All links are to archive.is versions of sites
Came across this article with the following title:
ABC News Stuns America & Announces That Trump Might DROP OUT Of 2016 Race
I was, undoubtedly, curious.
I tried to follow the sources back to the original ABC News article, but I was only lead around to many different, almost identical, news articles and then to the front page of a random news website. After a quick internet search I found the article here with the following title:
Senior GOP Officials Exploring Options if Trump Drops Out
Just going off the title, it didn't sound anything like what previous articles such as this one and this one were going on about. After reading the short article it turns out all ABC News was talking about was that there were senior GOP officials that were so frustrated with Trump's behavior that they were thinking about what they would do if Donald Trump did actually drop out of the race. They DID NOT insinuate that Trump was planning on or "might" drop out of the race. No source, spokesperson, homeless guy, or news agency was eluding to a Trump drop out, it was just an article about GOP officials considering what would happen if he did.
This kind of idiotic reporting really bothers me. Stop trying to manufacture drama where there is none.
TL;DR: The original ABC article here was talking about GOP officials considering what would happen if Trump actually dropped out because they were frustrated by his erratic behavior. The article was NOT saying that Trump was considering or "might" drop out of the race.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] flyawayhigh ago (edited ago)
We need to be a little smarter. If we take advantage of convenient situations that cut against our interests -- and especially if we do so for partisan purposes -- we are hurting ourselves.
Here's my idea: let's avoid things that meet the following two conditions:
Do not go after Hillary for things that shouldn't be criminal
Do not go after Hillary for laws that Republicans oppose.
Is there anything left? Yes, plenty.
You mentioned one:
go after that, although it leaves a bitter taste.
The 2000 election was stolen. The partisans then were saying "Sore Loserman" and crazy things like "How do we know how many votes there are if the votes were not counted?" Remember that one? They used paid Republican staff members blocking the vote count and banging on the doors. The Supreme Court stepped in with arguably its worst decision ever -- maybe Dred Scott was worse.
But the partisans only cared about one thing -- getting Bush in. And look what happened [Place really long essay here.]
Interestingly, Democrats did not care very much about the increased election stealing in the next few elections. After they won in 2006, they shut up totally -- even though Republicans stole four percent of that election too.
On one hand it's cool that she is sticking it to them with their own tactics -- on the other, those tactics need to end.
The irony here is that Hillary is mostly Republican on the economy, and not a very big supporter of traditional Democratic social platforms.
Despite that harsh truth, I still think it's a good idea to go after Hillary on the election issue because we can actually win something in the end -- better elections. Let's think carefully for the people. :)
[–] OhBlindOne [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Election fraud isn't the only thing left here, though. There's still the matter of the email servers, lying under oath, and sending classified material to people without the requisite security clearance. But, yes, election fraud is still a good one to go after.
Both sides commit election fraud (as I mentioned earlier.) Currently, people are only focusing on the deomcrats as they're the one's doing it the most this time around. Republicans have done it this election, however. Ted Cruz stole a bunch of votes while he was still running, etc.
But, it didn't originate with either side. E.g. it's not like "the republicans did it first," or vice versa. So something like your statement here:
insinuates that it's in some way the republicans tactic to steal elections (I'm assuming that isn't what you were saying, but just for the sake of discussion). Both sides do it and it's sick. The fact of the matter is, the rich and powerful run the show, whether we the people like to realize it or not. No one seems to want to face the truth that both the democratic and the republican party is garbage. We have to fix the system from the ground up. Citizens need to start focusing on their local government elections and start electing people that aren't total crap and go from there. People also need to start thinking for themselves (another thing that the gov. media, etc. don't want people to do) and stop being lead around like sheep with all of this propaganda the permeates both sides.
[–] flyawayhigh ago
Not really. The halcyon days of election stealing took place starting in 2002 after Bush stole the election. Take a look at what happened in Georgia that year. First, there was "red shift," then there were "adjusted exit polls," and finally, they just tried to discredit and eliminate exit polling altogether. On a separate thread, there were mandated electronic voting machines, paperless ballots, and restrictive voting laws. Sorry, but this was all to benefit Republicans. Until the 2016 primary, facts were very much one-sided with a few exceptions: Hillary stole the 2008 New Hampshire primary from Obama!
Actually, yes. Even in the famous "Chicago" election theft in 1960, the fact is -- Nixon dropped out after sample recounts increased Kennedy's lead.
It is no coincidence that Hillary Clinton is a "moderate" -- and that so many Republican officials are now supporting her. It is only in 2016, in this seemingly bizarre election, that the Media is supporting the Democrat. I've watch enough of these to know. There are plenty of studies on the subject too.
Let me paint some really big picture here:
In the general halls of governance, under any system at any time, there are always two camps -- the establishment and the opposition.
The establishment sect has more power by definition.
The establishment sticks together to maintain authority.
The opposition has less power.
The opposition is splintered.
Both the establishment and the official opposition agree on certain points in the paradigm that maintain the power of both.
The opposition is compromised and shilled out -- it is a branch of the establishment.
Both sides are not equal. They never are, they could never be.
When the establishment is supported, it rubber stamps elitist power.
When the opposition is supported, both groups make concessions to gain or to hold power.
2016 is an oddity -- or it appears to be. Hillary Clinton seems to be representing the establishment. I have my doubts. I watched the Tea Party closely. It was never serious opposition. Trump may not be either.
I don't plan on voting for either.