bases_loaded;1804264 wrote:WHY DOES IT MATTER WHO LEAKED IT? Is anyone asking the news outlets that?

They're getting nervous - divide & conquer and toxic rhetoric is a Democratic staple....and Trump is a lot better at it than anyone else.

Spock;1804263 wrote:MSNBC trying to tie leaks to the GOP. Unreal that a news outlet would imply collusion between Russia and Trump

MSNBC is not a news organization....they are nothing more than a shill for the DNC.

bases_loaded;1804256 wrote:Ok conspiracy theorists...what type of tragedy will save the DNC?

You mean like how Wikileaks took the focus off how a ton of high-level establishment guys either ignored the RNC or, in one case, showed up simply to say they weren't endorsing Trump? That sort of conspiracy theory?

like_that;1804245 wrote:I know everybody gets a convention boost, but this is still pretty damn surprising to me http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/289067-nate-silver-id-favor-trump-if-election-were-today

Nobody backpeddles like Nate Silver.

bases_loaded;1804216 wrote:Hillbilly? Dude you come from a town that worships high school football and your profile picture is a fucking ford mustang.

Out of the whole thing, this made me chuckle. I've got nothing against ZWICK, but this did seem funny.

Heretic;1804249 wrote:And I have one rule: Don't intervene in something when it currently is bringing the lulz.

So, basically don't be AAF. That's not the worst rule.

GOONx19;1804251 wrote:I'm a little disappointed a missed those posts.

You should be. It was pretty funny.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1804255 wrote:my question I guess is does this really mean anything for a 3rd party system, or will it all go back to normal next cycle. Both parties put up the worst imaginable candidates. I cant imagine, under normal conditions, a 3rd party getting this many looks if the democrats and republicans put up their average candidates.

It depends. You may be right in suggesting that a "normal" election wouldn't show a third-party candidate polling this well. However, if he makes the debate and legitimately does well, it may solidify enough of the public with the party platform to make the party at least a legitimate appearance each election.

However, and this is my concern: If Gary quietly and awkwardly shits the bed, it may set the party back. I've said elsewhere that Gary is hardly the most charismatic person, and on a stage with two really big personalities who are skilled in mud slinging, he could easily get forgotten up there.

bases_loaded;1804256 wrote:Ok conspiracy theorists...what type of tragedy will save the DNC?

Bill Clinton will come down with a mystery illness.
Hillary can then play the misogyny card against Trump without fear of retribution.
It also gives Hill an excuse to take time off during the campaign without appearing weak.

I'm stealing this from somewhere I just can't remember where or who I heard it from... The issue with the Libertarian/Green/whatever 3rd party is that they are trying to build a legitimate 3rd party at the highest level. That's never going to work. You have to go bottom up. In order to have a strong national party and strong presidential level candidates you need 3rd party city councilman, state reps, comptrollers, mayors, AG's, Governors, Senators, Congressman basically a party represented at every position and level of elected government. A well established national base of experienced candidates is the only way this becomes a sustainable systemic change and not just a one off "oh I'll vote for Gary because these other two are the literal worst in history"

Heretic;1804270 wrote:You mean like how Wikileaks took the focus off how a ton of high-level establishment guys either ignored the RNC or, in one case, showed up simply to say they weren't endorsing Trump? That sort of conspiracy theory?

Wiki leaks has been slow rolling this stuff for weeks if not months. We all know those high profile Rs are on the same team as the Ds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anyone else find it ironic that the dems/Libs claim Trump is trying to win an election by generating fear, yet so far the best narrative coming from the DNC is to vote for Hillary in fear of a Trump presidency.

Open your eyes people. These parties are way more similar than you think. They don't give a fuck about you other than the votes that keep them employed.

like_that;1804282 wrote:Anyone else find it ironic that the dems/Libs claim Trump is trying to win an election by generating fear, yet so far the best narrative coming from the DNC is to vote for Hillary in fear of a Trump presidency.

Open your eyes people. These parties are way more similar than you think. They don't give a fuck about you other than the votes that keep them employed.

Well in defense of the DNC, that's about the only reason to vote for Hillary.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1804284 wrote:Well in defense of the DNC, that's about the only reason to vote for Hillary.

It is. I am just pointing out the irony. Although I still believe using the trump is a cop out for a lot of people. I think there are a lot of partisan cowards like ptown who would still vote for Hillary if trump were not the candidate. Using trump as an excuse is their built in excuse.

like_that;1804282 wrote:Anyone else find it ironic that the dems/Libs claim Trump is trying to win an election by generating fear, yet so far the best narrative coming from the DNC is to vote for Hillary in fear of a Trump presidency.

Open your eyes people. These parties are way more similar than you think. They don't give a fuck about you other than the votes that keep them employed.

Yeah, the generating of fear is a two-way street where the only really important thing is that people are scared of the other side, so they can pump their blood into their side. With the media in bed with both sides to pump out divisive stories to keep the fear train alive and well. Fear of guns, fear of terrorists, fear of what Trump will do, fear of what Hillary will do and so on. More fear equals more clicks, more comments, more divisiveness --- all of which keeps the two (very similar) party train going.

So here's my fun little conspiracy....

Wikileaks claims to have enough to indict Hillary, and the next release is supposed to relate to her foundation.

BUT....the case and narrative has already been laid that Russia hacked the DNC server to help Trump. So if a "smoking gun" did come out, the claim would be made Russia hacked and forged/altered emails (because we know the Administration will never indict Hillary). And, of course, the original emails have conveniently been erased....

Anyway, this election cycle so far has been as good as any reality show out there.

gut;1804293 wrote:So here's my fun little conspiracy....

Wikileaks claims to have enough to indict Hillary, and the next release is supposed to relate to her foundation.

BUT....the case and narrative has already been laid that Russia hacked the DNC server to help Trump. So if a "smoking gun" did come out, the claim would be made Russia hacked and forged/altered emails (because we know the Administration will never indict Hillary). And, of course, the original emails have conveniently been erased....

Anyway, this election cycle so far has been as good as any reality show out there.

If the emails leaked show some kind of intent on HRC for her private server, does that mean that HRC can be put on trial for those crimes? Or is the case closed indefinitely?

GOONx19;1778673 wrote:Trump is a joke. Not even truly a decision to be made here.

This. I'll take another four years of political (big-business) crookedness over the hateful Trump.

sleeper;1804295 wrote:If the emails leaked show some kind of intent on HRC for her private server, does that mean that HRC can be put on trial for those crimes? Or is the case closed indefinitely?

Certainly the FBI could open a new investigation into the Foundation, and they may already be doing that.

As for State Dept emails, that investigation is closed. The DOJ said they will not prosecute, but that doesn't prevent them from bringing a case in the future I don't think. No idea if there's even a statute of limitations here, but because she was never tried/indicted there would be no double jeopardy.

From what I saw on the news earlier, the FBI is already investigating a hack/Russia/Trump scenario.

CenterBHSFan;1804304 wrote:From what I saw on the news earlier, the FBI is already investigating a hack/Russia/Trump scenario.

This fits with the Obama theme of blaming the whistleblower.

salto;1804297 wrote:This. I'll take another four years of political (big-business) crookedness over the hateful Trump.

Who does trump hate?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bases_loaded;1804311 wrote:Who does trump hate?

Crooked Hillary and Lying Ted?

Bernie booed by his own supporters for still endorsing Hillary. Only the DNC could fuck up something this simple as beating trump lol

At least the DNC put Bernie on when nobody is watching.

bases_loaded;1804325 wrote:At least the DNC put Bernie on when nobody is watching.

He's still speaking tonight. Could get ugly on primetime.

The oddest thing to me is how much Hillary DGAF. Hires wauserman who just resigned for coercion. Takes Kain who about as unimpactfull as you can get. It's like she doesn't think this is even a race. And I would have agreed before... But Jesus Christ woman ...

Dont buy the "fear of trump" card. What the hell are you afraid of? A actual non politician in the white house that may actually make smart decisions where he isnt worried about the next election?

I fear the Clinton machine way more then Trump