Omnibus Politics Thread: Campaign 2016 EditionFollow

They're even secretly working with the FBI. At least, as posited by Tim Ryan.

Trump is telling people who voted by mail to go to polling places on election day and get another ballot to be sure their vote gets counted.

I got a week or so to wait before, so I'll probably take the day off whether I actually do vote or not and take the little dictator to the aquarium to look at some walruses.

Or the smallest one if you fear him becoming fat off his own power.

SpoilerBecause double-post means you can't just waste it!

Edited, Oct 31st 2016 9:39am by someproteinguy

I'd vote for it; would probably have less e-mail scandals at the very least. Promising a bucket of fish on every table would be a great boost to the local economy too.

Edited, Oct 31st 2016 11:11am by someproteinguy

Dude, fish farms. Free-roaming fish all over the ocean is just yet another hippie pipe-dream that isn't sustainable or practical.

Stop seal clubbing. Makes the dance floor dangerous with all that sea water they shake off.

I'm sure you have some evidence of this? You know, that isn't just partisans speculating about it?



No. But that's the exact specific set of events we know has happened with Clinton. If you believe that a similarly corrupt method was utilized by Bush, then by all means provide some details. Cause all I'm hearing is you insisting that something exists, but you can't say what it was, how it happened, or frankly anything other than said insistence.

Which leaves us with speculation and innuendo on one side, and hard evidence on the other. Just as I said initially.



Not wrong at all. It's well documented fact that Cheney did all he was required to do by law (and quite a bit more) to avoid even the perception that his actions might be influenced by his holdings. Despite that, he still got attacked for it for years. What exactly do you think he should have done differently? I'm honestly curious. And once again, there's no evidence that he took any actions as a result either. Whereas we have direct evidence linking payments to the Clinton foundation and meetings being set up between the payees and various people in our government. That's a direct quid pro quo process. And a somewhat blatant one.



We can debate how efficient they were as a contractor, but um... they were contracted to do that work. They did it. There's nothing unusual or nefarious here. You may as well arbitrarily pick any business with a government contract and you could level the same allegations at them.



So basically that he might be just like Bill Clinton?




Did donations to the Trump charity provide donors access and influence to taxpayer funded government resources? No, right? So yeah, in the context of "which foundation presents more of a problem if the person associated with it sits in the oval office", I'm going to have to go with the one that's already been used for influence peddling as the bigger concern.

Trumps problems as a politician stem from his own personality and general dislike. But we don't actually have any information at all about how he'd actually do at making governing decisions (which itself can be quite scary). Clinton's are more directly related to her actual past political actions and decisions. It's literally the devil you know against the devil you don't know. We know that with Clinton we'll get a corrupt government that is subject more to the favors given and received than any rational global political reality. We know that as a result, US interests and power around the globe will almost certainly decrease, and in that vacuum we'll see more troubles like we've seen with Russia, North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, and ISIS under Obama. It'll be the same foreign policy, although possibly worse. Obama doesn't engage because he ideologically is opposed to the US "meddling". Clinton will engage incorrectly because the right players bought her favor and the wrong ones didn't.

Which is scary as hell.

DNC Chair resigns as a result of email scandal, accused of leaking information to Clinton camp during democratic primary.
No, not DWS, but the new acting DNC chair Donna Brazille, who took over after DWS resigned over similar allegations. To be fair, she resigned CNN, not the DNC chair role, as she was not chair when these leaks occurred.

So still not actually anything, but boy at least that speculation is juicy.

Edited, Nov 1st 2016 1:37pm by lolgaxe

Why are there still people in Flint? Just move already, the problem isn't going away.

Edited, Nov 1st 2016 12:23pm by someproteinguy

I thought they were on a contract to have a new water company come in like next year and were just having problems because the last one ****** them over and bailed early, leaving them stuck with awful local sources.