2016 elections - because it's never too early

[garbon]

It's true, you have gotten better. Only about 75% of your created threads are gay related now

Actually, I looked at the threads started by me on the first two pages of Languish OT. They are about:
- mother Theresa
- weather
- origin of the word "goof"
- second amendment/medical marijuana
- what pills people take
- the side people root for in the War of Roses
- prison food/burkini ban
- bull fighting

4 gay threads on page 3

[Razgovory]

For someone who takes so much of their identity for their sexuality I find it odd that you support trump and many of his followers.

but I guess a troll gotta troll

He is the most pro-gay Republican POTUS candidate in history (not that it is saying much). He represents the antithesis of the "safe space", "trigger warning", "cultural appropriation" etc. people that I so strongly abhor. And he correctly recognises Islamism as one of the most pressing and biggest threats we are facing now (including to gay people - unlike an odd Christian bigot who, at best, can refuse to bake you a cake).

But I have already explained my stance on him (and the ambiguity) over and over again.

Edit: And I don't believe I take so much of my identity from my sexuality any more. I mean, we have known each other for 15 years or more here. People do grow and change in shorter time than that!

There is of course that other issue that is so close to your Eastern Euro heart:

Bad news, Jews: You don't get to be part of Richard Spencer's white ethno-state.

In a windowless room in a swanky hotel half a block from the White House on Friday afternoon, three of the most visible leaders of the Alt-Right movement held a two-hour press conference to discuss their affection for Donald Trump and their hopes for a white homeland. The white supremacist Alt-Right movement has grown over the last eight years or so, incubated in racist forums like StormFront and meme-loving corners of the internet like 4chan and 8chan. Its members generally share a disdain for political correctness, feminism, zionism, Jews in general, immigration (especially Hispanic and Muslim immigration), and anyone who criticizes them for holding these views.

And the Alt-Right won substantial mainstream media attention when Hillary Clinton gave a speech last month excoriating Donald Trump for some of his staffers' ties to it. Clinton's team zeroed in on the campaign's new CEO, Steve Bannon, who formerly helmed a website that he himself once described as "the platform for the Alt-Right." And prominent Alt-Right figures, including two of the men who helmed Friday's press conference, told The Daily Beast last month that they were delighted Trump hired him.
Many reporters have been hesitant to give the Alt-Right much media attention. But since Clinton made their existence part of her anti-Trump campaign pitch, there's significant public interest in who they are and what they believe. And they're loving it.

The three Alt-Right leaders who gathered in D.C. this afternoon made two things very clear: They think white people are genetically predisposed to be more moral and intelligent than black people, and they do not want to share their envisioned utopian ethno-state with folks of the Jewish persuasion. There's some disagreement in the Alt-Right on what they refer to as "the Jewish question." But the big take-away was that Jews are suspicious.

Jared Taylor, who founded the white supremacist American Renaissance site, explained the Alt-Right as predicated entirely on the belief that some races are inherently superior to others—the movement, he said, is "in unanimity" in rejecting "the idea that the races are basically equivalent and interchangeable." There are genetic differences in race that make some races more ethical and intelligent than others, he said. That's what the Alt Right is all about.

"They also differ, as a matter of fact, in the patterns of the microbes that inhabit their mouths," he said.

Thus, he continued, we shouldn't expect black kids to do as well in school as white kids.

One more Alt-Right platform plank: that white people, as a group, have discrete interests that are different from other races', and that they should push for those interests. In practice, this means the Alt-Right thinks school integration was bad and Apartheid was good. Later in the press conference, Taylor said he thinks white people are more moral and more intelligent than black people.
Despite all this, Alt-Right leaders bristle if you call them white supremacists.

"You could very effectively argue that East Asians are objectively superior to whites," Taylor said. "Does that make us yellow supremacists? I don't think so."

White supremacists, Alt-Right leaders argue, think white people are the best race. The Alt-Right doesn't necessarily think that, they say; instead, they say they just want white people to have their own homeland.

With no Jews.

Spencer in particular fixates on the homeland idea.

The Alt-Right needs to aspire to something, even if that dream won't come true in his lifetime—and that means they should aim to build an ethno-state for just whites. And Spencer made it clear that white-only means Jews aren't invited. They have their own identity, and it isn't white-slash-European, and that's that.
"Jews are Jews," he said.

He added that his whites-only utopia would still have a good relationship with Israel.

These people (I hope) sound sad and racist and antisemitic and deeply confused to you. But they don't sound that way to Breitbart, the right-wing news site to which Trump has given countless exclusives and from which he pulled his new campaign boss. The site has seen its traffic skyrocket over the course of the 2016 presidential campaign, rapidly gaining clout in the conservative movement and among Trump-loving voters. The site says it had 31 million visitors in July. And in March, it ran a piece describing Taylor, Spencer, and their ilk as "fearsomely intelligent," and praising them for speaking truth to power or whatever.

So the Alt-Right—helmed by the trio who gathered at The Willard on Friday—is the most extreme example of a shift on the American right: away from a nostalgic conservative focus on restoring the values of the Founders, and towards a forward-focused nationalism that prioritizes drastic limits on immigration and open hostility to globalism. Trump isn't a white nationalist. But he speaks their language. And they dig it.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/09/alt-right-leaders-we-aren-t-racist-we-just-hate-jews.html

[CountDeMoney]

I am also trying to make sure many of my favourite Languishites* do not succumb to what is essentially intellectual dishonesty in suppporting Clinton. Sure, go ahead, consider her a superior candidate and vote for her - that's what Democracy is about. But the general "cheat to win" and "anything goes" attitude that is beginning to take hold is rather ugly.

After 8 years of that useless smirking cokehead fratboy, followed by 8 years of "Let's Go To Washington To Destroy Government!" knuckledraggers cockingblocking the black version of The Paper Chase meets The West Wing, quite frankly I think the United States can use a steely-eyed and savvy professional political operative with a global Rolodex the size of a basketball in the captain's chair for a while.

And don't give me that "cheat to win" bullshit.  Not with Republican state governors and legislatures across the country doing what they can to restrict, suppress and outright eliminate the ability to vote.

[Ed Anger]

I want a "basket of deplorables" T-shirt.

[Razgovory]

I didn't know Hillary Clinton was "cheating".

[CountDeMoney]

www.thehill.com
September 09, 2016, 08:57 pm
Trump: Clinton could shoot someone at rally and not be prosecuted
By Ben Kamisar

Donald Trump told a huge crowd Friday night that Hillary Clinton is so heavily protected by the Justice Department that she wouldn't be punished for shooting someone with thousands of witnesses.

As attendees at Trump's event in Pensacola, Fla., chanted "lock her up," a familiar refrain at Trump rallies, the GOP nominee argued that getting out of prosecution was the "single greatest achievement of Hillary Clinton."
 
"We're going to do better than lock her up, we're going to win on Nov. 8," Trump said.

"Because she's being so protected, she could walk into this arena right now and shoot someone with 20,000 people watching, right smack in the middle of the heart, and she wouldn't be prosecuted. OK? That's what's happened. That's what's happened to our country."

The Justice Department declined to indict Clinton after an investigation into her use of a private email server as secretary of State.

While the GOP nominee has been more constrained over the past month by the use of a TelePrompTer, his Friday night rally in deep-red Pensacola, Fla., provided a glimpse of the old Donald Trump, complete with a large, rowdy crowd, and frequent off-script attacks on his Democratic rival — the shooting comment was improvised.

Trump went hard after Clinton, bashing her major decisions as secretary of State, her email server controversy and her foundation and claiming she is unfit for the Oval Office.

"Her policies have produced only death, destruction and not diplomacy, she's trigger happy," Trump said before turning away from the prompter to add off-script: "Personally I think she's an unstable person."

He sought to cast Clinton as a loser, blasting "the endless wars that have defined Hillary Clinton's career" and declaring that she "never wins."

"She only loses folks, she even lost to Barack Obama when she ran, right?" he said, again straying from his planned speech.

Trump's claim about Clinton escaping prosecution for a mid-rally murder harkened back to his January assertion that he could kill someone himself and not repel his supporters.

"I have the most loyal people, did you see that? I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue [in New York] and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," he said in Iowa in January.

[FunkMonk]

@Seedy

Seen that yesterday. Trump is a huge sham. It says mountains about the folks who support that twat.

The truly sad thing is, this isn't even about politics.  If Biden were running, this would be the most lopsided election in history.

Obama's worst mistake was letting Hillary be his successor. Diamond Joe would have demolished Trump and been a bad ass Prez.

[garbon]

@Seedy

Seen that yesterday. Trump is a huge sham. It says mountains about the folks who support that twat.

The truly sad thing is, this isn't even about politics.  If Biden were running, this would be the most lopsided election in history.

Obama's worst mistake was letting Hillary be his successor. Diamond Joe would have demolished Trump and been a bad ass Prez.

I don't think Obama had any say in the matter.

[garbon]

www.thehill.com
September 09, 2016, 08:57 pm
Trump: Clinton could shoot someone at rally and not be prosecuted
By Ben Kamisar

Donald Trump told a huge crowd Friday night that Hillary Clinton is so heavily protected by the Justice Department that she wouldn't be punished for shooting someone with thousands of witnesses.

As attendees at Trump's event in Pensacola, Fla., chanted "lock her up," a familiar refrain at Trump rallies, the GOP nominee argued that getting out of prosecution was the "single greatest achievement of Hillary Clinton."
 
"We're going to do better than lock her up, we're going to win on Nov. 8," Trump said.

"Because she's being so protected, she could walk into this arena right now and shoot someone with 20,000 people watching, right smack in the middle of the heart, and she wouldn't be prosecuted. OK? That's what's happened. That's what's happened to our country."

The Justice Department declined to indict Clinton after an investigation into her use of a private email server as secretary of State.

While the GOP nominee has been more constrained over the past month by the use of a TelePrompTer, his Friday night rally in deep-red Pensacola, Fla., provided a glimpse of the old Donald Trump, complete with a large, rowdy crowd, and frequent off-script attacks on his Democratic rival — the shooting comment was improvised.

Trump went hard after Clinton, bashing her major decisions as secretary of State, her email server controversy and her foundation and claiming she is unfit for the Oval Office.

"Her policies have produced only death, destruction and not diplomacy, she's trigger happy," Trump said before turning away from the prompter to add off-script: "Personally I think she's an unstable person."

He sought to cast Clinton as a loser, blasting "the endless wars that have defined Hillary Clinton's career" and declaring that she "never wins."

"She only loses folks, she even lost to Barack Obama when she ran, right?" he said, again straying from his planned speech.

Trump's claim about Clinton escaping prosecution for a mid-rally murder harkened back to his January assertion that he could kill someone himself and not repel his supporters.

"I have the most loyal people, did you see that? I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue [in New York] and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," he said in Iowa in January.

It would be great if they could actually link her email use to some actual harm rather than just a hypothetical.

[CountDeMoney]

It would be great if they could actually link her email use to some actual harm rather than just a hypothetical.

No kidding.  As the Post wrote the other day, the attention paid to it has far surpassed the boundaries of the facts.

JUDGING BY the amount of time NBC's Matt Lauer spent pressing Hillary Clinton on her emails during Wednesday's national security presidential forum, one would think that her homebrew server was one of the most important issues facing the country this election. It is not. There are a thousand other substantive issues — from China's aggressive moves in the South China Sea to National Security Agency intelligence-gathering to military spending — that would have revealed more about what the candidates know and how they would govern. Instead, these did not even get mentioned in the first of 5½ precious prime-time hours the two candidates will share before Election Day, while emails took up a third of Ms. Clinton's time.

Sadly, Mr. Lauer's widely panned handling of the candidate forum was not an aberration. Judging by polls showing that voters trust Donald Trump more than Ms. Clinton, as well as other evidence, it reflects a common shorthand for this election articulated by NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick last week: "You have Donald Trump, who's openly racist," he said. Then, of Ms. Clinton: "I mean, we have a presidential candidate who's deleted emails and done things illegally and is a presidential candidate. That doesn't make sense to me, because if that was any other person, you'd be in prison."

In fact, Ms. Clinton's emails have endured much more scrutiny than an ordinary person's would have, and the criminal case against her was so thin that charging her would have been to treat her very differently. Ironically, even as the email issue consumed so much precious airtime, several pieces of news reported Wednesday should have taken some steam out of the story. First is a memo FBI Director James B. Comey sent to his staff explaining that the decision not to recommend charging Ms. Clinton was "not a cliff-hanger" and that people "chest-beating" and second-guessing the FBI do not know what they are talking about. Anyone who claims that Ms. Clinton should be in prison accuses, without evidence, the FBI of corruption or flagrant incompetence.

Second is the emergence of an email exchange between Ms. Clinton and former secretary of state Colin Powell in which he explained that he used a private computer and bypassed State Department servers while he ran the agency, even when communicating with foreign leaders and top officials. Mr. Powell attempted last month to distance himself from Ms. Clinton's practices, which is one of the many factors that made the email story look worse. Now, it seems, Mr. Powell engaged in similar behavior.

Last is a finding that 30 Benghazi-related emails that were recovered during the FBI email investigation and recently attracted big headlines had nothing significant in them. Only one, in fact, was previously undisclosed, and it contained nothing but a compliment from a diplomat. But the damage of the "30 deleted Benghazi emails" story has already been done.

Ms. Clinton is hardly blameless. She treated the public's interest in sound record-keeping cavalierly. A small amount of classified material also moved across her private server. But it was not obviously marked as such, and there is still no evidence that national security was harmed. Ms. Clinton has also admitted that using the personal server was a mistake. The story has vastly exceeded the boundaries of the facts.

Imagine how history would judge today's Americans if, looking back at this election, the record showed that voters empowered a dangerous man because of . . . a minor email scandal. There is no equivalence between Ms. Clinton's wrongs and Mr. Trump's manifest unfitness for office.

There's no There there.

[Razgovory]

www.thehill.com
September 09, 2016, 08:57 pm
Trump: Clinton could shoot someone at rally and not be prosecuted
By Ben Kamisar

Donald Trump told a huge crowd Friday night that Hillary Clinton is so heavily protected by the Justice Department that she wouldn't be punished for shooting someone with thousands of witnesses.

As attendees at Trump's event in Pensacola, Fla., chanted "lock her up," a familiar refrain at Trump rallies, the GOP nominee argued that getting out of prosecution was the "single greatest achievement of Hillary Clinton."
 
"We're going to do better than lock her up, we're going to win on Nov. 8," Trump said.

"Because she's being so protected, she could walk into this arena right now and shoot someone with 20,000 people watching, right smack in the middle of the heart, and she wouldn't be prosecuted. OK? That's what's happened. That's what's happened to our country."

The Justice Department declined to indict Clinton after an investigation into her use of a private email server as secretary of State.

While the GOP nominee has been more constrained over the past month by the use of a TelePrompTer, his Friday night rally in deep-red Pensacola, Fla., provided a glimpse of the old Donald Trump, complete with a large, rowdy crowd, and frequent off-script attacks on his Democratic rival — the shooting comment was improvised.

Trump went hard after Clinton, bashing her major decisions as secretary of State, her email server controversy and her foundation and claiming she is unfit for the Oval Office.

"Her policies have produced only death, destruction and not diplomacy, she's trigger happy," Trump said before turning away from the prompter to add off-script: "Personally I think she's an unstable person."

He sought to cast Clinton as a loser, blasting "the endless wars that have defined Hillary Clinton's career" and declaring that she "never wins."

"She only loses folks, she even lost to Barack Obama when she ran, right?" he said, again straying from his planned speech.

Trump's claim about Clinton escaping prosecution for a mid-rally murder harkened back to his January assertion that he could kill someone himself and not repel his supporters.

"I have the most loyal people, did you see that? I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue [in New York] and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," he said in Iowa in January.

Envy?  I remember when Trump said he could shoot someone in broad-daylight and it popularity wouldn't be diminished.

[lustindarkness]

I want a "basket of deplorables" T-shirt.

[Zoupa]

I love that she went out and said it. Everybody else, even some Republicans, are thinking it.

[CountDeMoney]

I love that she went out and said it. Everybody else, even some Republicans, are thinking it.

Of course they are.  The sad part is, none of them have the balls to say it.

[Valmy]

But the general "cheat to win" and "anything goes" attitude that is beginning to take hold is rather ugly.

I can only presume you have been living under a rock on mars blindfolded with cotton stuck in your ears for the past 200 years. Or I guess not living in the US and having a complete and pathetic ignorance of our history and culture but despite that continually and tiresomely lecturing us about it.

In any case let the record show she voted to reform the system. It was Hans and his people who forced 'money is free speech' and 'corporations are people' as basic political principles. And you call us intellectually dishonest. You produce no evidence, make no sound points, bring up no evidence of any anti-corruption policies from the other side yet brag on about your intellectual honesty? Virtually nothing you have posted in this thread is the result of any research or thought. Just LOLZ internet garbage: the very definition of intellectual dishonesty, strawmen, and lies.