"Don't Boo, Vote" - Final Weekend (POTUS Election)

[Chase]

Well. The one thing Donald Trump needed to happen - regardless of the outcome - happened.

Two weeks ago, I was talking about how Democrats were hoping to potentially flip Texas of all states due to a Trump meltdown focused on disputing election results.

Now, Hillary Clinton has managed to fall back into the margin-of-error in several state and national polls courtesy of a waffling James Comey, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI Director informed the nation publicly that he was re-opening Hillary's e-mail investigation 9 days ago (and a mere 11 before Election Day), sending the Trump crowd in hysterics, ticking off Team Hillary, and doing some pretty significant damage to the margin of projected victory Hillary might have among independent voters and Republican women. The most damning fact found in the nine day speed investigation isn't the fact that there still wasn't anything to officially "condemn" Hillary, but that this was connected to disgraced Democrat ex-pol Anthony Weiner.

Man... Huma Abedin, my friend. Please. Get a better taste in men. Please.

• Hard-righties will assert that Comey "for sure" struck gold even though the case is again closed in favor of Mrs. Clinton. They may also agree that there is nothing - because the FBI is controlled by the Obama Administration and nobody is going to do anything to Hillary - because #rigged
• Hard-lefties will assert that Hillary is being completely hunted down by the right and that Comey is somehow in the tank for TRUMP - despite the fact that Republicans got first-rites to that accusation the other way.
• The folks in the middle are just kinda left to decide from themselves - there's reason to be found for making a decision about the revelation (prior to today, anyway! She's supposedly clean. Still!) If the FBI Director was going to re-open a case this close to Election Day, it's very possible SOMETHING triggered something in Quantico that would be a reason to raise the alarm. On the other hand, maybe not making a decision at all is the best (for sure now) until Election Day because the FBI only said they would do more investigation.

The results of this wild goose chase however, don't concern Team Trump. Donald's henchmen just needed something to clear their candidate's name from the negative spotlight after an "Access Hollywood" clip surfaced. This changed the trajectory of the race and all of a sudden, Trump is back within striking distance and nothing is certain like it was.

For a concrete statistic?...well, Let's suppose Hillary is still on track to win the election...by 3 percentage points. She was up to as many as 10 or 11 before this unwanted FBI redux.

Now that we are again "settled" - the bad news is Hillary won't get those nine days of bad press during Early Voting back. She was reportedly doing fine, making up for lost enthusiasm with the African American base with Hispanics (for obvious reasons) - but it's all about courting the largest group of undecideds in recent elections - and these last nine days certainly didn't help get anyone under the tent.

Trump on the other hand, has done well to stay behaved and surprisingly hasn't taken any more "L"s from the media corps - which has contributed to his steady pursuit. That being said, outside news outlets are now reporting that Trump may have been in the business of sexually assaulting a 13 year old girl. With the Clinton fiasco under wraps, does that get brought to light before November 8th? What may prevent that is that the woman has chosen to remain anonymous, making it white noise against the other accusations of assault flying around.

---

Senate races are going down to the wire, and Hillary's re-opened investigation all of a sudden gave Republicans time to re-evaluate Trump with a chance to rally in their own races. As of right now, I would say this year's Senate races are important, given how the current Senate has been a major roadblock to Obama filling the Supreme Court this last year.

If Democrats flip the Senate, Hillary has two options. She can follow President Obama and continue to pitch Merrick Garland, knowing that his approval in the Senate would be assured -OR- she can pull Garland in favor for a much more liberal justice as punishment for Republicans stalling her predecessor instead of taking the much more acceptable option politically for the GOP.

If Republicans hang on though - it's very possible a President Hillary gets stalled as Obama was until the mid-term election, where ....Republicans retain the Senate again, leaving the Supreme Court 4-4 and split down the middle during the entirety of Clinton's first term. This is because Republicans are up for re-election in more seats during major election years (like this one), but Democrats suffer that curse in mid-term elections.

If Trump wins the White House, a Democratic Senate could make his Supreme Court nominees hit the proverbial bench over the real one in the same way Republicans have done to justice Garland. Republican Senate however basically ensures the Court returns to 5 conservatives to 4 liberals.

The difference though, is that chances are higher for Republicans to flip the Senate back in their favor in 2018 than Democrats are of retaining a Democratic Senate come mid-term elections.

---

That's about all I have for this broadcast so far. I'd love to hear everyone's opinions on the matter peacefully if you all can manage, but here I'd employ the "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything" caveat. Remember those eligible to vote

Vote your conscience. Do you what you feel is the right thing to do. I'll respect you no matter what.

Also, don't let fear be the deciding factor for your vote. If you like dares.

[Swimming95]

The investigation wasn't reopened. If you check his original letter, there was no mention of it being reopened. It was still a really stupid thing to do with so little information regarding the "new" emails were. In the end, it was found that they were pretty much all duplicates and that not surprisingly there was still no reason for indictment. They made an announcement to that end today.

There's also a big confounding factor with the polls tightening. If you look at the cross tabs, it's very little movement away from Clinton and mostly just third party hold outs going back to their candidate. This happens every 4 years. The FBI announcement did cause a small drop for a day or two but then picked back up to normal levels.

Also, I still maintain my vote against Donald. I have no interest in supporting bigotry. It deserves to be stomped out and for the score to be run up against him.

[Deleted User]

[AuthorReborn]

TBH, even if you don't particularly want either of the main presidential candidates, I would still encourage you to go vote. If you don't have anyone you agree with, write in your own name if you want. But you really should go to the polling stations to vote in local and state elections, because even if you hate the president, regardless of who it turns out to be, there are far more names and positions on that ballot than Hillary or Trump. Local and state elections will also have an important role on your life as a resident of that state or county and due to the nature of things, your vote will count for more in the local and state elections than it does in the presidential election. Other things being voted on at the polling stations come Tuesday include resolutions, such as the legality of medical marijuana or tax increases to pay for different services. Even if you are completely disillusioned about the presidential race, I urge you to please still go and vote on the other important choices on the ballot.

[Chase]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/fbi-reviewing-new-emails-in-clinton-probe-director-tells-senate-judiciary-committee/

More specifically, the image found in this "Clinton News Network" (I use this term loosely, as I feel CNN is actually quite fair in comparison to things like the Guardian, NSNBC, and even Fox as a conservative.) article is important to understand where Comey was coming from. There seems to be a clear willingness to be completely transparent and not bend anything as it's found and reviewed.

There also is enough there to suggest that the Federal Bureau of Investigation -DID- re-open the investigation due to the "new" information that was found on the device confiscated in the Weiner investigation.

The recipients of -this- letter were Comey's colleges at the FBI.

Pure "witch hunt" or worthy investigation in one's mind - I do believe that this shouldn't have been so much of a political event as it was. As a Republican that personally has trouble buying Clinton's record as one that makes her appropriate to be President, and as much as I do believe this was a fair investigation - it had no business being re-opened in the public square after Clinton was given the all clear last summer. Especially if there was still nothing there.

That just resulted in a week and a half wasted on being - FINALLY - on the issues. For both candidates. I do believe that if Weiner's computer had that kind of information that there should have been a "private" looking into it and the Director should only be re-appearing if the verdict is to change, for what it's worth.

[The Swordsman]

I'll probably be hated for this, but I have decided to vote for Trump.

[Swimming95]

I'm sorry you decided to support bigotry, ignorance and a lack of understanding about pretty much any issue.

[Chase]

You know what, Swordsman?

Cheers, man. Way to use your duty as a citizen in the way you saw best.

---

Squirtle, you're better than that man. My opening post said something along the lines of "if you don't have anything nice to say, then politely keep your friggin' mouth shut.

You want to prevent Voter Intimidation from Republicans? Maybe you shouldn't treat them like you just treated them. I understand the mantra of "Actions speak louder than words" - but people's votes are their own business - and they don't need their peers providing color commentary and associating the voter to the candidate's tendencies.

You know what's ironic about Trump? The biggest examples of his "bigotry" tend to be on issues he knows a surprising deal about.

For example, he has spoken pretty harshly about Latinos - as Mexico is the source of declining American business due to offering cheaper operation costs and less regulations than the United States. America truly is losing plants to Mexico - even if Trump isn't totally honest about it or if he insults people due to having Mexican heritage or Latino features. The issue that got him involved in this race - Immigration - is something he's been very much truthful about.

That being that illegal Immigration - undeniably - is a serious problem.

Muslims? Yeah, he's overreached here too - but terrorism has an undeniable connection to radical sects of Islam, and is arguably inspired by the scriptures involved with Islam. The reason ISIS does what it does is because it's apart of radical Islamic doctrine.

In other words, the root of the problem is - at the very least - in the ballpark with Islam, and it would do Muslims a world of good to identify and actively prevent radicalization to clear their names.

Women? Trump has been - on good days - the largest advocate of NON-abortion operations from Planned Parenthood out of any past Republican nominee. Yeah, he's pro-life these days, but he has no intention of robbing women access to the things they may need outside of abortion by razing Planned Parenthood to the ground in all 50 states.

Those three groups are the largest areas of concern with documented bigotry. He's been supportive of helping African Americans and reaches out to them daily (although most blacks believe Clinton is much better for them.) He's the most progressive Republican candidate when it comes to the rights of LGBTQ citizens (Peter Thiel spoke at the Republican National Convention, and Caitlyn Jenner was invited to use the ladies' room at Trump Tower during the HB2 North Carolina fiasco. (although again, Democrats will assert that Trump hates every human being and thus their horse is better for backing.)

I don't care if you vote for Hillary because you feel she's the better option, but Hillary isn't the best option for every person. About half of the United States is going to support Trump for their own reasons, and many of them will be fairly informed about their candidate.

I don't want to hear any lectures about the importance of tolerance from people who clearly make exceptions.

[HughJ]

I'm sorry you decided to support bigotry, ignorance and a lack of understanding about pretty much any issue.

Oversimplification and hypocrisy is all the rage these days

I better hop on the bandwagon

Everyone who likes Froot Loops is a criminal. See me in the streets

[Swimming95]

About Thiel, I am sure there were Jews who supported Hitler. As far as the rest of your comment goes, I am sorry you are so incorrect about most of those issues or Trump's position and rhetoric on those issues.

I am fine drawing the line at being intolerant of intolerance without being intolerant of intolerance of intolerance.

I would also like to note that I am not calling The Swordsman those things but the candidate he is voting for.

[The Swordsman]

Thank you, Chase and Hughj.

Turtlecat95, you have no idea why I support Trump, its not right to judge people on flawed assumptions. (that I support the things Trump "supports") Hilary has been outright hostile to what I believe (I am a Christian) and my stance on the issues. (and no those issues I'm talking about aren't anti LGBT but about abortion, voluntary prayer, education vouchers, Income Tax, Death Tax, judges with a strict interpretation of the Constitution, the right to bear arms and supporting Israel)

Edited November 8, 2016 by The Swordsman

[Hiss13]

Swordsman, if that's the decision that you came to after your own deliberation, then go ahead. You do not have to feel shame for that no matter how much someone else may try and shame you for it.

I am fine drawing the line at being intolerant of intolerance without being intolerant of intolerance of intolerance.

I would also like to note that I am not calling The Swordsman those things but the candidate he is voting for.

You are saying he supports that stuff you are intolerant of. Frankly, what you said reeks of "no bad methods, only bad targets."

[Swimming95]

? I am saying that I am intolerant of being:

racist,

xenophobic,

sexist,

islamophobic,

homophobic,

or really generally bigoted

Especially as a campaign platform.

I am sorry then, I misspoke. You are supporting a candidate who supports those things. Not that you directly support those things.

[HughJ]

As far as the rest of your comment goes, I am sorry you are so incorrect about most of those issues or Trump's position and rhetoric on those issues.

This mommy-knows-best attitude is what's killing the conservative minority

I would also like to note that I am not calling The Swordsman those things but the candidate he is voting for.

What you're doing is libel

You just said The Swordsman decided to vote for bigotry, ignorance, and a lack of understanding

Again with this attitude that you think you know what's going through the mind of all Trump supporters

This isn't Pacific Rim, the entire Trump candidacy isn't supported by some hivemind, it's individuals making a choice because of their own life story

Edited November 8, 2016 by HughJ

[Chase]

No problem, Swordsman. Do what you gotta do and don't let anyone give you a hard time about it.

---

I remember when Reborn was a place for such ridiculous ideas such as "free thinking" and "engaging discourse." Now it's just "I'm sorry, you're wrong, and I'm going to be intolerant and preach about tolerance while being intolerant. I don't are if you have a self-righteous reason, but you'd better reserve it for appropriate times.

Being tolerant of everything is naive and will only lead to you getting taken advantage of. That doesn't mean however, we can make smart-ass comments about people's decisions.

[Swimming95]

You are right, I was too harsh on The Swordsman. My comment should have been strictly about Donald and I'm sorry it came out differently.

[HughJ]

I remember when Reborn was a place for such ridiculous ideas such as "free thinking" and "engaging discourse." Now it's just "I'm sorry, you're wrong, and I'm going to be intolerant and preach about tolerance while being intolerant. I don't are if you have a self-righteous reason, but you'd better reserve it for appropriate times.

Being tolerant of everything is naive and will only lead to you getting taken advantage of. That doesn't mean however, we can make smart-ass comments about people's decisions.

Whoa this is getting a little heated

I understand you want to help out the guy who got blindsided by the anti-Trump train but let's not go jamais vu on "tolerance" and give people's opinion's vague classifications like "smart-ass"

No amount of discussion is going to swing anyone's opinion at this point, so tonight will be just as much of an online shouting match as every other night

The best we can do is to see if people are actually secure in their convictions from a logical standpoint

[Swimming95]

Definitely agree on that second part. Can't wait for tomorrow to be here and done.

[Chase]

I'm going to wait - kindly - for where I'm wrong.

That video with Jenner using the ladies' room at Trump Tower is out there. If Donald Trump really hates LGBTQ people and has talked about them negatively, where's the proof, friend? It's not that Thiel is supporting Hitler (Leave it to the left to enact Godwin's Law as quickly as the FIRST page...) - it's that Trump cared enough about Thiel's message of "I'm proud to be gay, and I'm proud to be a Republican" to allow it on his coronation stage at the convention.

It even earned boos from the North Carolina delegation because of how progressive it was. I'm sure you didn't watch of course. Maybe highlights of Melania's speech because it was similar to Michelle's.

How is illegal immigration not a problem? How are American businesses not leaving for other countries because of regulations?

If you're going to tell me I am incorrect, it's just good business to show me why. Not pull out a broom, blindside someone because of their actions, and be holier-than-thou without any reasoning.

[Swimming95]

Then why is he campaigning on getting rid of marriage equality? He has also made comments and campaign promises against Trans rights. And I definitely did watch both conventions as well as Thiel's recent "attempt" at making a speech supporting Donald. Trump has waffled on LGBTQ rights throughout his campaign so I recognize it can be hard to pin down a certain view for him. At least as of current date he has promised to have us return to traditional marriage. At least for other parts, he has either come out against or has wanted to leave it up to the states. That did not work well for segregation and is honestly unacceptable to try and pass off as being pro-LGBTQ especially compared with candidates who are actually being pro-LGBTQ this election. In addition, his party platform is insanely anti-LGBTQ. Surprisingly, most nominees for various forms of office do try to enact what they run on. For the women part, I think you might be underestimating how important it is to provide abortion related services or how big of a part of planned-parenthood it is.

Illegal immigration as a term generally refers to outside people coming into this country illegally. As an issue, its usually referring to non-white immigrants primarily from Mexico or other South/Central American countries. I know you know that but mostly wanted to disentangle it from the other half of that comment part. The problem as Donald puts it does not exist. The way that a good amount illegal immigrants enter the country is not through the border but by overstaying visas. It is also a false statistic that they are more violent or are rapists. We do also already deport people who are here illegally. At least as of recently, we are also actually having more people emmigrate to Mexico. I also don't want to touch his proposed methods of determining if an immigrant is "good" or not.

For the second part, I want to disentangle it further. The first part is that unless we go full protectionist and cut ourselves off from the rest of the world, it is not fully possible to prevent businesses from staying or leaving. At least as a concept, open trade has been proven to be net positive. In addition, many of the jobs that have left were jobs that were also being automated away. While its a shame that people are unemployed due to mining businesses leaving, there is a lot of nuance left out of that statement. At least in the example of coal, that is a power source that we needed to transition away from regardless. Those jobs were going to be gone for good anyways. It is much better for the country to invest that manpower and knowledge into other sectors. It is a lot more of a movement of types of jobs than a strict loss of jobs.

You didn't mention it in that last comment there but: there is a problem with your comments regarding the radicalized terrorism. Ignoring that all forms of religion have their radicalized sects for a moment, it seems that the problem is much more an Anti-West sentiment than a religious one. It is absolutely being expressed through Islam but it is not necessarily a problem with Islam if that makes sense. It is a hijacking of the muslim faith in order to commit acts of terror.

Also to add to here regarding the rest of The Swordsman's reasons... I hope you realize that unless you are really upper class, death taxes won't really apply and your income tax will actually would go up more under Donald's plan. At least that's under his current plan. The judges with a strict reading of the constitution I think I've only ever heard in the context of trying to remove people's rights. With the last two, I think you might not be fully aware then of the candidates positions considering that they are both supportive of Israel and second amendment rights.

At least those are my initial comments on some of these issues.

[Eviora]

I think we can probably all agree that torturous murder for fun is unacceptable. That establishes the precedent that there are some things bad enough to be worth not tolerating. The question is whether or not one is too morally bankrupt to tell the difference.

Am I intolerant of people who take actions that hurt me knowing full well what they're doing? Yes, I am, and I'm not sorry for that. The disdain you'll get from me for doing such a thing is earned. You can try to pretend that you didn't do anything wrong, but I will not humor you. Own the consequences of your actions.

[Strider]

Don't mind me, I'm just going to (hopefully) lighten the mood a bit: https://mathwithbaddrawings.com/2016/11/02/mathematical-alternatives-to-the-electoral-college/

[Chase]

I think it's a little unfair to assume Trump's public waffling indicates that he is 100% behind the things he says, as Hillary Clinton told Wall Streeters during a speech - You need to have a public opinion and a private one behind the scenes.

When it comes to Campaign Trump, I'll give you that he's waffled quite a bit on (most) issues, women's issues in particular. I've honestly not seen Trump campaign AGAINST LGBTQ people this election cycle, so I'll have to look it up, but what I -HAVE- seen is the most progressive Republican nominee in that area in both categories - at times. Because Trump's voter base consists of Republicans who are more conservative than he actually is, waffling was needed to bolster his standing in the party's primary to start with, and it was needed to maintain Republican support throughout the campaign. It may be -EXACTLY- because there are other pro-LGBTQ candidates on the ballot that Trump is possibly courting rhetoric more consistent with the Republican platform (Evangelicals are not getting represented in this election at all otherwise.)

That doesn't mean Trump is going to be immediately held accountable to do what he said he would do. We're still fighting in the Middle East, and that was one of Obama's chief promises on the trail in '08 - to get the heck out. No president on either side of the aisle has a perfect record in filling campaign promises - and it takes a long time for some of those promises to take fruition. Just look at Obamacare covering every American to understand that much.

In part, I understand where you're coming from with regards to Anti-West sentiment, but that's not the only driving factor for the atrocities being committed. You would need to have understanding of how one -should- interpret the Quran according to understand why the radicalized terrorists are doing so in the manner they are as much as you can pin it on directional differences. This was never me saying one shouldn't be a Muslim because it means you're automatically a terrorist, but it is me saying that Muslims should do more to clear their names in general to help clear the misconception people have about adherents of Allah as a whole. Jihad -is- based in Islamic doctrine. Theocracy -is- based in Islamic doctrine. And supposedly, the only way to interpret the Qu'ran correctly is to do so mostly literally. Doing so however, would have to take those questionable bits of scripture into account.

There absolutely -is- a hatred for Western ideals, but there's also a hatred for Non-Islamic principles and doctrines present in ISIS' actions. Have there been radicalized Christians before? Yeah - but they literally amount to the Westboro Baptist Church these days. I don't see them harming innocents as literally as ISIS is, and if they are, it's not anywhere close to the scale that ISIS is. It's not ignorance of general radicalization - it's realization of RELEVANT radicalization. That - ALONG with Islamophobia (which does also exist quite fairly due to the actions being taken around the world today) - is why people make overreaching comments about Muslims as a whole. There problem is - again - in the ballpark. You saying it's being channeled through Islam is proof of this.

The specific cases the Trump campaign has championed regarding over-the-border illegal immigration are real enough - and having watched Republican debates over and over again, the GOP at the very least is not unaware of visa overstays. Trump using harsh rhetoric against Mexico in particular is an example of rallying more than it is a threat against every Latino in the country. It's much easier to spot illegal immigration in border areas because of the typical biological profile they have - especially when a record shows up that this person has come into the country illegally multiple times before and committed crimes. At the end of the day - and Trump has alluded to this personally - I believe his REAL immigration plan is to find criminal illegal immigrants before deciding the fate of illegal immigrants who are here acting like legal citizens case-by-case.

Finally, you mentioned intentions to leave LGBTQ matters "to the states" - and to be honest, because of the way same-sex marriage has been normalized in all 50 states prior to this election, that is code for "I really have no desire to change this Supreme Court outcome" if I've ever seen it. The Obergefell decision has led to various lawsuits that mostly go in favor of the plaintiffs. While technically, there is no "written law" that directly deals with same-sex marriage - the courts are going to supercede the states on the principle of National Sovereignty unless the SCOTUS overturns the decision first.

---

The question that needs to be asked is - if a candidate has only said something he might do - does that count as harm to the point where you should actively berate or cast shame on someone for voting for that candidate?

If nothing has actually materialized, then what's happening is fear. You're not being intolerant of intolerance if there is no proof of intolerance from the other party. You're being fearful of the prospects of intolerance.

I did not vote for Trump for multiple reasons. One of those chief reasons was because his rhetoric, if brought to life, could potentially harm my friends. It most certainly wasn't my chief reasoning for doing so.

[Eviora]

If a man pulls a gun on you and tells you he'll kill you, is that not reason enough to defend yourself?

Trump has stated his intentions. Now it's a matter of who wants to arm him.

[Swimming95]

Gay marriage has not been normalized in all 50 states. There is a huge acceptance problem and still a long ways to go. Really doesn't help to promise to overturn it.

also I said I'm sorry for being too harsh on the swordsman and should have phrased it more on Donald.

I am totally fine with being fearful that a current presidential candidate, one of the two who will be elected has promised intolerance in his campaign. His campaign has enabled and normalized a lot of bigotry which I do consider to be harmful.