Election 16: Donald Trumps wins Presidency. God Help us all!

[TradeTheBeal!]

42 minutes ago, mikered30 said:

Podesta is in to some weird ****, AKA off-beat recipes "Spirit Cooking" with Marina Abramovic.  Google it for a fun occult time if you are not at work.  The latest dump has Podesta talking about food quite a bit, apparently he is an exceptional cook and is into weird "art".

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15893

 

 

This is some of the corniest **** of all time.  And yet...it's really the absolute best and brightest the Trump campaign has to offer.  

 

All Hail Troll Nation!

[Larry]

3 hours ago, tshile said:

Looking at the two candidates for the house in my district, I split the issues with them. Even then I hardly agree in full on many of them. Hard to prioritize especially when it's hard to believe anything will actuall get done.

I'm still holding out faith Ryan will kick off the relationship with Clinton in a way that at least opens the door to some meaningful reform. Not much faith, but a little.

 

Which one do you think will be the most flexible? 

(Although, I guess, that depends on whether you want your Congressman to be flexible.) 

 

[mikered30]

Just now, Dan T. said:

 

Its not satanic, and it's really not that interesting.  What it is is a sad spectacle... picking over scraps of stolen emails desperately looking for something scandalous or - short of that - salacious.  But keep picking. Don't worry about the slime getting all over you.

 Supreme court said it it is not illegal to read Wikileaks and I dont mind the slime getting on me as long as the truth comes out. You and I both know this would be breaking news on cnn if it was trumps email or his advisors email.  I doubt the corporate media will touch this.

 

I have appeared to hit a nerve with ESers with wikileaks after 27 days.  Only 4 more days to go.

 

[Larry]

3 hours ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

Sure, if he is hoping to get primaried out of government in 2018 that's a great strategy for him.

 

Remember when the Speaker of the House made demands that Obama had to meet, to prevent the government from shutting down, and Obama agreed to the demands, and the Speaker accepted them? 

Ryan would get removed from the Speakership within days. 

[mikered30]

6 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

This is some of the corniest **** of all time.  And yet...it's really the absolute best and brightest the Trump campaign has to offer.  

 

All Hail Troll Nation!

Are you saying the trump campaign forged that email from Abramovic to Podesta or something else?

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[Dan T.]

Just now, mikered30 said:

 Supreme court said it it is not illegal to read Wikileaks and I dont mind the slime getting on me as long as the truth comes out. You and I both know this would be breaking news on cnn if it was trumps email or his advisors email.  I doubt the corporate media will touch this.

 

I have appeared to hit a nerve with ESers with wikileaks after 27 days.  Only 4 more days to go.

 

 Yeah you've really busted the lid off that weird cooking/art scandal.  I hear she might be hired as the White House chef if demon Hilary is elected.  

[s0crates]

@mikered30 Most posters here play the three wise monkeys when it comes to Hillary's corruption. You get used to it after a while.

[AJ*]

2 hours ago, Destino said:

I agree that it's standard cut throat behavior and I don't think that email is important or will matter much... but the problem with that email isn't that they were talking about being mean to Bernie.  The problem is the line "we can't start believing our own primary bull****".  Hillary is already thought of by too many as a liar (wrongly, according to fact checkers) and Trump has positioned himself as the outsider calling all politicians frauds and liars (apparently without a sense of irony or shame). 

We can all dismiss that and laugh at how painfully naive people must be but any evidence that the Hillary campaign is full of ****, which is exactly what they are admitting to in that email, is a bad thing right now. 

 

There's nothing wrong with that line whatsoever and this is coming from a Bernie supporter. I see it as being a realist and a pragmatist. Let's be brutally honest. Do you think Bernie's proposals would ever see the light of day in Congress? We all know they wouldn't and that makes his proposals "primary bull****". I love Bernie's judgment and consistency throughout the last 20+ years and that's what drew me to him, not his ideas. No sense in dreaming about something that's never going to happen.  

I actually liked Hillary's comments on one of the hacked audio clips of her. People thought this sounded bad for some reason but I thought it was something that should have been said publicly and often. 

"It is important to recognize what’s going on in this election. Everybody who’s ever been in an election that I’m aware of is quite bewildered because there is a strain of, on the one hand, the kind of populist, nationalist, xenophobic, discriminatory kind of approach that we hear too much of from the Republican candidates. And on the other side, there’s just a deep desire to believe that we can have free college, free healthcare, that what we’ve done hasn’t gone far enough, and that we just need to, you know, go as far as, you know, Scandinavia, whatever that means, and half the people don’t know what that means, but it’s something that they deeply feel. So as a friend of mine said the other day, I am occupying from the center-left to the center-right. And I don’t have much company there. Because it is difficult when you’re running to be president, and you understand how hard the job is —

I don’t want to overpromise. I don’t want to tell people things that I know we cannot do."

To me that's being realistic. Americans have the memory span of a goldfish and when you don't deliver on your pie-in-the-sky promises they're not going to care that Congress said hell no to everything you proposed. They're going to blame YOU, the President. If you want to get things done in this country you have to meet somewhere in the middle, not go to the extreme left (or right) unless you have a super-majority waiting for you in Congress and even then they all may not pull the trigger on what you want. 

[TradeTheBeal!]

7 minutes ago, mikered30 said:

Are you saying the trump campaign forged that email from Abramovic to Podesta or something else?

 

I'm saying that you are, by far, the most informed and persuasive Trump supporter that we have ever seen.  Probably that anyone has ever seen.  Keep digging, great one!

 

And take in some peformance art in your spare time, if you get the chance.

[Dan T.]

2 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

I'm saying that you are, by far, the most informed and persuasive Trump supporter that we have ever seen.  Probably that anyone has ever seen.  Keep digging, great one!

 

And take in some peformance art in your spare time, if you get the chance.

Maybe Trump's entire run was a grand piece of performance art.

 

Did I Just Blow Your Mind?

[Bliz]

30 minutes ago, mikered30 said:

Yesterday I got called out for posting ****ty links, foxnews, and I said I would post the wiki links or the FBI vault files, no Foxnews BS.  Now when I post a wiki link with spirit cooking, which is some weird satanic garbage,  my obsession is seen as bizarre and incomprehensible because I continue to follow the leaks.  If these were Trumps emails, this would be all over the front page news. 

I would point out that fox story has since been debunked so people were right to be skeptical

The comparison I made to celebrity gossip rags was purposeful .  I see very little difference between the two.  It's bizarre and incomprehensible to me that people find those interesting too.  

The vast majority of the podesta emails are boring and not revealing or insightful in the least

 

[mikered30]

3 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

I'm saying that you are, by far, the most informed and persuasive Trump supporter that we have ever seen.  Probably that anyone has ever seen.  Keep digging, great one!

 

And take in some peformance art in your spare time, if you get the chance.

Thank you, I will keep digging the next 4 days, although I am not a trump supporter, I can see how anti Hillary comes across as pro trump, but as I said before, I will be wasting my vote by picking Johnson, it is essentially a vote of no confidence for either party.

3 minutes ago, Bliz said:

I would point out that fox story has since been debunked so people were right to be skeptical

The comparison I made to celebrity gossip rags was purposeful .  I see very little difference between the two.  It's bizarre and incomprehensible to me that people find those interesting too.  

The vast majority of the podesta emails are boring and not revealing or insightful in the least

 

I saw NBC called out Foxnews on that, good catch and ES was correct.

Agree, the podesta emails are largely boring, but within the last week they are more interesting minus the food emails.  Assange filtered them somehow, not sure why he releases the boring ones, especially when there are 50,000 of them.

[Larry]

19 minutes ago, mikered30 said:

 Supreme court said it it is not illegal to read Wikileaks and I dont mind the slime getting on me as long as the truth comes out. You and I both know this would be breaking news on cnn if it was trumps email or his advisors email.  I doubt the corporate media will touch this.

 

I have appeared to hit a nerve with ESers with wikileaks after 27 days.  Only 4 more days to go.

 

 

1)  Could you point out the USSC decision where the Supreme Court ruled that it's not illegal to read Wikileaks? 

2)  You don;t give a **** about "the truth comes out".  You care about "something I can spin into something that looks bad about Hillary comes out". 

3)  This is breaking news on CNN.  Well, not Podesta's favorite brand of spaghetti sauce.  But the leaked emails are.  Frankly, they're getting vastly more attention than, Trump's various accusations and investigations are. 

 

[Larry]

26 minutes ago, s0crates said:

@mikered30 Most posters here play the three wise monkeys when it comes to Hillary's corruption. You get used to it after a while.

 

So, to summarize the latest conversation: 

"This leaked email shows a lot of messages about cooking.  This proves that Hillary's inner circle is occupied by Satan worshipers." 

"No, it really doesn't show anything of the sort.  It's emails about cooking." 

"These Hillary supporters will never admit anything about Hillary.  They're so biased that they can't admit reality."  " 

 

[DogofWar1]

Fox News reports reports via anonymoose sources that email stuff is goin' down, son.

Fox News' report gets debunked.

Simultaneously, report comes out that FBI has a bunch of hyper-partisan pro-Trumpers in its ranks who are likely leaking (non-criminal but sufficiently interesting to get views) stuff to tilt the election.

 

Man, good thing that first thing dropped before that third thing, or else Foxers would've gotten some serious blue balls.

 

Eh, who am I kidding, Fox would've run with it anyway.

[twa]

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

 

Most ES posters have grudgingly come to the realization that you cannot use facts to convince someone who is delusional, to give up their delusion. 

(Hopefully, some day, all of them will.) 

 

Go full pragmatic and embrace the suck.

Hilllary 2016!

[PCS]

Apparently a "webinar" hosted by the Oathkeepers was held tonight. It was about Operation Sabot. Polling monitoring if you will. JJ Macnab "attended" it and tweeted out some stuff about it. Yes. It's about the election. You'll want to click on it and read the thread. 

 

[Larry]

1 minute ago, PCS said:

 

 

 

Curiously, "Trump supporters" are not on the list. 

 

[twa]

So the Oath keepers are like a conservative SPLC.

just less slimey 

[DogofWar1]

1 minute ago, Larry said:

Curiously, "Trump supporters" are not on the list. 

Well, you see, threat, as used there, is defined as  a person or thing likely to cause damage or danger

They're past "likely," so not a threat.  Q.E.D.

[mikered30]

1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

1)  Could you point out the USSC decision where the Supreme Court ruled that it's not illegal to read Wikileaks? 

2)  You don;t give a **** about "the truth comes out".  You care about "something I can spin into something that looks bad about Hillary comes out". 

3)  This is breaking news on CNN.  Well, not Podesta's favorite brand of spaghetti sauce.  But the leaked emails are.  Frankly, they're getting vastly more attention than, Trump's various accusations and investigations are. 

 

1. Bartnicki v. Vopper. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1687.ZS.html

https://jonathanturley.org/2016/10/17/cnn-it-is-illegal-for-voters-to-possess-wikileaks-material/

2. I didnt spin anything, I am just the middleman posting direct links to emails. 

3. The coverage on the emails in the corporate media is glossed over on the news, no real depth journalism into the emails is reported, no connections to other emails or analysis, maybe with dragging this out for 27 days is causing fatigue.

[visionary]

 

 

[brandymac27]

I might get bashed for saying this but here goes....

I think we should back off a little bit on calling people out for some of the things they post. We all have differing opinions, and different things are going to interest all of us. If there  are things people post that you don't like, then just don't read it. Nobody is forcing anyone to read or respond to anything that anyone posts. 

This board leans pretty liberal, and I'm sure Republicans/Indies/Libertarians/etc don't necessarily want to read all the pro Hillary and liberal posts/articles/tweets/etc that are posted on here all the time either. What they're doing posting the stuff that interests them is no different than what any of the rest of us are doing. Put yourselves in their shoes! I feel like if they aren't breaking any rules, insulting anyone, etc, then they have as much right as the rest of us to post and discuss whatever they want.

Yes, I'm very liberal, and some of the things I read from conservatives drives me bat**** crazy, but I still feel like they have a right to post whatever they want if they follow the board rules. I don't want us to push people with differing opinions away from posting here either. We've lost a few characters here over the years (some due to their own behavior) that I actually liked outside of political threads LOL, and I just don't want to make anyone feel like we're ganging up on them because we don't agree with them.

Hell, this election has divided us enough as it is. The least we can do is try to make an effort to respect people's right to post what they want here on ES.

 

[Larry]

1 minute ago, mikered30 said:

1. Bartnicki v. Vopper. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1687.ZS.html

https://jonathanturley.org/2016/10/17/cnn-it-is-illegal-for-voters-to-possess-wikileaks-material/

2. I didnt spin anything, I am just the middleman posting direct links to emails. 

3. The coverage on the emails in the corporate media is glossed over on the news, no real depth journalism into the emails is reported, no connections to other emails or analysis, maybe with dragging this out for 27 days is causing fatigue.

 

1)  Observing that that decision does not mention Wikileaks anywhere in it.  Nor does the ruling say anything about who may or may not read anything. 

1a)  It does, however, pretty firmly set forth that a free press has the right to publish material, on matters of public interest, concerning public figures, even when they know that said material was obtained illegally. 

Now, am I correctly reading your following two points as: 

2)  I don't spin things, I just point to information.

3)  And when I tried to claim that CNN wasn't covering this, (because it's about a Democrat), what I really meant was to attack them for publishing only the actual facts, and not following it up with analysis and interpretation.

Have I got those two right?