Election 2016 Thread

[pErvinalia]

"Where does this stop? Are we going to start treating all Muslim-Americans differently? Are we going to start subjecting them to special surveillance? Are we going to start discriminating against them because of their faith? Do Republican officials actually agree with this?"

Doesn't sound like a tantrum. Sounds eminently reasonable.

Watch it. Obama tears the Trump Party a new asshole (as if they didn't already have enough!). That man can lay it down.

Yeah I did see highlights of it. To call it a "tantrum" is just bizarre.

[piscator]

Ever feel like you’re arguing with a brick wall? Scores of Trump supporters have been doing something just like that—fighting with an automated Twitter robot that spouts nonsense.

Many Donald Trump supporters on Twitter spent Tuesday afternoon unknowingly arguing with a robot.
@Assbott, which mostly tweets about professional wrestling and baseball, was created to immediately reply to Trump’s tweets, then respond with nonsense sentences to any user who interacts with it. But many of the presumptive Republican nominee’s fans didn’t recognize it wasn’t a person and continued fighting with it until they finally abandoned the conversation. About 10 users per hour continued tweeting at @Assbott well into Tuesday night.

@Assbott is the brainchild of a Kentucky man named Forrest, who identifies himself as @Nasboat on Twitter and declined to give his last name.
“The bot is just a mishmash of my tweets. @AwfulJack is the one who started the account. I’m clueless on the technical side,” he told The Daily Beast. “There had been a few other bots made from other users we know and follow, and I thought it was a funny concept and wanted one of my own. I sent him my archive, and he got it up and running.”



@AwfulJack is manned by Jack Kirkland, who is currently unemployed in Indiana and says he created Forrest’s bot because it’s a “good exercise to learn programming.” @Assbott is running “constantly on the Heroku platform and is coded in Ruby,” he said. It uses Markov chains, which string sentences of @Nasboat’s tweets together into one larger whole.

hat’s how @Assbott comes up with sentences like this:
“He likes to lick em, he likes to ride hogs, bro, you seem v nice.”
That beauty was in response to a Trump user who tweeted, “Why when he has way more likes and retweets than @HillaryClinton? Huge amount of likes in comparison! Ha!” That user, @Kanam78, appeared unaware she was arguing with a robot.
@Assbott has been around since May 2015, but the real fun started when Kirkland added functionality to it that would respond “Delete your account” to every tweet Trump sent out. Hillary Clinton famously tweeted the phrase at Trump after he criticized President Obama’s endorsement of the presumptive Democratic nominee last week.
Since @Assbott is automated, the entire world sees its reply first, before anyone else’s. @Assbott tweets instantly. So, mere seconds after Trump tweeted a “Thank you to the LGBT community!” on Tuesday, a sea of his fans were trapped in a war of words they could not win with a lifeless clump of code in a computer.
Tuesday afternoon wasn’t the first time this happened with a celebrity.
“Once John Popper from Blues Traveler was arguing with it all night long, which happened within the first six months, I figured anything was possible,” said Forrest.
But wasn’t Forrest a little surprised that an automated version of himself with no scruples or social graces was winning internet arguments with real live humans?
“Not really, because I’ve learned never to underestimate the gullibility or lack of awareness of people online, especially on Twitter,” he said. “Plus, the bot tends to get pretty inflammatory and makes no sense, which I think clearly speaks to the kind of person who supports Trump.”
The best comeback Forrest saw from his robot son on Tuesday afternoon came after someone named Alfredo Perez tweeted back at @Assbott: “Let me correct you: delete your account, Mr. President.”
@Assbott wasted no time, because @Assbott is a robot programmed not to waste time.
“I like bad tweets so I really enjoy your account is bad and your content is shit,” it replied.

“The best ones are where it seems the most sentient,” said Forrest. “It was too perfect. It replies to everything and never shuts up, just like me.”...

[Forty Two]

And I just told you that no prosecution team would ever be able to meet the standard for calling anything she did wrt emails "Illegal".

That's not true at all. What's your basis for saying that? What law do you think applies? Do you know the elements of the crime(s) at issue?

Moreover, your Republican friends Bush and Cheney lost 22 million emails under much shadier circumstances in 2007 and nothing happened to them, so Republicans and Trump Party hacks are fucking hypocrites to be hoping and masturbating over emails the way you are, when you know your precedents cleared the way for high officials to delete whatever the fuck they want, whenever they want.

One, tu quoque. I'm no supporter of Bush and Cheney. They are part of the problem. Opposing Hillary in favor of Trump as the better option, is not support for Bush/Cheney, or an excuse of any of their behaviors. But, if you'd like to talk about whatever it is they did, then set forth the allegations and the evidence, and cite the law.

Precedent is what a court creates in the common law system, such that a similar fact scenario will be treated the similarly. However, Bush and Cheney doing something is not a "precedent."

And really, do you think Harvard law scholar Obama would endorse Hillary at this point if he knew indictments were coming down?

Do you think the President is given that kind of info by the FBI and DOJ? He's regularly briefed on the likelihood of a prosecution, and he is given the facts and evidence in the case, such that he can assess the likelihood of a criminal violation or proof thereof? If so, that runs counter to everything he's said, and would be counter to the notion that the DOJ prosecutorial function runs independent of the President.

[piscator]

And I just told you that no prosecution team would ever be able to meet the standard for calling anything she did wrt emails "Illegal".

That's not true at all. What's your basis for saying that? What law do you think applies? Do you know the elements of the crime(s) at issue?

Moreover, your Republican friends Bush and Cheney lost 22 million emails under much shadier circumstances in 2007 and nothing happened to them, so Republicans and Trump Party hacks are fucking hypocrites to be hoping and masturbating over emails the way you are, when you know your precedents cleared the way for high officials to delete whatever the fuck they want, whenever they want.

One, tu quoque. I'm no supporter of Bush and Cheney. They are part of the problem. Opposing Hillary in favor of Trump as the better option, is not support for Bush/Cheney, or an excuse of any of their behaviors. But, if you'd like to talk about whatever it is they did, then set forth the allegations and the evidence, and cite the law.

Precedent is what a court creates in the common law system, such that a similar fact scenario will be treated the similarly. However, Bush and Cheney doing something is not a "precedent."

And really, do you think Harvard law scholar Obama would endorse Hillary at this point if he knew indictments were coming down?

Do you think the President is given that kind of info by the FBI and DOJ? He's regularly briefed on the likelihood of a prosecution, and he is given the facts and evidence in the case, such that he can assess the likelihood of a criminal violation or proof thereof? If so, that runs counter to everything he's said, and would be counter to the notion that the DOJ prosecutorial function runs independent of the President.

Damn dude. Sounds like I upset your little apple cart when I said Hillary is not going to be indicted for this political email thing. You're really about to shit yourself trying to deny the obviousness of it.

Honestly, at some point someone should have told you to not believe every jackoff political accusation against Hillary. I guess you were just too into it....heh

[piscator]

Nothing but love!

[piscator]

At least it’s better than being called a ‘hellhole.’


By ZOYA SHEFTALOVICH 6/16/16, 10:46 AM CET Updated 6/16/16, 1:40 PM CET

He once called the Belgian capital city Brussels “a hellhole,” but U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has changed his tune.

“Belgium is a beautiful city,” Trump said during a rally in Atlanta, Georgia Wednesday.

It should be noted that Belgium is a country, not a city.

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential hopeful, did not miss a beat, tweeting a video of the gaffe with the text: “A message from your possible next president on: Geography.”

In January, Trump said living in Brussels was like living in “a hellhole” because of the lack of “assimilation” of the Muslim population.

http://www.politico.eu/article/donald-t ... 6-america/




"He says what's on his mind."

[Scot Dutchy]

Which is an empty room that a word pops into now and again.

[Forty Two]

Hillary Clinton is too unstable to be President -- http://www.breitbart.com/2016-president ... colleague/ Assaulting Secret Service agents....

Close race between Clinton and Trump in swing states -- http://www.breitbart.com/2016-president ... ton-trump/

[Forty Two]

[Forty Two]

Starts about 35 or 36 minutes into the video stream --

[piscator]

[Forty Two]

[Svartalf]

and for good reason, Obie isn't a miracle maker to turn the shit situation he was handed into a boom

[Forty Two]

and for good reason, Obie isn't a miracle maker to turn the shit situation he was handed into a boom

He promised miracles when he ran for election, though. And, he certainly didn't over-achieve, I'll give you that.

[Forty Two]

DailyKos on why Hillary Clinton is a piece of shit - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/1 ... -President