Shit (aka the Politics thread)

[Jane]

If I could vote, I'd do a lot of research and pick the best candidate. Since it seems like the two are both pretty toxic, I'd have to pick the better poison I guess. Not really sure what Trump could do, since he mostly just says outrageous stuff for attention and rustle jimmies. A lot of his plans are outlandish and unconstitutional anyways. Hillary I've just heard is untrustworthy and a corporate slave.

And I agree Bernie should drop out. He himself admitted he probably won't win the nomination.

[Clappy]

12 hours ago, tvguy said:

If I could vote (and I miss the election by about 6 months), I would vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party. I cannot stomach a Hillary Vote. I *hate* strategic voting, trying to figure out what other people are going to do. Vote your conscience and who you believe would be the best person to lead the U.S. for the next four years. We need to drastically alter the way this country does elections and rid ourselves of the "first-round-the-post" voting system because it makes it virtually impossible for there to be a viable third party candidate, and that detrimentally narrows the number of possible candidates to two – for a country of 320 million people across a vast political spectrum. That's ridiculous.

I definitely think Gary Johnson will get to 15% in the polls (I think he was at like 12% in one poll a few weeks ago?) but I don't think he can beat either Hillary or Donald. Hillary will most likely be the next president, and while I think much of the hate funneled towards her is unwarranted, she isn't the visionary leader we need at the moment. She's a realist (not necessarily a bad thing, but a bit complacent), more of the same, a typical politician of the Washington elite who constantly shifts her views – which, again, is not a bad thing. I think politicians should represent what their constituents want. But she runs on her "record" which is bullshit. Blegh. No thanks. 

This for the most part.  I can't stand either of the two primary candidates. I've seen countless people say they are going to vote for Hillary over Trump just for "strategic voting" while admitting they don't respect Hillary as a politician; which really gets under my skin.  If you don't like or respect her, why the hell are you going to waste a vote on someone you don't believe can actually lead this country?  If you don't think Trump can lead this country for the same reason, then don't use your vote as a throwaway.  Actually do some research on third party candidates to make them a viable option and make your vote count instead of just picking your poison between two candidates you don't support.

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Clappy said:

If you don't like or respect her, why the hell are you going to waste a vote on someone you don't believe can actually lead this country?

Why would you waste a vote on a candidate that isn't going to become president? I agree a lot with tvguy on one thing: we need more than two candidates for president, especially in this case where both of the candidates are not good picks for the presidency. However, a vote for someone other than the Republican or Democratic nominee is a vote wasted.

It really shouldn't be that way. If enough Americans rallied up and said "Enough is enough" and voted for a non-bipartisan candidate, sure, it might work. The problem is that it won't work, at least, not in the current system we have now.

For this election, anyway, one needs to vote Hillary or Donald. I hate it as much as the next guy, but the numbers are too strong for the both of them. Bernie Sanders would be a wonderful third option in this election, but it's just not going to happen, even though I believe Bernie is the best one. Time and time again, Americans have shown that they are much more willing to listen to whatever the media tells them instead of looking issues up and deciding for themselves. Hillary and her emails. Bernie and his shitty socialism. Donald and his hate speech. But as long as the American public stays uneducated and votes for whoever they are spoon-fed to vote for, strategic voting will always prevail.

Perhaps it will change with the new generation. Younger voters have a much different voting pattern than older age groups, and they do not listen to the media in the same way as their older counterparts. Or, a newer system might be put into place. Who knows. But for now, we will just have to pick the "lesser of two evils." It's probably the most undemocratic thing about America right now.

[Metal Snake]

On 6/29/2016 at 3:43 PM, Bada Bing Nuggets said:

So many people I've talked to are saying that they just aren't going to vote because both candidates are so bad.

That says more about 2016 in politics than it does them, but I've still never understood just not voting. It just seems so stupid.

As someone who is not going to vote, I'll explain that the logic behind it (or at least my logic that I feel most non-voters have behind it) is simple. I believe that if I vote, I should vote for someone I believe will do a good job leading the country. I don't believe either Trump or Clinton will do a good job leading the country, thus I will not vote for them. But there are already more than enough people who will vote for them believing that they will do a good job leading the country, as you can see with all their supporters. America will end up with a president either way, thus, I see no reason to vote for them. I don't see how anyone who isn't voting is remiss.  

"But Metal Snake! Hilary isn't as bad as Trump! We need to get the lesser of two evils in office or else!"

Or else...what? Jokes aside, America is not going to blow up if Trump wins. America has a history of allowing terrible presidents to get into office. I don't believe that anything will really change just because a "more evil" president was put in charge. People are going to complain no matter what happens, but they're also going to get over it no matter what happens.

I have to be honest, I don't get why so many people are going, "I hate both of these candidates, but I'm going to vote for the one I hate less to spite the one I hate more!" and "Hilary has to win because she'll ruin this country less!". The former is a terrible attitude to have (how would you feel if someone voted for you, which is a sign of support, and then you found out they actually hated and opposed you?) and the latter...is oversimplifying a complicated issue with an opinionated statement. What proof do we have of who's going to ruin the country less? How do we know if Trump's going to actually do even a fraction of the stupid shit he says he'll do? How can we fully trust that Hilary will do what she says she'll do? This is not a black and white issue.

In short, I'm not voting because I don't care who wins. If I don't believe in either candidate, I feel my actions should match my beliefs. That's all.

[Katniss]

4 hours ago, Face said:

Why would you waste a vote on a candidate that isn't going to become president? I agree a lot with tvguy on one thing: we need more than two candidates for president, especially in this case where both of the candidates are not good picks for the presidency. However, a vote for someone other than the Republican or Democratic nominee is a vote wasted.

It really shouldn't be that way. If enough Americans rallied up and said "Enough is enough" and voted for a non-bipartisan candidate, sure, it might work. The problem is that it won't work, at least, not in the current system we have now.

For this election, anyway, one needs to vote Hillary or Donald. I hate it as much as the next guy, but the numbers are too strong for the both of them. Bernie Sanders would be a wonderful third option in this election, but it's just not going to happen, even though I believe Bernie is the best one. Time and time again, Americans have shown that they are much more willing to listen to whatever the media tells them instead of looking issues up and deciding for themselves. Hillary and her emails. Bernie and his shitty socialism. Donald and his hate speech. But as long as the American public stays uneducated and votes for whoever they are spoon-fed to vote for, strategic voting will always prevail.

Perhaps it will change with the new generation. Younger voters have a much different voting pattern than older age groups, and they do not listen to the media in the same way as their older counterparts. Or, a newer system might be put into place. Who knows. But for now, we will just have to pick the "lesser of two evils." It's probably the most undemocratic thing about America right now.

Can you be our president  

Edited July 6, 2016 by Katniss

[Young Nug]

11 hours ago, Metal Snake said:

stuff

 

On July 5, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Clappy said:

 I've seen countless people say they are going to vote for Hillary over Trump just for "strategic voting" while admitting they don't respect Hillary as a politician; which really gets under my skin.  If you don't like or respect her, why the hell are you going to waste a vote on someone you don't believe can actually lead this country?  If you don't think Trump can lead this country for the same reason, then don't use your vote as a throwaway.  Actually do some research on third party candidates to make them a viable option and make your vote count instead of just picking your poison between two candidates you don't support.

Still not really understanding the thought processes behind either of these. Maybe I'm just dumb but I'm really not getting it.

For the non-voting option, it still just seems like a lack of... Caring, I guess? Yeah, the consensus is no matter who wins its not gonna be good, and no, the country won't explode if Trump wins. But, to put it into really stupid language: wouldn't you rather choose the person who would make the country explode less?

No, we obviously don't have proof of anything in terms of the way the country's going to be ran. But that's such a cop-out answer. "Why vote for Obama? He's saying this stuff now, but he could turn around and be a rapist who enslaves us all!" "Don't vote for FDR! He seems like a nice guy, but I bet he's planning to release noxious gas onto the public and work with Hitler after he wins!!!!!" Like, I understand the basic idea, but it kind of doesn't make any sense. You don't know what anyone is going to do, so even if a candidate is good, why vote for them? They could be lying the whole time. 

Patterns show that even with crooked-ass presidents, what they say is generally what they try to accomplish when they win office. Not too well-versed on older campaigns and the presidents with those, but I imagine it's true for even older presidents.  Yes, most of the ridiculous bullshit Trump has spoken of probably doesn't stand a chance of getting passed by Congress - but he's still fucking saying it. And maybe Hillary isn't the greatest human being or politician in D.C. And yeah, she's a liar (but so are most politicians, but that's... A different story). But from what I know of Clinton's track record, I think she'll do a better job than the Donald - that's the reason why anyone ever votes. Hillary could 180 and totally fuck around on the USA and be worse than a Trump presidency would have been, and if that's true, I'll eat my words and be wrong as hell. But at least I tried to do something, you know? Instead of sitting back and getting fucked over for something I could've changed, had an effect on. 

Youre free to do whatever you want - I just personally still don't get it. Maybe that's how it's supposed to stay. 

And as for that third party thing - if this was way earlier in the election that'd be a viable option, certainly. But we're coming up on July now, with the real election, wig the presumptives up and ready to go for the next 4 months. There are third party options that are, frankly, better than Donald and Hillary. 

But they don't stand a chance at taking the presumptive position. A vote for them would be pointless at this point. Sure, a bigger number of third party voters would perhaps cause a bit of an uncomfortable shift in the attitude of the White House, which down the line could effect something, maybe in another 2 election cycles. But I don't think that change would be huge. It'd take stuff going on during these presidencies to really spark a change (and I think that no matter who wins there's going to be a serious reevaluation of the two-party system by the time their term is over). Right now, there are really only two players that will have an effect in this game. Between that, why choose the worst one?

If I'm starving to death in the middle of the woods, and the only option is to eat a turd that stinks, an equally sized turd that stinks slightly less, or a minuscule, mint scented turd, what the hell are you gonna choose? Sure, the mint-scented turd would be the least bad option, but at this point in your starvation it's not gonna do anything. And why would you waste your time eating a pile of nasty trash when there's a less nasty pile right there? No, obviously you don't want to be in a situation where you have to choose between 3 turds to eat as you starve in a forest. But that's just how things are. There was plenty of time back a year ago to change how things were going, but this is how they ended up. Only 2 choices are going to matter at this point. You've got one vote, but there's only going to be two people who are going to end up running the country, sad to say. And unless you think Hillary and Trump are equally bad (and I've seen a whopping zero convincing cases of that bullshit claim, for both sides), even if you despise both, why should that matter? At this point the best candidate is gone and doddering off somewhere in Sanderland. It's a lockdown between two people you might not necessarily like, and the hope for hand picking the best guy isn't here anymore. Now it's a pick between two not-so-greats, but those are the only options: why on Earth wouldn't you pick the one that will have the least-bad outcome on America? 

I'd love it if my young boy Bernie could hop up in the White House and drip swag all over the fuckin country, but that's not gonna happen. So if Bernie still was in the race when it came November, but he didn't stand a chance of winning, would I vote for him? No. That makes no sense to me. Why would I do that? "ayye I stood up for my beliefs and voted for Jesus I'm a real individual" Okay, but it didnt do anything. A vote for a candidate with no chance at the presidency is a vote to be a statistic on MSNBC in a few years. "2016 -  Remember When Hillary/Donald Won By A Smaller Margin Than Usual? Tonight @ 8, w/ Rachel Maddow and her lesbian lover ?" there are tactics to make 3rd parties more visible, there are politicians on the brink of entering the WH with some fucking crazy ideas (super small number though). There will be a paradigm shift towards a party restructuring by 2020, I'm sure. But I don't think this is the way. Not yet.

tl;dr I don't get it. 

But maybe I'm just an idiot. 

[Clappy]

Since I can't seem to quote @Face and @Bada Bing Nuggets for some reason, I'll just reply to both of you with this.

I have openly admitted time and time again that politics isn't one of my strong points when it comes to discussion about it.  You both make strong points that I do agree with.  And maybe I'm just an idiot, but it is my civic duty and I feel that my vote should represent who I believe in and right now, I believe in Jill Stein.  Yeah she stands zero percent chance at winning.  Yeah my vote could have gone to one of our two main party candidates and maybe in the near future what Face stated about politics could come true.  I wish it would anyway.  But to use Nug's metaphor and reword it into my response, I would rather starve instead of having to choose between eating two pieces of shit.  Yeah I'll just be throwing away my vote, but at least my vote will represent who I feel should be the president in a just world.

[Metal Snake]

1 hour ago, Bada Bing Nuggets said:

 

For the non-voting option, it still just seems like a lack of... Caring, I guess? Yeah, the consensus is no matter who wins its not gonna be good, and no, the country won't explode if Trump wins. But, to put it into really stupid language: wouldn't you rather choose the person who would make the country explode less?

If I'm starving to death in the middle of the woods, and the only option is to eat a turd that stinks, an equally sized turd that stinks slightly less, or a minuscule, mint scented turd, what the hell are you gonna choose? Sure, the mint-scented turd would be the least bad option, but at this point in your starvation it's not gonna do anything.

 

The first one, yes. That's exactly what it's about. I don't care. I even said I didn't care. And I still stick to what I said about there being no proof. You made a very good point in the follow-up counterargument you made about how we don't even have proof that presidents who seem cool really are...but it boomerangs back to the point that I don't care about politics, especially right now. That's just me. If you vote for Hilary believing she's the better candidate and that you'll be helping the country, good for you. We just believe different things, that's it.

The second one...I feel actually bolsters my argument because you're saying that "no turd will help your starvation". If I'm going to starve anyways, why eat the turd and prolong my suffering?

I just wanted to explain why I feel as apathetic as I do. Like most people, I just don't like feeling like I'm being forced to think a certain way. Not because of what you said, but because of a collection of stuff I've been reading that has made me feel like I should at least explain my side.

[Young Nug]

1 hour ago, Metal Snake said:

The second one...I feel actually bolsters my argument because you're saying that "no turd will help your starvation". If I'm going to starve anyways, why eat the turd and prolong my suffering?

nada. The allegory was more for Clappy's third party argument than a rebuttal to your argument, but it works the same way. 

Starvation = the state of America. Turds = the presidents. You eat the turds, you're going to be full, no matter what, but either way, its an unsatisfying meal - its poop. You're going to be dissatisfied because you ate poo. But you will be alive. 

If Trump wins, it'll be shitty, but it ultimately won't be THAT terrible. Unless he co-writes and co-directs a sequel to The Interview and causes Kim Jong-Un to drop a warhead on the country and obliterate the grid, America will make it out of his 4 years, but it won't be a happy one. That's the stinky pile.

Hillary's a liar, she's kinda backhanded, she's pandering, and she does a lot of what normal politicians do but isn't as good at keeping it under wraps. Is she gonna be great? Probably not fantastic, imo, but she'll get the job done. Is that what I want to be saying about who I assume will be the next president? No, I'd like my positions to be more enthusiastic than lukewarm about whoever will lead this country next. But whatever. It's a less stinky pile. But it's still a pile of poop.

The mint-scented turd will not help your hunger, it just tastes good and you wish it was bigger - that's the third party candidates. 

The point I was trying to make is that neither option is good, but both will do what's required, one just stinks more than the other, and faced with two choices, why eat the stinky pile?

If you're so prideful that you'd rather die than eat shit, then so be it. I wouldn't want to take the risk of dying, or having that stinky pile fall into my mouth on accident, even if I'd rather not ever eat turds - faced with two choices, I'd rather pick the one that's the least bad, rather than have the worse one possibly win due to my absence, see? But regardless:

1 hour ago, Metal Snake said:

The first one, yes. That's exactly what it's about. I don't care. I even said I didn't care. And I still stick to what I said about there being no proof. You made a very good point in the follow-up counterargument you made about how we don't even have proof that presidents who seem cool really are...but it boomerangs back to the point that I don't care about politics, especially right now. That's just me. If you vote for Hilary believing she's the better candidate and that you'll be helping the country, good for you. We just believe different things, that's it.

and this is really where it ends - there's no rebuttal to a blatant "I don't care" argument. I took AP Government my last semester of High School and my teacher managed to show me that you have an impact and an effect on the world, as small and insignificant as we all are - you still are part of a whole that you have helped create in a small way. You can change things that affect you. By being able to vote, or study law and go through that - a million different things - you can influence the world around you and make it a better place, or keep it from becoming worse than it already is. That is absolutely profound to me and why I think for all it's flaws democracy in America has a place. And being able to have an effect, as minuscule as it is, and as stupid as it sounds, makes me want to go out and do it, and maybe have a shot at making this place actually great again hurr hurr. No, the country isn't going in the best direction rn, but you and the people you agree with can change the direction or attempt to, even if it's a gentle nudge to the left. YOU can change what you see everyday, and that's such an amazing power to have that I personally could never sit back and not use it. Even if it's just averting disaster by a hair, picking the less bad candidate could, a few years down the line, have some really cool unintended consequences. This is stuff that effects me, in the long run, and I would never want to wonder "What would happen if I had voted?". So it's just hard for me to see the other side of that. I'm overexaggerating the power of voting in here a little bit, but that power is still real. I've been waiting to vote all my life.

But it's different strokes for different folks. So I get it now, I guess.

[Metal Snake]

1 hour ago, Bada Bing Nuggets said:

nada. The allegory was more for Clappy's third party argument than a rebuttal to your argument, but it works the same way. 

Starvation = the state of America. Turds = the presidents. You eat the turds, you're going to be full, no matter what, but either way, its an unsatisfying meal - its poop. You're going to be dissatisfied because you ate poo. But you will be alive.

But it's different strokes for different folks. So I get it now, I guess.

Well you said starving to death and that it wouldn't do anything, so please excuse me for getting the wrong idea.

...

And that's really it, I guess. I felt that this was a nice, constructive debate.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Metal Snake

[illiniguy34]

 

Teehee.

[Katniss]

So Melania Trump's speech at the RNC last night is being accused of plagarizing Michelle Obama's speech at the 2008 DNC...

Quote

CLEVELAND — Melania Trump earned praise for her speech on Monday at the opening night of the Republican National Convention, but her remarks almost immediately came under scrutiny when striking similarities were discovered between her speech and one delivered by Michelle Obama at the Democratic convention in 2008.

The phrases in question came when Ms. Trump — who told NBC News earlier on Monday that she had written her speech herself — was discussing her upbringing in Slovenia and her parents.

Here are the relevant passages.

Ms. Trump, Monday night:

“From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise, that you treat people with respect. They taught and showed me values and morals in their daily lives. That is a lesson that I continue to pass along to our son. And we need to pass those lessons on to the many generations to follow. Because we want our children in this nation to know that the only limit to your achievements is the strength of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.”

Mrs. Obama, in her 2008 speech:

“Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values: that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you’re going to do; that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don’t know them, and even if you don’t agree with them. And Barack and I set out to build lives guided by these values, and pass them on to the next generation. Because we want our children — and all children in this nation — to know that the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.”

Ms. Trump:

“I was born in Slovenia, a small, beautiful and then-Communist country in Central Europe. My sister, Ines, who is an incredible woman and a friend, and I were raised by my wonderful parents. My elegant and hard-working mother, Amalija, introduced me to fashion and beauty. My father, Viktor, instilled in me a passion for business and travel. Their integrity, compassion and intelligence reflects to this day on me and for my love of family and America.”

Mrs. Obama, in 2008:

“And I come here as a daughter — raised on the South Side of Chicago by a father who was a blue-collar city worker and a mother who stayed at home with my brother and me. My mother’s love has always been a sustaining force for our family, and one of my greatest joys is seeing her integrity, her compassion and her intelligence reflected in my own daughters.”

Jarrett Hill, a Twitter user whose biography describes him as an interior designer and journalist, apparently first noticed the resemblance between Ms. Trump’s speech and Mrs. Obama’s in 2008.

But Ms. Trump said in an interview taped with Matt Lauer of NBC before her speech that she went over it just once in advance. “I wrote it with as little help as possible,” she said.

In a statement released just before 2 a.m., a campaign spokesman, Jason Miller, praised Ms. Trump’s speech, which he suggested was written by other people whom he did not identify.

He did not directly address the similarities to Mrs. Obama’s speech, but he indicated that Ms. Trump had “included fragments” from other people.

“In writing her beautiful speech, Melania’s team of writers took notes on her life’s inspirations, and in some instances included fragments that reflected her own thinking,” Mr. Miller said. “Melania’s immigrant experience and love for America shone through in her speech, which made it a success.”

As the controversy broke out, Mr. Trump posted on Twitter: “It was truly an honor to introduce my wife, Melania. Her speech and demeanor were absolutely incredible. Very proud!”

Some of Mr. Trump’s staunchest defenders had trouble explaining the overlapping language. On CNN, Jeffrey Lord, a commentator and Trump supporter, called it “a serious thing” and recalled the plagiarism scandal that helped sink Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s 1988 presidential bid. Mr. Lord speculated that a staff member on Mr. Trump’s campaign was responsible and added that whoever it was should be let go.

That sentiment was echoed by Reince Priebus, the head of the Republican National Committee, who said he would “probably” fire whoever was responsible.

“I don’t blame her,” he told a Bloomberg Politics breakfast Tuesday. “Some of these things are pretty common type of themes.”

Mr. Manafort, the Trump strategist, called it “a great speech.”

“Obviously Michelle Obama feels very similar sentiments toward her family,” Mr. Manafort said at a Tuesday morning briefing, calling criticism “totally ignoring the facts of the speech itself.”

“We’re comfortable that the words that she used at personal to her” he said.

“I would note that she did note that she was speaking before 40 million people yesterday,” he said, saying it was “absurd” to think people wouldn’t notice” if she had plagarized.

Sarah Hurwitz, a White House speechwriter who composed Mrs. Obama’s 2008 address, did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

Speeches by political spouses tend to be deeply personal and even idiosyncratic, because they often describe specific qualities and anecdotes that only a husband or wife would know. Ann Romney delivered a detailed testimonial about Mitt Romney’s private side at the Republican convention in 2012, the sort of highly tailored speech that spouses have delivered for decades about presidential nominees.

Ms. Trump’s speech was praised by Republicans as one of the evening’s high points. It was one of the first such public forays by a woman who is deeply private.

As it happened, the thrust of Monday night’s speaker lineup was what Republicans called the inauthenticity and incompetence of Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee.

Mr. Hill, a television journalist who was recently laid off, said in an interview that one of Ms. Trump’s lines — the words “strength of your dreams” — caught his attention as he was watching on his computer from a Starbucks in Los Angeles, juggling Facebook chats and browsing Twitter.

“It kind of made me pause for a minute,” Mr. Hill said. “I remembered that line from Michelle Obama’s speech.”

Mr. Hill, 31, found the clip of Mrs. Obama’s speech online and noticed that parts of the two speeches sounded the same. He then realized that a larger portion appeared to have been borrowed as he continued to examine both.

“I thought, ‘That’s legit plagiarism,’ ” said Mr. Hill, who described himself as a supporter of President Obama. “ ‘Someone took this piece and plugged in their own information.’ ”

Accusations of plagiarism are not unheard-of in political speeches, although the consequences have varied.

In 2008, Mrs. Clinton criticized Mr. Obama for appearing to lift a passage from Deval Patrick, then the governor of Massachusetts, in a speech about how words matter. Mr. Obama, then a senator, said that he could have credited Mr. Patrick but that he did not consider it a case of plagiarism.

When Mr. Biden was running for president in the 1980s, he faced questions about plagiarizing speeches from Robert F. Kennedy, Hubert H. Humphrey and Neil Kinnock, a British Labor Party leader. Mr. Biden said at the time that it was “ludicrous” to expect a politician to attribute everything he said.

Mr. Trump’s reed-thin campaign staff, which served him well in the Republican primary contests, has started to grow in recent weeks. But he has struggled to professionalize his operation to adapt to a general election.

Source

[Jane]

The whole DNC leaks thing has ensured that if I could vote, I'd never vote for Hillary. No matter what side you're on, you have to admit that's really fucked up. They rigged it so Sanders would lose and they'd set up her to win. And in general, I think people are over-reacting about Trump. I was right a year ago when I said I wasn't that afraid of him and he mostly wanted attention. People should know by now that most politicians lie or try to get attention to win.

Politics are broken. Yuck.

[Clappy]

And speaking of broken politics:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/22/politics/judicial-watch-clinton-emails/index.html

Talk about deja vu.  At least 15,000 more Hillary Clinton emails have been discovered by the FBI.  Once again, showing that this woman can't be trusted, especially after swearing under oath that she handed every single one of them over.

Our top two candidates still suck.

[kylie]

this election seems to be a race to who can make themselves look like a bigger asshole before election day 

[Ron]

#GaryJohnson2016

more aligned with Jill Stein's views but given she's on the ballot of only 32/50 states and doesn't seem like she'll be getting into the debates, Johnson (who will be on the ballot in all 50 states and is looking more and more likely to get into the debates) is a choice I can sit with much more contently than either Trump or Hillary. I truly believe he can carry a state in the electoral college this cycle. 

[kylie]

Edited August 24, 2016 by Homie☆★

[kylie]

 

[Clappy]

Still stand by what I have been saying, although I have to give Hillary props where it's due.  She won that debate.

[Young Nug]

On September 27, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Clappy said:

Still stand by what I have been saying, although I have to give Hillary props where it's due.  She won that debate.

"You're wrong." 

-Donald Trump, Monday 

(but of course you right)