[rtpoe]

The death spiral continues.

Another shakeup in the Drumpf campaign, and now it's Breitbart News chairman Stephen Bannon as its new head.

"Trump's campaign has now entered the Hospice phase. He knows it's dying and he wants to surround himself with his loved ones." - Radio host Charlie Sykes

"So now it's official that Breitbart is a mouthpiece of the Trump campaign." - Peter Sterne, Politico

It's time to start keeping an eye on the record for lowest percentage of the popular vote received in a presidential election by a major candidate.... Barry Goldwater in 1964 and Alf Landon in 1936 each gathered about 38% Drumpf should give them a run for their money.

[Ninjaturtle]

According to fivethirtyeight Turnip has an 11% chance of winning at the moment.

[StrikezOne]

So The Don gave a speech where he expressed regret over some of the things he has said, the way he has said them.

"Sometimes, in the heat of debate and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don't choose the right words or you say the wrong thing," Trump said. "I have done that. And believe it or not, I regret it. And I do regret it, particularly where it may have caused personal pain. Too much is at stake for us to be consumed with these issues."

Do the people buy it? Is it genuine? Who the F knows right? The "Never Trump" train certainly ain't buying that crap.

Looking at the opponent, Hillary has stated that she believes she's never lied before. She "always tries to tell the truth."
You can watch her say that here.

Hmm. So Hillary never lies and never says anything to "get votes." And Trump might be too honest but also he says and does things to just "get votes"? I am confusing myself. 

Also this week, Trump decided to go to Louisiana and lend a hand to the victims of the recent floods.

Now this is pretty simple in terms of how people view this. The Never Trumpers will say its for publicity, he wants to look like he's for the people but he's really not, etc. And the Trump supporters will say its very "Presidential" of him to help and question why the hell hasn't Hillary gone, etc. (or the current President Obama, who is on vacation playing golf.) The subjectivity is clear with pretty much everything Trump does/says.

Come to think about it, why hasn't Obama helped those victims? Is the governors excuse for Obama legit? Hmmm..

"When your city is French in origin, and your Mayor and Governor are Democrats, and those most affected by this natural disaster are Black, don't expect much help from Obama"?

[TheZookie007]

Anthony Weiner...the dude just never learns. Jeez.

NY Times: "Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin to Separate After His Latest Sexting Scandal"

Hillary Clinton’s closest aide, Huma Abedin, said Monday that she intended to separate from her husband, Anthony D. Weiner, the former congressman and New York City mayoral candidate, after it was reported that Mr. Weiner had exchanged suggestive images and messages with a woman while the couple’s [son] was beside him.

The separation was announced after Mr. Weiner’s online exchanges with women had been a source of tension within Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign. Mr. Weiner resigned from Congress in 2011 after revelations that he had sent lewd images of himself to women on social media. The couple’s marital problems worsened after the release in May of a documentary about the scandal that engulfed Mr. Weiner’s campaign for mayor in 2013.

Ms. Abedin released a statement on Monday after the New York Post reported that Mr. Weiner had traded sexual messages with an unidentified woman last year while their [son] appeared to be asleep beside him.

“After long and painful consideration and work on my marriage, I have made the decision to separate from my husband,” she said in the statement. “Anthony and I remain devoted to doing what is best for our son, who is the light of our life. During this difficult time, I ask for respect for our privacy.”

Ms. Abedin only learned on Sunday that Mr. Weiner had sent a photo of himself and their son to the unidentified woman, according to two people close to the couple who spoke on condition of anonymity to reveal private conversations. After the Post contacted him on Sunday about the coming story, Mr. Weiner told Ms. Abedin about the photo, as well as other details about his latest online indiscretions, while they were both in the Hamptons with their son.

According to the New York Post, this is the woman who he sent the texts to.

[TheZookie007]

A long piece which I quoted in full because of the references.



American News X: "WHY ARE YOU CONVINCED HILLARY IS A CRIMINAL?", by  Charlie Barrel

“I DON’T CARE WHAT FACTS I READ, HILLARY IS A CROOK AND NOTHING WILL CHANGE MY MIND.”

For many readers, “Hillary Clinton” and “criminal” have become so synonymous that whenever we suggest otherwise, they flood us with laundry lists of crimes for which that they are 100% convinced she is guilty.  These include:

1. She engaged in massive corruption and fraud in Whitewater.  FALSE.
2. She is a murderer.  She offed Vince Foster by making it look like a suicide (FALSE), and killed Ron Brown and 34 others by causing his plane crash (FALSE). 
3. She uses the Clinton Foundation to launder money.  FALSE.
4. Benghazi: She intentionally lying about the Benghazi attacks as they unfolded (FALSE).  She personally refused to provide enough security (FALSE).  She murdered the four Americans who died during the attack (FALSE).
5. E-mails: The FBI found her guilty of breaking the law by using a private email server as Secretary of State (FALSE).  She deleted 30,000 top-secret emails (FALSE).  She leaked secret documents to foreign agents (this one is so FALSE it doesn’t even show up on Fox News!).
6. She caused Capt. Humayun Khan’s death.  FALSE.

In addition, people continually rattle off she is “crooked” behavior, such as:

1. She was fired from the House Judiciary Committee’s Watergate investigation for lying.  FALSE.
2. She begged to defend a **09** rapist, got him acquitted, and laughed about it.  FALSE.
3. She tried to discredited the woman who claimed to have had affairs with her husband.  PARTLY TRUE.
4. She created ISIS.  FALSE.
5. She set up the talks to give Iran $400 million.  FALSE.
6. She rigged the debate schedule.  FALSE.
7. She committed voter and election fraud.  FALSE.
8. She will raise taxes on the middle class.  FALSE.
9. She will destroy the environment.  FALSE.
10. She wants to abolish the 2nd amendment.  FALSE.

There are a lot more accusations out there, these were the ones that people bring up the most with us (see it for yourself here and here).


The fact that so many readers are unshakably convinced of her guilt is not even the most troubling part in all this!  They insist that she has expertly hid all the evidence to every single one of those crimes, and that she has had all the right people in her pocket or on her payroll all this time, so that she is never, ever indicted.

If this is true, then Hillary Clinton is the greatest criminal mastermind in the history of the known universe.  Heck, even Lex Luthor, Lord Voldemort, and James Moriarty couldn’t hold a candle to her. 

What Would Sherlock Holmes Do?
So stop for a minute, and consider, is Hillary really this larger-than-life super-villain, or should we apply Occam’s Razor and ask if there is a simpler solution?  Dig a little deeper in all the claims and accusations listed above, and you will find that they almost all originated with, or were resurrected by, Donald Trump and his campaign*.

As of Aug 6, 2016, PolitiFact has rated 70% of 214 Trump statements as lies.  He added 7 lies in the past 2 weeks alone.  With 40 pants-on-fire statements, he has told more bald-faced lies than anyone in their database of more than 3,400 people and groups.  On the other hand, Clinton and her running mate Tim Kaine are in the top ten most honest people.  Isn’t it highly suspect that the people shouting the loudest that she is a crooked criminal mastermind are the people who are the most dishonest in all of current American politics?

Character assassination and deception is an unfortunate but inescapable part of our political process.  I have a good friend of many years with whom I spoke about politics for the first time the other day.  She was visibly enraged by Bernie Sanders’ candidacy, because she said he was a communist who wanted to take away everybody’s money and give a free Lexus to every kid who graduated college.  Now you could roll your eyes and say “well you two are just idiots,” but you’ll have to take my word that we aren’t.  She’s done well for herself as a hard-working business owner, and that was the message that resonated with her fears.  That’s what political marketing is all about.  And let’s face it, Donald Trump is the king of marketing (how else could he keep himself solvent through all his business failures?).  Or shall we now call it “propaganda?”

The fact is, Hillary Clinton is only guilty in the court of public opinion.

America, What Are We Doing??
Our entire legal system guarantees each citizen is INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY in a COURT OF LAW.  The 6th Amendment states “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and PUBLIC TRIAL, by an IMPARTIAL JURY.”

Look, no matter how much you hate, loathe, despise, and abhor a person, they get the same legal protections as you. Because that’s what you would demand if the tables were turned.

So let’s cut the self-righteous crap. You don’t have all the facts, I don’t have all the facts, the media doesn’t have all the facts. You, and I, and everyone else except a judge and jury have no right to strip Hillary Clinton of her most basic rights and resort to this shameful vigilanteism. Because that’s what it is, plain and simple.




* For full disclosure, I am a registered Democrat but I identify as a Democratic Socialist.  I did not support Hillary Clinton nor Bernie Sanders in the primaries.  I believe Sanders can do more for our country if he takes a larger role in the Senate, and I preferred Martin O’Malley’s positions and statements to Clinton’s.  If John McCain hadn’t lost to Bush in the 2000 primaries, I probably would have voted for him over Al Gore.  I would have voted for George H. W. Bush against Dukakis had I been 18 in 1988.  I try very hard to follow the facts, call it as I see it, and am not a paid shill for Hillary Clinton.

[rtpoe]

In a similar vein to that piece, Matthew Yglesias has an essay over at Vox:

"Colin Powell’s foundation and Hillary Clinton’s are treated very differently by the media"

To summarize:

In 1997, Colin Powell launched a charitable foundation - America's Promise. Afterwards, he kept on being involved in politics, even being talked about as a presidential candidate. When he was named as Bush's Secretary of State, his wife Anna took over the running of the charity.

Ken Lay of Enron was a big donor to America's Promise. When Enron was having problems in India, the State Department got involved. AT&T is one of the biggest donors to America's Promise. Colin's son Michael Powell was chairman of the FCC - the government agency responsible for regulating telecom companies like AT&T - during much of the Bush administration.

In NEITHER case did people talk about a "conflict of interest" or even hint at the possibility of corruption. Why? The press always thought of Colin Powell as a "good guy". He was always presumed innocent.

Clinton, on the other hand, is Presumed Guilty.

The latest round of accusations of corruption?

1. The Associated Press found that she tried to help a Foundation donor who was being investigated by his home government. That donor was Nobel Laureate Muhammed Yunus, the internationally respected promoter of "microcredit", who was friends with the Clintons for decades.
2. A wealthy Lebanese-Nigerian businessman, with a questionable background, donated to the Foundation and then tried to talk to higher-ups in the State Dept. What happened? He wanted to offer his insights on the political situation in Lebanon, and was given the brush-off.
3. The Crown Prince of Bahrain donated to the Foundation, and then was able to meet with Clinton. Well, as the CROWN PRINCE OF A MIDDLE EASTERN NATION, he's the sort of person who'd get a meeting with the Secretary of State - donation or no donation. Just like he met with Secretaries of State Madeline Albright, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and Warren Christopher....
4. A donor to the Foundation used that connection to get a better seat at a State Dept. function..... AHA! CORRUPTION!! BRIBERY!!!!

"But once you “know” that a putative charity is really just a nexus of corruption, then even the failure to be swayed by contributions becomes a news story. And of course once your decision-making is put under that kind of scrutiny, your impulse is to shut down and try to keep information close to your chest. But when you “know” that a person is corrupt, her lack of transparency is further evidence of corruption. And any minor information that does slip out is defined as news, even if the information does not actually contain evidence of anything all that interesting.... To the extent that Clinton is an example of the routinized way in which economic elites exert disproportionate voice in the political process, that’s a story worth telling. But it’s a very different story from a one in which Clinton is a uniquely corrupt specimen operating with wildly unusual financial arrangements and substantive practices."

It also struck me the other day that we're not hearing any criticism AT ALL of Clinton's proposed policies.

Maybe everyone thinks they're pretty good?

[TheZookie007]

2. A wealthy Lebanese-Nigerian businessman, with a questionable background, donated to the Foundation and then tried to talk to higher-ups in the State Dept. What happened? He wanted to offer his insights on the political situation in Lebanon, and was given the brush-off.

To be fair, the businessman in question (Chagoury) really is a crook who used to pal around with Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha

It also struck me the other day that we're not hearing any criticism AT ALL of Clinton's proposed policies.

Maybe everyone thinks they're pretty good?

Two possible reasons for that: following the clown prince of politics around sucks all the air out of the room...or you can't compare her policies to his "policies" because he doesn't have much of a set of policies other than "I'm going to build a wall and the Mexicans are going to pay for it" and "Mooslems bad, get them out".

[StrikezOne]

Anthony Weiner...the dude just never learns. Jeez.

NY Times: "Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin to Separate After His Latest Sexting Scandal"

...

This is nonsense. This is just an "alt right" conspiracy. I blame Alex Jones and Breitbart.

A long piece which I quoted in full because of the references.

American News X: "WHY ARE YOU CONVINCED HILLARY IS A CRIMINAL?", by  Charlie Barrel
...

.4. She created ISIS.  FALSE.
...

This whole article is **113** worthy. It just goes to show you how subjective people are in what they choose to be a "fact"... I mean, at a first I couldn't tell if this was a joke! I was about to ask a Mod to move this post to the "Funny Politics" thread!

I mean, Politifact? Washington Post? HAHAHAHA....

Lets look at that "false" claim about Hillary and ISIS. Well, if we actually read the link in the article, it actually DOES say that Hillarys decisions played a huge role in the creation of ISIS. But then, near the end, they pretty much take a statement that Hillary, and her only, created ISIS which is not true. So they can easily scream FALSE. However, they do say she helped create it.... It is selective and oh my god, just horrible.

Please try again.

_________

Meanwhile, in non blowjob for Hillary news...

The Feds are attempting to take complete control over the elections.
Hmmm... I would say to them F*** off, these should stay local.

Also, who is most likely to sign the TPP?

[StrikezOne]

The Feds are attempting to take complete control over the elections.
Hmmm... I would say to them F*** off, these should stay local.

This story keeps getting more interesting...

"United States of America
Page: 12
General Elections, 8 November 2016
OSCE/ODIHR Needs Assessment Mission Report
Election observation by national stakeholders is expected to be widespread. The DoJ intends to deploy federal monitors to follow states’ compliance with federal legislation, including VRA and HAVA requirements. Political parties and civil society groups
are expected to mobilize several thousand lawyers and poll watchers, while a range of national and local media will also follow the polls closely.


All
OSCE/ODIHR NAM
interlocutors positively appraised the high levels of domestic scrutiny, noting that it
provides an important level of transparency and an effective means
to promote compliance with federal and state law.


IV.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The majority of OSCE/ODIHR NAM interlocutors expressed overall confidence in the election administration and their ability to conduct elections professionally and impartially. While some previous OSCE/ODIHR recommendations have been
addressed, most interlocutors stated that they would welcome a potential OSCE/ODIHR observation activity for these elections, recognising that an external assessment may contribute to further improvements to the electoral process. In particular, this
concerns the implementation of new state laws regarding voter registration and identification, changes to alternative voting methods, the reliability of NVT, the effectiveness of campaign finance rules, and the conduct of the electoral campaign, particularly in the media. Most OSCE/ODIHR NAM interlocutors underscored the professionalism of election administrators and also that the widespread deployment of civil society and party observers would contribute to transparency and oversight on election day.

On this basis, the OSCE/ODIHR NAM recommends the deployment of an Election Observation Mission (EOM) to observe the general elections. In addition to a core team of analysts, the mission recommends the secondment of 100 long -term observers from OSCE participating States to follow the electoral process countrywide, and 400 short-term observers to follow election day proceedings. In line with the OSCE/ODIHR’s standard methodology, the EOM would contain a media monitoring
element."

NOTE: Page 11
" Eight states and the District of Columbia explicitly permit international election observation, while most other states interpret their law in a way that allows access or delegates the decision to county officials."


U.N. involvement in our elections started in 2002 and only a few counties in Florida, like 4 or 5, had U.N. observers. Incrementalism . . . now look what is fixing to happen DHS monitors, 500 U.N. observers, plus analysts, plus a media monitoring group.

Link

[rtpoe]

You know what else is interesting?

August, 2013: Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi asks Trump for a donation to her re-election campaign.

Sept 13, 2013: Bondi announces that she's considering joining New York state's fraud investigation into Trump University.

Sept 17, 2013: Bondi's political action committee, "And Justice For All", reports receiving a $25,000 donation from the Trump Foundation. NOTE: This is illegal, 501(c)(3) charities like the Trump Foundation are prohibited from making donations to political campaigns.

October 15, 2013: Bondi decides not to join NY's investigation, saying her office had received only a single complaint about Trump U. However, the Florida AG office had received many other complaints before Bondi took over the office, and there were other complaints about "Trump Institute", a company so closely tied to Trump U. that NY lumped the two of them together in its own lawsuit.

March 21, 2016: International Business Times reports that a watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, asked the IRS to investigate the illegal donation. They noted that in the Trump Foundation's tax filings for 2013, there's a donation for $25,000 listed for an anti-abortion group called "Justice For All", and nothing for Bondi's PAC. Justice For All stated that they never got a donation from the Trump Foundation.
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/ethics-group-files-irs-complaint-against-donald-trumps-charitable-foundation

June 6, 2016: AP reports on the story - http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e16a8223c24048d290883370dc6abe5b/florida-ag-asked-trump-donation-nixing-fraud-case

June 7, 2016: CBS This Morning reports on the story - http://mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2016/09/06/49152/cbs-tm-20160716-bondi

Sept 1, 2016: The Washington Post reports that Trump paid a $2,500 fine to the IRS for the illegal donation. The Trump Foundation called the donation "an honest mistake."

Meanwhile, Clinton has a coughing fit.........

[StrikezOne]

Meanwhile, Clinton has a coughing fit.........

It wasnt the first and it sure as hell wont be the last.

Here is that fit she had in Cleveland for a few minutes. She tries to play it off and say Trump gives her an allergic reaction. Laughable.



But do not believe your eyes folks. Everything is fine.
Even those looney doctors who are questioning her health should be ignored.
Everything is fine.
Its not like the sister network of CNN, HLN, will cancel Dr. Drews show for questioning Hillarys health.
Just smoke and mirrors folks. SHE IS PERFECTLY FINE! SHE CAN EVEN OPEN A JAR OF PICKLES! WOW!

You know what else is interesting?

(Trump Foundation "scandal.")

Bringing up a Trump Foundation scandal knowing what the Clinton Foundation has done... Hmmm...

Its easy enough to post links to ONE of the MANY of the Clinton Foundation scandals in a timeline as you presented. Try to convince the reader of wrongdoing by "connecting the dots." But of course, the subjectivity will come out and not want to do that with the Clintons. That will just be conspiracy, and this Trump Foundation scandal is.. "interesting."

[StrikezOne]

Meanwhile, Clinton has a coughing fit.........

Yeah, not looking good. In the video, you can also see this.


Kind of explains why during the "press conference" she had in that plane when she starts coughing, someone hands her a bottle water and she wants a glass of water instead. Not looking good for the Hillster.

[Ninjaturtle]

Yeah it's crazy. It's almost like talking makes her throat dry!

[TheZookie007]

Yeah it's crazy. It's almost like talking makes her throat dry!

Well obviously she's a reptilian underneath that human pantsuit she keeps on wearing. I heard about it from a guy who gets his "news" exclusively from Breitbart and Stormfront.

Meanwhile, in actually-important news:

Crooks and Liars: "Rep. Cummings Releases Colin Powell's Email Telling Clinton How To Duck FOIA"

and in unsurprising news:

"Matt Lauer Got Forum Hosting Gig Because Donald Trump Is Afraid Of Rachel Maddow"

Rachel Maddow was not allowed to participate in NBC’s candidate forum on veterans’ issues because Donald Trump would have objected to her involvement.

CNN reported on why NBC and MSNBC heavyweights were shunned for Lauer:

Others within NBC were considered as potential moderators. A source said Chuck Todd, Andrea Mitchell, and Rachel Maddow all came up during the process.

Lack went with Lauer, and both campaigns supported the choice. (The Trump campaign almost certainly would have objected to Maddow as moderator.)

The time constraints — less than 30 minutes apiece with Trump and Clinton — were largely the fault of the candidates themselves, who resisted longer interviews.

Any of the other possibilities would have done a better job than Matt Lauer, but the person who was both most qualified and most deserving of the opportunity was Rachel Maddow. The MSNBC host literally wrote a book “Drift” that was focused on the unmooring of American military power.

[TheZookie007]

Eyeballs will be popping out of heads from El Paso to Corpus Christi, as they read the editorial page of the Dallas Morning News:

"We recommend Hillary Clinton for president"

There is only one serious candidate on the presidential ballot in November. We recommend Hillary Clinton.

We don't come to this decision easily. This newspaper has not recommended a Democrat for the nation's highest office since before World War II — if you're counting, that's more than 75 years and nearly 20 elections. The party's over-reliance on government and regulation to remedy the country's ills is at odds with our belief in private-sector ingenuity and innovation. Our values are more about individual liberty, free markets and a strong national defense.

We've been critical of Clinton's handling of certain issues in the past. But unlike Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton has experience in actual governance, a record of service and a willingness to delve into real policy.

Resume vs. resume, judgment vs. judgment, this election is no contest. 

In Clinton's eight years in the U.S. Senate, she displayed reach and influence in foreign affairs. Though conservatives like to paint her as nakedly partisan, on Capitol Hill she gained respect from Republicans for working across the aisle: Two-thirds of her bills had GOP co-sponsors and included common ground with some of Congress' most conservative lawmakers.

As President Barack Obama's first secretary of state, she helped make tough calls on the Middle East and the complex struggle against radical Islamic terrorism. It's no accident that hundreds of Republican foreign policy hands back Clinton. She also has the support of dozens of top advisers from previous Republican administrations, including Henry Paulson, John Negroponte, Richard Armitage and Brent Scowcroft. Also on this list is Jim Glassman, the founding executive director of the George W. Bush Institute in Dallas.

Clinton has remained dogged by questions about her honesty, her willingness to shade the truth. Her use of a private email server while secretary of state is a clear example of poor judgment. She should take additional steps to divorce allegations of influence peddling from the Clinton Foundation. And she must be more forthright with the public by holding news conferences, as opposed to relying on a shield of carefully scripted appearances and speeches.

Those are real shortcomings. But they pale in comparison to the litany of evils some opponents accuse her of. Treason? Murder? Her being cleared of crimes by investigation after investigation has no effect on these political hyenas; they refuse to see anything but conspiracies and cover-ups.

We reject the politics of personal destruction. Clinton has made mistakes and displayed bad judgment, but her errors are plainly in a different universe than her opponent's.

Trump's values are hostile to conservatism. He plays on fear — exploiting base instincts of xenophobia, racism and misogyny — to bring out the worst in all of us, rather than the best. His serial shifts on fundamental issues reveal an astounding absence of preparedness. And his improvisational insults and midnight tweets exhibit a dangerous lack of judgment and impulse control.

After nearly four decades in the public spotlight, 25 of them on the national stage, Clinton is a known quantity. For all her warts, she is the candidate more likely to keep our nation safe, to protect American ideals and to work across the aisle to uphold the vital domestic institutions that rely on a competent, experienced president.

Hillary Clinton has spent years in the trenches doing the hard work needed to prepare herself to lead our nation. In this race, at this time, she deserves your vote.