7 ms·

>her opponent represents the very real specter of the end of democracy and the closing of our free society Let me get this straight. Hillary intentionally subv

>her opponent represents the very real specter of the end of democracy and the closing of our free society Let me get this straight. Hillary intentionally subverted the democratic process by having the DNC work against Sanders. We have concrete evidence of her working with one of her PACs, which again is highly illegal and subverting our democratic process. She has shady and inappropriate meetings with people responsible for running the voting process. She's sponsored by people who own the voting machines. And not to mention that she has inarguably done highly illegal things with her private email server and got off without charges, showing the injustice of our two-tier criminal justice system. edit: removed argument I rescind and check out this recording of Hillary that came out today: http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/ http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-cl... "That troubled me deeply. I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake. And...if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win." And Trump is the one threatening our democracy?

pfraze 10y ago
Oh, stop. I don't like Hillary, but Trump says he'll contest a loss. That's what actual subversion of the process looks like. Everything you're bringing up is politics. > Hillary intentionally subverted the democratic process by having the DNC work against Sanders. Getting elected is a process of building key supporters, including within your own party. > We have concrete evidence of her working with one of her PACs All candidates do, and use some level of indirection to stay within the regulation. The regulation is toothless for campaign finance reform, so why get worked up about it. > She has Obama, using tax payer money, campaigning for her Outgoing presidents always campaign on behalf of their party's nominee.
- luxuryballs 10y ago
  He didn't say he would contest a loss, he said he wouldn't make a decision until the election actually took place. How anyone expects someone to predict the future is beyond me and the logic of the question shows that it was totally a trap so they could write sensational news headlines.
  - swissoak 10y ago
    Exactly. The anti-Trump hyperbole is ridiculous and ruins any credibility people have when attacking him.
  - pfraze 10y ago
    Please! Your interpretation of "I'll keep you in suspense" only makes sense if you strip the context. The question of concession was only asked because, he's been claiming the election is rigged. So that question of concession, translated to include the context, was, "Ok Donald, are you really going to claim to the nation that the elections are rigged, and that you won't accept their results?" And his, answer was, "We'll see." Which means, yes! He's standing by the claim. So don't equivocate Trump's position. It's not media sensationalism.
    - swissoak 10y ago
      Obama called it rigged in 2008.
      - cpr 10y ago
        Yep: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4625800/obama-rigged-elections-2008 https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4625800/obama-rigged-election...
    - makomk 10y ago
      Both Clinton and her supporters have been rather obviously laying the groundwork to challenge the results if they lose with claims about Russia hacking election systems and conspiring to support Trump. (I'm still not sure how having a list of voters is meant to help Russia with this if casting fake votes is really that hard, but never mind - this election is post-truth anyway.) The real difference is there's no chance in hell she'd be stupid enough to admit that.
- tropo 10y ago
  Gore contested his loss. Was that actual subversion of the process? If the election is close, I think the loser has a duty to contest the loss. Trump contesting the election would be every bit as right as Gore contesting the election. What is so bad about this? The reaction people are having is strange. It's as if people are purposely misinterpreting Trump's words as implying that he will march on Washington D.C. with a militia. The realistic assumption is a Gore-style lawsuit, and there is nothing wrong with that.
  - pfraze 10y ago
    I agree with you, to a point. Gore's case was uniquely bad, and I'm not convinced it wasn't fraud, personally. But he made the challenge after there was evidence of fraud; he didn't lead up to the election hinting that any potential loss is due to a rigged vote.
    - fny 10y ago
      There's no comparing Trump to Gore. Gore did not so brazenly claim the election was rigged prior to voting, and he did concede after the recount. Also he never claimed universal fraud, just issues with the Florida result alone. In the end, he lost by only 537 votes in Florida. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount
    - swissoak 10y ago
      Gore himself has said, after lots of investigation, he is confident Bush won the electoral vote of Florida.
matwood 10y ago
> She has Obama, using tax payer money, campaigning for her - while not illegal, is pretty morally bankrupt in my opinion. Just a point, this is normal with the sitting President campaigning either for themselves for their second term or their parties nominee. Both Trump and Hilary have plenty of valid points against them, so there is no need to muddy the water with points that don't really matter.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Delmania 10y ago
> And Trump is the one threatening our democracy? He has stated that if elected, he'll spend the first 100 days suing his accusers. He believes the press has too much freedom of speech. He has claimed the election is rigged against him, and has all but told his supporters to engage in vote suppression. He has said he will attempt to force all Muslims to register into a database. He has said he will ban all Muslims from entering the nation. Would you like me to go? If you listen to his words at campaign rallies, they bear a striking resemblance to fascist dictators on the rise. Clinton may fit the mold of the "crooked Washington politician", but at the least, she has a basic respect for democracy. Trump, on the other hand, would attempt to utterly plow his way through our legal system for his own gain.
- swissoak 10y ago
  This is all disingenuous hyperbole. There are plenty of terrible things to pin on Trump without inflating bullshit memes. There is a nugget of truth to some of what you say, but it is not said or meant in the way you state it, and there's no nuggets of truth in anything I have seen that has anything to do with subverting the voting system.
  - Delmania 10y ago
    This is how I know you've never listened to anything Trump has said on the campaign trail. In fact, just yesterday, he said the nation should cancel the election and name him the winner: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/27/politics/donald-trump-cancel-election/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/27/politics/donald-trump-cancel-e....
    - swissoak 10y ago
      He was obviously not serious in a literal sense of his words. He was making a point. It'd be like being a football coach shit talking before a game - "the other team should give up, they don't stand a chance". He doesn't literally mean they should give up. This is so blindly obvious to me and anyone else who's capable of a rational thought. I cannot believe you are seriously try to suggest he meant that in the sense that he wants to subvert the election process.
MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
> Hillary intentionally subverted the democratic process by having the DNC work against Sanders. Sanders was basically an independent running as a Dem. Even though I would have preferred him, it's ridiculous to expect the party not to be preferential towards the inside candidate who has decades of connections. Also primaries are not subject to the same level of protections or expectations of institutional impartiality as general elections, which sucks, but is simply the political reality. Also this is all moot because Hillary won by a significant margin. > We have concrete evidence of her working with one of her PACs, which again is highly illegal and subverting our democratic process. Citation? > She has Obama, using tax payer money, campaigning for her - while not illegal, is pretty morally bankrupt in my opinion. It's completely normal for the outgoing president to campaign for his party. Only reason Bush didn't do it for McCain was because he was so unpopular at the time. > She has shady and inappropriate meetings with people responsible for running the voting process. She's sponsored by people who own the voting machines. Citations?? I haven't heard of any of this. Also - so what? Sounds like a Breitbart or Drudge invention. > And not to mention that she has inarguably done highly illegal things with her private email server and got off without charges, showing the injustice of our two-tier criminal justice system. "Inarguably"? If it was truly "inarguable" Comey would have recommended prosecution in the first place. Trump, otoh, has expressed his desire to suppress the free press, to normalize relations with dictators, to jail his political opponents (not something the president has the authority to do, not that he understands that). He's encouraged violence at rallies and on election day. He's encouraged minority voter suppression and intimidation (which has been part of the republican platform for the past decade, so he's not exceptional in that regard, just in how nakedly he does it). The things HRC has done or been accused of are normal, if disappointing, qualities of a mainstream American politician. The things Trump has done and said he'll do are very clearly in the tradition of fascism.
- swissoak 10y ago
  >"Inarguably"? If it was truly "inarguable" Comey would have recommended prosecution in the first place. Go look at the reason he gives for not recommending prosecution. It has nothing to do with whether what she did was illegal. Go Google the rest yourself, it's not hard to find and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince someone who can't be convinced. My comments are targeted at people reading this who might not be aware of the bullshit going on.
danenania 10y ago
The stuff you're talking about is awful, but it's par for the course in the system we have. It shouldn't need to be said, but it can get a LOT worse. If you really care about things like democracy, human rights, civil liberties, and freedom of speech, handing the country to an egomaniacal authoritarian just to prove a point is the height of strategic stupidity.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  ...an egomaniacal authoritarian... Please clarify whom you're referencing here.
mcphage 10y ago
> She has Obama, using tax payer money, campaigning for her - while not illegal, is pretty morally bankrupt in my opinion. Is this your first election?
BinaryIdiot 10y ago
> She has Obama, using tax payer money, campaigning for her - while not illegal, is pretty morally bankrupt in my opinion. This is not actually true. While he is forced to only use Airforce One when flying he is required by law to reimburse all costs related to campaigning for anyone. Typically though the president never pays for this and, instead, the candidate they are campaigning for foots the bill. Every single president in the history of our democracy has done this. Every single one of them.
- swissoak 10y ago
  My point is that it is morally void, one candidate is doing it, the other isn't. That it's been done historically has absolutely zero relevance as to whether it is a moral thing to do (see literally any example of civil rights laws progressing over the past 300 years).
  - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
    > My point is that it is morally void, one candidate is doing it, the other isn't. Huh? There is only one president...what's the problem with campaigning for someone else that you support? I don't see the moral issue. If you're paying for it and you're obviously not doing it in lieu of your duty what's the issue here?
    - swissoak 10y ago
      Ok - I looked this up. DNC paid out some money when Obama used AF1. They only paid at the rate of what a regular charter jet would cost, but that makes sense. I don't have a problem with this and I rescind that particular part of my argument. >Every single president in the history of our democracy has done this. Every single one of them. This NPR article calls it "unusual" but maybe I am missing something since I only read it at a glance: http://www.npr.org/2016/07/07/485097272/fact-check-air-force-one-who-pays http://www.npr.org/2016/07/07/485097272/fact-check-air-force...
- maxerickson 10y ago
  The NPR article linked below links a better one for discussing the history of presidents campaigning: http://www.npr.org/2016/07/05/484817706/looking-back-at-a-century-of-presidents-not-campaigning-for-their-successor http://www.npr.org/2016/07/05/484817706/looking-back-at-a-ce... McCain in 2008 and Gore in 2000 both sort of wanted the sitting president to stay out of the campaign. Bush was pretty unpopular and Clinton had a lot hanging over him (Bush left office with an approval rating around 30%, Clinton around 60%). Reagan campaigned timidly for Bush I. So in the last 40 years, it hasn't been very common for the sitting president to come out and campaign hard for their parties candidate. Of course they have generally campaigned for themselves, which has a similar issue of dealing with who pays for things.

pfraze 10y ago

Oh, stop. I don't like Hillary, but Trump says he'll contest a loss. That's what actual subversion of the process looks like. Everything you're bringing up is politics. > Hillary intentionally subverted the democratic process by having the DNC work against Sanders. Getting elected is a process of building key supporters, including within your own party. > We have concrete evidence of her working with one of her PACs All candidates do, and use some level of indirection to stay within the regulation. The regulation is toothless for campaign finance reform, so why get worked up about it. > She has Obama, using tax payer money, campaigning for her Outgoing presidents always campaign on behalf of their party's nominee.

luxuryballs 10y ago
He didn't say he would contest a loss, he said he wouldn't make a decision until the election actually took place. How anyone expects someone to predict the future is beyond me and the logic of the question shows that it was totally a trap so they could write sensational news headlines.
- swissoak 10y ago
  Exactly. The anti-Trump hyperbole is ridiculous and ruins any credibility people have when attacking him.
- pfraze 10y ago
  Please! Your interpretation of "I'll keep you in suspense" only makes sense if you strip the context. The question of concession was only asked because, he's been claiming the election is rigged. So that question of concession, translated to include the context, was, "Ok Donald, are you really going to claim to the nation that the elections are rigged, and that you won't accept their results?" And his, answer was, "We'll see." Which means, yes! He's standing by the claim. So don't equivocate Trump's position. It's not media sensationalism.
  - swissoak 10y ago
    Obama called it rigged in 2008.
    - cpr 10y ago
      Yep: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4625800/obama-rigged-elections-2008 https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4625800/obama-rigged-election...
  - makomk 10y ago
    Both Clinton and her supporters have been rather obviously laying the groundwork to challenge the results if they lose with claims about Russia hacking election systems and conspiring to support Trump. (I'm still not sure how having a list of voters is meant to help Russia with this if casting fake votes is really that hard, but never mind - this election is post-truth anyway.) The real difference is there's no chance in hell she'd be stupid enough to admit that.
tropo 10y ago
Gore contested his loss. Was that actual subversion of the process? If the election is close, I think the loser has a duty to contest the loss. Trump contesting the election would be every bit as right as Gore contesting the election. What is so bad about this? The reaction people are having is strange. It's as if people are purposely misinterpreting Trump's words as implying that he will march on Washington D.C. with a militia. The realistic assumption is a Gore-style lawsuit, and there is nothing wrong with that.
- pfraze 10y ago
  I agree with you, to a point. Gore's case was uniquely bad, and I'm not convinced it wasn't fraud, personally. But he made the challenge after there was evidence of fraud; he didn't lead up to the election hinting that any potential loss is due to a rigged vote.
  - fny 10y ago
    There's no comparing Trump to Gore. Gore did not so brazenly claim the election was rigged prior to voting, and he did concede after the recount. Also he never claimed universal fraud, just issues with the Florida result alone. In the end, he lost by only 537 votes in Florida. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount
  - swissoak 10y ago
    Gore himself has said, after lots of investigation, he is confident Bush won the electoral vote of Florida.

matwood 10y ago

> She has Obama, using tax payer money, campaigning for her - while not illegal, is pretty morally bankrupt in my opinion. Just a point, this is normal with the sitting President campaigning either for themselves for their second term or their parties nominee. Both Trump and Hilary have plenty of valid points against them, so there is no need to muddy the water with points that don't really matter.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Delmania 10y ago

> And Trump is the one threatening our democracy? He has stated that if elected, he'll spend the first 100 days suing his accusers. He believes the press has too much freedom of speech. He has claimed the election is rigged against him, and has all but told his supporters to engage in vote suppression. He has said he will attempt to force all Muslims to register into a database. He has said he will ban all Muslims from entering the nation. Would you like me to go? If you listen to his words at campaign rallies, they bear a striking resemblance to fascist dictators on the rise. Clinton may fit the mold of the "crooked Washington politician", but at the least, she has a basic respect for democracy. Trump, on the other hand, would attempt to utterly plow his way through our legal system for his own gain.

swissoak 10y ago
This is all disingenuous hyperbole. There are plenty of terrible things to pin on Trump without inflating bullshit memes. There is a nugget of truth to some of what you say, but it is not said or meant in the way you state it, and there's no nuggets of truth in anything I have seen that has anything to do with subverting the voting system.
- Delmania 10y ago
  This is how I know you've never listened to anything Trump has said on the campaign trail. In fact, just yesterday, he said the nation should cancel the election and name him the winner: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/27/politics/donald-trump-cancel-election/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/27/politics/donald-trump-cancel-e....
  - swissoak 10y ago
    He was obviously not serious in a literal sense of his words. He was making a point. It'd be like being a football coach shit talking before a game - "the other team should give up, they don't stand a chance". He doesn't literally mean they should give up. This is so blindly obvious to me and anyone else who's capable of a rational thought. I cannot believe you are seriously try to suggest he meant that in the sense that he wants to subvert the election process.

MaxfordAndSons 10y ago

> Hillary intentionally subverted the democratic process by having the DNC work against Sanders. Sanders was basically an independent running as a Dem. Even though I would have preferred him, it's ridiculous to expect the party not to be preferential towards the inside candidate who has decades of connections. Also primaries are not subject to the same level of protections or expectations of institutional impartiality as general elections, which sucks, but is simply the political reality. Also this is all moot because Hillary won by a significant margin. > We have concrete evidence of her working with one of her PACs, which again is highly illegal and subverting our democratic process. Citation? > She has Obama, using tax payer money, campaigning for her - while not illegal, is pretty morally bankrupt in my opinion. It's completely normal for the outgoing president to campaign for his party. Only reason Bush didn't do it for McCain was because he was so unpopular at the time. > She has shady and inappropriate meetings with people responsible for running the voting process. She's sponsored by people who own the voting machines. Citations?? I haven't heard of any of this. Also - so what? Sounds like a Breitbart or Drudge invention. > And not to mention that she has inarguably done highly illegal things with her private email server and got off without charges, showing the injustice of our two-tier criminal justice system. "Inarguably"? If it was truly "inarguable" Comey would have recommended prosecution in the first place. Trump, otoh, has expressed his desire to suppress the free press, to normalize relations with dictators, to jail his political opponents (not something the president has the authority to do, not that he understands that). He's encouraged violence at rallies and on election day. He's encouraged minority voter suppression and intimidation (which has been part of the republican platform for the past decade, so he's not exceptional in that regard, just in how nakedly he does it). The things HRC has done or been accused of are normal, if disappointing, qualities of a mainstream American politician. The things Trump has done and said he'll do are very clearly in the tradition of fascism.

swissoak 10y ago
>"Inarguably"? If it was truly "inarguable" Comey would have recommended prosecution in the first place. Go look at the reason he gives for not recommending prosecution. It has nothing to do with whether what she did was illegal. Go Google the rest yourself, it's not hard to find and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince someone who can't be convinced. My comments are targeted at people reading this who might not be aware of the bullshit going on.

danenania 10y ago

The stuff you're talking about is awful, but it's par for the course in the system we have. It shouldn't need to be said, but it can get a LOT worse. If you really care about things like democracy, human rights, civil liberties, and freedom of speech, handing the country to an egomaniacal authoritarian just to prove a point is the height of strategic stupidity.

jessaustin 10y ago
...an egomaniacal authoritarian... Please clarify whom you're referencing here.

mcphage 10y ago

> She has Obama, using tax payer money, campaigning for her - while not illegal, is pretty morally bankrupt in my opinion. Is this your first election?

BinaryIdiot 10y ago

> She has Obama, using tax payer money, campaigning for her - while not illegal, is pretty morally bankrupt in my opinion. This is not actually true. While he is forced to only use Airforce One when flying he is required by law to reimburse all costs related to campaigning for anyone. Typically though the president never pays for this and, instead, the candidate they are campaigning for foots the bill. Every single president in the history of our democracy has done this. Every single one of them.

swissoak 10y ago
My point is that it is morally void, one candidate is doing it, the other isn't. That it's been done historically has absolutely zero relevance as to whether it is a moral thing to do (see literally any example of civil rights laws progressing over the past 300 years).
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  > My point is that it is morally void, one candidate is doing it, the other isn't. Huh? There is only one president...what's the problem with campaigning for someone else that you support? I don't see the moral issue. If you're paying for it and you're obviously not doing it in lieu of your duty what's the issue here?
  - swissoak 10y ago
    Ok - I looked this up. DNC paid out some money when Obama used AF1. They only paid at the rate of what a regular charter jet would cost, but that makes sense. I don't have a problem with this and I rescind that particular part of my argument. >Every single president in the history of our democracy has done this. Every single one of them. This NPR article calls it "unusual" but maybe I am missing something since I only read it at a glance: http://www.npr.org/2016/07/07/485097272/fact-check-air-force-one-who-pays http://www.npr.org/2016/07/07/485097272/fact-check-air-force...
maxerickson 10y ago
The NPR article linked below links a better one for discussing the history of presidents campaigning: http://www.npr.org/2016/07/05/484817706/looking-back-at-a-century-of-presidents-not-campaigning-for-their-successor http://www.npr.org/2016/07/05/484817706/looking-back-at-a-ce... McCain in 2008 and Gore in 2000 both sort of wanted the sitting president to stay out of the campaign. Bush was pretty unpopular and Clinton had a lot hanging over him (Bush left office with an approval rating around 30%, Clinton around 60%). Reagan campaigned timidly for Bush I. So in the last 40 years, it hasn't been very common for the sitting president to come out and campaign hard for their parties candidate. Of course they have generally campaigned for themselves, which has a similar issue of dealing with who pays for things.