Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Theodarzna]

Ah ok I thought you were talking about many on the left discounting the possibility of Bush winning reelection only to have it blow up in their face thanks to the turnout gap that the gay marriage ban issues caused

I mean maybe? I guess that too COULD happen but I suspect that since every institution and power clique in the country opposes Trump, I don't think he could win by any means. I am not even advocating that anyone vote for Trump or that he would be a good leader, but I would say that no form of institutional power wants him with power.

But I am very interested in Liberals and their attitudes towards others.

[cubby]

The good news for you is that, for people that think Fox is too liberal, Trump will be starting up his own media company after the election. He will be making a FORTUNE with this business venture, and people like you can enjoy him and his staff taking potshots at everything President Clinton does over the next 8 years.

It's possible the television company was always his initial end game. We'll see if it can actually make money though. Didn't Oprah try this and fail?

[Theodarzna]

So you're ok with all of Trump's thousands of "basket of deplorable"-esque statements then? Or are you just trying to upset the cart, no matter what else it implies?

I hold no ill will towards someone who votes for Trump, nor do I plan to masturbate furiously into the mirror as I imagine myself to be some superior being.

But then again I've never claimed I was some paragon of tolerance and openness.

[Deleted]

Mock me all you want, there is nothing untrue about what I'm saying.

Nothing "untrue"?

The great majority of Trump supporters are fucking idiots. Absolute morons who don't have a thinking bone in their body.

You have absolutely NO factual proof whatsoever to back up that claim - that is nothing but complete hyperbole based on nothing but your opinion. Consequently, that means it is UNTRUE.

There is no such thing a "thinking bone". Are you aware that the human brain is not a bone, that it is made up of tissue? And that is where all of our cognitive functions come from? Again, what you stated was UNTRUE.

One last thing -

Trump is categorically unqualified in every reasonable category to be President.

Really? Can you please post the application for POTUS that states all of the exact categories that are REQUIRED to be the POTUS? As far as I know, the only REQUIREMENTS are to be a citizen of the United States, 35 years old, and to have lived in the US for 14 years. That's it. Donald Trump meets those requirements, so once again what you have stated is UNTRUE.

[Nehezbegar]

The great majority of Trump supporters are fucking idiots. Absolute morons who don't have a thinking bone in their body. It's beyond any measure of intelligence to vote Trump at this stage. It's possible they don't know the correct day to vote at this point.

Id say the morons are the people who have to use argumentum ad personam in discussions with their opponents.

[cubby]

Nothing "untrue"?



You have absolutely NO factual proof whatsoever to back up that claim - that is nothing but complete hyperbole based on nothing but your opinion. Consequently, that means it is UNTRUE.

There is no such thing a "thinking bone". Are you aware that the human brain is not a bone, that it is made up of tissue? And that is where all of our cognitive functions come from? Again, what you stated was UNTRUE.

One last thing -


Really? Can you please post the application for POTUS that states all of the exact categories that are REQUIRED to be the POTUS? As far as I know, the only REQUIREMENTS are to be a citizen of the United States, 35 years old, and to have lived in the US for 14 years. That's it. Donald Trump meets those requirements, so once again what you have stated is UNTRUE.

Finally, you start paying attention. I love it when the point I'm making is so right that you have to attack the little stuff because the important pieces are true. It's ok, I get it, you need to keep your fan base going here in MMO - no worries.

[Taneras]

The Hillary Campaign and DNC are paying and training protesters to harass people outside Trump events in order to get reactions and give, via media coverage, that 1.) regular every day people are so upset at Trump and his platform and 2.) give the impression that Trump rallies are violent events.

Moreover, there is a lot of collusion between the Hillary Campaign and the DNC and various super PACS (illegal).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

Highlights:

"The campaign (Hillary Clinton) pays DNC (Democratic National COmmittee), DNC pas Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays the Foval Group, the Foval group goes and executes the shit on the ground."

- Scott Foval - National Field Director at American's United for Change.

"Wherever Trump and Pence are gonna be we have events, and we have a whole team across the country that does that. Both consultants and people from the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party apparatus and people from the campaign, the Clinton campaign. And my role in the campaign is to manage all that."

- Bob Creamer - Founder of Democracy Partners.

"The thing that we have to watch is making sure there is a double blind between the actual campaign and the actual DNC and what we're doing. There's a double blind there. So they can plausibly deny that they knew anything about it."

- Scott Foval - National Field Director at American's United for Change.

"We have to have people prepared to go wherever these events are, which means we have to have a central kind of agitator training. Now, we have a built-in group of people in New York who do this. We have a built-in group of people in D.C. who do this. We have a group of people in Vegas. We have a group of people in Colorado. We have a group of people in Minneapolis."

- Scott Foval - National Field Director at American's United for Change.

"So the Chicago protest when they shut all that, that was us. It was more him (Bob Creamer) than me, but none of this is supposed to come back to us, because we want it coming from people, we don't want it come from the party. So if we do a protest and its branded a DNC protest, right away the press is going to say its partisan. But if I'm in there coordinating with all the groups on the ground and sort of playing field general but they are the ones talking to the cameras, then its actually people. But if we send out press advisories with DNC on them and Clinton Campaign it doesn't have the same effect."

- Aaron Black - DNC Rapid response coordinator.

"No, I'm saying we have mentally ill people that we pay to do shit, make no mistake. Over the last twenty years... But the reality is, a lot of people, espefcially, our union guys, a lot of union guys, they'll do whatever you want. They're rock n' roll."

- Scott Foval - National Field Director at American's United for Change.

Considering WikiLeaks has shown various large media outlets working with the Hillary campaign, even going so far as to give her questions prior to a debate and get her campaign to proof read news stories to make sure they approve of them, and considering the Hillary campaign is paying agitators to try and get negative news coverage and to try and get Trump events shut down (like in Chicago, that was admitted on this tape), one has to wonder what the motives are.

The most clear cut answer is to move public opinion in the direction they want it to go. They're actively trying to rig an election. Not via direct cheating, but through propaganda.

[cubby]

Id say the morons are the people who have to use argumentum ad personam in discussions with their opponents.

And yet you'd be wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

I hold no ill will towards someone who votes for Trump, nor do I plan to masturbate furiously into the mirror as I imagine myself to be some superior being.

But then again I've never claimed I was some paragon of tolerance and openness.

Gotcha - you're just tipping the cart. No sweat. Carry on.

[Deleted]

The most clear cut answer is to move public opinion in the direction they want it to go. They're actively trying to rig an election. Not via direct cheating, but through propaganda.

You are words are just falling on deaf ears, Hillary supporters do not care.

[Fargus]

Not sure if this video was posted:

But what do Hillary supporters have to say about this?

[Edge-]

Not sure if this video was posted:

But what do Hillary supporters have to say about this?

That I don't trust a group that's been caught lying and manipulating footage to suit their ideological agendas multiple times?

I mean, I don't know why anyone takes anything they put out seriously. They're a complete joke.

[Fargus]

That I don't trust a group that's been caught lying and manipulating footage to suit their ideological agendas multiple times?

I mean, I don't know why anyone takes anything they put out seriously. They're a complete joke.

So all the words that came out of their mouths, all the admissions was what? Faked? Electronically dubbed over after filming?

You have people here on film actually admit they incite violence, and all of a sudden it's the filmmakers lying and manipulating?

Incredible. Would you prefer an admission face to face?

[Edge-]

So all the words that came out of their mouths, all the admissions was what? Faked?

No clue, they've been proven time and time again to have doctored videos to misrepresent what folks are saying so I've no more interest in even watching what the people in their videos have to say.

You can call me "small minded" or "refusing to consider evidence", but you only get to get caught manipulating your "proof" of something so many times before you lose all trust.

[Fargus]

No clue, they've been proven time and time again to have doctored videos to misrepresent what folks are saying so I've no more interest in even watching what the people in their videos have to say.

You can call me "small minded" or "refusing to consider evidence", but you only get to get caught manipulating your "proof" of something so many times before you lose all trust.

Did they doctor it this time though? Do you have proof? How can you judge the video or the contents within if you have not seen it?

I mean, how can you misrepresent flat-out admissions? A spade's a spade.

[Orbitus]

So all the words that came out of their mouths, all the admissions was what? Faked? Electronically dubbed over after filming?

You have people here on film actually admit they incite violence, and all of a sudden it's the filmmakers lying and manipulating?

Incredible. Would you prefer an admission face to face?

Considering these douchebags have proven to manipulate videos on ACORN and Planned Parenthood before, yeah. Going to take them at face value with a GIANT MOUNTAIN OF SALT.

- - - Updated - - -

Did they doctor it this time though? Do you have proof?

I mean, how can you misrepresent flat-out admissions? A spade's a spade.

We don't know, they haven't released the unedited tapes that showed them to be lying like last time. Will they? Who knows. I mean after enough times of being caught lying, they might not release the full tapes as evidence against them.

[Edge-]

Did they doctor it this time though? Do you have proof?

No clue this time. But again, I don't trust them any longer and have no reason to. When someone says they're not going to hit you 5 times and hits you the first four, are you really going to believe them the fifth time?

I mean, how can you misrepresent flat-out admissions? A spade's a spade.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201...-okeefe/183780

There you go, enjoy.

[Fargus]

You guys are dismissing it based on a "boy who cried wolf" premise. Yet the fact remains the people who are being interviewed flat-out admit some startling and shocking things. To be frank, their previous videos are completely irrelevant if there are genuine authentic nuggets in this one.

I personally think the denial mostly comes from being frightened about what's in the film, because it just might force you to accept some hard truths (massive corruption) where in that past you may have been completely dismissive about.

[Edge-]

You guys are dismissing it based on a "boy who cried wolf" premise. Yet the fact remains the people who are being interviewed flat-out admit some startling and shocking things. To be frank, their previous videos are completely irrelevant if there are genuine authentic nuggets in this one.

Yes, and that's how all the other videos appear as well. Then they start to get analyzed more closely and issues pop up, then O'Keefe gets taken to court and has to admit he lied. Then we go through this all over again because some people are stupid enough to believe that one guy that's lied 20 times before, but HE'S GONNA BE RIGHT THIS TIME, WE PROMISE!

I personally think the denial mostly comes from being frightened about what's in the film, because it just might force you to accept some hard truths (massive corruption) where in that past you may have been completely dismissive about.

Again, that's not how this works. Once someone has established themselves to be untrustworthy (O'Keefe) you don't continue to treat them as trustworthy.

[Fargus]

Yes, and that's how all the other videos appear as well. Then they start to get analyzed more closely and issues pop up, then O'Keefe gets taken to court and has to admit he lied. Then we go through this all over again because some people are stupid enough to believe that one guy that's lied 20 times before, but HE'S GONNA BE RIGHT THIS TIME, WE PROMISE!

Not sure anyone can accuse him of lying this time when we have video recorded admissions of complicity to incite violence within the party's mechanism.

Again, that's not how this works. Once someone has established themselves to be untrustworthy (O'Keefe) you don't continue to treat them as trustworthy.

No, I think you're scared of the actual content of the film because it may possibly pop whatever bubble you're living in. In four hours it already has 1.8 million views and the vast majority of comments can see it for what it is. I seriously doubt they are all Trump supporters.

[I Push Buttons]

So all the words that came out of their mouths, all the admissions was what? Faked? Electronically dubbed over after filming?

You have people here on film actually admit they incite violence, and all of a sudden it's the filmmakers lying and manipulating?

Incredible. Would you prefer an admission face to face?

I tend to look at things like that in terms of what is most likely.

Do you think it is more likely that an ardent partisan, who has previously manipulated/misconstrued footage to push his agenda, has once again done the same thing?

Or do you think it is more likely that these random, apparent leaders of a secret DNC initiative would go sit down for lunch with random people and lay out the plans of their secret DNC initiative for apparently no reason?