanks to campaign contributions
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/CAB/clintoncabrera.html

Nice Ponzi scheme friends
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118920845515221199


Plenty of lies from Hillary
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/08/opinion/essay-blizzard-of-lies.html


Clinton foundations
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/u...nces-and-ambitions.html?pagewanted=3&_r=2&hp&


Please, you delusional Hillary supporters, defend this. Please try, I need a good laugh

 

[Nightingales]

This kind of stuff is why I think America is totally and absolutely fucked.

 

[JES]

k

P.S. I'd also like to say that while Clinton kinda sux she has/had a MUCH better chance to win a general election compared to Sanders, for three reasons. 1) People still are somewhat turned off by a Socialist 2) His far-left views would have turned off moderate/swing voters. 3) In comparison to Clinton, he has received much less heat from Republicans (partially because they were hoping to boost his numbers to a) draw away voters disillusioned by Clinton, like some people above, and b) So they could absolutely shit on him with attacks in a general election. Did you know that he spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union? Major turn off for voters with memories of Cold War)

Uh, you really think people would actually vote for Trump over Sanders? Because if the Democratic Party is demanding for progressives to fall in line and vote for Hillary, but wouldn't do the same for Sanders, that would just mean that they are double standard bastards, and have no right to be telling critics who refuse to vote for their candidate that they are spoiling it for them by voting for third party candidates. While I might think that some of Bernie's policies might be too far left, it would be a far better deal than what we'll get with either Hillary (more of the same) or Trump (who will do whatever the hell he wants, and probably NOT for the greater good)!

 

[Oddish is the best]

Sanders wouldn't be able to pass any of his agenda in congress with it being republican controlled atm (and the house unlikely to go into democrat control because of gerrymandering). Never underestimate the power of "Your taxes are going up by so much!". It's why the Democrats lost elections in the 80's :O


I think the illusion that Bernie is more electable is largely because people DON'T know the "dirt" on him and he hasn't been attacked by the right wing media at all. It's not common knowledge about his essays on "womens fantasies" and supporting the "sandernistas" in Nicaragua as well as vactioning in the Soviet Union. While I don't really care that much about those, the right wing media will certaintly make a bigger deal out of it and attack Sanders on it and as we know, he doesn't handle being pressured well on things he claims not to have knowledge of (Like how he couldn't name how he was going to break up the banks in an interview )


Of course all this doesn't matter since millions more DEMOCRATS choose Hillary in the DEMOCRATIC primary. If more people really wanted him then more people would've voted and/or signed up to be democrats to vote for him (and yes pretty much ALL states had deadlines extending into the spring except for a few extreme outliers like New York).

 

[JES]

Sanders wouldn't be able to pass any of his agenda in congress with it being republican controlled atm (and the house unlikely to go into democrat control because of gerrymandering). Never underestimate the power of "Your taxes are going up by so much!". It's why the Democrats lost elections in the 80's :O


I think the illusion that Bernie is more electable is largely because people DON'T know the "dirt" on him and he hasn't been attacked by the right wing media at all. It's not common knowledge about his essays on "womens fantasies" and supporting the "sandernistas" in Nicaragua as well as vactioning in the Soviet Union. While I don't really care that much about those, the right wing media will certaintly make a bigger deal out of it and attack Sanders on it and as we know, he doesn't handle being pressured well on things he claims not to have knowledge of (Like how he couldn't name how he was going to break up the banks in an interview )


Of course all this doesn't matter since millions more DEMOCRATS choose Hillary in the DEMOCRATIC primary. If more people really wanted him then more people would've voted and/or signed up to be democrats to vote for him (and yes pretty much ALL states had deadlines extending into the spring except for a few extreme outliers like New York).

Okay, I know nothing about the sandernistas, but I've heard of far worse than essays on "women's fantasies" (how bad could they be), and vacationing in the Soviet Union.

You're right about the Republicans being uncooperative, but they'll do what they do, regardless if it's Clinton or Sanders, unless you're willing to do something in return for them, which is really rarely something that is in the best interests of the American public. And with the rising amount of activism, maybe with help, Sanders could get legislation that is really popular passed, or else anyone in Congress who opposes it might loose their seat in the next election year in retaliation (which is probably the sort of activism we need if we are to fix this country anyways).

You do have a point that he doesn't have much details on how he will carry out his policies, and depending on if he can figure it out, or the advisors he chooses for his cabinet, it can make or break his proposals.

But unlike Hillary, I feel that his heart is in the right place. If you can find me any instances where he has been involved in scandals on the level that Hillary has been accused of, then you might have a point that he isn't any more electable than Hillary.

And it is actually questionable how ahead Clinton is. Have you heard of the evidence of election fraud that has been found New York and California?

And it might have happened all over the entire country, in every primary for all we know, and if that's the case Hillary has no right to be the nominee. So until the critics are debunked, that last argument has no merit. Conspiracy theorists have been saying that a shadowy group has been manipulating this country's elections for years, and we might finally have proof!

 

[Oddish is the best]

I think the democratic coalition that votes in presidential years needs to vote in midterms.... 2010 and 2014 yeesh



If Hillary was "rigging" elections then why didn't she do it in 2008 when she had more superdelegates and more of the party wanted her yet Obama won anyways..... Most of the claims are just too ridiculous and the ones with valid merit like Arizona for instance were cause by Republicans and both Sanders and Clinton are working to fight that. Additionally in New York the majority of people who got dropped from voting were hispanic who favored Clinton by large numbers so it probably would've just increased Hillary's margin of victory. I think what I'm trying to mean more is that there is REAL voter supression going on, just not what Bernie people are complaining about (I'm talking about voter I.D laws, elimination of early voting, elimination of polling stations, etc etc)




I'd argue the biggest "voter supression" is caucus's since they get far lower voter turnout then primaries and the results have actually CHANGED in states that did both. I find it interesting how Bernie argued for open primaries in all contests but not for the elimination of caucsus's which have way lower turnout then primaries :/ I think we all know why he didn't argue for them to be eliminated....

 

[JES]

If Hillary was "rigging" elections then why didn't she do it in 2008 when she had more superdelegates and more of the party wanted her yet Obama won anyways..... Most of the claims are just too ridiculous and the ones with valid merit like Arizona for instance were cause by Republicans and both Sanders and Clinton are working to fight that. Additionally in New York the majority of people who got dropped from voting were hispanic who favored Clinton by large numbers so it probably would've just increased Hillary's margin of victory. I think what I'm trying to mean more is that there is REAL voter supression going on, just not what Bernie people are complaining about (I'm talking about voter I.D laws, elimination of early voting, elimination of polling stations, etc etc)

I don't think Hillary is rigging the election in her favor. I'm not even sure she is aware of it or not... Perhaps she is, perhaps she isn't. But there is clearly a higher power that wants her to at least be the Democratic nominee...and I wouldn't be surprise if she wins the general election, and evidence comes out that the electronic voting machines were hacked, just like in New York and California. Hopefully, the lawsuit won't be dropped on some frivolous technicality, and will bring this very real threat to light, though it will probably be too late for this election cycle. And I don't see how the possibility of the electronic voting machines being hacked could be a greater threat to democracy than voter I.D. laws, elimination of early voting, and elimination of polling stations, as much as we can agree they are a threat to democracy no doubt.

 

[Oddish is the best]

Because one of them is actually happening and the other isn't.

 

[Bass]

If Hillary was "rigging" elections then why didn't she do it in 2008 when she had more superdelegates and more of the party wanted her yet Obama won anyways.....

Apples to oranges comparison. Obama was and has proven to be pro-establishment like Clinton has and her initial lead in superdelegates back then had more to do with her being a known quantity to the party. Sanders on the other hand was also a known quantity, but not pro-establishment. I am not going to make insinuations that voting machines were hacked since that's impossible to prove, but in the case of 2008, why rig a primary when either outcome is fine for the powers that be?

Most of the claims are just too ridiculous and the ones with valid merit like Arizona for instance were cause by Republicans and both Sanders and Clinton are working to fight that. Additionally in New York the majority of people who got dropped from voting were hispanic who favored Clinton by large numbers so it probably would've just increased Hillary's margin of victory. I think what I'm trying to mean more is that there is REAL voter supression going on, just not what Bernie people are complaining about (I'm talking about voter I.D laws, elimination of early voting, elimination of polling stations, etc etc)

For fuck sake, the lack of polling places is not the main complaint from Sanders people as far as rigging is concerned. It's the fact that an abnormally large number of voters were forced to vote with provisional ballots (which weren't counted) because their party affiliations were changed to Republican or Independent and thus making them ineligible to vote in closed primary states. The whole fiasco in Nevada actually resulted from Sanders delegates being invalidated because their party affiliations were improperly switched before the state convention. I am legitimately curious if you have heard of these things happening, but I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't because the mainstream media was completely silent about this They were only reported on reddit, social media, and independent media outlets.

I'd argue the biggest "voter supression" is caucus's since they get far lower voter turnout then primaries and the results have actually CHANGED in states that did both. I find it interesting how Bernie argued for open primaries in all contests but not for the elimination of caucsus's which have way lower turnout then primaries :/ I think we all know why he didn't argue for them to be eliminated....

You can't make that argument for states that did both since the primaries held in those states were held long after the caucuses, and were known to not actually award delegates. Furthermore the primaries in Nebraska and Washington were not heavily advertised to voters by either campaign nearly to the extent the caucuses were, so those that voted were more likely to be longtime members of the democratic party. In other words, they are biased in favor of Clinton by design. While I think it is likely that the caucus format favored Sanders due to a greater amount of enthusiasm in his base, it is probably way overstated. Most of the caucuses he won were in states with lower median ages and African American voters.

 

[manodelrey]

So I take it, no hillary supporter wants to defend her against my last post. But fucking trump wouldn't put that out there either since he is completely retarded. James Comey gave him an entire speech to destroy Hillary in her worst news cycle ever during a presidential election and he wants to talk about his jewish star stupidity and how awesome Saddam Hussein is for fucks sake. Please RNC, unbound the delegates and vote for someone else. There is no data out there, other than Trumpbots spewing bullshit, that says trump will beat Hillary. So not only does he not represent any conservative or most republican views, but his whole platform of beating Hillary is also bullshit. Get this man off the ticket and get him out of the news

 

[jrp]

So I take it, no hillary supporter wants to defend her against my last post. But fucking trump wouldn't put that out there either since he is completely retarded. James Comey gave him an entire speech to destroy Hillary in her worst news cycle ever during a presidential election and he wants to talk about his jewish star stupidity and how awesome Saddam Hussein is for fucks sake. Please RNC, unbound the delegates and vote for someone else. There is no data out there, other than Trumpbots spewing bullshit, that says trump will beat Hillary. So not only does he not represent any conservative or most republican views, but his whole platform of beating Hillary is also bullshit. Get this man off the ticket and get him out of the news

If that happened at the convention, it would make sure that he Republicans never won another presidential election
Trump'e advantage as a candidate is that he appeals to populism, and a lot of people voted specifically because they wanted him and nobody else. he's truly the Bernie of the Republicans in that regard, and if the party took his delegates way... a lot of people that voted for him would never vote for the Republicans again

 

[manodelrey]

If that happened at the convention, it would make sure that he Republicans never won another presidential election
Trump'e advantage as a candidate is that he appeals to populism, and a lot of people voted specifically because they wanted him and nobody else. he's truly the Bernie of the Republicans in that regard, and if the party took his delegates way... a lot of people that voted for him would never vote for the Republicans again

Not necessarily true. Hillary is a very weak candidate and most of the support for Trump is based just on the fact that he isn't Hillary. If there is an actual candidate up there and you lose half of trumps supporters and gain all the repubicans, conservatives, conservative libertarions that refuse to support or vote for trump or are holding their nose and maybe supporting him at the end, then that is a major gain in voters, not a loss. Trump is losing to Hillary, and Hillary is so beatable that it is frustrating that Trump can't do it. He is either a false flag sent by Hillary or possibly the dumbest politician alive. Either way, any candidate that does come in and replace trump on the ticket can easily weather the instant week storm and absolutely berate Hillary Clinton on everything I put forth in a previous comment and more. Plus they could actually debate her and hammer her into the ground during debates which would shut up most trumpbots into submission either showing that the new candidate can beat Hillary and with probably much better polling numbers prove without a shadow of a doubt that trump is an absolutely awful candidate

 

[JES]

Because one of them is actually happening and the other isn't.

Did you just dismiss the voting fraud case as false? Because I'm pretty convinced that it is very possible the electronic voting machines were hacked! Take great care before you dismiss something of such serious consequences. Did you even pay attention to the video I posted? It's very important. I love your avatar (Rey FTW!), but your doubt is getting to be unreasonably annoying. You didn't even say why it wasn't even possible that this could be happening.

And Bass hit one of your questions that I didn't answer on the head: Obama won partially because TPTB didn't give a flying fuck who won, so long as whoever won pulled the party line, and boy, did he pull the party line!

Not necessarily true. Hillary is a very weak candidate and most of the support for Trump is based just on the fact that he isn't Hillary. If there is an actual candidate up there and you lose half of trumps supporters and gain all the repubicans, conservatives, conservative libertarions that refuse to support or vote for trump or are holding their nose and maybe supporting him at the end, then that is a major gain in voters, not a loss. Trump is losing to Hillary, and Hillary is so beatable that it is frustrating that Trump can't do it. He is either a false flag sent by Hillary or possibly the dumbest politician alive. Either way, any candidate that does come in and replace trump on the ticket can easily weather the instant week storm and absolutely berate Hillary Clinton on everything I put forth in a previous comment and more. Plus they could actually debate her and hammer her into the ground during debates which would shut up most trumpbots into submission either showing that the new candidate can beat Hillary and with probably much better polling numbers prove without a shadow of a doubt that trump is an absolutely awful candidate

If what you say is true, than if Johnson, or even Stein, gets into the debates, Clinton is screwed. And it would be fantastic is they could hammer Trump into the ground as well.

 

[manodelrey]

If what you say is true, than if Johnson, or even Stein, gets into the debates, Clinton is screwed. And it would be fantastic is they could hammer Trump into the ground as well.

I mean it is true, it isn't hard to beat both of them in a debate. The problem is getting to the debate with little to no skeletons in your closet. If there is hardly anything that trump can hammer you on, and you aren't a polite person concerned with the policy debate but understand that you must win the character debate before attacking the policy debate, then trump is done. That was the problem with the entire GOP candidates this time around.

As for Hillary, all you need to do is look at the fact that her interviews made slow pitch softball look like an mlb fast ball and that pretty much every democrat debate was very poorly watched and there weren't many of them. Almost like the DNC knew she can't debate anyone but wanted her as their candidate anyways.

 

[colours]

I find it really interesting how some people are like "well Clinton is so beatable she can't debate looool" when debating is actually one of her greatest strengths.

Hillary is not some sort of newbie to politics or debating for that matter, it'd be delusional to pretend like she is. This is the very woman who fought tooth and nail against Obama in 2008 to the point where there was real legitimate worry of a Democratic Party split. If Obama barely beat her in 08 and actually lost New Hamphire due to a poor debate session against her (which in turn turned the Clinton campaign around), you're really not giving her due credit.

I mean, Clinton is actually getting under Trump's skin, and that's just her effectively trolling him. While I agree that she isn't a flawless debater by any means, that doesn't mean any "Not Clinton but not Trump" person can show up and expect to steamroll her.

I fully expect this post to be rebutted with more anti-hillary propaganda conspiracy theory stuff, so do what you will. Those are just my thoughts.

 

[manodelrey]

If debating is one of her greatest strengths, then why did the DNC hide her debates?
http://www.ndn.org/blog/2016/03/report-presidential-primary-debate-audiences

Doesn't sound like it is her "strength" anymore.

And Hillary isn't getting under Trump's skin, Trump is being an idiot about this whole thing. He should be hammering her on this and every other scandal that she has managed to use her Clinton privilege to escape from. Instead Trump decides to defend himself and allow a media desperate to hide Hillary's story by focusing entirely on him. A third party can spend the entire debate hammering them both for being racist, stupid, and a straight up criminal.

But since you said if your post gets rebutted, then it is clearly more anti-hillary propaganda conspiracy theory stuff so no matter what I say, you can just dismiss it. Like the mountain of scandals I put in my previous comment that no Hillary supporter has dared touch. (comment number 833)

 

[Bull Of Heaven]

I wouldn't want to underestimate either major candidate in a debate. Trump can't back up his rhetoric with clear reasoning, but that isn't his game anyway. He was interesting to watch in the primary debates because of how he loomed over the other candidates, interrupted and belittled them whenever they tried to attack, and said things like "go ahead" as if he was giving them permission to speak. The whole point was to look like he was in charge, and the others were small compared to him, both literally and figuratively. Some voters see that as a cheesy act (correctly, I think), but no doubt it impresses others, especially if they enjoy seeing his opponents treated that way. With Hillary, a lot will enjoy it. Trump is also good at defining his opponents - just look at what he did to "low energy" Jeb - and you know he'll have a lot to say on Twitter before and after the debates.

If there's one thing Trump actually is great at, it's marketing. Some of those skills are applicable to a presidential debate. That said, I do think Clinton is tough enough to take him on.

Also, is it just me or did the number and scheduling of Democratic debates improve drastically midway through the process?

Edit: Oh, and as for why the Democrats would hide their debates, the front-runner doesn't have much to gain by debating. It gives a platform to her opponent. If she "wins," she only met expectations, while if he "wins," people are impressed. If she's likely to win without debating, then debating is a risk she wants to avoid, and that has very little to do with how good she is at it.

 

[Bughouse]

also the fact that the fewer debates democrats had relative to republicans, the more media focus there was on the republican debates... and they weren't exactly models of high discourse.

 

[manodelrey]

also the fact that the fewer debates democrats had relative to republicans, the more media focus there was on the republican debates... and they weren't exactly models of high discourse.

The democrat debates were intentionally hidden compared to Republican debates. The RNC tried to put its candidates out there, not their fault the media fell in love with an orange with a wig on speaking about the most random bullshit. But it is funny to see the media go from loving Trump to hating him as soon as he wins the election.

But this entire thing has been rigged for hillary since 2008. Every day that passes by proves that more and more. The DNC shut down any outside challenges by non establishment candidates, establishment candidates "didnt want to run", and a false flag figures out a way to win the nomination by losing the most votes in the history of republican primaries just to ease Hillary into an easy win

 

[Punxsutawney Phil]

welp sanders has endorsed clinton

gonna be basking in the tears. it's cathartic