Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 skyth wrote:
There are legitimate concerns? I can't seem to find any while looking through this huge pile of fabricated 'scandals' that have been constantly spewed for the last 25 years...

Of course there are. While I do think the focus on her emails has been extraordinarily disproportionate, the fact is I do think it's fairly evident she decided the rules (FOIA) were a pain in the ass and didn't apply to her. This is in every way a valid concern. Being careless with classified information might not have risen to the level of prosecutability, but it's certainly not a virtue.

There have been some pretty bad foreign policy missteps too, Libya most notably. She doesn't own that entire pie, but she definitely has a pretty big slice.

I think there are definitely some valid concerns, which often get swept aside in the never-ending tsunami of bs from the derposphere - it all sort of blends together after a while; but it's foolish to pretend there aren't some valid concerns any reasonable person would have.

 Ouze wrote:

 skyth wrote:
There are legitimate concerns? I can't seem to find any while looking through this huge pile of fabricated 'scandals' that have been constantly spewed for the last 25 years...

Of course there are. While I do think the focus on her emails has been extraordinarily disproportionate, the fact is I do think it's fairly evident she decided the rules (FOIA) were a pain in the ass and didn't apply to her. This is in every way a valid concern. Being careless with classified information might not right to the level of prosecutability, but it's certainly not a virtue.

There have been some pretty bad foreign policy missteps too, Libya most notably. She doesn't own that entire pie, but she definitely has a pretty big slice.

Then we have all of the money issues with the Clinton Foundation (tons of donations with suspicious timings...). Lots of company's had the State department find in their favor regarding international stuff, after making donations to the Clinton Foundation.

But hey, he's looked into ALL of the allegations over the last 25 years, and their all baseless, so what's the point, right?



The part that gets overlooked the most in my eyes though is that, when you take your eyes off all of the corruption issues, there is still a politician there, who represents certain political points of view. I find many of those views to be completely counter to my own. Yet i'm being unreasonable for not voting for her? Many millions of American's who are thinking the exact same way should just throw their beliefs out the window because of not-Trump?

That sort of dismissal is even more insulting in my eyes.

 whembly wrote:

Here's a national poll that has trump up 2%, but within MoE:
http://www.investors.com/politics/trump-holds-2-point-lead-over-clinton-as-election-day-arrives-final-ibd-tipp-poll-results/

Seems odd 'cuz in RCP, most other polls has Clinton around +3%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Yeah, remember when we were talking about sources and trustworthiness a few pages ago? Let's not get into that again, but "Investors" is one of those that aboslutely offer nothing worthy of comment. They're the site that said that Steven Hawking would have died if he was born in a country with socialized healthcare, and that's them on a *good* day.

Investors is not a trustworthy link, nor would I trust a poll from them in the face of established polls - polling requires accurate weighting to be anyware close to the mark, and it's very easy to make any poll say what you want to hear, if you put your thumb on the scales. Sadly though, highly biased polls like that one will be held up by the Trumpeteers as "evidence" of rigging in the election come tomorrow.

Todays the day chaps

Go out and vote, and may the God Emperor of Mankind have mercy on us all.

I can only speak for myself , but for me, they're not quite enough to totally disqualify her in my mind, and that's driven in large by her opponent. I liked HRC so much I caucused for her opponent, and I still have a sad little place in my heart for Joe Biden, but I can and did pull a lever for her in good conscience when faced with the alternatives.

If Mitt Romney had been on the opposite side of ballot this election...

 Ouze wrote:
I can only speak for myself , but for me, they're not quite enough to totally disqualify her in my mind, and that's driven in large by her opponent. I liked HRC so much I caucused for her opponent, and I still have a sad little place in my heart for Joe Biden, but I can and did pull a lever for her in good conscience when faced with the alternatives.

If Mitt Romney had been on the opposite side of ballot this election...

I seriously don't know why he didn't throw his name in the hat after Trump won the primary. It would be a no-contest election at this point.

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 skyth wrote:
There are legitimate concerns? I can't seem to find any while looking through this huge pile of fabricated 'scandals' that have been constantly spewed for the last 25 years...

Of course there are. While I do think the focus on her emails has been extraordinarily disproportionate, the fact is I do think it's fairly evident she decided the rules (FOIA) were a pain in the ass and didn't apply to her. This is in every way a valid concern. Being careless with classified information might not right to the level of prosecutability, but it's certainly not a virtue.

There have been some pretty bad foreign policy missteps too, Libya most notably. She doesn't own that entire pie, but she definitely has a pretty big slice.

Then we have all of the money issues with the Clinton Foundation (tons of donations with suspicious timings...). Lots of company's had the State department find in their favor regarding international stuff, after making donations to the Clinton Foundation.

But hey, he's looked into ALL of the allegations over the last 25 years, and their all baseless, so what's the point, right?



The part that gets overlooked the most in my eyes though is that, when you take your eyes off all of the corruption issues, there is still a politician there, who represents certain political points of view. I find many of those views to be completely counter to my own. Yet i'm being unreasonable for not voting for her? Many millions of American's who are thinking the exact same way should just throw their beliefs out the window because of not-Trump?

That sort of dismissal is even more insulting in my eyes.

More of a boy who cried wolf situation. People with a bone to grind haven't found anything that sticks after countless investigations.

Besides, all the things you listed are relatively minor that Trump has done worse...

It's almost over! Yay!

Seriously though, even if it's for someone I hate, go out and vote. This gak is too important to ignore.

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
One thing I'll always remember about this election cycle. The total dismissal by so many, of the legitimate concerns so many have about Hillary Clinton.

but the "they're both equally bad" meme. I find that idea to be eminently dismissible and to be honest I think you do too.

I bet the Trump voters agree with you

 djones520 wrote:
One thing I'll always remember about this election cycle. The total dismissal by so many, of the legitimate concerns so many have about Hillary Clinton.

To be fair to Clinton, an awful lot of previous Presidents were equally as corrupt and unfit for office. That doesn't mean to say we have to like it, though.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Todays the day chaps

Go out and vote, and may the God Emperor of Mankind have mercy on us all.

It seems you have no faith in HC.
The Trampeltier has still a chance.

 reds8n wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
took money from a man linked to ISIL i.e Saudi Prince
.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/05/mps-to-urge-ban-on-uk-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_foreign_assistance



Think you'll find an awful lot of people have taken an awful lot of money from the very big Saudi royal family.

I well aware of this, and I'm equally critical of them as well. Our government is up to its neck in it. And I don't like it, either. It's not an anti-Clinton thing.

 Ouze wrote:
I can only speak for myself , but for me, they're not quite enough to totally disqualify her in my mind, and that's driven in large by her opponent. I liked HRC so much I caucused for her opponent, and I still have a sad little place in my heart for Joe Biden, but I can and did pull a lever for her in good conscience when faced with the alternatives.

This is me.

Just got back from voting! I've successfully cancelled out my neighbor with the multiple Trump/Pence signs flanking the one for Pat McCrory. Feels good.

The polling place was just a quick five, ten minute walk down the road, so I didn't even have to get in the car. On the downside, that meant I was ducking people handing out literature in the parking lot, which meant that I wasn't paying as much attention as I should have and got my elbow bumped by a guy backing his truck out. Totally my fault; luckily, we both took it in stride .

 Ouze wrote:

 skyth wrote:
There are legitimate concerns? I can't seem to find any while looking through this huge pile of fabricated 'scandals' that have been constantly spewed for the last 25 years...

Of course there are. While I do think the focus on her emails has been extraordinarily disproportionate, the fact is I do think it's fairly evident she decided the rules (FOIA) were a pain in the ass and didn't apply to her. This is in every way a valid concern. Being careless with classified information might not have risen to the level of prosecutability, but it's certainly not a virtue.

There have been some pretty bad foreign policy missteps too, Libya most notably. She doesn't own that entire pie, but she definitely has a pretty big slice.

I think there are definitely some valid concerns, which often get swept aside in the never-ending tsunami of bs from the derposphere - it all sort of blends together after a while; but it's foolish to pretend there aren't some valid concerns any reasonable person would have.

To be fair to you, and other dakka members, you've pointed out Clinton's flaws and criticized where appropriate.

Why am I concerned. Because I just know that Clinton + US Military + Syria = more refugees fleeing to Europe, and that impacts on me, because a lot of those refugees try to get to the UK and then our government does horsegak things to prevent this.

So yes, I am indirectly affected by Clinton's foreign policy should she become President.

WrentheFaceless wrote:Todays the day chaps

Go out and vote, and may the God Emperor of Mankind have mercy on us all.

jreilly89 wrote:It's almost over! Yay!

Seriously though, even if it's for someone I hate, go out and vote. This gak is too important to ignore.

All of this.

I just voted. Took me longer to park and get inside then it did to actually cast my ballot. But I was in and out in under 10 minutes. Feels good to take part in my civic duty.

Now to hunker down and wait out the aftermath.

 Spinner wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I can only speak for myself , but for me, they're not quite enough to totally disqualify her in my mind, and that's driven in large by her opponent. I liked HRC so much I caucused for her opponent, and I still have a sad little place in my heart for Joe Biden, but I can and did pull a lever for her in good conscience when faced with the alternatives.

This is me.

Just got back from voting! I've successfully cancelled out my neighbor with the multiple Trump/Pence signs flanking the one for Pat McCrory. Feels good.

The polling place was just a quick five, ten minute walk down the road, so I didn't even have to get in the car. On the downside, that meant I was ducking people handing out literature in the parking lot, which meant that I wasn't paying as much attention as I should have and got my elbow bumped by a guy backing his truck out. Totally my fault; luckily, we both took it in stride .

There's also a lot of Trump and Mcrory signs in my neighborhood, a definite lack of Hillary signs at all this campaign cycle, but my vote isn't going to really cancel any else's out as I voted for 5 Libertarian candidates, one unaffiliated candidate and an even mix of Republicans and Democrats down the rest of the ballot. Even voting early in the morning the polling place was more crowded than usual, which was nice to see, hopefully having 2 repugnant PotUS candidates doesn't depress turnout too badly.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Todays the day chaps

Go out and vote, and may the God Emperor of Mankind have mercy on us all.

It seems you have no faith in HC.
The Trampeltier has still a chance.

It aint over until its over, but I'm cautiously optimistic for Hillary.

 reds8n wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
took money from a man linked to ISIL i.e Saudi Prince
.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/05/mps-to-urge-ban-on-uk-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_foreign_assistance



Think you'll find an awful lot of people have taken an awful lot of money from the very big Saudi royal family.

that's true, but what amuses me is that clinton gets painted as a bad person for it, but trump suggesting they should be given nukes is applauded.

Remember folks, trump is supported by Russia and the IS, so a vote for him is a vote for the terrorists to win.

Prestor Jon wrote:
There's also a lot of Trump and Mcrory signs in my neighborhood, a definite lack of Hillary signs at all this campaign cycle, but my vote isn't going to really cancel any else's out as I voted for 5 Libertarian candidates, one unaffiliated candidate and an even mix of Republicans and Democrats down the rest of the ballot. Even voting early in the morning the polling place was more crowded than usual, which was nice to see, hopefully having 2 repugnant PotUS candidates doesn't depress turnout too badly.

I dunno... around me (Washington state) I don't see hardly any Clinton signs. There are plenty of Trump ones, but the majority are definitely the local people running for local offices. I just get the feeling that for a lot of people, even those voting for her, we're just not all that enthused about doing so.

This year, I've seen fewer bumper stickers than the last 3 elections. Perhaps anecdotal, and also perhaps the difference between Houston and Chicago.

Also, Like Enis, I haven't seen many Trump or Hillary signs here, but loads of local guys/gals.

 Maddermax wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Here's a national poll that has trump up 2%, but within MoE:
http://www.investors.com/politics/trump-holds-2-point-lead-over-clinton-as-election-day-arrives-final-ibd-tipp-poll-results/

Seems odd 'cuz in RCP, most other polls has Clinton around +3%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Yeah, remember when we were talking about sources and trustworthiness a few pages ago? Let's not get into that again, but "Investors" is one of those that aboslutely offer nothing worthy of comment. They're the site that said that Steven Hawking would have died if he was born in a country with socialized healthcare, and that's them on a *good* day.

Investors is not a trustworthy link, nor would I trust a poll from them in the face of established polls - polling requires accurate weighting to be anyware close to the mark, and it's very easy to make any poll say what you want to hear, if you put your thumb on the scales. Sadly though, highly biased polls like that one will be held up by the Trumpeteers as "evidence" of rigging in the election come tomorrow.

You're talking about a different entity. The pollster is what I'm talking about and has a 'A-' rating from 538:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

My area is dominated by local runners and Trump signs. I saw 1 Clinton sign pop up 2 days ago, but that's it.

Edit: Blah...

 Ouze wrote:

 sebster wrote:
It will be over when the Republican base hits that point of absolute shame where they just can't do this anymore.

Death panels wasn't it.

Birtherism wasn't it.

Donald fething Trump wasn't it.

There is zero chance that it will be blocking Clinton for 4 or 8 years, if she wins today.

Can't see the disfunction ending any time soon, then.

You've said this a few times now but man if anything I think you might be underestimating it.

Thinking about this the other day, I think Obama should have pulled a Gerald Ford: he could have made a pledge to pardon Hillary for the email thing if she wins, and to pardon Trump for, I don't know, the Trump University thing if he wins. Each candidate would still have baggage going into office, but at least one of the larger bullseyes on them would be removed and possibly allow for a bit of future productivity.

I could still see Obama issuing a pardon after the election, but without making some sort of offer to both sides ahead of time, it'll just look bad.

 kronk wrote:
This year, I've seen fewer bumper stickers than the last 3 elections. Perhaps anecdotal, and also perhaps the difference between Houston and Chicago.

Also, Like Enis, I haven't seen many Trump or Hillary signs here, but loads of local guys/gals.

I think the tone of this election cycle might be playing a role in discouraging people from overt displays of support. There seems to be a larger number of people this time around that take it very personally and will happily initiate a very awkward, uncomfortable and antagonistic conversation with people about their PotUS endorsement.

Here is a proposal: move Veteran's Day to election day and make it a national holiday. Also, make it mandatory that all states' polls close at the same time across the country (perhaps requiring late or early start times in some states to accommodate).

I have to say that I'm glad I'm not eligible to vote this election To me this seems a nastier election than last time. Just remember though no matter who wins we still have to live with each other.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Just remember though no matter who wins we still have to live with each other.

That sounds like hippy talk! You're not the boss of me! Go pound salt!

Voted! Took 22 minutes and I was number 135 in my area.

Is there a way to watch votes com in yet? Or still too early?