Time to get on the TRUMP train

[gimmick]

Access angle came from an AP article that was retracted and none of the pay-for-play accusations stuck. Bono didn't get shit and it was pretty much the same story with everything else. You couldn't either show the pay or the play and you kinda need them both. Slush fund retardation is just that. Nothing has been proven. When none of that worked the latest was the claim that they only use 10-20% of funds to charity because retards are too stupid to understand tax reports or they assume that no one can.

The good ol we couldn't get anything to stick with the Clinton Foundation so lets double down on that angle. That's clearly the smart thing to do.

So everything the debate moderator stated when asking Hillary to comment was inaccurate?

If so, why didn't she just directly explain the situation, rather than ignore the question TWICE?

Hillary is very good at quickly answering and smacking down inaccurate statements and accusations made about her, yet on the Clinton Foundation question, she kept dodging repeatedly and wouldn't address it.

"Nothing has been proven" has pretty much become the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign slogan, and that's not a good look.

There's nothing to say. Why would there be. She doesn't need to prove her innocence. Her guilt needs to be proven not the other way around. Why does this need to be explained. It's impossible to prove de facto innocence. She can't prove she's not a witch. Not because she clearly is (maybe, i don't know her), but because it is impossible. That's why we don't expect people to prove they are not guilty.

[gimmick]

I'm sure Bernie can live with the fact that some of his republican non supporters think he didn't keep it real enough. Like how dare he do something that benefits him and ideals he believes in. He got about 2/3 of the issues he was driving to the DNC/Hillary platform and enough support to maybe get about half of them through in some form assuming Hillary wins. That's pretty good for a losing campaign and only thing he should have done for his supporters. You know stuff based on reality from a career politician that understands that you can't get anything done without compromises. Apparently that's selling out these days.

I'm not arguing that Bernie lacked influence, nor am I arguing that he failed to achieve what he was intending to do.

I'm arguing that he was a sell out in the sense that his campaign was never serious in the first place, yet he led his supporters to believe it was.

Few Bernie diehards were on board because he was just trying to inject his ideas into the Hillary platform, while being careful not to actually harm her chances. That's what he was doing, but that's not what he told his cult-like following.

Bernie pretended to be starting a revolution where all the unrealistic dreams of the far (and naive) left would come true, and his supporters (especially the young ones) ate it up.

Then he quietly shrunk into the background and suddenly backed the supposed establishment devil he was fighting against. He didn't utter a peep when it came out that the DNC had the whole process rigged against him. He bent over and continued taking it like Hillary's bitch.

So yes, I guess he was clever in that he misled his followers, created a huge thorn in Hillary's side as a result, injected his ideas in her platform, and then slinked away. But it's also indicative of someone with no backbone or loyalty to those who got him where he was in the first place.

A principled Bernie would have refused to support Hillary after all that went down. But since he was never seriously running in the first place, I guess it didn't bother him too much that the DNC conspired against his campaign.

I guess it's kind of like how TJ Cloutier, during one of his intentional tournament losses where he sold over 100% of himself, wouldn't have been angry if you cheated him.

And we know Bernie's campaign wasn't serious because? Is it impossible to prepare to different outcomes of non certain events? Because to me it seems kinda retarded to burn your bridges to a party you have cooperated with for decades and most likely will have to work with in the future regardless of the outcome of the primaries.

I'm sure it's shocking that people would do something they think is in their best interests. And what comes to misleading your followers, "there's about 90% chance we're fucked" isn't really a solid basis for motivational speech. Bernie bro's are likely getting way more than they deserve solely for the fact that Bernie understands what he needs to do to get anything done as an independent.

[MumblesBadly]

Thoughts about the debate:

- Everyone is panicking over Trump's statement that he will "leave you in suspense" regarding whether or not he will accept the election results. Believe it or not, his stance isn't unreasonable. Given the fact that Hillary clearly rigged the election against Bernie (she was going to win anyway, but it was still rigged against him), you can't blame Trump for taking a wait-and-see attitude regarding accepting any defeat, especially if it ends up super-close. Why aren't any Democrats attacking Al Gore for refusing to "accept" Bush's victory in 2000?

What the FUCK are you talking about??? Per election law, candidates have the right to challenge the count if the percentage difference is too small. That is NOT refusing to "accept" the results of the election. The election isn't over until the *legal* avenues of challenging the *count* are closed off. After Al Gore's *legally allowed* options to challenge the *vote count* were exhausted, he *accepted* the election result. Every self-respecting politician in the US takea up those challenges if they believe that doing do will change the official vote count in their favor! That is NOT refusing to accept the *results* of the election because the election is NOT over until the *legal* means of challenging unfavorable vote counts are exhausted! Stop making excuses for Trump's bullshit claim that the election will be rigged! FFS! Even the GOP leaders are aghast at Trump's statements during the debate.

[gimmick]

Access angle came from an AP article that was retracted and none of the pay-for-play accusations stuck. Bono didn't get shit and it was pretty much the same story with everything else. You couldn't either show the pay or the play and you kinda need them both. Slush fund retardation is just that. Nothing has been proven. When none of that worked the latest was the claim that they only use 10-20% of funds to charity because retards are too stupid to understand tax reports or they assume that no one can.

The good ol we couldn't get anything to stick with the Clinton Foundation so lets double down on that angle. That's clearly the smart thing to do.

So everything the debate moderator stated when asking Hillary to comment was inaccurate?

If so, why didn't she just directly explain the situation, rather than ignore the question TWICE?

Hillary is very good at quickly answering and smacking down inaccurate statements and accusations made about her, yet on the Clinton Foundation question, she kept dodging repeatedly and wouldn't address it.

"Nothing has been proven" has pretty much become the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign slogan, and that's not a good look.

Also the transcript for the second time the question was asked...

WALLACE: And the specific question went to pay for play. Do you want to talk about that?

CLINTON: Well, but there is no -- but there is no evidence -- but there is...

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: I think that it's been very well...

WALLACE: Let's ask Mr. Trump.

CLINTON: There is a lot of evidence about the very good work...

TRUMP: It's been very well studied.

CLINTON: ... and the high rankings...

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: Please let me Mr. Trump speak.

TRUMP: ... and it's a criminal enterprise, and so many people know it.

WALLACE: Please let Mr. Trump speak.

...she might have elaborated more but Trump apparently had something important to say. Something about a criminal enterprise. Something he can't prove. Something the entire GOP have not been able to prove with all the time that has been wasted with this crap. A kind of running theme of GOP vs Hillary. We have nothing that sticks, what if we just keep repeating the accusation again and again.

[tyde]

Thoughts about the debate:

- Everyone is panicking over Trump's statement that he will "leave you in suspense" regarding whether or not he will accept the election results. Believe it or not, his stance isn't unreasonable. Given the fact that Hillary clearly rigged the election against Bernie (she was going to win anyway, but it was still rigged against him), you can't blame Trump for taking a wait-and-see attitude regarding accepting any defeat, especially if it ends up super-close. Why aren't any Democrats attacking Al Gore for refusing to "accept" Bush's victory in 2000?

What the FUCK are you talking about??? Per election law, candidates have the right to challenge the count if the percentage difference is too small. That is NOT refusing to "accept" the results of the election. The election isn't over until the *legal* avenues of challenging the *count* are closed off. After Al Gore's *legally allowed* options to challenge the *vote count* were exhausted, he *accepted* the election result. Every self-respecting politician in the US takea up those challenges if they believe that doing do will change the official vote count in their favor! That is NOT refusing to accept the *results* of the election because the election is NOT over until the *legal* means of challenging unfavorable vote counts are exhausted! Stop making excuses for Trump's bullshit claim that the election will be rigged! FFS! Even the GOP leaders are aghast at Trump's statements during the debate.

[BiffCo99]

So everything the debate moderator stated when asking Hillary to comment was inaccurate?

If so, why didn't she just directly explain the situation, rather than ignore the question TWICE?

Hillary is very good at quickly answering and smacking down inaccurate statements and accusations made about her, yet on the Clinton Foundation question, she kept dodging repeatedly and wouldn't address it.

"Nothing has been proven" has pretty much become the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign slogan, and that's not a good look.

Also the transcript for the second time the question was asked...

WALLACE: And the specific question went to pay for play. Do you want to talk about that?

CLINTON: Well, but there is no -- but there is no evidence -- but there is...

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: I think that it's been very well...

WALLACE: Let's ask Mr. Trump.

CLINTON: There is a lot of evidence about the very good work...

TRUMP: It's been very well studied.

CLINTON: ... and the high rankings...

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: Please let me Mr. Trump speak.

TRUMP: ... and it's a criminal enterprise, and so many people know it.

WALLACE: Please let Mr. Trump speak.

...she might have elaborated more but Trump apparently had something important to say. Something about a criminal enterprise. Something he can't prove. Something the entire GOP have not been able to prove with all the time that has been wasted with this crap. A kind of running theme of GOP vs Hillary. We have nothing that sticks, what if we just keep repeating the accusation again and again.

Do you work for CNN?

[Dan Druff]

So everything the debate moderator stated when asking Hillary to comment was inaccurate?

If so, why didn't she just directly explain the situation, rather than ignore the question TWICE?

Hillary is very good at quickly answering and smacking down inaccurate statements and accusations made about her, yet on the Clinton Foundation question, she kept dodging repeatedly and wouldn't address it.

"Nothing has been proven" has pretty much become the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign slogan, and that's not a good look.

Also the transcript for the second time the question was asked...

WALLACE: And the specific question went to pay for play. Do you want to talk about that?

CLINTON: Well, but there is no -- but there is no evidence -- but there is...

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: I think that it's been very well...

WALLACE: Let's ask Mr. Trump.

CLINTON: There is a lot of evidence about the very good work...

TRUMP: It's been very well studied.

CLINTON: ... and the high rankings...

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: Please let me Mr. Trump speak.

TRUMP: ... and it's a criminal enterprise, and so many people know it.

WALLACE: Please let Mr. Trump speak.

...she might have elaborated more but Trump apparently had something important to say. Something about a criminal enterprise. Something he can't prove. Something the entire GOP have not been able to prove with all the time that has been wasted with this crap. A kind of running theme of GOP vs Hillary. We have nothing that sticks, what if we just keep repeating the accusation again and again.

That was the second round after Wallace interrupted her to point out that she was avoiding the question (which she clearly was).

Funny how Hillary absolutely never avoids the question when she can easily debunk any false accusation about her, but somehow she dodged the entire point of the Clinton Foundation question.

There's nothing to say. Why would there be. She doesn't need to prove her innocence. Her guilt needs to be proven not the other way around. Why does this need to be explained. It's impossible to prove de facto innocence. She can't prove she's not a witch. Not because she clearly is (maybe, i don't know her), but because it is impossible. That's why we don't expect people to prove they are not guilty.

This was a debate, not a court of law. If the moderator asks you a question of, "There are accusations that you did XXXXX and there is evidence YYYYY we have seen to back that up. How do you explain this?", your response should be, "No, that's untrue. Here is why I didn't do XXXXX and why YYYYY isn't true, and here's what you can do to look up that I'm telling the truth...."

But Hillary didn't do that. She purposely avoided the question.

It was essentially this:

Moderator: "So it appears your charity was pay-for-play, and foreigners who donated to it got special favors. How do you explain that?"
Hillary: "I'm glad you asked that. Let me tell you about all the children my charity helped..."

Do you think Hillary was that stupid to where she didn't understand the question?

Come on.

I know you're way left of center and want to defend your candidate, but geez, at least concede the point here that Hillary has a lot to hide regarding her actions regarding the Clinton Foundation, and did all she could to avoid answering about it.

[Dan Druff]

Thoughts about the debate:

- Everyone is panicking over Trump's statement that he will "leave you in suspense" regarding whether or not he will accept the election results. Believe it or not, his stance isn't unreasonable. Given the fact that Hillary clearly rigged the election against Bernie (she was going to win anyway, but it was still rigged against him), you can't blame Trump for taking a wait-and-see attitude regarding accepting any defeat, especially if it ends up super-close. Why aren't any Democrats attacking Al Gore for refusing to "accept" Bush's victory in 2000?

What the FUCK are you talking about??? Per election law, candidates have the right to challenge the count if the percentage difference is too small. That is NOT refusing to "accept" the results of the election. The election isn't over until the *legal* avenues of challenging the *count* are closed off. After Al Gore's *legally allowed* options to challenge the *vote count* were exhausted, he *accepted* the election result. Every self-respecting politician in the US takea up those challenges if they believe that doing do will change the official vote count in their favor! That is NOT refusing to accept the *results* of the election because the election is NOT over until the *legal* means of challenging unfavorable vote counts are exhausted! Stop making excuses for Trump's bullshit claim that the election will be rigged! FFS! Even the GOP leaders are aghast at Trump's statements during the debate.

You're getting emotional and missing the point.

Trump, whether right or wrong, feels that the election is going to be rigged and that he's not going to get a fair shake.

They are asking him to promise in advance that he will accept these results.

He is saying that he can't tell right now, because he wants to see how it plays out.

I think that's a reasonable answer, though he should have phrased it differently.

Personally I don't think the election itself will be rigged against him, but it's also wrong to put the candidate on the spot and pressure him into "accepting the results", when he may very well have issues with those results if it ends up being very close.

I cited Al Gore in 2000 because he had issues with the results. Whether he was right or wrong, he didn't accept the results indicating he lost. While it was his right to challenge it, they're asking Trump now to promise that he won't challenge anything and will automatically accept whatever they tell him. I can see how that's a problem for him, especially given that he's against an obviously shady opponent.

Again, I do NOT think there will be significant voter fraud, nor do I think it will be close enough to where it would matter anyway.

But in such a contentious election, you can't tell a candidate in advance to promise something based upon results he hasn't seen.

[tyde]

[tyde]

"With Hillary Clinton’s US presidential campaign Chairman John Podesta having longstanding ties to the Russian mafia and money laundering, this report continues, the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) maintains “complete/all times/all ways” surveillance of him and his criminal associates—including both Hillary Clinton and her husband, and former US President, Bill Clinton, and who are collectively designated as the “Clinton Crime Family”.

On Saturday 15 October (2016), this report notes, the SVR reported to the MoF that Hillary Clinton and John Podesta met with JP Morgan Chase & Company CEO Jamie Dimon at Clinton’s Chappaqua Compound outside of New York City—and who, in 2009, both President Obama and Hillary Clinton allowed to break US laws by his, Dimon’s, being able to buy millions-of-dollars of his company’s stocks prior to the public being told his JP Morgan bank was receiving a Federal Reserve $80 billion credit line—and that caused JP Morgan’s stocks to soar and that have had an astonishing 920% dividend growth since 2010.

Within 12 hours of the Hillary Clinton-John Podesta-Jamie Dimon meeting at the Chappaqua Compound, this report continues, the BIS registered the transfer of $1.8 billion from the Clinton Foundation to the Qatar Central Bank.

[TheXFactor]

WTF?

Go to 5:45 minutes

Democratic insider Donna Brazile says that Russia faked her emails and gave them to Wikileaks, one of which was herself emailing to the head of the Clinton campaign that she sometimes gets the questions in advance and passes them on to Hillary Clinton.

[BiffCo99]

WTF?

Go to 5:45 minutes

Democratic insider Donna Brazile says that Russia faked her emails and gave them to Wikileaks, one of which was herself emailing to the head of the Clinton campaign that she sometimes gets the questions in advance and passes them on to Hillary Clinton.

I don't like Megyn Kelly but she really roasted Brazile here. This video gives you a real glimpse at the evil machinery behind the Clinton campaign. Brazile had no defense and comes off really bad.

[FRANKRIZZO]

Im on the trump train. Lesser of the 2 evils by far. Hillary will do nothing to improve the economy while Trump seems to be an advocate for penalizing us companies that go abroad to avoid paying taxes plus taking jobs away giving them to 3d world countries. So annoying to call your bank and instantly know you are talking to a 3d world hobbit. There is that matter about him having access to nuclear weapons but if you don't have a thriving economy your life as a homeless person sleeping on subway grates is a worse scenario.

[MumblesBadly]

[MumblesBadly]

What the FUCK are you talking about??? Per election law, candidates have the right to challenge the count if the percentage difference is too small. That is NOT refusing to "accept" the results of the election. The election isn't over until the *legal* avenues of challenging the *count* are closed off. After Al Gore's *legally allowed* options to challenge the *vote count* were exhausted, he *accepted* the election result. Every self-respecting politician in the US takea up those challenges if they believe that doing do will change the official vote count in their favor! That is NOT refusing to accept the *results* of the election because the election is NOT over until the *legal* means of challenging unfavorable vote counts are exhausted! Stop making excuses for Trump's bullshit claim that the election will be rigged! FFS! Even the GOP leaders are aghast at Trump's statements during the debate.

You're getting emotional and missing the point.

Trump, whether right or wrong, feels that the election is going to be rigged and that he's not going to get a fair shake.

They are asking him to promise in advance that he will accept these results.

He is saying that he can't tell right now, because he wants to see how it plays out.

I think that's a reasonable answer, though he should have phrased it differently.

Personally I don't think the election itself will be rigged against him, but it's also wrong to put the candidate on the spot and pressure him into "accepting the results", when he may very well have issues with those results if it ends up being very close.

I cited Al Gore in 2000 because he had issues with the results. Whether he was right or wrong, he didn't accept the results indicating he lost. While it was his right to challenge it, they're asking Trump now to promise that he won't challenge anything and will automatically accept whatever they tell him. I can see how that's a problem for him, especially given that he's against an obviously shady opponent.

Again, I do NOT think there will be significant voter fraud, nor do I think it will be close enough to where it would matter anyway.

But in such a contentious election, you can't tell a candidate in advance to promise something based upon results he hasn't seen.

I'm getting "emotional" because you stated a bald face lie! Gore never disputed the *election*! He legally disputed the *initial* vote count. Politicians in the US who respect the election process do that all of the time when the vote count is close! Saying that Gore disputed the *election* is both factually wrong and a false equivalent partisan smear! Wake up to your ridiculous level of bias on the matter!

[TheXFactor]

How to Hack an Election
http://www.bloomberg.com/features/20...k-an-election/

How to Hack an Election in 7 Minutes
With Russia already meddling in 2016, a ragtag group of obsessive tech experts is warning that stealing the ultimate prize—victory on Nov. 8—would be child’s play.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...minutes-214144

It's very easy to hack and rig elections in foreign countries.

The voting machines are very easy to hack, a child could do it.

It's Almost Impossible for the Russians to Hack the U.S. Election. Here's Why.
http://new.time.com/4500216/election...kers-security/

70% of all votes cast will be on paper ballots.

30% on electronic voting machines.

There are more than 9,000 polling places across the country, each with their own staff and equipped with several different type of voting machines.
However special "malware" could be created and installed on these voting machines and fix the vote for Trump or Hillary.

As far as Trump saying the election is being "rigged".
He is referring to the media trying to get people to vote for Hillary because they can't stand Trump.

The Clinton campaign is trying to "rig" the election by paying off people to incite violence at Trump rallies.
The Clinton emails obtained by Wikileaks prove that Hillary Clinton is a lying bitch.

[DJ_Chaps]

So everything the debate moderator stated when asking Hillary to comment was inaccurate?

If so, why didn't she just directly explain the situation, rather than ignore the question TWICE?

Hillary is very good at quickly answering and smacking down inaccurate statements and accusations made about her, yet on the Clinton Foundation question, she kept dodging repeatedly and wouldn't address it.

"Nothing has been proven" has pretty much become the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign slogan, and that's not a good look.

Also the transcript for the second time the question was asked...

WALLACE: And the specific question went to pay for play. Do you want to talk about that?

CLINTON: Well, but there is no -- but there is no evidence -- but there is...

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: I think that it's been very well...

WALLACE: Let's ask Mr. Trump.

CLINTON: There is a lot of evidence about the very good work...

TRUMP: It's been very well studied.

CLINTON: ... and the high rankings...

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: Please let me Mr. Trump speak.

TRUMP: ... and it's a criminal enterprise, and so many people know it.

WALLACE: Please let Mr. Trump speak.

...she might have elaborated more but Trump apparently had something important to say. Something about a criminal enterprise. Something he can't prove. Something the entire GOP have not been able to prove with all the time that has been wasted with this crap. A kind of running theme of GOP vs Hillary. We have nothing that sticks, what if we just keep repeating the accusation again and again.

It was his turn to talk, moron.

[JoeD]

WTF?

Go to 5:45 minutes

Democratic insider Donna Brazile says that Russia faked her emails and gave them to Wikileaks, one of which was herself emailing to the head of the Clinton campaign that she sometimes gets the questions in advance and passes them on to Hillary Clinton.

I don't like Megyn Kelly but she really roasted Brazile here. This video gives you a real glimpse at the evil machinery behind the Clinton campaign. Brazile had no defense and comes off really bad.

This is the Clinton Machine at its best - by all accounts, very good-hearted, well meaning reputable people like Brazile (and Richard Comey and Lynch) caught in the Clintonian hype and getting destroyed, while the Clintons laugh and celebrate their increased power and crooked behavior.

[ftpjesus]

Ok did folks miss when Hillary once again clearly violated the National Security Act by revealing the response time for a nuclear strike or counter strike response. That information is not supposed to be public knowledge. If this doesn't prove she either has zero respect for maintaining national security or she's losing her ability to keep her damn mouth shut about shit nobody needs to know. I'd like to see how the DOJ skirts this clear violation of the National Security Act. Can't lie and deny something done on Nationwide TV.

[FPS_Russia]

Time for Brazile to step down, she got pwned by TYT as well.