Who is going to win this election in November?

[Robert Maxwell]

For all the talk of how corrupt Hillary Clinton supposedly is, it's amazing how well-documented Trump's actual corruption has turned out to be--not that it'll damage his prospects any, since the people decrying Clinton as "corrupt" don't actually care about that.

 

[Amaris]

For all the talk of how corrupt Hillary Clinton supposedly is, it's amazing how well-documented Trump's actual corruption has turned out to be--not that it'll damage his prospects any, since the people decrying Clinton as "corrupt" don't actually care about that.

This. There is verifiable evidence of Trump being corrupt. On the other hand, the only evidence required for Hillary's corruption is "I don't like her for some reason." Yet from people who are supposedly independent, "they're both corrupt," and from people who support Trump, she's "corrupt Hillary." Hypocrites all.

 

[fonzob1]

For all the talk of how corrupt Hillary Clinton supposedly is, it's amazing how well-documented Trump's actual corruption has turned out to be--not that it'll damage his prospects any, since the people decrying Clinton as "corrupt" don't actually care about that.

I am floored by some of the claims I read here. Let me list some things that Trump has not done:

• He hasn't lied under oath to Congress.
  
• He hasn't made the dangerous mistake of putting classified information on a private server easily hacked by Wikileaks sources.
• He hasn't had e-mails exposed that uncovered the the relationship of individuals spying for the U.S.
• He hasn't attempted to cover up data by smashing blackberries that the feds ordered him not to destroy.
  
• He hasn't accepted questionable donations to his foundation, while Secretary of State, from dictators with poor human rights track records.

Can you say the same about Hillary Clinton with confidence?

I am very interested to see what Julian Assange is promising to release in October.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

• He hasn't lied under oath to Congress.
  
• He hasn't made the dangerous mistake of putting classified information on a private server easily hacked by Wikileaks sources.
• He hasn't had e-mails exposed that uncovered the the relationship of individuals spying for the U.S.
• He hasn't attempted to cover up data by smashing blackberries that the feds ordered him not to destroy.
  
• He hasn't accepted questionable donations to his foundation, while Secretary of State, from dictators with poor human rights track records.

• Where are the perjury charges, then?
• Where is the evidence WikiLeaks (or anyone else) hacked her email server?
• Your own source--which is Fox News, for fuck's sake--doesn't even attempt to speculate that Amiri was put in any danger by those email discussions, so what's your point?
• Your own link doesn't claim anything of the sort, though if Clinton's people failed at all, it was by not destroying the phones thoroughly enough.
• Considering there's no evidence of any tit-for-tat with such donations, if dictators are donating money that ends up helping impoverished people across the globe, sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

I am very interested to see what Julian Assange is promising to release in October.

I personally don't find egomaniacal rapists terribly credible as sources of political news.

Meanwhile, this article alone rounds up numerous Trump scandals, including:

• Using money from his foundation (note: provided by other people) to settle his own legal problems.
• Multiple beauty pageant scandals with crass sexist behavior as the icing on the cake.
• Racial discrimination in his housing units.
• Ties to Mafia families.
• Trump University, which existed solely to rip off unsuspecting people who thought they'd learn something useful about business.
• Intimidated tenants to get them to vacate so he could invalidate their rent control protections.
• Declared bankruptcy four times to escape accountability for his many bad investments and business deals.
• Employed undocumented Polish workers.
• Possibly raped his wife (she has since recanted this).
• Had to pay fines for breaking casino regulations.
• Was sued for antitrust violations.
• Partnered with criminals to set up condo hotels that bilked customers.
• His former campaign manager battered a reporter who tried to ask him a question.
• Frivolously sued a writer for putting out a book about him.
• Bilked contractors and vendors on dozens of occasions after they completed their work.
• Licensed his name to the Trump Institute, which was yet another scam, itself wracked with accusations of wrongdoing and illegality.
• Used donor money to buy up his own books to give out at the RNC in violation of election laws.
• Employed undocumented models.
• The Trump Foundation is itself a bona fide scam that does no real charitable work, instead funneling donor money into Trump's pet projects and paying his legal bills.

And that's just what we know about so far!

What was that about Clinton's corruption, again?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Where are the perjury charges, then?

Word.

 

[locutus101]

Word.

Precisely!

 

[urbandefault]

All the "your candidate is worse than my candidate" BS doesn't matter anyway. They both suck.

 

[Amaris]

All the "your candidate is worse than my candidate" BS doesn't matter anyway. They both suck.

Yes, yes it does, because one candidate wants to monitor muslims 24/7, calls Mexicans rapists, and wishes to stock the Supreme Court with conservative ideologues who will want to hurt my friends and destroy their lives and livelihoods. The other person is Hillary Clinton. There is no contest here. None. You don't have to like Hillary, but to put her on equal footing with Trump is disingenuous.

 

[ichab]

All the "your candidate is worse than my candidate" BS doesn't matter anyway. They both suck.

This is by far the worse choices for President I have ever seen. Never in history have both candidates for the two major parties have high unfavorables or distrusted by most of the electorate. Hillary will probably still pull it out due to Trump being such an idiot and americans deciding in the end that they just can't stomach him as a commander in chief. But it's certainly lowering the bar as low as you can possibly go and the future of this country looks very bleak indeed.

 

[fonzob1]

All the "your candidate is worse than my candidate" BS doesn't matter anyway. They both suck.

I agree. Trump has said and done some stupid things. But, the claim that Hillary is far and away better than Trump is strictly rooted in ideology. Hillary has already proven that she is careless with sensitive national security materials. That shouldn't be overlooked.

 

[ichab]

Yes, yes it does, because one candidate wants to monitor muslims 24/7, calls Mexicans rapists, and wishes to stock the Supreme Court with conservative ideologues who will want to hurt my friends and destroy their lives and livelihoods. The other person is Hillary Clinton. There is no contest here. None. You don't have to like Hillary, but to put her on equal footing with Trump is disingenuous.

You can gripe about this all you want, but the majority of the public disagrees with you
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/...ns-unfavorable-rating-nearly-matching-trumps/

 

[Amaris]

I agree. Trump has said and done some stupid things. But, the claim that Hillary is far and away better than Trump is strictly rooted in ideology. Hillary has already proven that she is careless with sensitive national security materials. That shouldn't be overlooked.

Hillary is far and away better than Trump, and it IS because of ideology. Trump's ideology is to call Mexicans rapists and to remove the 1st, and 4th amendment rights of Muslims everywhere in the U.S. Again, you don't have to like her, but if you honestly think she's as bad, you either aren't paying attention, or you are and just want to look like someone who is above politics (you're not, FYI). Again, for those in the back, if you think Hillary is as bad as Trump, you're a fucking bobblehead.

 

[Amaris]

You can gripe about this all you want, but the majority of the public disagrees with you
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/...ns-unfavorable-rating-nearly-matching-trumps/

Oh yes, that blog from the Wall Street Journal is clearly evidence.
*edit* Oops, Misc!

 

[ichab]

Oh yes, that blog from the Wall Street Journal is clearly evidence.
You bobblehead.

If you had bothered to read you would have seen that the poll was conducted by ABC News and the Washington Post.

And seriously, enough with the name calling. It only makes you look childish.

 

[Amaris]

If you had bothered to read you would have seen that the poll was conducted by ABC News and the Washington Post.

And seriously, enough with the name calling. It only makes you look childish.

I know how to read. I have an excellent, and comprehensive, grasp of the English language. What I don't have is a subscription to the Wall Street Journal to read that particular article which is sitting behind a pay wall.

 

[ichab]

From abc news itself ..
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/poll-clinton-unpopularity-high-par-trump/story?id=41752050

I wouldn't be surprised if turnout is low in November.

 

[Amaris]

From abc news itself ..


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/poll-clinton-unpopularity-high-par-trump/story?id=41752050

And? Why should I give two shits about an ABC poll that could be worded any way they wished? I've already stated numerous times that the news media has to keep this looking like a close race. They don't care who wins, as long as it brings asses to seats and eyes to the screen. Hillary is judged by an entirely different criteria than Trump, and so she gets eviscerated for things that don't even get noticed when Trump does it.

That being said, what does that poll have to do with Trump's ideology being worse than Hillary's? See, after I did this thing called reading, I employed something called "comprehension," which allows me to process what I read and apply it to the argument at hand. So what does this ABC poll have to do with what we're discussing?

Here, my turn: Trump is an asshole who hates women, and wishes to see the poor crushed underfoot.

Link: http://s26.postimg.org/uvlzf906x/tumblr_nnflxltz_Tf1s9ombao1_500.jpg

 

[ichab]

And? Why should I give two shits about an ABC poll that could be worded any way they wished? I've already stated numerous times that the news media has to keep this looking like a close race. They don't care who wins, as long as it brings asses to seats and eyes to the screen

So the media is trying to create a race that isn't really close by purposely fudging polls? Do you seriously believe that rubbish?

Hillary is judged by an entirely different criteria than Trump, and so she gets eviscerated for things that don't even get noticed when Trump does it.

Oh brother. It's like 2008 again except this time gender is blamed for criticism instead of race.

That being said, what does that poll have to do with Trump's ideology being worse than Hillary's? See, after I did this thing called reading, I employed something called "comprehension," which allows me to process what I read and apply it to the argument at hand. So what does this ABC poll have to do with what we're discussing?

I brought it up because you've been doing something called "whining" throughout this thread because a few people think that both choices suck. I'm not interested in comparing their levels of suckage because when it gets to that point what difference does it make? That's like comparing a punch in the nose to a kick in the groin.They both suck and I'd rather go with the other options. If you want to start an argument over Hillary not being as bad as Trump knock yourself out.

And why you seem to be taking this difference of opinion so personally is beyond me.

 

[Amaris]

So the media is trying to create a race that isn't really close by purposely fudging polls? Do you seriously believe that rubbish?




Oh brother. It's like 2008 again except this time gender is blamed for criticism instead of race.




I brought it up because you've been doing something called "whining" throughout this thread because a few people think that both choices suck. I'm not interested in comparing their levels of suckage because when it gets to that point what difference does it make? That's like comparing a punch in the nose to a kick in the groin.They both suck and I'd rather go with the other options. If you want to start an argument over Hillary not being as bad as Trump knock yourself out.

And why you seem to be taking this difference of opion so personally is beyond me.

I'm not whining, I simply don't want the people I care about to be discriminated against by a bigot who will turn back history a good 60 years if he gets the White House. How you see it is your own business, but since mine involves a threatened group of people, I care more about their thoughts and opinions on the subject.

As for taking it personally, I'm pansexual. I'm also pro-choice, anti-death penalty, and atheist. Most of the people I care about are women, and some of my dearest friends are Muslim, some are gay, others are transgender. So yes, this is personal. I have to work to keep that bigot out of office, regardless of how entertaining it would be for others if he made it in.

 

[Kelthaz]

I'm not interested in comparing their levels of suckage because when it gets to that point what difference does it make? That's like comparing a punch in the nose to a kick in the groin.They both suck and I'd rather go with the other options.

When Trump and Clinton are the only two candidates with a realistic chance of winning the White House then measuring their levels of suckage is important. I can certainly understand voting for Gary Johnson (and to a much, much, much lesser extent Jill Stein), but given how close this election is that's a huge risk. I say if you're in a solid blue or red state then go vote for Johnson and support your favourite candidate, but if you're in a swing state like Florida then it's just too big a risk voting for a candidate that has zero chance of winning.