Killary Clinton, The Donald, or Jill Stein: The US Election

[SummerLite]

Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

I watched the finale debate last night. I admit, my main reason for tuning into these events is to see what Trump will come up with to bash Clinton, I rather enjoy that, and he's pretty good.

My comment here is about the finale question asked, "will you accept the outcome of this election"? Clinton says yes, Trump says I'll wait and see (more or less). So he's referring to voter fraud thats been circling around this election as a issue for Trump not winning. YEAH!!!!!!! 10 points for TRUMP. In the comments after, one of his sons was interviewed who discussed voter fraud again and he was angry. Good. The talking heads where all over this last comment immediately! "How unamerican not to accept the outcome. It goes against the respected tradition of the principles this country were founded on, bla, bla ,bla". On and on they went.

It was nauseating and I figured if they say it enough times they think, people will believe it. Only one announcer said he thought this was a reasonable comment considering the "hanging chad" from the Bush/Gore election. Not only did Bush steal his first election but the second one as well against Kerry. I remember quite clearly the BIG movement by the democrats(regular people) to get Bush OUT for the second term and all where optimistic. The new, digitized voting machines had just entered the scene and concerns where flying about them being hacked to skew the vote. This concern was presented to John Kerry and he said, he would watch very closely and if this arose he would question and do something about it and I believed him. Well the numbers where coming in on election day and sure enough, in key states, numbers/votes where seen being rolled back for Kerry. And Kerry NEVER said a word.... That was it for me, I knew Kerry was involved in the whole charade.

I'm glad to see voter fraud coming out as it is and I'll thank Trump for that. This may be shaky ground for him though and he may be warned "not to go there".

 

[A Jay]

I listened to the third debate yesterday and it seemed to me that especially at the end Killary had to fight hard to not get another seasure in front of the camera. There were quite a number of situations were she seemed to be just before another seasure with her eyes looking cross-eyed and again the over sensitivity to loud and abrupt noises and the comments from Trump.

I guess she was pretty worn out after the cameras went out, so I hope somebody filmed her this time as well, since there is a good chance that she had another episode right after the debate during which she was probably pumped up with drugs to get her through.

I found it interesting that this time again the moderator asked (this time only directly towards Trump) if he will except the outcome of the "vote" and Trump said that he will see then. What a psychopathic soap opera those "debates" are... I think Laura is spot on by saying "No matter who wins, everybody loses" (on facebook).

I watched it as well, and also noticed more than a few occasions where Killary was looking pretty tired and I thought she might have a seizure or collapse from exhaustion.

I also thought it interesting that the moderator asked if he would accept the outcome of the "vote". It seemed like throughout the debate the moderator was pretty much just there to tell the children to settle down, and wasn't really doing much moderating. But then when this question came up he suddenly grew a backbone.

"No matter who wins, everybody loses" is right on the money.

 

[Cosmos]

[...] It seemed like throughout the debate the moderator was pretty much just there to tell the children to settle down, and wasn't really doing much moderating. [...]

I noticed that too. I got the slight feeling that both were set up to look not that good (which they dom not anyway). There was even a question/statement from the moderator that both "failed to do this or that". So maybe they spin it that way, because somebody else "that can do a better job" is in the line, as soon as any of them become "president". My bet is on Mike Pence if Trump "wins" and talks to much. And in Killarys case, somebody like Joe Biden.

 

[NormaRegula]

Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

I held my nose and watched the debate also.

I thought Trump did somewhat better than Killary and was actually getting under her skin whenever the subject of dumped emails came up. Called her a liar several times and she stared blankly into the camera. Unlike in the past 2 debates, Killary didn't do her condescending creepy smile as much while Trump was speaking. Trump said she was responsible for the rise of ISIS and her failed Middle East policies caused the refugee influx and chaos that is occurring. Trump also laid into the Clinton Foundation's corruption and the Democratic Party's dirty dealings with rally protestors from the Project Veritas videos.

Perhaps a memo came down from the MSM to not make it look too obvious that Killary was being soft-balled as the moderator asked her several difficult questions. Still, Killary was never really challenged nor interrupted with a "your time is up" like Trump and totally avoided answering the questions by using a bunch of 'I'm proud of what I've done for the women and children' canned statements which was quite annoying.

Looks like the MSM media will ignore the leaked emails, videos, Killary's lies and failed policies to harp on Trump's not accepting the outcome of the election. A lot of the reporters were just shocked by that. Yeah, right. I guess it's okay for Gore to challenge election results, but not a conservative candidate who really only said he would look at the results carefully, not rejecting it outright before the results have been tallied. Of course Killary was never asked the question.

A couple of technical points I noted: Killary was obvious lit from below to make her look better. The white pantsuit helped reflect light in a flattering manner. Trump was lit more from the top, which is not flattering. And I swear Killary's microphone was a tad louder than Trump's.

 

[NormaRegula]

I think Laura is spot on by saying "No matter who wins, everybody loses" (on Facebook).

Yup. It's really depressing. I have to remind myself to just sit back and watch the show.

I too thought Killary looked more subdued towards the end of the debate. Like she was running out of energy...or her meds were wearing thin. I also thought that Trump was getting to her at times. She didn't shake his hand at the end...just carefully walked off the stage where her posse (including the big African-American guy with the alleged medical jabber) was waiting for her. More comments over on the Presidential Election Debates 2016 thread.

 

[Laura]

Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

Doctor Who Treated Hillary Clinton’s Blood Clot Found Dead
_http://www.secretsofthefed.com/doctor-who-treated-hillary-clintons-blood-clot-found-dead/

According to a report from Whatdoesitmean?

Sorcha Faal=Whatdoesitmean

Highly, highly suspect source. Best to ignore about anything they say.

 

[JGeropoulas]

Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

<snip>
The talking heads where all over this last comment immediately! "How unamerican not to accept the outcome. It goes against the respected tradition of the principles this country were founded on, bla, bla ,bla". On and on they went.
<snip>
Not only did Bush steal his first election but the second one as well against Kerry. I remember quite clearly the BIG movement by the democrats(regular people) to get Bush OUT for the second term and all where optimistic. The new, digitized voting machines had just entered the scene and concerns where flying about them being hacked to skew the vote. This concern was presented to John Kerry and he said, he would watch very closely and if this arose he would question and do something about it and I believed him. Well the numbers where coming in on election day and sure enough, in key states, numbers/votes where seen being rolled back for Kerry. And Kerry NEVER said a word.... That was it for me, I knew Kerry was involved in the whole charade.

The shameless hypocrisy of the American government nauseates me too (daily):

In June of (2014), Assad won Syria’s Presidential election with 88.7 percent of the vote, in the country’s first multi-candidate election in almost five decades. In a country which had a population of 17,064,854 in July 2014 (according to an estimate from CIA World Factbook), over 10 million people voted for Assad. 73.42 percent of the Syrian population voted in the election, with voting only taking place in government controlled areas.

A group of international observers emphasized that the election was a valid and democratic expression of the views of the Syrian people. Predictably, Western nations denounced the election as a sham and a fraud, with US Secretary of State, John Kerry, calling the election a farce a few months prior to the vote.

http://journal-neo.org/2015/12/20/bashar-al-assad-the-democratically-elected-president-of-syria/

 

[JGeropoulas]

Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

Doctor Who Treated Hillary Clinton’s Blood Clot Found Dead
_http://www.secretsofthefed.com/doctor-who-treated-hillary-clintons-blood-clot-found-dead/

According to a report from Whatdoesitmean?

Sorcha Faal=Whatdoesitmean

Highly, highly suspect source. Best to ignore about anything they say.

There are plenty of convincing victims in the "Clinton Body Count" list, but this particular doctor was not even the lead doctor in the surgery, not to mention nurses attending her (as well as medical notes on file), so how would killing him suppress any medical information anyway?

 

[Scottie]

Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

Doctor Who Treated Hillary Clinton’s Blood Clot Found Dead
_http://www.secretsofthefed.com/doctor-who-treated-hillary-clintons-blood-clot-found-dead/

According to a report from Whatdoesitmean?

Sorcha Faal=Whatdoesitmean

Highly, highly suspect source. Best to ignore about anything they say.

Yeah, today's Sorcha Faal e-mail reads:

Putin Issues US Election Theft Warning, Orders Military To Protect Trump "At All Costs"

 

[Windmill knight]

Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

So I just watched the full third debate and the biggest impression I got from it is how much both these people creep me out. Hillary is such an obvious hypocritical liar trained in the Machiavellian school of politics, who struggles so hard to say what she thinks people want to hear, so she can go and continue doing as much evil as she wants once she is at the top. And Trump is, well, an a**hole with an obvious hugely inflated sense of self and a total lack of real insights. Even when taken as face value, some of the things both said were just so plain wrong. And to think that one of these two is going to be president of the most powerful country in the world and with the biggest military, is a nightmare. I guess I find some consolation in the fact that the president is not actually in charge, and therefore who is taking the position doesn't really make a difference.

Earlier today, before watching the debate, I read some of the headlines and I couldn't understand why Trump refusing to say that he would accept the results was such a big deal. I suppose that's 'outrageous' because Americans do believe they have the greatest democracy on Earth, so challenging that myth is taboo. But I think it's also another way of making Trump look unreasonable and a trouble-maker.

For me, one of the most outrageous moments was when the word Wikileaks came up, and Hillary immediately said it was the Russians who hacked the emails, because they are manipulating the election and their puppet is Trump. Don't people see how transparent it is that she is deflecting from the elephant in the room (by invoking 'the boogyeman'), which is the content of those emails?? Trump could have capitalized so much more on those leaks, if he had bothered to read the juiciest ones, cause I also get the impression he is lazy and does not do his homework too well.

Another observation is how Trump moves his hands, which follows his emotionally charged words, but which lack a very coherent line of thought. There was some discussion on this forum about how some psychopaths tend to do a chopping hand gesture when talking, presumably because their ideas are not properly connected in their minds, and they come out in small 'packages'. Most of the time, Trump is not really chopping, but he is not too far with his typical hand gesture, palm facing forward and index and thumb touching each other. But he did some chopping at times too.

I read the summary of the BBC and in their early version in the morning they had bullet-points and they hilariously alternated between something good that Hillary was going to do, and something bad Trump said. It was like "Hillary will defend women's and LGTB's rights - Trump says he won't accept if he loses - Hillary will create more jobs and support the middle classes - Trump called her names". Couldn't be more transparent whose side they are on.

 

[rylek]

This is a cross post of point made by Laura in the latest 15 October thread which I found interesting concerning the possible bigger picture behind this election and think it's worth re-posting in this thread as well:

<snip>

As for the Hillary/Trump thing, it seems hard to grok any rational purpose to bringing Hillary down from inside her own organization; or that it would be permitted by the war hawks or media which are obviously totally behind her. Well, I was thinking back over some things the Cs said and some things that Ra said a long time ago. Cs basically said that the turmoil that was coming was designed to get people to accept totalitarian dominance. Ra said something about it being necessary for the masses to CHOOSE and that the STS have to manipulate acceptance to come out openly. Something along that line, anyway. Maybe somebody can find the passage. So, what if Trump is that totalitarian ruler that the masses have to choose en masse? What if it is Hillary who is the "really bad choice" that is being put up next to Trump to make him look good? Rather than Trump being put next to Hillary to maker HER look good?

I dunno. It just all seems like something very deeply evil is going on.

 

[goyacobol]

This is a cross post of point made by Laura in the latest 15 October thread which I found interesting concerning the possible bigger picture behind this election and think it's worth re-posting in this thread as well:

<snip>

As for the Hillary/Trump thing, it seems hard to grok any rational purpose to bringing Hillary down from inside her own organization; or that it would be permitted by the war hawks or media which are obviously totally behind her. Well, I was thinking back over some things the Cs said and some things that Ra said a long time ago. Cs basically said that the turmoil that was coming was designed to get people to accept totalitarian dominance. Ra said something about it being necessary for the masses to CHOOSE and that the STS have to manipulate acceptance to come out openly. Something along that line, anyway. Maybe somebody can find the passage. So, what if Trump is that totalitarian ruler that the masses have to choose en masse? What if it is Hillary who is the "really bad choice" that is being put up next to Trump to make him look good? Rather than Trump being put next to Hillary to maker HER look good?

I dunno. It just all seems like something very deeply evil is going on.

I added a comment here if it might be relevant.

 

[goyacobol]

I just found this Full monologue: Donald Trump roasts Hillary Clinton at Al Smith charity dinner on YouTube. It is so surreal that I don't know what to say yet except psychopathy has a strange sense of humor.

http://<iframe width="560" height="...YE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The full video with Hillary is here.

 

[Timótheos]

Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

Earlier today, before watching the debate, I read some of the headlines and I couldn't understand why Trump refusing to say that he would accept the results was such a big deal. I suppose that's 'outrageous' because Americans do believe they have the greatest democracy on Earth, so challenging that myth is taboo. But I think it's also another way of making Trump look unreasonable and a trouble-maker.

There are numerous ways to 'rig' an election; fake ballots, dumping ballots, voting machine tampering, etc. One only has to look at the results from the recent Scottish referendum to see how many different methods can be applied in order for the PTB to achieve the results they want.

I don't believe any of the MSM polls when they say that Killary won every debate or is "way ahead" of Trump and is more likely to win. I think that if all the ballots were counted fairly and honestly, Trump would likely end up being the next president.

So, when I heard Trump's comment that he may not necessarily accept the results of the US presidential election, it occurred to me that perhaps he was coached to deliberately plant that remark in order to foment some kind of internal revolution or civil war in the US if the rigged results show that Killary wins. And perhaps this is the real goal of the puppet masters behind the scenes, to provoke an armed uprising of the the fundamentalist, right wing conservative prepper-militia types against the sitting US government. Chaos, anarchy, bloodshed, military crackdown, martial law, FEMA camps and all that follows.

 

[theos]

Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

I was quite disappointed in this last debate in regards to theatrical entertainment value. The second debate was more entertaining with some good zingers from Trump.

Trump is too stupid and inarticulate and too much of a narcissist to be able to take good direction from his team. (Or either his team is too stupid to direct him properly, or either they don't care because it's all just a game.) There were several times when he could have come back at Killary but he missed it or didn't provide enough detail to make a cogent point like he did with comment about the Clinton campaign fomenting unrest at his rallies. And he completely ignored the fact that she didn't address the issue in any way in her follow up. Killery, for her part had a better grasp of the Queen's English and had more well-articulated lies.

In order to make the debate seem a little less biased towards the Killbot, the moderator should've asked her if she would accept the results of the election.

If we are ever gifted with another debate spectacle it would be interesting to have the candidates directly address and question each other. Why do they never format debates like that?