The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[Walter Sobchak]

Oh burn! You are so good at this game.

tyvm.

[imanihonjin]

You objected to my characterization of Trump as a fascist. Then rather than presenting an argument for why Trump is not a fascist, you accused me of hypocrisy for not calling Hillary a fascist. That is the very definition of an appeal to hypocrisy.

And then you out tu quoque'ed me. Like I said, very clever. It would be like me saying you used the appeal to authority logical fallacy and I know this because Jesus said that too.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Correction, it's not even worth bringing up.

And I never stated (and neither did JL), that I believe Hillary isn't corrupt.

Bullshit, JL mentioned that Hillary was exonerated by the FBI. That's crazy.

If anything, the fact that an indictment of Hillary would hand the presidency to Donald Trump also weighed on their decision. Trump's campaign people have direct ties to Vladimir Putin -- that's a whole level of corruption above and beyond and Hillary's millions earned through political favors.

And a candidate's corruption isn't worth bringing up? Nixon sure wish he knew this back on August 8, 1974. You guys are crazy.

[Walter Sobchak]

And [Senator Clinton]'s corruption isn't worth bringing up?

Sure, go ahead and fiddle while Rome burns.

Like I told that other guy, it is super duper fascinating to read about Senator Clinton's skeletons because I haven't read about them ever before. Keep bringing them up all the way until election day. #teamnewt

[Pelado]

This fallacy skirmish reminds me of the sword battle between Inigo Montoya and the Man in Black:

Inigo Montoya: You are using Bonetti's Defense against me, ah?
Man in Black: I thought it fitting considering the rocky terrain.
Inigo Montoya: Naturally, you must expect me to attack with Capo Ferro?
Man in Black: Naturally, but I find that Thibault cancels out Capo Ferro. Don't you?
Inigo Montoya: Unless the enemy has studied his Agrippa... which I have!

[Jeff Lebowski]

Bullshit, JL mentioned that Hillary was exonerated by the FBI. That's crazy.

If anything, the fact that an indictment of Hillary would hand the presidency to Donald Trump also weighed on their decision. Trump's campaign people have direct ties to Vladimir Putin -- that's a whole level of corruption above and beyond and Hillary's millions earned through political favors.

And a candidate's corruption isn't worth bringing up? Nixon sure wish he knew this back on August 8, 1974. You guys are crazy.

I never claimed that her hands are completely clean. I simply said that no charges were filed by the FBI, i.e., constitutional procedure was followed. Do you dispute that?

Now Trump vows that when he gets into office he will put her into jail. You have already agreed with me that he is fascist la-la land for saying that. I have no idea what you are arguing now.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Most of the Trump/Hannity rips on Hillary (Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, Bill’s peccadilloes, etc.) really don’t bother me all that much. I would select pretty much any presidential nominee, current or past, or even a potted plant, before Drumpf, but one thing really bothers me about Hillary, and it relates to the emails. Her use of a private server isn’t even a major problem for me--it’s what she did with it.

She seems to think she’s being contrite and worthy of our forgiveness by saying, “It was a mistake and I’ve acknowledged that.” Mistake? Accidentally deleting a single email, a typographical error, or wearing argyle socks with a dark blue suit are mistakes; those aren’t in the same universe as willfully destroying 30,000+ emails while under subpoena, something that any court would impose serious sanctions for, including a possible judgment against the transgressing party. And sure, Comey didn’t recommend prosecution, and I can understand the basis for that decision, but he said that any FBI employee who had done something similar would likely have been fired and barred from future service with the Bureau. How, then, can one reasonably conclude that while she wouldn’t qualify for a desk job at the FBI, she is fit to serve as President of the United States? For me at least, the only answer is “Because she is not Donald Trump.”

I’m glad that my vote won’t matter, and I won’t be voting for either of them.

P.S. Despite my concerns about Hillary’s conduct, Trump’s threat of prosecution is very disturbing. I’m certain he’d make us long for the relatively benign days of Nixon’s enemies list.

[Moliere]

Most of the Trump/Hannity rips on Hillary (Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, Bill’s peccadilloes, etc.) really don’t bother me all that much. I would select pretty much any presidential nominee, current or past, or even a potted plant, before Drumpf, but one thing really bothers me about Hillary, and it relates to the emails. Her use of a private server isn’t even a major problem for me--it’s what she did with it.

She seems to think she’s being contrite and worthy of our forgiveness by saying, “It was a mistake and I’ve acknowledged that.” Mistake? Accidentally deleting a single email, a typographical error, or wearing argyle socks with a dark blue suit are mistakes; those aren’t in the same universe as willfully destroying 30,000+ emails while under subpoena, something that any court would impose serious sanctions for, including a possible judgment against the transgressing party. And sure, Comey didn’t recommend prosecution, and I can understand the basis for that decision, but he said that any FBI employee who had done something similar would likely have been fired and barred from future service with the Bureau. How, then, can one reasonably conclude that while she wouldn’t qualify for a desk job at the FBI, she is fit to serve as President of the United States? For me at least, the only answer is “Because she is not Donald Trump.”

I’m glad that my vote won’t matter, and I won’t be voting for either of them.

P.S. Despite my concerns about Hillary’s conduct, Trump’s threat of prosecution is very disturbing. I’m certain he’d make us long for the relatively benign days of Nixon’s enemies list.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jeff Lebowski]

The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

Most of the Trump/Hannity rips on Hillary (Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, Bill’s peccadilloes, etc.) really don’t bother me all that much. I would select pretty much any presidential nominee, current or past, or even a potted plant, before Drumpf, but one thing really bothers me about Hillary, and it relates to the emails. Her use of a private server isn’t even a major problem for me--it’s what she did with it.

She seems to think she’s being contrite and worthy of our forgiveness by saying, “It was a mistake and I’ve acknowledged that.” Mistake? Accidentally deleting a single email, a typographical error, or wearing argyle socks with a dark blue suit are mistakes; those aren’t in the same universe as willfully destroying 30,000+ emails while under subpoena, something that any court would impose serious sanctions for, including a possible judgment against the transgressing party. And sure, Comey didn’t recommend prosecution, and I can understand the basis for that decision, but he said that any FBI employee who had done something similar would likely have been fired and barred from future service with the Bureau. How, then, can one reasonably conclude that while she wouldn’t qualify for a desk job at the FBI, she is fit to serve as President of the United States? For me at least, the only answer is “Because she is not Donald Trump.”

I’m glad that my vote won’t matter, and I won’t be voting for either of them.

P.S. Despite my concerns about Hillary’s conduct, Trump’s threat of prosecution is very disturbing. I’m certain he’d make us long for the relatively benign days of Nixon’s enemies list.

That's about it. Stopping Trump is a highly compelling reason.

Imagine what a wipeout this election would be had the democrats nominated a typical candidate. Yikes.

[Moliere]

Imagine what a wipeout this election would be had the democrats nominated a typical candidate. Yikes.

I'd wager you could say the same thing about the GOP. I imagine Rubio or Mitt would be doing very well.

[BlueK]

Trump apparently is now on the same page as Hillary on one important thing. They're both working on killing the GOP majority in the house and Senate.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'd wager you could say the same thing about the GOP. I imagine Rubio or Mitt would be doing very well.

Yes. Absolutely.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Chris Matthews just showed a video clip of his interview with Trump in '98 or '99. Matthews asked Trump if he'd ever consider running for office. Trump responded with his usual self-aggrandizing observation that many, many people would like him to, but said of course he never could. Referring to Bill Clinton, Trump said something like "You've seen his troubles with women, imagine how bad that would be for me." That's not an accurate quote, but he very clearly implied his women issues were worse than Bill's. It would be fun to run that every time Trump refers to Bill's terrible, terrible, worst in history abuse of women. I'd expect we'll all be seeing that clip in the days ahead.

Edit: Here's the exact quote: "People want me to [run for president] all the time … I don’t like it. Can you imagine how controversial I’d be? You think about [Bill Clinton] and the women. How about me with the women? Can you imagine?" Too bad Trump didn't heed his own advice.

[myboynoah]

Time for you reluctant Utah Hillary voters to switch to McMullin; Dead Heat!

web-1752338.jpg

It would be cool for Utah to go for McMullin. Make a statement, Utah Mormons!!!

[YOhio]

Wow. MBN is giving up on Mitt! This makes me a little bit sad.