There's no way in hell I'm voting for Hillary, either

[Deleted User 8570]

Why is it if Clinton is not the voters choice it is because the voter is defective in some way? If the voter is not a Democrat or does not believe she is the right person for the job then they vote for one of the other candidates. That doesn't make them defective, just someone with different beliefs than those of either the party or candidate. I understand you worship her but that doesn't make her the choice for everyone. Your statements about not judging, by the way, make sense and work for both major party candidates, did you intend this?

His statements about not judging look rather hypocritical when he's judging people in the entirety of the post.

[screen glare]

Yes. All candidates.

And since a write in vote, or a vote for a third party candidate is realistically (if not technically) a vote for Donald Trump - you can pretend you're not increasing his chances of winning - but all you're really doing is being able to say , I didn't vote for him and I "sure as hell" didn't vote for her!

In your self-satisfied world you are a patriot. But in the real world you don't give a rat's ass about your country.

[screen glare]

I never made a statement about not judging.

My statement is all about judjing. Judging yourselves. And realizing you are holding Hillary to a standard no human can meet. You judge yourselves by a different standard. And ultimatly judge that - basically you are a good person.

[audiophile]

A vote for a third party is not a vote for Trump.

[screen glare]

Technically verses realistically.

You're talking technically.

I'm talking realistically.

Since at THIS POINT in the run up to the election - only two candidates have a chance of winning. Not Johnson. Not Stein. Not your write in.

[bmw]

A vote for a 3rd party is a 1/2 vote for the candidate of the opposing party to the party you would ordinarily vote for. It is essentially the same as staying home.

[bmw]

I never made a statement about not judging.

My statement is all about judjing. Judging yourselves. And realizing you are holding Hillary to a standard no human can meet. You judge yourselves by a different standard. And ultimatly judge that - basically you are a good person.

For the first time I think ever I actually kind of agree with you. But does this not equally apply to people who claim they are personally better than Trump?

And I would clarify that I think that people let their own political biases affect how they judge political candidates. Generally speaking, people tolerate a lot more bad behavior by candidates who share their own political views than they do of people who they oppose politically. But I also think that a lot of the "outrage" of what the opposition did is fake. People may publicly say they're outraged, but secretly they're happy that the position did something to hurt themselves and help the candidate who you really support. In other words, Hillary supporters aren't really "outraged" by anything Trump does - rather, they are happy that Trump is doing these things because they think it improves Hillary's chances. The same is true of Trump supporters. I think many are less outraged by Hillary's lies and mishandling of classified information than they are happy that they can use that as ammo to get Trump elected.

[Bryce]

Hmmmmm. Just, Hmmmmm...

A significant portion of online support for Hillary Clinton is manufactured by paid “astroturf” trolls: a large team of supporters who spend long hours responding to negative news on the internet about her. The Clinton SuperPAC Correct the Record, which is affiliated with her campaign, acknowledged in an April press release that it was spending $1 million on project “Breaking Barriers” to pay people to respond to negative information about Clinton on social media sites like Facebook, Reddit, Instagram and Twitter. That amount has since increased to over $6 million.

https://stream.org/astroturf-outrage-ma ... y-clinton/

[screen glare]

Nice try, Bryce. But no.

I'm not getting paid to defend HRC online. Nor part of some organized effort to defend her.

I'm a lone truther. Not the result of decades of mind bend by Roger Ailes-dominated "Annihilate Hillary Before She Runs" Fox News.

Hell - my 95-year old mother-in-law and 85-year old mother have both told me they would never vote for Hillary because she murdered Vince Foster! Both senior citizens are devoted to high pitch Hannity, Bill O'Really, Fox and Finks, and other RNC TV robots. (BTW - master-baiting undulating Ailes went from being fired - to hired - by Trump. Great mouths puke alike).

[TC Talks]

Hmmmmm. Just, Hmmmmm...

A significant portion of online support for Hillary Clinton is manufactured by paid “astroturf” trolls: a large team of supporters who spend long hours responding to negative news on the internet about her. The Clinton SuperPAC Correct the Record, which is affiliated with her campaign, acknowledged in an April press release that it was spending $1 million on project “Breaking Barriers” to pay people to respond to negative information about Clinton on social media sites like Facebook, Reddit, Instagram and Twitter. That amount has since increased to over $6 million.

https://stream.org/astroturf-outrage-ma ... y-clinton/

Trump should sign up. He's a wiz at Twitter, and now it seems he's bent at taking the GOP down.

I really am enjoying this political season. I can barely control myself when I think about the prospect of taking down the GOP Congress.

[Bryce]

Hmmmmm. Just, Hmmmmm...

A significant portion of online support for Hillary Clinton is manufactured by paid “astroturf” trolls: a large team of supporters who spend long hours responding to negative news on the internet about her. The Clinton SuperPAC Correct the Record, which is affiliated with her campaign, acknowledged in an April press release that it was spending $1 million on project “Breaking Barriers” to pay people to respond to negative information about Clinton on social media sites like Facebook, Reddit, Instagram and Twitter. That amount has since increased to over $6 million.

https://stream.org/astroturf-outrage-ma ... y-clinton/

Trump should sign up. He's a wiz at Twitter, and now it seems he's bent at taking the GOP down.

I really am enjoying this political season. I can barely control myself when I think about the prospect of taking down the GOP Congress.

Frankly, at this point, my best case scenario is that HilLIEery wins the white hours and the Dem's take.over both the house and the Senate. After four years if that, the country will be so fucked up a Democrat won't be elected.again for a.long time.

The only regret is.the.lasting harm that will be.done to the Supreme Court by the Constitution hating Marxists.

[screen glare]

The scenario you now imagine , Bryce - four years of President HR Clinton working with a Democrat-controlled House and Senate - would indeed be swell. However I believe in an outcome radically opposite from the one you imagine. We'll see, bro.

[audiophile]

It depends if she moderates like her husband did or goes full Bernie mode.

[Deleted User 8570]

It depends if she moderates like her husband did or goes full Bernie mode.

She's not even from the Bernie wing... she's way way to the right...

[bmw]

Here's an email leak that deserves more media attention (back to the San Bernardino shooting) :

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11500

Clinton consultant and spokeswoman Karen Finney forwarded the following news report to John Podesta:

(Christopher Hayes of) NBC News now reporting a US citizen named Sayeed Farouk believed to be one of the people involved in the shooting.

Podesta's response?

Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter.

So there you have it. The Clinton campaign rooting that the shooter was a white guy instead of a Muslim.