US Politics

RabzonKhan said:

The Republican who has threatened to jail his political opponent and the Democrat who has maintained that her rival is temperamentally unfit for office had surprisingly nice things to say offstage at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, according to its host.

Click to expand...

that's because he's a gentleman

this was actually pretty good:

The Third 2016 Presidential Debate, In Cartoons

Politico's Matt Wuerker chooses his favorite cartoons from the presidential debate.

By POLITICO MAGAZINE 10/21/16

Poll: Clinton Won Final Debate; 53% of Republicans Would Accept Election Results

by HANNAH HARTIG, JOHN LAPINSKI and STEPHANIE PSYLLOS OCT 21 2016

Hillary Clinton won the third and final debate of the 2016 Presidential Election cycle by a 9-point margin over Donald Trump, according to likely voters who watched or followed coverage of Wednesday's face-off. A 46 percent plurality said Clinton won the debate, while 37 percent said Trump won. Another 17 percent said that neither candidate won the debate. Clinton's final victory over the Republican nominee marks a decisive sweep of all three debates.

These results are according to the NBC News|SurveyMonkey Third Debate Reaction Poll conducted on Thursday, October 20.




The debate was most notable for Trump's refusal to say he would accept the outcome of the election—causing a backlash among GOP leaders including Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Carlos Curbelo. Arizona Sen. John McCain said that while he didn't like the outcome of the 2008 election, he had a duty to concede, and did so without reluctance: "That's not just the Republican way or the Democratic way. It's the American way." Read more

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has released an exceptionally effective video in which Khizr Khan tells the story of his son, Captain Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq while stopping a suicide bomber in 2004.

“He saw a suicide bomber approaching his camp,” Khizr Khan explains as he walks in living room toward a photo of the fallen soldier. “My son moved forward to stop the bomber. When the bomb exploded he saved everyone in his unit. Only one American soldier died. My son was Captain Humayun Khan. He was 27 years old and he was a Muslim American.” Khizr Khan’s voice starts to break as he says, “I want to ask Mr. Trump, would my son have a place in your America?”






@Taygibay @AgNoStiC MuSliM @Rashid Mahmood @American Pakistani @iPhone @war&peace

@F-22Raptor @gambit @TruthSeeker @Arsalan @anon45 @Anubis @LA se Karachi

@Mugwop @saadee

Epic, Hillary slams Trump on his rigged (un-American) election conspiracies.

Third and final debate:

WALLACE: (moderator) But, sir, there is a tradition in this country -- in fact, one of the prides of this country -- is the peaceful transition of power and that no matter how hard-fought a campaign is, that at the end of the campaign that the loser concedes to the winner. Not saying that you're necessarily going to be the loser or the winner, but that the loser concedes to the winner and that the country comes together in part for the good of the country. Are you saying you're not prepared now to commit to that principle?

TRUMP: What I'm saying is that I will tell you at the time. I'll keep you in suspense. OK?

CLINTON: Well, Chris, let me respond to that, because that's horrifying. You know, every time Donald thinks things are not going in his direction, he claims whatever it is, is rigged against him.

The FBI conducted a year-long investigation into my e-mails. They concluded there was no case; he said the FBI was rigged. He lost the Iowa caucus. He lost the Wisconsin primary. He said the Republican primary was rigged against him. Then Trump University gets sued for fraud and racketeering; he claims the court system and the federal judge is rigged against him. There was even a time when he didn't get an Emmy for his TV program three years in a row and he started tweeting that the Emmys were rigged against him.

TRUMP: Should have gotten it.

(LAUGHTER)

CLINTON: This is -- this is a mindset. This is how Donald thinks. And it's funny, but it's also really troubling.

WALLACE: OK.

CLINTON: So that is not the way our democracy works. We've been around for 240 years. We've had free and fair elections. We've accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them. And that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election. You know, President Obama said the other day when you're whining before the game is even finished...

(APPLAUSE)

WALLACE: Hold on. Hold on, folks. Hold on, folks.

CLINTON: ... it just shows you're not up to doing the job. And let's -- you know, let's be clear about what he is saying and what that means. He is denigrating -- he's talking down our democracy. And I, for one, am appalled that somebody who is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that kind of position.

RabzonKhan said:

Epic, Hillary slams Trump on his rigged (un-American) election conspiracies.

Click to expand...

Am no Chump supporter, but I have to side with him in this one.

I had discussion with a friend and he pointed out an interesting idea: There are two ways of 'rigging' and election.

The first is the 'hard rig'. This is where you have direct access to the ballot processing system, from the paper to the pencils to the box and all the way to the people tallying the votes.

The second is the 'soft rig'. If you cannot access the balloting system, then your next best method is to change people's minds, in other words, access of information. If you are a journalist, you slant your reporting and/or commentaries. Remember the infamous 'journolist' scandal ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList

When the Democratic National Committee worked to remove Bernie Sanders from contention, that was a 'hard rig'. If the President actively campaigns for you, that would be a 'soft rig', and in this case, there is nothing wrong with that.

The American Left and media finally admitted that there is a leftist bent among themselves. The American academia finally had to admit to the same. This is what the Bump is complaining about.

When you vote, there is no challenge to your vote. On the other hand, when you debate, there are challenges between contenders and observers are allowed to make up their minds. There is no challenge in a 'hard rig'. What needed to be done -- will be done in secrecy. In a 'soft rig', challenges are minimized. The challengers' opinions are collectively mocked or even dismissed by those who controls that access to information. Then if sufficient voters are convinced by way of selective information, the rig is successful.

RabzonKhan said:

Epic, Hillary slams Trump on his rigged (un-American) election conspiracies.

Click to expand...

Meanwhile Hillary keeps larping on about "it's the Russians, it's the Russians" without providing any proof but yet Trump is the conspiracy theorist?

Darmashkian said:

CNN(Clinton News Network)
ABC(Always Beside Clinton)
NBC(Nothing But Clinton)
MSNBC(Making Sure Nothing But Clinton)

All of them are biased in favor of the Democrats & Hilliary!! THat is why I pay no attention to their polls,they over-sample the Democrats way too much in them!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillary will blame the 2 Rs- Russia & Republicans for all the problems & incompetence of her administration way more than Obama blamed Bush for the problems he created!!

It's not in her to take responsibility for her misdeeds. She'll blame even Bill if required,but not herself.


I am not fond of Trump in any way & despise him.. but I absolutely hate the Clintons(Hillary should be in JAIL!!) & the Shameless MSM & the Liberal Establishment of the USA!(I hate them in India too,these guys suck around the globe)

The only reason a part of me hopes that Trump wins is to give a tight slap to these people!! I absolutely distrust them,they lie,they start wars & conflicts in other nations(Iraq,Libya,Syria),they look down on everybody who isn't like them or doesn't suck up to them!

These people have enjoyed far too long, they could stop Bernie Sanders by rigging the Primaries. But,even if they stop Trump; they can't stop the anti-establishment movement he has created!

Sooner or later they will have to fall!

[That was a good pic of the Clinton foundation you posted there I think if Hillary wins & India ever needs something from the USA,we just have to transfer a few million dollars to Bill Clinton after inviting him to give a few inspirational talks here ]

Click to expand...

They were able to cheat Bernie because Bernie is the type of guy who will allow others to push him around. Remember how those BLM girls hijacked his podium and called his supporters racist and he just walked to the back of the stage. Bernie had a dedicated, passionate supporter base similar to Trumps and he could have made a lot of noise about the backdoor deals the DNC was doing to undermine him yet he walked away without a fight and let his supporters down by endorsing the wicked witch. So many Bernie supporters have switched over to the Trump camp because of Bernie's betrayal.

Trump, on the other hand, is an Alpha male and he has the confidence of his supporters who show up in the tens of thousands at his rallies despite the dirt the pro-Clinton MSMedia throws at him which is why Trump will win this election, and he's going to give the corrupt establishment and elites a bloody drubbing they'll never forget which is why they are doing everything in their power to bring him down. The only way Trump can lose is if the elections are rigged.

by Joel B. Pollak20 Oct 2016

Democrats are aghast that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump would declare our election system “rigged,” and that he declined to state in the third presidential debate whether he would accept the result if he loses in November.

Trump is both wrong, and right, about the “rigged” nature of the system: in a fair system, Hillary Clinton would certainly not be her party’s candidate.

Regardless, Democrats — including Hillary Clinton — seem to have forgotten their own history of claiming elections are “rigged.”

1. 2000: Al Gore and the Florida recount. Yes, Gore eventually accepted the result — but only after withdrawing his concession, trying to have the vote recounted only in Democrat-heavy Florida counties, and suing to stop ballots from being recounted. Even after a consortium of media outlets concluded that George W. Bush had indeed won more votes in Florida, Democrats continued to claim the election had been “stolen” by the Supreme Court and Bush was an illegitimate president.

2. 2004: John Kerry and “rigged” machines. While Kerry conceded the election, he and his running mate continued to believe afterwards that the election had been stolen from them, possibly by voting machines. Elizabeth Edwards said in 2007 that she had been “very disappointed” in Kerry’s decision to concede the election. And last year the New Yorker reported that Kerry believed “proxies for Bush had rigged many voting machines” in Ohio, and that he may in fact have won the election.

3. 2008: John Podesta and Obama’s voter fraud. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out recently, President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have suggested that voter ID laws are a way of rigging elections against black people. And while they downplay fears of voter fraud, Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta reported internally (via Wikileaks) in 2015 that Clinton operatives believed that “the Obama forces flooded the caucuses with ineligible voters” to win the primary.

4. 2014: Congress and a “rigged” district system. Thanks to the Tea Party wave election in 2010 in response to Obamacare, Republicans were left in charge of many state legislatures as they redrew congressional district boundaries. Except in a few states — such as Illinois, where Democrats drew several Republicans out of their seats — that meant Republicans held the advantage in the House. As a result, Democrats complained bitterly that congressional elections were “rigged” against them.

5. 2016: Bernie Sanders and a “rigged” primary. Sanders uses the word “rigged” often to describe the economic system. But in 2016, the Democratic Party primary was rigged against him in a political sense — both openly, in the party’s anti-democratic super delegate system, and secretly, through collusion between party officials and the Clinton campaign. Sanders supporters protested at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia against what they called a “rigged” election.

Hillary Clinton herself has made at least one similar claim. National Review — which officially opposed Trump earlier this year — points out that Clinton told a private fundraiser in 2002 that George W. Bush had been “selected,” not “elected.”

@Nilgiri @T-72 @RabzonKhan @C130

Desert Fox said:

5 Times Democrats Claimed U.S. Elections Are ‘Rigged’​

by Joel B. Pollak20 Oct 2016

Democrats are aghast that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump would declare our election system “rigged,” and that he declined to state in the third presidential debate whether he would accept the result if he loses in November.

Trump is both wrong, and right, about the “rigged” nature of the system: in a fair system, Hillary Clinton would certainly not be her party’s candidate.

Regardless, Democrats — including Hillary Clinton — seem to have forgotten their own history of claiming elections are “rigged.”

1. 2000: Al Gore and the Florida recount. Yes, Gore eventually accepted the result — but only after withdrawing his concession, trying to have the vote recounted only in Democrat-heavy Florida counties, and suing to stop ballots from being recounted. Even after a consortium of media outlets concluded that George W. Bush had indeed won more votes in Florida, Democrats continued to claim the election had been “stolen” by the Supreme Court and Bush was an illegitimate president.

2. 2004: John Kerry and “rigged” machines. While Kerry conceded the election, he and his running mate continued to believe afterwards that the election had been stolen from them, possibly by voting machines. Elizabeth Edwards said in 2007 that she had been “very disappointed” in Kerry’s decision to concede the election. And last year the New Yorker reported that Kerry believed “proxies for Bush had rigged many voting machines” in Ohio, and that he may in fact have won the election.

3. 2008: John Podesta and Obama’s voter fraud. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out recently, President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have suggested that voter ID laws are a way of rigging elections against black people. And while they downplay fears of voter fraud, Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta reported internally (via Wikileaks) in 2015 that Clinton operatives believed that “the Obama forces flooded the caucuses with ineligible voters” to win the primary.

4. 2014: Congress and a “rigged” district system. Thanks to the Tea Party wave election in 2010 in response to Obamacare, Republicans were left in charge of many state legislatures as they redrew congressional district boundaries. Except in a few states — such as Illinois, where Democrats drew several Republicans out of their seats — that meant Republicans held the advantage in the House. As a result, Democrats complained bitterly that congressional elections were “rigged” against them.

5. 2016: Bernie Sanders and a “rigged” primary. Sanders uses the word “rigged” often to describe the economic system. But in 2016, the Democratic Party primary was rigged against him in a political sense — both openly, in the party’s anti-democratic super delegate system, and secretly, through collusion between party officials and the Clinton campaign. Sanders supporters protested at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia against what they called a “rigged” election.

Hillary Clinton herself has made at least one similar claim. National Review — which officially opposed Trump earlier this year — points out that Clinton told a private fundraiser in 2002 that George W. Bush had been “selected,” not “elected.”

@Nilgiri @T-72 @RabzonKhan @C130

Click to expand...

Classic hypocrisy.

Whats worse is that for all this time mainstream republicans have been playing along given they are politicians too.

RabzonKhan said:

View attachment 344791

Click to expand...

Yes, elect a Clinton instead. Because that worked out so well for the rich and the banks as well:

Nilgiri said:

Remember according to the MSM and Obama admin, someone losing one ok paying job (because of obamacare premiums forcing downsizing) and forced to work 2 - 3 crap temp jobs (and also forced to have worse health plan) is a net JOB GROWTH

Click to expand...

The percentage of uninsured Americans has dropped dramatically since the passage of the ACA, and is now at an all-time low:

"The percentage of Americans that do not have health insurance now sits at 8.6%, the lowest on record, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)."



http://www.businessinsider.com/americans-without-health-insurance-all-time-low-uninsured-rate-2016-9


Very few companies have been forced to "downsize" as a result of Obamacare. This is more a (false) right-wing talking point than reality. Those that have had to do so, generally only had to let a small percentage of their employees go. And if a few firms had to downsize a little for more Americans to become insured and gain access to critical health services, so be it.

Nilgiri said:

Indeed.... swing state shenanigans must be looked out for vigilantly by localised, neutral and independent citizen groups.

Click to expand...

Desert Fox said:

5 Times Democrats Claimed U.S. Elections Are ‘Rigged’​

by Joel B. Pollak20 Oct 2016

Democrats are aghast that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump would declare our election system “rigged,” and that he declined to state in the third presidential debate whether he would accept the result if he loses in November.

Trump is both wrong, and right, about the “rigged” nature of the system: in a fair system, Hillary Clinton would certainly not be her party’s candidate.

Regardless, Democrats — including Hillary Clinton — seem to have forgotten their own history of claiming elections are “rigged.”

Click to expand...

Nilgiri said:

Classic hypocrisy.

Whats worse is that for all this time mainstream republicans have been playing along given they are politicians too.

Click to expand...

Not every claim is true. The election hasn't even taken place yet and the Trumpets are already shouting it's "rigged". Quite a ludicrous accusation at the state and national level in a developed country like America with a very long history of democracy. The shameful 2000 election fiasco aside, American elections have largely been controversy-free when it comes to actually counting the votes.

Desert Fox said:

They were able to cheat Bernie because Bernie is the type of guy who will allow others to push him around. Remember how those BLM girls hijacked his podium and called his supporters racist and he just walked to the back of the stage. Bernie had a dedicated, passionate supporter base similar to Trumps and he could have made a lot of noise about the backdoor deals the DNC was doing to undermine him yet he walked away without a fight and let his supporters down by endorsing the wicked witch. So many Bernie supporters have switched over to the Trump camp because of Bernie's betrayal.

Click to expand...

The vast majority of Sanders' supporters are going to vote for Hillary over Trump. That's a fact. You can look it up, any poll will show you this. Though many of them hate her too. And many, like me, won't be voting for either candidate.

He doesn't get pushed around by anyone. If you look at the political positions he's taken throughout his lengthy career as political servant, this is quite apparent. He's been remarkably consistent for a politician, and has almost always been on the "right" side of issue.

He's endorsed Hillary because he wants to stop Trump and because he wants protect himself from her supporters and the detestable people in her campaign/DNC. In January 2017, he will become unchained and will go back to being himself. If Clinton is elected President, he will likely be her foremost critic on economic issues. An area in which she will inevitably come up well short, and will even renege on the promises she made in her campaign (like on the TPP/banks/minimum wage).

Darmashkian said:

All because of the Dems. SUch a situation favours them a lot.

Get this you need an ID card for welfare benefits & a car drivers license+a lot more,but wanting one for voting is racist. -_-

When the repubs try to change this carelessness, they are called racist by these human rights people & the Dems.

Click to expand...

There are very, very few instances of voter-fraud on record. The amount is negligible. No one actually tries to do this. If a sizable number people tried to do this, it would become obvious rather quickly. It's a non-issue brought up by Republicans to help suppress voting. All that these so called "Voter-ID" laws do is prevent many eligible voters from voting when they show up at their polling locations to vote.

I routinely forget my wallet when I travel, and so do others. Would it be right to deny them the right to vote simply because they forgot to bring an acceptable form identification with them? And what if what they did bring with them was deemed insufficient or outdated at the polls? What then? Most people vote on election day after work. Many don't have the time to go home, find the necessary identification if they have misplaced it, and then make it back in time to vote. It's a solution to a non-existent problem.

It's not about race. It's about poor and less-reliable voters. Would you support a strict voter identification system in India that would presumably unfairly affect poor/rural/inner-city voters? The wealthy and urban middle class and elites would have an out-sized influence on the election, if so. Is that true democracy?

Darmashkian said:

1)yep,I agree with what u said about Trump+a lot of the stuff said about him. But don't forget,millions of Americans love him & 40%+ of your people will definitely vote for him..

Click to expand...

Probably more like 45%+, actually. Hillary is that bad, unfortunately.

Darmashkian said:

2)Silent voters do NOT tell their choice to the pollsters too(in most cases).That's why they are called silent,even in polling samples they tell not the truth. Most of them do NOT want anyone else to know that they support Trump(unless that person is a fellow silent trump supporter)

Click to expand...

I have to disagree. Lots of people are telling pollsters that they will be voting Trump. They have little to lose by telling a pollster their preference. Though they may not always tell those around them.

However, as I've discussed before, polls may be overstating her support somewhat due to potential turnout problems.

Darmashkian said:

3)I too would leave the field blank if I lived in the USA(right now)
4)That wikileaks stuff has really hurt Hillary among many millenials and Bernie fans,period! But I doubt it could win trump voters

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Darmashkian said:

@KAL-EL @LA se Karachi I feel sorry for your bad choices Both candidates suck(though I liked HC till a few months back). DOn't worry,I'm sure either of them will last for 1 term only. Best of Luck in surviving them!

Click to expand...

Thank you for your kind words, my friend. But I am far more concerned about the long-term political and economic problems in this country than 4-8 years of Hillary or Trump. If we got through Dubya's Presidency, we will get through this too.

It's just hard to see us moving in the wrong direction yet again. Especially when we finally had a chance to start addressing the economic issues that plague this country. Income inequality is reaching near-disastrous levels not seen since the 1930s during the Great Depression.

The economy has grown dramatically since 1980, and yet, middle and working class Americans have seen their incomes and wealth decline slightly. Even though they have grown astronomically for the wealthiest 1-10% of Americans. What's the point of any economic growth at all when it is quite literally only the wealthy that benefit? Why should they get all of the income growth, if productivity per worker has increased dramatically too?

With Bernie Sanders, we finally had a candidate that would take real steps to reverse these trends and return the economy to what it used to be before the 1980s/1990s. He had the unique ability to get working-class white voters, middle-class voters, political independents, true progressives, and economically disadvantaged non-voters, lifting the slowly drowning Democratic Party with him.

Alas, he was passed over for a rich political opportunist with terrible political positions on economic and foreign policy issues, who is far less electable and is detested by the American public. Not to mention the poor judgment she has shown throughout her career and the innumerable amount of times she's changed her positions on issues. She has even lied outright to voters multiple times.

What the upside to Hilary is, I still don't know. Even her supporters can't tell us. They have resigned themselves to bashing Trump because they know that getting people to like Hillary herself is a losing proposition. If Sanders was the nominee instead, it would be a different picture politically and economically. We can only hope for better candidates next time. Though I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel. At least in the near future.

I've got a really tough choice, vote Libertarian, or write in George Washington whose been dead for a while........