Election Thread 2016

[Doc Holliday]

Have we discussed the investment angle? Trump voters see Hillary as a historically proven loss for the bottom 80%, and Trump is a volatile unknown. When you have little to lose, then the risk is worth it.

[Cowutopia]

I wasn't kidding when I said that I would vote for El Chapo over Hillary. There is no objective way Trump is worse than Hillary. The worst things you can say about him are about comments he's made, and even those have been misconstrued by the DNC-influenced media. How does any rational person weigh that more than all of the irrefutable actions Hillary has taken that are immoral, unlawful, etc.?

edit: I hear a bunch of "Trump might..." bullshit. Hillary already has, over and over again.

They both suck.

[Diff-chan]

So the left has been caught red handed being in cahoots with the media.

And it looks like trump is ether in cahoots with Russia or wants to be buds with putin

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/...really-a-thing

Man, it just gets worse and worse.

Can we really not run other people? You would think there would be a mechanism for a do over

Josh Marshall is a good writer but he's full of shit there. I mean, is he writing a companion piece about how much money the Saudis have shoveled in Clinton's direction?

[Yoshi]

Why stop there? Add the Chinese, the Russians, etc. And let's not forget there's a world of difference between where a private company or citizen gets its money and where an elected or appointed official does.

[Melf]

I wasn't kidding when I said that I would vote for El Chapo over Hillary. There is no objective way Trump is worse than Hillary. The worst things you can say about him are about comments he's made, and even those have been misconstrued by the DNC-influenced media. How does any rational person weigh that more than all of the irrefutable actions Hillary has taken that are immoral, unlawful, etc.?

edit: I hear a bunch of "Trump might..." bullshit. Hillary already has, over and over again.

"Misconstrued," even when he doubles and triples down on them? So, your rationale is that it's ok to vote for someone who might do the shitty things they say they want to do over the person who definitely will? It's rational to pick the lesser of two poisons when you have better options? Why constrain yourself to one of the two shitty mainstream parties? Do you think the RNC wil thank you or something?

Trump may not do all the horrible things he wants to do when in office, but he's already having a negative effect on the country. You can't seriously think that it's the DNC that's making him out to be a racist bully, or you're just a sheep in an elephant's clothing as opposed to a donkey's.

[Fe 26]

Well one good thing about trump is that he is an outsider and will not have the network of tendrils to get things done. Our presidency is not a dictatorship. He can make very little so just because he wants it.

The worst thing he can really do is meet with some other country and call them a bunch of cunts and get us in a war.

Hillary is the opposite. She has the ability to do a lot of internal self serving shit we won't see for years but is going to talk very nice to people from other countries.

[Diff-chan]

Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned as head of DNC and is replaced by person who was implicated in the Wikileaks. Good lord.

[icarusfall]

This is a worse train wreck than Florida 2000. Maybe.

[Diff-chan]

Hillary Clinton appointed her the honorary chair of her campaign.

WAT

[Diff-chan]

Clinton also announced that Wasserman Schultz will serve as honorary chair of the campaign's "50-state program to gain ground and elect Democrats in every part of the country" and that the two will campaign together both to help elect Clinton to the White House and to help with Wasserman Schultz's Senate re-election campaign.

No words.

http://www.npr.org/2016/07/24/487242426/bernie-sanders-dnc-emails-outrageous-but-not-a-shock