oportet: (Default)
[personal profile] oportet
If you were waiting for Hillary to connect - to have a moment where she could relate to the voters, where she would seem more like a human and less like a political robot - well, better late than never, right?

Hillary coped with loss with alcohol, junk food, and POSSIBLY xanax

Xanax and alcohol? IF TRUE, this absolutely explains the delayed concession. Maybe whoever wrote this part of her book should've had a bigger hand in campaign decisions. I know, hindsight being what it is and all - still, the public knowing things like this couldn't have made the outcome any worse.

Don't know if I would've gone with wine though - chardonnay... a little too confident - you have to have whiskey on hand for situations like this. Even when you've got a 98.653% chance to win - especially then, actually. It's multipurpose, celebration or sadness - choose your own adventure. Then again, not sure if I'd trust myself with whiskey and a barge full of fireworks...

Xanax - wouldn't be a bad choice. Everyone's a little touchy about opiods right now - probably don't need to go that direction with any possibility of a political career left.

Burgers? I like them, but it could get a little messy - wouldn't you rather lay down or at least recline and watch results come in? I'd settle for some boiled peanuts - they give you something to throw at dipshit advisers whenever a state is lost.

What's your ideal menu for monumental election night defeat, or victory?
kiaa: (Default)
[personal profile] kiaa
"Two Democratic Party donors and a former party staff member have filed an invasion of privacy lawsuit against President Trump’s campaign and a longtime informal adviser, Roger J. Stone Jr., accusing them of conspiring in the release of hacked Democratic emails and files that exposed their personal information to the public."

On one side, what's most damning here is that it's not just damaging information to Hillary that was used by Trump's campaign, but personal information that resulted in people attempting to steal their identities, and in one case, outing a man who was gay and in the closet. That not only crosses the line, but erases it entirely.

However, having said that, will the plaintiffs succeed? Republicans took information that was dumped by Wikileaks and ran with it. But, if I understand this correctly, the information the Republicans used was public domain when Wikileaks released it. So yeah, it's pretty sleazy, but I don't see the plaintiffs winning this case. The Trump campaign did not divulge this information. They only used it. Can Wikileaks be sued in an international court? If so, what are the plaintiff's chances there? And, if they can win there, can they collect? And, on the domestic front, is Trump liable for passing along information that was already dumped to the public by Wikileaks? It's not like these aren't important questions.

For the sake of discussion, let's don't assume a connection between the Trump campaign and Russia here. Let's just go with what we already know regarding Wikileaks and the lawsuit. Doesn't the whole case look more like a temper tantrum by the Dems? A case with no legs - yes or no?
[identity profile] debunkgpolitics.livejournal.com
Originally posted by [livejournal.com profile] debunkgpolitics at Trump v. Clinton (again)
This is still relevant, considering the coverage of Trump varies by medium.
Many criticized President-elect Trump for engaging in conflicts of interest, along with being a racist and a xenophobe, among other shameful names. Indeed Mr. Trump made inappropriate comments. However, Mrs. Clinton received far less criticism for her inappropriate conduct. First, she made disparaging remarks about people who abide by their sincere religious beliefs, and her party associated with a group seeking to negatively infiltrate the Catholic Church. Second, her supposed charity The Clinton Foundation is a major conflict of interest. This charity paid for the wedding and high-end apartment of Chelsea Clinton. In fact, Mrs. Clinton never, during her presidential campaign, boasted of any benefit conferred by the Foundation in this country. If her Foundation significantly contributed to the well-being of Americans, then Mrs. Clinton would have made sure voters knew of those feats.
At least, Mr. Trump was open and honest about his views. Only through leaked videos did the public realize how Mrs. Clinton felt about certain people. Plus, she never denied the veracity of those videos. Had the videos portrayed Mrs. Clinton in a false light, she would have tenaciously defended herself. Voters need a frank candidate to make an informed vote.
[identity profile] abomvubuso.livejournal.com
...When Trump is confronted with a possible conspiracy that presumably worked in his favour, he instantaneously counters with a conspiracy theory of his own. It's like a knee-jerk reflex at this point.

Trump Claims, With No Evidence, That ‘Millions of People’ Voted Illegally

And since we're in the era of post-truth (whatever that's supposed to mean anyway), a lie told a hundred maybe two times, becomes truth. Right?

Here is the thing )
[identity profile] htpcl.livejournal.com
Greetings, my fellow shocked political observers political clairvoyants! Now that the dust of the election has settled somewhat, I shall say a few words on the issue as well. See, the whole world was watching with dismay, morbid curiosity and growing horror how the tragicomical and rather vulgar reality show that the US presidential campaign unraveled for the last few months. And though the monopolar world model has fast been sinking back into history for quite a while, the choice of the h'American people was still bound to have long-lasting implications on a global scale. So the world was watching nervously, waiting to see the outcome of this "choice between two evils". We wanted to know which would be "the lesser evil" for us all. And we were bracing ourselves for what was to come, and making bets on who the next one to be bombed would be - presumably depending on h'America's choice (I did promise to call her so from now on, didn't I?)

Although there were more than two candidates on the ballot (at least on paper), the realities of the plutocratic bipolar parisan model were such that it all boiled down to a choice between Hillary and Donald, which is a choice that looked as if borrowed from a crappy comedy - or rather, a dystopian novel. This made the outside observer wonder if it was more comforting or horrifying that the political circus in the world's hegemon was even more absurd than the one back home (and I can promise you, our own political circus is quite ridiculous).

I don't think it would be an overstatement if I said that this was a clash between the embodiment of absolute cynicism and the one of complete grotesquery. Because in fact, most of the nasty things that the two opponents and their supporters flung at each other, were actually true.

Warning: rather longish ramble inside )
[identity profile] luzribeiro.livejournal.com
At long last, after tons of relentless pressure from Trump and his supporters, the Reptilian candidate Hillary Clinton has revealed what the secret substance that she takes before presidential debates contains, which gives her a sudden flash of energy that lasts only for a few minutes.

In a unprecedented caving in, the DNC has reluctantly published a list of ingredients that their nominee is using, specifying that America deserves a strong and high-energy president, regardless of the bio-chemical price. The list goes as follows:

The list & a poll )
[identity profile] oportet.livejournal.com
We're finally here! The last debate, of the most important election of our lifetime!

Every opinion matters, every vote counts!*

offer only valid in Florida and Ohio

Thoughts? Expectations?

If you're sober enough to pronounce Presidential Debate without stuttering - why the hell are you watching?

Here we go...
[identity profile] dreamville-bg.livejournal.com
"The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer" - Henry Kissinger

First off, now that we've established that given the available options, a Clinton in the White House is much more preferable than a Trump (well, isn't anything preferable to Trump?), now let's talk about what we should be bracing ourselves for, once we've got a Clinton II at the helm (and I do mean the whole world). Just to provide some context, let me remind that Henry Kissinger was instrumental to the murder of literally millions of people:

"Kissinger... enabled dictators, extended the Vietnam War, laid the path to the Khmer Rouge killing fields, stage-managed a genocide in East Timor, overthrew the democratically elected left-wing government in Chile, and encouraged Nixon to wiretap his political adversaries."

This, in addition to Kissinger ordering the US air force to carry out "a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia... Anything that flies on anything that moves". In other words, an explicit order for genocide.

And yet... )
[identity profile] dreamville-bg.livejournal.com

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, they might have been just playing a sick game with all of us?

[identity profile] ddstory.livejournal.com
House Speaker Paul Ruan has held a press conference to explain how he could cram a generation’s worth of legislation into a budget reconciliation bill that cannot be filibustered:

"Ryan peeled back the curtain on his strategy at a news conference after a reporter suggested he would struggle to implement his ambitious agenda next year. After all, it was noted, Republicans are certain to lack the 60 votes needed in the Senate to break Democratic filibusters on legislation. So Ryan gave a minitutorial on congressional rules and the bazooka in his pocket for the assembled reporters."

"“This is our plan for 2017,” Ryan said, waving a copy of his “Better Way” policy agenda. “Much of this you can do through budget reconciliation.” He explained that key pieces are “fiscal in nature,” meaning they can be moved quickly through a budget maneuver that requires a simple majority in the Senate and House. “This is our game plan for 2017,” Ryan said again to the seemingly unconvinced press."

Not sure why the press seems so unconvinced... )
[identity profile] paft.livejournal.com

Apparently, along with making taco trucks conveniently available to all of us, Hillary Clinton is the insensate monster who, as a child, defended baby bunnies. Here is, I kid you not, a quote from a Brietbart post in which readers are supposed to be outraged by this:

"Hillary’s combative behavior is nothing new; she’s been that way all her life. For my 2005 book The Truth About Hillary, I interviewed Hillary’s grammar school classmate, Jim Yrigoyen, who told me the story of being ordered by Hillary to guard a warren of baby rabbits, and not give any of them away to neighborhood boys. When he did, recalled Yrigoyen, 'Hillary hauled off and punched me in the nose.'"

For obvious reasons, I have not linked directly to Breitbart, but by all means, do so if you doubt this (the link can be found in the article). Especially funny are the comments from Breitbart readers denouncing her as a sociopath. Yes, it's well known, sociopaths typically have a childhood history of being tender towards animals.

I, for one, am going on the record here as being against breaking a promise to a more humane schoolmate and passing out infant rabbits to one's playfellows. (It is possible, of course, that one or two of these bunnies ended up as long-lived and cherished pets, but knowing what I do about little boys, I'd say the odds are against it.) I am only provisionally opposed to a little girl busting the nose of a little boy who does this. I might, while staunching the blood and telling the kid to keep his head back while I applied ice, deliver a serious lecture to her about right ways and wrong ways to deal with anger, but I have to confess that secretly, I'd be on her side. And I'm genuinely bemused by the tone-deafness of people who imagine this anecdote reflects badly on Hillary Clinton.

Best comment on this so far is on twitter: "I wasn't 'emotionally invested' in Hillary until I found out she cold-cocked a dude for f*cking with baby rabbits."

[identity profile] airiefairie.livejournal.com
Will Trump behave? Will he manage to refrain from hurling invective at women, immigrants and Muslims during the 90 minutes of the debate? Will he come across "presidential" enough? Those were the questions that dominated the media circus before the first of the three debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Yes, too bad the battle between the two candidates for the most important post in the world has come to such lows.

So... How did he behave? Decently, overall. Meaning, he did not swear, and neither was he too aggressive against women and Muslims. But this behaviour did not bring him any dividends. Just on the contrary. This debate showed very clearly that Trump's success in the last few months had largely been because he was able to divert much of the public attention from his own incompetence and uncouthness, and his total political ineptitude. He was hugely aided in this by the media, who jumped at every cue he was giving them, for the sake of getting attention, viewership and sponsorship money. But now, when thing are getting serious and the election campaign is entering its decisive stage, and Trump's advisors have obviously changed the strategy, trying to polish his tarnished image in order to get the votes of those Republican supporters who couldn't imagine voting for someone like Trump - the tactic has failed completely.

Read more... )
[identity profile] oportet.livejournal.com
It's almost time - not sure how these live thread things get started - or how to keep them going - or if I can keep my eyes and mind open for another hour and a half - but here we go...

If you're paying attention now - we're five minutes out - I recommend getting in on the 'hug with kiss on the cheek greeting' (8 to 1) probably won't happen but I see some value in it
[identity profile] oportet.livejournal.com
Honestly - I've never been a big HRC fan. While I'm not a complete opposite from her on the political spectrum (as far as this election goes, I guess I'm closer to giving my vote to Crazy Gary again), I can't say I'm anywhere near her - and up until today - there was about a 100% chance I wouldn't be voting for her - but you can probably drop that to at least 90% (maybe more) now.

It seems, Hillary has some sort of a health issue.

Not only does she have some sort of a health issue - she covered it up, and when pressed - covered it up some more.

What kind of a person would downplay health problems? What kind of a person would lie about their current condition - just to avoid questions, just to continue on with the job in front of them? Well - most of us, I assume... but as for me - definitely.

I'll load up on dayquil so I don't have to hear you ask if I'm coming down with something. I'll load up on hot totties to keep you from commenting on how it seems I need some rest. I'll suffer in silence, I'll be an idiot - I'll keep going out of stubbornness (or selfishness - I don't want to spend my sick days being sick).

It may seem weird - after all the shit the Democratic party did (after, before, but especially during their convention) to 'humanize' her, and make her more relatable - that another lie would move me or anyone else closer to considering her - but this did it.

While it's pretty safe to assume this will, overall, count against her much more than it'll ever count for her - personally, it's one of the most positive things I've seen out of either of the big 2 yet.
[identity profile] airiefairie.livejournal.com
Is Paul Sperry a conspiracy theorist? The author of “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington” has now come up with a large piece for the NYP, where he argues at great length that Huma Abedin, the deputy chairlady of Hillary Clinton's campaign team, supports radical Islam. The author cites her decade as employee for the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, whose chief editor is her mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin (a Pakistani immigrant).

JMMA has, the author claims, regularly published articles professing radical Islam, like for example editorials by Huma's mother herself, advocating the limiting of women's rights, and arguing that the victims of rape are bringing it on themselves with the way they dress. The relevant excerpt:

"By placing women in the ‘care and protection’ of men and by making women responsible for those under her charge. Islamic values generate a sense of compassion in human and family relations. Among all systems of belief, Islam goes the farthest in restoring equality across gender. Acknowledging the very central role women play in procreation, child-raising and homemaking, Islam places the economic responsibility of supporting the family primarily on the male members."

It seems the journal has also occasionally given a tribune to 9-11 truther arguments, essentially supporting the view that the terror attacks had been provoked by the US itself because of its hostile policies to Muslim countries.

It might or might not be going deeper than that )
[identity profile] luzribeiro.livejournal.com
We've talked about this before. The idea that Hillary could go trigger-happy in world affairs just because some prominent neocons have endorsed her, was dismissed as outlandish. But the voices making the same point keep on mounting. Here's one:

[Error: unknown template video]

Relevant part:

Vijay Prashad: "But let’s take the case of Hillary Clinton. You know, here’s somebody who actually pushed Obama to go into the Libyan operation. You know, Obama was reticent to enter the operation in Libya. The French were very eager. And Hillary Clinton led the charge against Libya. This shows, to my mind, a profound dangerous tendency to go into wars overseas, you know, damn the consequences. And I think, therefore, if you’re looking at this from outside the United States, there’s a real reason to be terrified that whoever becomes president—as Medea Benjamin put it to me in an interview, whoever wins the president, there will be a hawk in the White House."

Read more... )
[identity profile] mahnmut.livejournal.com
Remember the whole Obama birth certificate debacle? Now there's this:

Debunking the Hillary Clinton health conspiracy

"From Donald Trump and his top surrogates to the right-wing media and its engine rooms of outrage in the blogosphere, Hillary Clinton's opponents are ramping up efforts to sow doubt over the candidate's health."

I don't know if this is a concerted effort or it's just that The Donald picked up a conspiracy topic at random, then flamed it up as only he can, and his hacks duly followed suit. But one thing is for sure: right-wing folks sure as hell are extremely susceptible to, well, extremes. Conspiracy theories abound in that sort of mindset - the government is after them, it's all part of a grand global plan to subdue their freedoms and take their guns, etc.

Examples abound )
[identity profile] dreamville-bg.livejournal.com
Most of us may've already heard of the latest scandal (crafted scandal? tempest in a teacup?) where Trump made some remarks about Hillary Clinton intending to stomp upon the precious rights of gun-toting 2nd Amendment fanboys and fangirls. The problem arose from the ambiguity of his words (typical for him), where he made some insinuations, which then in turn went on to be heavily spinned by both opponents and supporters alike. The words:

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” he said, adding: “Although the second amendment people – maybe there is, I don’t know.”

The two sides of this squabble )
[identity profile] oportet.livejournal.com
It doesn't get any bigger than this - The Most Important Election Ever! season is officially underway. It doesn't matter which side you're on, the facts are; the other side is stupid, and un-American - and your super rich compulsive lying New Yorker will save the country - while their super rich compulsive lying New Yorker will destroy it.

Depending on which biased news agency or college poll you believe, we're anywhere between Donald being up 6 points and Hillary being up 11. Personally, I say ignore the polls, their asses aren't on the line with their predictions - with Vegas, they can't afford to be biased. Hillary is 1 to 3.5. Donald is 2.5 to 1. (In other terms - Hillary is like a 1 goal favorite in soccer, about an 8 point favorite in football)

(If you must know - Gary is 70 to 1. If you'd like to bet on him, or Jill (name your odds), just send me your money - I'll fly out and place it for you)

Supposedly, both candidates get a 'bump' out of their respective conventions. We've all heard this, over and over - but I have no idea how it works. If you make up or change your mind based on one of those hundred million dollar circle jerks - please explain yourself, and while you're at it, tell me how your shamwows and nu-wave oven are holding up. Either way, if we assume the 'bump' is real, Hillarys convention was the most recent, so if the odds haven't balanced out yet, I assume they'll move slightly in Donalds favor.


A lot of anti-Hillary folks think she should release her Wall Street speech transcripts, while a lot of anti-Trump folks think he should release his tax returns. Personally, I'd like to see both, but politically speaking - this would be extremely stupid for either to do, so we shouldn't expect either to happen.

My advice for both are kind of related.

For Donald, of course - stop tweeting, stop talking, stop doing interviews, do nothing. I'm surprised Manafort hasn't just knocked him out and locked him up yet.

For Hillary, as long as Donald doesn't follow my advice - maybe she should stop talking too, and more importantly - stop spending all that money. What she's raised is impressive, but the commercials seem like a waste at this point. Just sit on it until October, or until Donald gains ground - whichever comes first.

You are Don and Hills top advisor - what should they do, what shouldn't they do, and why?
[identity profile] mahnmut.livejournal.com
It's Money & Ethics in Politics month, right? And money talks, right? And whoever pays, he orders the music, right?

Well, here's the thing.

Robert Kagan and Other Neocons Are Backing Hillary Clinton

Follow the money, they say. Neocons rallying behind Hillary, calling her the "real conservative" and "the candidate of the status quo" ain't good. Not good for the world, a world that is still trying to recover from 8 neocon years under W.

If this doesn't turn off the base and the ex-Sanders fence-sitters, I don't know what would. On the other hand, this is hardly a surprise. If we look a bit closer into Hillary's foreign policies, we'd realize they were much in line with the views of the establishment Republicans. So I expect the Never Trump faction to start seriously considering *GASP* voting for Hillary. Which means a landslide, come November.

I therefore predict even more US-led wars around the world, with the trademark Clinton focus on the Balkans. And (putting my tinfoil hat on) the Military Industrial Complex(TM) will be thriving. Hoorah for Freedom & Democracy! Hey, rest of the world? Tough life for ya.

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.
A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods



Divisive Rhetoric


"Favoring multiculturalism is something Westerners give a lot of lovely lip service to until they have to actually do it."

September 2017

     1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24