Jump to content

US elections: aiding an' Abedin


IheartIheartTesla

Recommended Posts

Just now, Boris the Blade said:

Alt right does apply when he sticks up for people like Milo and uses similar rhetoric to them. He's an anarchist yet goes after the person that isn't spouting off fascist policies. Assange is full of shit.

Anarchists are not only opposed to Fascists, they're against any type of governmental superpowers. The US is currently the most powerful entity in the world, and so he's going after them.

He's an ally of the alt-right, sure, but it's an alliance of convenience. Ideologically-speaking, he's pretty much an unrepentant anarchist gunning for whoever is at the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't love candidate Clinton, I really don't.  But there's just almost nothing anyone (Clinton, Trump, Comey, Assange, Jesus Christ, Satan, Mohammed, Zeus, or even the flying spaghetti monster) could do to get me to change my mind at this point that President Clinton is a better option than President Trump.  That's pretty much all this is about for me.  Dump every email Clinton has ever sent, I do not give a single fuck what is in any of them with Trump on the other side of the ticket.  Trump is in way over his head when it comes to the top job.  I ain't havin' it.  I'd rather have a competent crook than a know-nothing bullshitter.  

That's just my .02.  Don't know if this new email stuff will heavily impact other Clinton voters' thought process, but it wouldn't make much difference to me at this point even if I hadn't already voted last week.  I just can't accept the other side of the ticket.  Now, if R's had nominated a Rubio or a Kasich instead they'd probably be waltzing into the White House right about now.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, S John said:

 Now, if R's had nominated a Rubio or a Kasich instead they'd probably be waltzing into the White House right about now.  

Most likely, but I don't think Assange or the Russians would have gotten involved with the elections were it a standard GOP vs DNC race, or at least not as much.

Trump is the perfect occasion for both of them to sabotage the US by having them elect an incompetent easily manipulated buffoon, they don't really have a reason to support one candidate over the other if the Republicans had chosen a more traditional nominee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sullen said:

Most likely, but I don't think Assange or the Russians would have gotten involved with the elections were it a standard GOP vs DNC race, or at least not as much.

Trump is the perfect occasion for both of them to sabotage the US by having them elect an incompetent easily manipulated buffoon, they don't really have a reason to support one candidate over the other if the Republicans had chosen a more traditional nominee.

Completely agree.  General incompetence and has specifically stated that he'd look into taking steps that would weaken our NATO alliances.  Trump was gift-wrapped for anyone whose interests lie in the US taking a step back on the world stage both in influence and in real terms, and that's making the generous assumption that he doesn't go and start a war with the first leader who insults him on twitter.  It's more than a little frustrating that his supporters don't see that.  Putin is not our friend, dumbasses.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, S John said:

I don't love candidate Clinton, I really don't.  But there's just almost nothing anyone (Clinton, Trump, Comey, Assange, Jesus Christ, Satan, Mohammed, Zeus, or even the flying spaghetti monster) could do to get me to change my mind at this point that President Clinton is a better option than President Trump.  That's pretty much all this is about for me.  Dump every email Clinton has ever sent, I do not give a single fuck what is in any of them with Trump on the other side of the ticket.  Trump is in way over his head when it comes to the top job.  I ain't havin' it.  I'd rather have a competent crook than a know-nothing bullshitter.  

That's just my .02.  Don't know if this new email stuff will heavily impact other Clinton voters' thought process, but it wouldn't make much difference to me at this point even if I hadn't already voted last week.  I just can't accept the other side of the ticket.  Now, if R's had nominated a Rubio or a Kasich instead they'd probably be waltzing into the White House right about now.  

 

I'm fairly sure 90% of all voters are in the same position -- the latest email stuff will not change their minds, whether they were going to vote for Clinton or Trump. I'm just worried that there will be 3% or so who might have voted for Clinton in states like Florida, New Hampshire, and Nevada who will stay home and not vote for either because of this, giving such swing states to Trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, S John said:

 It's more than a little frustrating that his supporters don't see that.  Putin is not our friend, dumbasses.  

I think Michael Moore is right on the money though, and that most of his supporters do actually see that.

They are rural types angry at both the Republican and Democrat machines for having been left behind, and Trump is simply their last occasion to say "f*** you" to the world before their vote loses all power. They feel betrayed by the United States of America, and so actively want to see it burn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sullen said:

Anarchists are not only opposed to Fascists, they're against any type of governmental superpowers. The US is currently the most powerful entity in the world, and so he's going after them.

He's an ally of the alt-right, sure, but it's an alliance of convenience. Ideologically-speaking, he's pretty much an unrepentant anarchist gunning for whoever is at the top.

Except he's only going after one person. Your  argument would hold some weight if he was attacking the entire government and both candidates, but he's not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Boris the Blade said:

Except he's only going after one person. Your  argument would hold some weight if he was attacking the entire government and both candidates, but he's not. 

He's not attacking Trump because he wants to harm the US, and that's exactly what a Trump presidency would do. Even a blind man could see that.

Same with Putin and the Russians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sullen said:

Anarchists are not only opposed to Fascists, they're against any type of governmental superpowers. The US is currently the most powerful entity in the world, and so he's going after them.

He's an ally of the alt-right, sure, but it's an alliance of convenience. Ideologically-speaking, he's pretty much an unrepentant anarchist gunning for whoever is at the top.

An anarchist who hosts a show on the propaganda network of a dictator, and doxxed every woman voter in a country in serious risk of turning into a dictatorship while it's in the middle of curtailing women's rights.

If Assange is an anarchist instead of just posing as one/claiming to be one, then he's doing it wrong.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Paladin of Ice said:

An anarchist who hosts a show on the propaganda network of a dictator, and doxxed every woman voter in a country in serious risk of turning into a dictatorship while it's in the middle of curtailing women's rights.

If Assange is an anarchist instead of just posing as one/claiming to be one, then he's doing it wrong.

He's an anarchist with an especially nasty bone to pick with the world's number one super-power and who's looking to cause as much damage as possible anywhere he can, any way he can.

Russia's helping him in this endeavour, he's not going to bite the hand that feeds him, even if they are ideologically opposed to one other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sullen said:

He's an anarchist with an especially nasty bone to pick with the world's number one super-power and who's looking to cause as much damage as possible anywhere he can, any way he can.

Russia's helping him in this endeavour, he's not going to bite the hand that feeds him, even if they are ideologically opposed to one other.

And more proof that Assange is a fucking fraud and a hypocritical compromised bag of shit. He's a piss baby tantrum throwing fuck that no one should pay attention to anymore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Boris the Blade said:

And more proof that Assange is a fucking fraud and a hypocritical compromised bag of shit. He's a piss baby tantrum throwing fuck that no one should pay attention to anymore. 

One could say the same thing about the States and Saudi Arabia.

Are the Democrats and Republicans both hypocritical compromised pieces of shit because of their support of the Saudi immoral regime and their illegal invasion of Yemen? Does the fact that they help a Wahhabi monarchy automatically make them Wahhabi monarchists?

Not at all, they have common interests despite being ideologically opposed to one another, and thus the alliance.

Same thing between Russia and Assange. (Who, yes, is a massive manbaby)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

650 million in debt, a long record of destroying documents that he is required to keep, illegal dealing even back in the 70's,  lying about all of this. Why is it taking so long for people to realize that Trump is a common criminal? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, maarsen said:

650 million in debt, a long record of destroying documents that he is required to keep, illegal dealing even back in the 70's,  lying about all of this. Why is it taking so long for people to realize that Trump is a common criminal? 

People know.

They just don't care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironic.

Quote

 

FBI Director James Comey argued privately that it was too close to Election Day for the United States government to name Russia as meddling in the U.S. election and ultimately ensured that the FBI's name was not on the document that the U.S. government put out, a former FBI official tells CNBC.

The official said some government insiders are perplexed as to why Comey would have election timing concerns with the Russian disclosure but not with the Huma Abedin email discovery disclosure he made Friday.

In the end, the Department of Homeland Security and The Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued the statement on Oct. 7, saying "The U.S. intelligence community is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations…These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process."

 


Heartening.

Need more polls, but between this and the Morning Consult, I'm feeling much less panicky about the Comey news. Instead, I'm feeling a bit anxious about all the stories of reduced African American early voting turnout in key states. However, nearly all those states took steps to reduce early voting access, so it could be most of them will still vote on the 8th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, S John said:

Completely agree.  General incompetence and has specifically stated that he'd look into taking steps that would weaken our NATO alliances.  Trump was gift-wrapped for anyone whose interests lie in the US taking a step back on the world stage both in influence and in real terms, and that's making the generous assumption that he doesn't go and start a war with the first leader who insults him on twitter.  It's more than a little frustrating that his supporters don't see that.  Putin is not our friend, dumbasses.  

You are gathering some rather diverse and contradictory viewpoints in that "our." Putin is certainly no friend of the American elites, but he may be an incidental (though almost certainly temporary) ally of ordinary Americans. To the best of my knowledge, the imperial tendencies of the 21s century United States are more likely than not to be detrimental to most of its citizens -- though they're highly beneficial to some.

For example, consider Ukraine. Together with our EU allies and various institutions funded at least partially by us ("us" here being "American taxpayers"), we paid for the replacement of pro-Russian government in Ukraine with a pro-Western one. A lot of people died, Biden's son "failed upward" into a cushy job at some Ukrainian government-associated company, many less known individuals and corporations from the US and EU likewise affiliated themselves with Ukraine... but what is in it for the average American? It's not as if Ukraine had some pot of gold that we captured; they were broke before (and being sustained by Russian loans) and they're even more broke now because of the war costs (and currently sustained mostly by IMF loans). The government of Ukraine was composed of mostly pro-Russian thieves and now it is composed of mostly pro-Western thieves so they're unlikely to generate huge surpluses in the near future. Basically, the Western businesses and individuals dealing with Ukraine are receiving money that comes mostly from Western taxpayers.

The same thing happens in other places where the US has "influence." Over the past 15 years, we've plowed trillions of dollars (again, "we" being "American taxpayers") into the military campaigns in Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. -- and for what? Again, lots of people died (many more than in Ukraine), Halliburton and the rest of the military-industrial complex got paid and it was mostly with taxpayer money. In all likelihood, Putin could not care less about ordinary Americans, but if his actions curb the enthusiasm of the imperialist part of our government, would that really be a bad thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alth, believe it or not we share some serious concerns re: Clinton and even your favourite term, the 'elites'...I just can't for the life of me understand how you think Trump's the solution to anything. And no, just 'not status quo' is not better than status quo. And no, I don't have a better option. I also don't know how to cure headaches, but I know that if someone proposed decapitation, I'd be pretty sure that was a worse option than sticking with Advil. 

Anyways, nearing the end of an 8 month global treck and, fwiw, my informal poll of Americans  I've met is that the consensus seems to be that they both suck. I try to emphasize that, while true, it's clear Trump sucks much more but the normal reaction I'm getting to that is shrugging and an admission that it's embarrassing to America that these are the 2 options, This is, while obviously incredibly imprecise, a consistent enough reaction that I'm freaking out thinking most Anericans think this is a pick 'em. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with both of you that Trump is not likely to be deliberately anti-imperialist. However, it is possible that his policies will result in some anti-imperialist outcomes whereas with Clinton we are very nearly guaranteed four more years of the same. They're both terrible, but with Trump there would at least be a chance of something different.

It doesn't matter much though. There's no time left for October surprises and many people have already voted so barring some serious issues with polls, Clinton is going to win (although for some reason the probability of Trump winning has edged up to nearly 1 in 4 on FiveThirtyEight).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...