StrangeSox

I'm not a fan of Mitch McConnell or McCain, but either of them are at least clearly qualified to be President in the same way that Clinton is. I'm not talking about policy agreement here. Hillary's been plagued by what I'd deem as witch-hunts for 25 years but you'd disagree, but for all of the allegations of fraud, little if anything has actually proven out. I don't care if she "smiled" or not as first lady. For all of the endless investigations into so many things, she's actually come through with remarkably little dirt stuck to her. Years of attacks against her have left her with a tarnished image, fairly or not, but even still, she doesn't come close to rising to the level of Trump's incompetence, fraud and corruption for an even longer period of time. I wouldn't classify Hillary as a neoconservative and think you overuse that word a bit much, but she's definitely a hawk and it's definitely my least favorite aspect of her. I wouldn't even lump Powell in with the neoconservatives despite my issues with his being a coverup artist for atrocities and war crimes going back to My Lai. QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Sep 8, 2016 -> 05:39 PM) I am not a Hillary fan, but to throw the fact that she had to work in a scandal as the first lady, well, that is a pretty low blow, given she was not directly involved in what lead to that scandal (was tied to her husband). Why is Hillary a neoconservative when it comes to waging war? I also don't view Powell as a war mongerer though. I think he might have been referring to whitewater, a series of investigations during the Clinton admin that never found any wrongdoing by them.

I was trying to play out the counterfactual world on whether or not there'd be a civil war/genocide going on in Syria today without the US's actions over the past decade. I don't disagree with the rest of your post on the surface. I was just making a point that people might still know what Alleppo is and the US might still even be involved in some way if in a world without Iraq/Afghanistan, there was still a brutal Syrian civil war and refugee crisis lasting years.

Pence doubled down on Putin being a better leader than Obama

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 8, 2016 -> 02:17 PM) The only thing I think needs to stop is the "Are you prepared for " questions. Just prep him to see if he is prepared, don't ask if he is. Obviously he isn't. But my favorite was trump correcting the veteran that actually the statistic was worse, but Trump was in fact wrong and the veteran was right. The veteran who started her question by stating she lost two friends to suicide and suffered from PTSD herself. Her reaction was to look absolutely furious at his "well, actually" Oh and his solution to her question was "more pills!"

He could push back on blatantly incorrect claims (e.g. supporting Iraq and Libya) or press him for clarification or explanation of his plans/policies/claims.

Jill Stein is a self-aggrandizing idiot who'd rather pump up her own ego with vanity campaigns and stunts rather than actually build a grassroots political movement from the outside or work to influence the liberal-ish mainstream party from within.

I dunno, it's hard to play out a counterfactual world where the US doesn't invade Afghanistan and Iraq, but a Syrian civil war with hundreds of thousands dead is still a legitimate possibility in that world. Intervention isn't and shouldn't be the go-to answer, but then there are cases like Rwanda where the world just stood by and watched as so many were slaughtered.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 8, 2016 -> 01:31 PM) Agreed. At the same time, I don't know how anyone could watch Clinton's career (even moderately) and think "yes, this woman should be president of the United States." She's had a long and fairly successful career in public office? I don't see what neoconservatism has to do with that? This is the only one he's involved in http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/business...is-wallace.html Mr. Holt, the anchor of “NBC Nightly News,” will moderate the first debate on Sept. 26; Ms. Raddatz of ABC and Mr. Cooper of CNN will moderate the town hall debate on Oct. 9; and Mr. Wallace of Fox News will handle the final debate on Oct. 19. All are first-time presidential debate moderators.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Sep 8, 2016 -> 01:28 PM) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cou...65bc_story.html http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cour...a-idUSKCN1110BC I'm not sure what the first link is supposed to do. You still haven't responded to anything at all about the case in question and why it isn't as obviously racially motivated as it appears. In-person voter fraud is a dumb thing to try for the reasons I've already explained which you've just ignored. There are much more likely avenues for electoral fraud, and to pull off a coordinated effort of in-person voter fraud would be a massive undertaking. If you're going to try to attack something, you pick the easiest and most likely for success avenues, not the hardest and most complex. Voter fraud is detectable through various means, and it's really not a problem within the US. To the extent that it does happen, in-person is the form that's least susceptible to fraud. And you're still ignoring the rest of what the law did. That's not vote fraud. That's also an article about an election 16 years ago. Gerrymandering ensures that they'll be more Democrats elected than Republicans which I said several posts back. Even if given full control of the process, Republicans couldn't gerrymander Chicago enough to get Republican majorities out of the city because they're simply too overwhelmed in numbers. You can't turn 24% of the vote into a majority of elected offices.

I don't think anyone in the dem thread was "complaining" about that, just explaining to greg why Trump dominates the news. I'd definitely agree that Clinton's strategy has been to stand back while he's constantly lighting himself on fire.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 8, 2016 -> 01:19 PM) http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/electi...inton-or-trump/ Not to mention, Ive seen a lot of pollsters saying Johnson is pulling more votes away from Hillary anyway. I've seen that trend mentioned elsewhere, too, which is just a bit crazy. But then again, there's a couple of theories out there that could explain it. One is that somthing like 90% of people's votes are locked in months before the election, and that the polls are really just measuring enthusiasm/likelihood of voting. Think of the typical "convention bounce" as the dictionary definition of this effect, and think back to Clinton's big surge and Trump's plummet in the polls in August. Clinton put forth a steady performance from the DNC onward while Trump just kept shooting himself in the foot on a daily basis. Trump voters were less enthusiastic about even responding to polls while Clinton voters were more, so the polls reflected that. Trump has managed to stop shooting himself daily over the past two weeks, so we've seen some enthusiasm for him pick back up. It's not without it's critics, but it is one explanation. The other is that elections are mainly about political tribalism first and then personality, with actual policy a distant third. That could potentially explain how someone could move from Clinton to Johnson (or Sanders to Trump!) even though there's a giant chasm between their policies. Another thing to keep in mind is that 3rd party candidates pretty much always underperform their poll numbers because their supporters generally won't bother to vote or people on the fence will decide at the last minute to switch. This election's a little different given how disliked both main candidates are, so we'll see if that really holds out again.

Behind scenes, NBC execs concede Matt Lauer forum performance was "disaster"

I didn't watch that incredibly shrill video for more than a few seconds, so could you sum up what you don't like about Johnson on those issues you listed? Just curious.

Libertarian views on immigration are pretty far-ranging, though, from essentially paleoconservative "KICK THE IMMIGRANTS OUT!" crap like you'll see on InfoWars to advocating for the destruction of all national borders and the free movement of people rather than movement controlled by government. There's not "a" libertarian position there. While he was actually in office, Johnson's policies were pretty typical cut cut cut Republican policies on spending.

The NYT joins Johnson in completely flubbing on Aleppo.

The NAP is hilarious Paul Joseph Watson is an InfoWars nutjob fwiw. Here's a random libertarian response to that video.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Sep 8, 2016 -> 11:29 AM) You presented a leftist court ruling. My argument is that you can't say one way or the other and you and others have basically shown that with the links that you all provided. I provided a link to the court ruling. You're claiming it's "leftist" for reasons that are unexplained, but you haven't actually presented any sort of argument or rebuttal beyond "nuh uh!" You've continued to do that same thing here. I agree that trying to commit in-person voter fraud is about the dumbest thing ever, which is why it doesn't happen. Nah, it doesn't go like that because there are partisan poll watchers who would throw a fit (justifiably so) if someone was blatantly trying to double-vote. You're seriously underestimating the complications you'd face for in-person fraud and, more importantly, how difficult it'd be to have any sort of coordinated in-person fraud such that it would actually impact the election. No, it's straight-up true. States trying to play the "voter fraud" gambit regularly admit there's no actual evidence of in-person voter fraud in court. Just another reminder as well that the NC law in question was broader than just Voter ID. Nah, I cannot just agree to disagree over the reality that there are more Democrats in Chicago than Republicans. That's just basic facts unless you're coming from an alternate reality. 74% of people in Chicago are registered Democrats.

brutal

You might be able to get a replacement card, but my guess is you're SOL on the sticker and you'll get charged again. They'd have no real way of knowing if you just stuck that sticker on another car and claimed to have lost it.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Sep 8, 2016 -> 07:48 AM) You are interpeting the evidence to fit your narrative. I'm saying you don't have enough. Way to partisan things. I'm relying on a unanimous court panel interpreting things. And really, it's not even that much of an "interpretation" as it is just stating what the NC legislature explicitly did. You're not actually saying much of anything at all, which is sort of the point. You haven't presented an argument beyond "nuh uh!" Well, like lostfan said, try it and see how far you get. You simply don't know what you're talking about. Second time through you produce an ID? Great, you also get the police called and you get charged with voting fraud for doing it the first time through. And you still need to know who all of these extra people on the voting roles are and what precinct they're registered at. This isn't something that actually happens in reality despite how easy you seem to think it is. Illinois is gerrymandered by Democrats, yes. Chicago is Democratic because it's mostly democrats that live there and vote. Those are two separate things. Even if redistricting reform passes in this state and the boundaries are drawn by a nonpartisan commission like Iowa does, Chicago will still be democratic.

Oh and here's Colin Powell telling Clinton how to set up her own private server, just like he did. https://mobile.twitter.com/mviser/status/773671095014596608 Edit: both of them were wrong to do it to avoid foia stuff, but Powell was actually even more deceptive about it. Weird how he hasn't faced multiple Congressional investigations and an FBI investigation over it, though.

Reinces "you outta smile more honey" tweet about Clinton is pretty cringe worthy as well

I don't know how anyone could watch something like trump's performance tonight and think "yes, this man should be president of the United States."

QUOTE (brett05 @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 01:23 PM) I did. Of a completely liberal court. No surprises really. You don't seem to have any sort of argument here other than calling anything you don't like liberal. Do you disagree with the bare facts that the court laid out? Why? What evidence do you have to the contrary? Why is it "bold" to call what the NC legislature did racially motivated/targeted? QUOTE (brett05 @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 01:25 PM) Just because certain rules can be broken doesn't mean I want to. If you don't think anyone could just do this either the three polling places I've been a part of are an anomaly or you aren't too observant of polling places. It can't happen and doesn't. You'd need to be registered at that particular place, you'd need to know their names, you'd need to not have already been there and be recognized by the election judges and poll watchers, and you'd need to match the signature on the voter registration roles. There are other paths to voter fraud that are substantially easier than in-person individual voter fraud. Stuffing ballot boxes, exploiting absentee or mail-in voting, "losing" ballots from certain precincts, tampering with electronic voting machines, etc. Those are all also rare in this country, but they're much more practical avenues of voting fraud than a large-scale in-person fraud that would require a substantial number of people and coordination to be large enough to effect most races. QUOTE (brett05 @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 01:26 PM) Literally the defense on why Chicago is democratic. Not really? Chicago is democratic because a bunch of democrats live there, not because of voter ID laws or lack thereof.