2016 US Presidential election thread

[mapuc]

This is about us living outside the US and our standpoint on these two candidate.

Some of my FB friends and other are Trump supporters and some are Clinton Supporters

Some day ago a Danish News paper(JP) had an article about Trump getting closer to Clinton in some survey. In one of the comment I could read

"Trump is what USA need and what Europe need".

It is his right to have this standpoint

What made my sick in my stomach was what another person had replied with (under his statement)
I wouldn't write it here. But I see it is very common to wards other people that support Trump.

Markus

[vienna]

And this should and will bury her.

It should have buried them both but I don't se it happening; like I said, options...



<O>

[Sailor Steve]

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/Fool_zpsw8xktdro.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/SailorSteve/media/Fool_zpsw8xktdro.jpg.html)

[Betonov]

"Trump is what USA need and what Europe need".



Maybe he/she is right about that statement.

Trumps overbloated ego will keep him busy trying to push domestic grand projects trough congress while Clinton managed to aquire a bundle of intelligence services to do her bidding and will be able to influence Europe behind congresses back.

I believe August when he says: Trump will face a hostile congress, Clinton only half

[Oberon]

Trump says that the US will only come to the aid of allies if 'They have fulfilled their obligations to us', and says about Erdogan ""I give great credit to him for being able to turn that around," Mr Trump said of the failed coup. "Some people say that it was staged, you know that," he said. "I don't think so.""

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36852805

Figured we wouldn't be able to rely on the US forever, about time we got our own forces unified and ready.

[Catfish]

Trump says that the US will only come to the aid of allies if 'They have fulfilled their obligations to us', [...]

Can we really rely on that? Good.

[...] and says about Erdogan "I give great credit to him for being able to turn that around," Mr Trump said of the failed coup. "Some people say that it was staged, you know that," he said. "I don't think so.""Thank god what you think is of no importance. Yet.
Of course it wasn't staged. Why else would you find a 10,000 thousand person list to discredit, torture and kill in your drawer, a day after the coup. :O:
Also his supporters are proud how Erdoghan opposed the coup. Like, from his plane when he was abroad in holidays, over a tiny video, and asking to land in Germany. Why th didn't we allow it?

Figured we wouldn't be able to rely on the US forever, about time we got our own forces unified and ready.You mean your own F-35s hard- and software wise and so on.. i am sure Trump will make a lend and lease offer you can't refuse. Also having software from the US most probably means a backdoor and means for shutting this and that off, in certain cases.

[MaDef]

Fixed it for you. :D See the difference in the candidates? I sure don't. Your suggestion on who to vote for?Then you aren't paying attention. one is a career politician and one is not. Plus the fact that Trump is giving people across the political spectrum a case of Apoplexy, and that means if he gets into office he'll probably shake things up quite a bit in Washington. Whether that ends up good or bad remains to be seen. But I'm tired of the same old BS from career politicians who say one thing to get into office and then make excuses as to why they didn't follow through on those campaign promises.So I figure I'll give the non-politician a shot at the brass ring and see what he does with it. The way i see it, He can't do any worse than the current occupant of 1600.

As for Hilary Clinton, she has been to close to too many questionable deals and activities over the years to be considered "A person of good character". While her participation in those "scandals" may not have crossed the threshold of being criminal, her responses & actions to any accusations or questions have been far less than stellar and that means she's dishonest. For that reason alone i don't want to see her in the White house a second time.
Nor do I want to give Bill Clinton a second shot at sexually harassing the staff.

[AVGWarhawk]

Then you aren't paying attention. one is a career politician and one is not. Plus the fact that Trump is giving people across the political spectrum a case of Apoplexy, and that means if he gets into office he'll probably shake things up quite a bit in Washington. Whether that ends up good or bad remains to be seen. But I'm tired of the same old BS from career politicians who say one thing to get into office and then make excuses as to why they didn't follow through on those campaign promises.So I figure I'll give the non-politician a shot at the brass ring and see what he does with it. The way i see it, He can't do any worse than the current occupant of 1600.

As for Hilary Clinton, she has been to close to too many questionable deals and activities over the years to be considered "A person of good character". While her participation in those "scandals" may not have crossed the threshold of being criminal, her responses & actions to any accusations or questions have been far less than stellar and that means she's dishonest. For that reason alone i don't want to see her in the White house a second time.
Nor do I want to give Bill Clinton a second shot at sexually harassing the staff.


Obama was nothing but a chance taken 8 years ago. I think Trump is worth a 4 year chance. Hillary has had opportunity after opportunity to shine. Her luster never came through. In fact, it is black as coal. Absolutely nothing will change under her less than stellar leadership.

[Mr Quatro]

Obama was nothing but a chance taken 8 years ago. I think Trump is worth a 4 year chance. Hillary has had opportunity after opportunity to shine. Her luster never came through. In fact, it is black as coal. Absolutely nothing will change under her less than stellar leadership.

I see similarities between Obama and Trump in regards to what people think. They were all over Obama on the internet and passed around emails for his first two terms.

Now they are all over Trump with making fun of him.

Flip a coin ... I think it's going to be Donald Trump as the next POTUS :yep:

[em2nought]

Trump's choice of VP might help him get the little old ladies of the GOP to vote for him, but it sure won't help with the undecided voters, the left out Bernie voters, or even his current supporters. Not too happy with that decision. :nope:

[mapuc]

After have seen and heard our political expert on American politics and some clip from Ted Cruz speech at the GOP meeting

Here is what one of this Danish expert said

Ted's speech and the crowd answer showed clearly how divided The Republican is

When he said that, my first thought was-

"Will we(every person in the world) be witness to a divided GOP ? Meaning that the American voters have not only one but two candidates to choose from the Republican party

Which could be Trump and Ted.

Markus

[August]

After have seen and heard our political expert on American politics and some clip from Ted Cruz speech at the GOP meeting

Here is what one of this Danish expert said

Ted's speech and the crowd answer showed clearly how divided The Republican is

When he said that, my first thought was-

"Will we(every person in the world) be witness to a divided GOP ? Meaning that the American voters have not only one but two candidates to choose from the Republican party

Which could be Trump and Ted.

Markus

No Markus, Ted is done for this election. What you saw was little more than posturing for the next one, oh and a fair load of sour grapes too.

[AVGWarhawk]

After have seen and heard our political expert on American politics and some clip from Ted Cruz speech at the GOP meeting

Here is what one of this Danish expert said

Ted's speech and the crowd answer showed clearly how divided The Republican is

When he said that, my first thought was-

"Will we(every person in the world) be witness to a divided GOP ? Meaning that the American voters have not only one but two candidates to choose from the Republican party

Which could be Trump and Ted.

Markus

Ted is his own party.

[AVGWarhawk]

I see similarities between Obama and Trump in regards to what people think. They were all over Obama on the internet and passed around emails for his first two terms.

Now they are all over Trump with making fun of him.

Flip a coin ... I think it's going to be Donald Trump as the next POTUS :yep:

I agree and under these reasons:

1. Trump makes news. The media has done all the advertising a candidate could ask for. Trump will make interesting news for the 4 years. What Hillary is wearing at a summit is not great for ratings. The media is always a big player in elections .

2. Trump has not really come out with the big guns concerning Hillarys' disregard for secured servers(lake there of) and top secret information. The woman can not be trusted. Do we really want Hillary to answer the red phone at 0200? Hillary has lied and lied for decades. She is not even shameful about it anymore.

3. Many will ask, "What do we have to lose if Trump is elected?" Why nothing truthfully. We gain some real change perhaps? We can certainly say under Hillary nothing will change.

[AndyJWest]

A question from a bemused Brit: have there been any previous elections where a presidential candidate has been snubbed by so many leading figures from the party he is supposedly representing? And if so, did the candidate go on to win? I find it difficult to believe that the Dems aren't going to make an issue of this, and I can't see how Trump can blame 'crooked Hilary' for the lack of support (and outright hostility) he has received from sections of the Republican establishment. This has got to hurt his prospects - and as I see it, he can't go on the offensive against his GOP critics without risking alienating potential voters from the GOP mainstream.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Typical Democrat tactic. Do far worse then deny that it matters any more. Then launch a rant against one person for something that another person did or said. :roll:

http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/projection-tv-front-projection.jpg

[vienna]

A question from a bemused Brit: have there been any previous elections where a presidential candidate has been snubbed by so many leading figures from the party he is supposedly representing? And if so, did the candidate go on to win? I find it difficult to believe that the Dems aren't going to make an issue of this, and I can't see how Trump can blame 'crooked Hilary' for the lack of support (and outright hostility) he has received from sections of the Republican establishment. This has got to hurt his prospects - and as I see it, he can't go on the offensive against his GOP critics without risking alienating potential voters from the GOP mainstream.

I don't recall anything in my lifetime on the Presidential level although, after Nixon and the Watergate scandal, the GOP did sort of resign itself to the fact Gerald Ford was not going to be elected in the 1976 election; the pardon of Nixon pretty much put the kibosh on Ford and there were no other electable GOP probables who wanted to even get near the whole mess. They just sort of left Ford to dangle and fall...

Trump has already alienated a very substantial portion of the GOP mainstream and there appears to be no prospect in sight of Trump reversing the trend. Just this morning, on local news radio here, a report noted the Koch Bros., billionaire Texans and very large financial backers of the GOP, have assembled a sum in excess of US $900,000,000 for the GOP but have placed the limitation that none of the funds are to be used in support of the Trump campaign; the funds are to be used for Senate, House, and gubernatorial GOP candidates exclusively. The Kochs have a very broad influence on the more mainstream, establishment funding community and it would not be surprising for other GOP contributors to follow suit. Aside from the financial impact, it can be expected there will be more of the sort of Cruz public rebuke by other notable or visible GOP members or, perhaps even worse, a sort of apathetic, hands-off ignoring of Trump by some other GOP members. One of the more embarrassing aspects of the Convention this week has been the absence of so many of the mainstream GOP figures at the convention and the refusal of so many of others to speak at the Convention on Trump's behalf. All Trump was left with was a hodge-podge collection of speakers of dubious value. Even those mainstream speakers who did appear, like Paul Ryan, did so mainly as a pro forma obligation and spoke through somewhat gritted teeth. Considering Trump seems to have a knack of alienating people, the coming months will be interesting to see if he can recover or erode even further...

Did anyone else notice, of all those who spoke at the Convention, there was not a single business associate or person who has done business with Trump in the past who came out to endorse him or speak on his behalf? It has been said the character of a man can be judged on how he conducts his own business and in how those with whom he interacts in his dealings think of and feel about him. In Trump's case, apparently there is only the sound of silence...

You asked about if a party has ever been snubbed or turned away by their own party. Although not on a national level, here in California, it did happen. California is a very large state; based on Gross Domestic Product (GDP), California, if it were a separate country would rank 7th or 8th among all world economies; in the US, it has the highest GDP on any state, so being the Governor of California is a very important office in and out of the state. Back in 2014, the office of Governor was up for a vote and the incumbent was up for re-election. The then and current Governor, Jerry Brown, was up for his fourth term in the office (he had served two previous four-year terms, 1975 1983). There was a primary election to select the candidates to run for the office. In CA, the primary elections are run as non-partisan in the sense that the two top vote-getters, regardless of party, will run against each other in the final, General Election; it means it is possible for two candidates from the same party to run against each other for the same office. Brown was sure to be one of the two top candidates in votes, but the rest of the race was wide open. Among the candidates was a GOP State Assembly Member named Tim Donnelly, who had been swept in to his then office in the Tea Party fervor of 2010. He was a real Right Winger and a bit of an extremist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Donnelly_(politician)

There are several parallels between Donnelly and the the current GOP Trump situation. Both came to attention espousing radical views, both had a fervent, vocal following, and both became a thorn in their party's side. At the outset of the primary campaigns, it seemed Donnelly might just garner enough votes to place second in the election, meaning the CA GOP would be placed in the position of fielding a very distasteful candidate and suffering not only statewide, but national embarrassment. The CA GOP powers that be disassociated themselves from Donnelly, expending funds and efforts on his other GOP opponents and doing everything possible to prevent him running in the General Election. This was the first and, thus far, only time I ever saw a party actively seek to torpedo the candidacy of a member of their own party. The extent of the efforts and the vehemence with which the CA GOP carried it out was startling. In the end, the primary results were Brown at about 54% of the votes, GOP candidate Neel Kashkari at about 19%, and Donnelly at about 15%. There was a collective sigh of relief from the CA GOP, but damage was done when, during the primary race, Donnelly made a series of wild claims about Kashkari, even calling him a Muslim (Karkari is, in fact, a Hindu); the mud slinging resulted in Kashkari losing to Brown in the General Election (Brown 60% of the vote, Kashkari 40%). The damage done by Donnelly to Kashkari's campaign was so extensive, Brown did virtually no campaigning for the office and still won. The really sad part of the whole situation is Kashkari is actually a very good candidate and someone I would seriously consider voting for if his name came up on my ballot in the future...

I don't know if Trump might cause as much damage as Donnelly, but there is a lesson to be learned in what happens when the wing-nuts are let loose...



<O>

[mapuc]

The only thing I can say about the problem or problems is what our former minister said in a program on Danish TV.

The Republican has created this problem them self and is now harvesting the fruits of that work.

Markus

[vienna]

We may end up saying the same in our own country...



<O>

[em2nought]

People certainly have bought into the false narrative that politicians are good, and private business is bad. Hook, line, and sinker. :har:

[AVGWarhawk]

Did anyone else notice, of all those who spoke at the Convention, there was not a single business associate or person who has done business with Trump in the past who came out to endorse him or speak on his behalf? It has been said the character of a man can be judged on how he conducts his own business and in how those with whom he interacts in his dealings think of and feel about him. In Trump's case, apparently there is only the sound of silence...




<O>

Personally I don't think having a business associate speaking would be helpful. The campaign managers selected those that would help with gaining votes . In particular, women(Ivanka), black community(NC pastor took the podium) and LGBT(Peter Thiel I think took the podium).

[vienna]

Personally I don't think having a business associate speaking would be helpful. The campaign managers selected those that would help with gaining votes . In particular, women(Ivanka), black community(NC pastor took the podium) and LGBT(Peter Thiel I think took the podium).

Considering Trump primarily and substantially bases his qualifications on his vaunted business acumen, it would be informative to see how those who worked with him (not for him) or those who had extensive business dealings with him felt about him and his business practices, ethics, veracity, etc. If I were someone running without the usual background of political experience, I would at least try to get some degree of approbation from my peers and clients to bolster my image. I'm just pointing out a rather curious apparent lack of support from the business community on which he bases his reputation...

Related to the above, an article in the August 2016 issue of Vanity Fair magazine takes a detailed look at Trump's finances, particularly in light of his refusal to disclose his tax returns. I know, I know, he claims he can't because the IRS is auditing him, but the reality it is not the IRS dragging its feet that is delaying the completion of the audit, it is Trump and his attorneys who are doling out requested data in dribs and drabs so as to drag out a final resolution as long as possible. Whether this is to avoid a possible personally negative outcome of the audit and the attendant tax liabilities or as a tactic to not have his possibly dubious dealings see the light prior to the General Election is open for speculation. However, the author of the article and his researchers used forensic accounting methods to try a get a grasp on Trump's finances. One of the interesting lines from the article is this:

Many bankers don’t lend to Trump now, burned by what some call “Donald risk,” a reference to the fact that some Wall Street banks have been left with pennies on the dollar through some of his maneuvers.This refers to Trump's practice of using bankruptcy laws to avoid paying up on his indebtedness. Here is a link to the article:

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/the-great-trump-tax-mysteries

The article may be a bit of a read since it does deal with accounting and finance, but it is informative. I liked the throughness of it, but I also have a background in accounting and auditing...

Lest anyone think the author is some political hack out for Trump's hide, here is his Wikipedia entry:

Nicholas Shaxson (born 1966) is a British author, journalist and investigator. He is best known for his investigative books Poisoned Wells (2007) and Treasure Islands (2011). He is a full-time writer and researcher for the Tax Justice Network, an expert-led group focused on the harmful impacts of tax avoidance, tax competition and tax havens.

...Since 1993 he has written on global business and politics for Vanity Fair, Financial Times, Reuters, the Economist and its sister publication the Economist Intelligence Unit, International Affairs, Foreign Affairs, American Interest, the BBC, Africa Confidential, African Energy, and others.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Shaxson

I'd say he has the bona fides as a taxation investigator...

Now that Trump promised in his acceptance speech last night "the truth and nothing else", here is the real, hard truth:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-fact-check-trump-resurfaces-debunked-claims-speech-024445968--election.html

Apparently, there is the real truth and then there is the "Trump truth"...



<O>

[AVGWarhawk]

Considering Trump primarily and substantially bases his qualifications on his vaunted business acumen, it would be informative to see how those who worked with him (not for him) or those who had extensive business dealings with him felt about him and his business practices, ethics, veracity, etc.

<O>

Considering the liberal left media did not pick up on any of what you believe should be part of the vetting process would indicate it is not necessary to include, speak with or request interviews from businessmen that have done business deals with Trump. Further, if Trumps dealings were anything less than honorable I would believe anyone of them would come forward.

Perhaps it would be best to discuss Hillary's past business deals(Clinton Fountain), ethics, veracity and simply not caring about using secured servers when emailing top secret information. The court of public vetting(voters) will decide that.

[Skybird]

:har:

^The total situation.

Americans - you will regret this.

Oh, and the status as is , is the best argument I can imagine against unqualified, non-discriminatory democracy. It proves all and everything I have brought up in the past against it. Trump and Clinto are not even the two greatest problem here. The populace is.

[eddie]

You are correct Skybird! We are going to regret having these 2 clowns running for office, I already do,lol Trump sucks, Hillary sucks, just can't get any better then this!

[Mr Quatro]

:har:
Trump and Clinto are not even the two greatest problem here. The populace is.

You've been out drinking again haven't you? :D

[Catfish]

What i personally learned from this is, that being a politician and becoming president of the US is not about content, but all about show, showing off and bigmouthing.
And, of course of money. No poor man will ever become a president.

We are all a bunch of apes :haha:

[vienna]

Considering the liberal left media did not pick up on any of what you believe should be part of the vetting process would indicate it is not necessary to include, speak with or request interviews from businessmen that have done business deals with Trump. Further, if Trumps dealings were anything less than honorable I would believe anyone of them would come forward.

...

Oh, but many have come forward. There are the lawsuits regarding his scam Trump 'University', his association and endorsement of the ACN swindle (he's being sued over that, also), his failure to pay contractors, his failure, or at least until the nasty "liberal media" pointed it out his failure to do so, to pay out monies he collected and held for US Veterans charities, the cite made in my previous post about banks being unwilling to loan him money because of Trump's dubious business practices that left the banks holding the bag (and, speaking of which, Trump claims it's no big deal because he's got "lots of cash"; if so, why does he need bank loans?), and the list goes on and on. Blaming a so-called "liberal media" i just another dodge: they didn't create Trump's lack of ethics or morality, they simply reported it and sometimes the truth does hurt. If Trump and the GOP are so concerned about perceived media bias, then they have only to marshal their minions at Fox an at the very large number of conservative talk shows to refute the charges against Trump. But you know what they don't refute the charges, they don't dispute them, they don't even try to present sound, logical, practical reasons to vote for Trump. Instead, they fall back on the same tired tactic of pointing at Clinton or whoever else they feel will deflect attention from the very obvious collection of flaws that is Donald Trump. Instead of just screeching about "She (or they) do it, too!!", why don't the supporters of Trump instead give a logical, verifiable explanation or defense for the charges against Trump? Why don't they try to "sell" the US voters on real reasons to vote for him instead of just shouting slogans and waving banners and placards. Perhaps it's because they can't defend the indefensible, and they can't find a way to sell flawed product. The fact that Trump's "Unfavorable" rating among all voters consistently remains at well over 60% (it reached a bit over 70%, at one point) is a strong indication not all the voters are drinking the Trump Kool-Aid...

Here are a few links to illustrate the point Trump is not a great fan of ethical practices:

https://www.thestreet.com/story/13256267/1/4-times-donald-trump-was-savvy-or-shady--you-decide.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyregion/donald-trump-atlantic-city.html?_r=0

http://time.com/money/3923629/donald-trump-name-business-failures/

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432826/donald-trump-scandals-business-failures-roundup

The last link is from the National Review, a very conservative magazine founded by the great modern conservative, William F. Buckley, Jr. I wonder what Buckley would think of the state of the current GOP and it's choice of candidate...


Perhaps it would be best to discuss Hillary's past business deals(Clinton Fountain), ethics, veracity and simply not caring about using secured servers when emailing top secret information. The court of public vetting(voters) will decide that.

As I have pointed out before, I'm not telling anyone how to vote, but if others are going to insist a candidate should receive a vote, tells us what is good about your candidate and not just what is wrong with the the opponent. If you were going to sell some one a car, say, a Ford, you just don't rely on simply telling them how bad the Chevy is; if you're going to make the sale, you're going to need to tell the customer why the Ford is the better deal based on the qualities of the product itself. I don't know about anyone else, but somebody fervently trying to sell me something just by telling me about how bad the competitor's product is without wanting to tell me about the qualities, if any, of their own product makes me wonder just exactly what are they trying to hide or pull over on me...

There are plenty of people here, including yourself, to more than take up any slack in the Clinton bashing. What would be refreshing is seeing less finger pointing and more, well though-out, discussion of why Trump is worth the vote. As far as I'm concerned, neither is worth a vote and, unless someone comes up with some really good arguments for either, my opinion will so remain...



<O>

[mapuc]

After all these information from the GOP summit I couldn't stop thinking

If Trump & Co fail to unit the party

Will we see the Republican divided into two fraction ?

Where the one fraction will see them self as an ultra conservative Republican party
And the other fraction as
A Liberal conservative Republican party ?

Of course I could be totally wrong.

Markus

[Oberon]

https://66.media.tumblr.com/d7c78094f8bc89367e7ce449ef35a1d3/tumblr_nw2zbmhdBs1siq8rfo1_500.gif

KAINE LIVES!

[eddie]

Nice video of Trump Oberon!!:D Can hardly wait for the drama queen to give her speech next week! Should be good for a hoot!

[Oberon]

Meanwhile at the DNC:

http://www.ravico.com/ST/cockpit/viper2/179_eyebrows.jpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36879197?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

[AVGWarhawk]

Just another problem for Hillary to pretend it does not exist. Further, it has been suggested the Russians released these email. I guess the Russians are part of the vast rightwing conspiracy. Nothing but a shame, disgrace and circus.

[Oberon]

Just another problem for Hillary to pretend it does not exist. Further, it has been suggested the Russians released these email. I guess the Russians are part of the vast rightwing conspiracy. Nothing but a shame, disgrace and circus.

To be fair, it is in Russias favour to have Trump in power rather than Hilary.
Heck, a lot of things seem to be going well for Russia of late, the slow disintergration of the EU, Trump running for President and stating that he won't automatically come to Eastern European nations rescue unless they do something in return first, that feeling of American isolationism on the rise, right-wing governments popping up across Eastern Europe and right-wing popularity rising in Western Europe.

I could see how someone would make a theory out of it. :hmmm:

[August]

To be fair, it is in Russias favour to have Trump in power rather than Hilary.

So you say but maybe he prefers a president he already has in his pocket.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

[Oberon]

So you say but maybe he prefers a president he already has in his pocket.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

Win-win scenario, true...but I don't think Hilary has worried NATO as much as Donald. Not yet anyway.

[AVGWarhawk]

To be fair, it is in Russias favour to have Trump in power rather than Hilary.
Heck, a lot of things seem to be going well for Russia of late, the slow disintergration of the EU, Trump running for President and stating that he won't automatically come to Eastern European nations rescue unless they do something in return first, that feeling of American isolationism on the rise, right-wing governments popping up across Eastern Europe and right-wing popularity rising in Western Europe.

I could see how someone would make a theory out of it. :hmmm:

To be fair, this is just another scandal for the Clintons. Muddy the waters on the scandal by injecting some unsubstantiated claims the Russians leaked emails. Who cares? The DNC played favorites and let the Sanders campaign languish.

[Skybird]

A german weekly magazine just wrote: "Donald Trump might be closer to becoming the new president, than many experts can imagine. They cannot imagine that because they let themselves guided by their own antipathy."

There is truth in that, even if it is written with an eye on the German observers and "experts". I think it is not that different in America, however, at least I imagine that. Most Germans cannot imagine how much mistrusted and disliked Clinton is in America, over here she is seen as an American version of good mummy Merkel.

The Chinese work on going back to the moon. Maybe they accept to take Trump and Clinton with them and eject them on the dark side, for a hefty fee, of course. But no matter how much they would demand - it would be worth it.

On the other hand they might have more amusement when leaving both in the US. :D

[Aktungbby]

I could see how someone would make a theory out of it. :hmmm: NO leadership CONTROLS world-wide these days; and terrible ways to demonstrate it:https://media4.giphy.com/media/Ay6HrZVsDYuvS/200.gif:hmmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

The DNC is in disarray after the surfacing of emails concerning downplaying Sanders campaign. Imagine that. Is the DNC orchestrating another election like BO 8 years ago? I'm shocked.

[Buddahaid]

I'm just shocked. Who'd ever imagine politicians and party politics engage in political maneuvering.

[Betonov]

I can give them that, the democrats used every means to put Clinton in the nomination and succeded, the republicans used every means to keep Trump out and failed :)

[AVGWarhawk]

Sheesh...even BO half brother is voting for Trump....:har:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/obamas-brother-says-hes-voting-for-trump-in-november/ar-BBuOirg?ocid=ansmsnnews11

[Onkel Neal]

A german weekly magazine just wrote: "Donald Trump might be closer to becoming the new president, than many experts can imagine. They cannot imagine that because they let themselves guided by their own antipathy."

There is truth in that, even if it is written with an eye on the German observers and "experts". I think it is not that different in America, however, at least I imagine that. Most Germans cannot imagine how much mistrusted and disliked Clinton is in America, over here she is seen as an American version of good mummy Merkel.

The Chinese work on going back to the moon. Maybe they accept to take Trump and Clinton with them and eject them on the dark side, for a hefty fee, of course. But no matter how much they would demand - it would be worth it.

On the other hand they might have more amusement when leaving both in the US. :D


Yeah, michael moore just wrote a depressing op-ed piece (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/5-reasons-why-trump-will-_b_11156794.html), declaring Trump will win.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yeah, michael moore just wrote a depressing op-ed piece (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/5-reasons-why-trump-will-_b_11156794.html), declaring Trump will win.

2. The Last Stand of the Angry White Man. Our male-dominated, 240-year run of the USA is coming to an end. A woman is about to take over! How did this happen?! On our watch! There were warning signs, but we ignored them. Nixon, the gender traitor, imposing Title IX on us, the rule that said girls in school should get an equal chance at playing sports. Then they let them fly commercial jets. Before we knew it, Beyoncé stormed on the field at this year’s Super Bowl (our game!) with an army of Black Women, fists raised, declaring that our domination was hereby terminated! Oh, the humanity!

This is really reaching IMO. It is time for a woman to be president. However, Hillary is not that woman. Beyonce storming the stage. Nothing but a PR stunt to sell records.

3. The Hillary Problem. Can we speak honestly, just among ourselves? And before we do, let me state, I actually like Hillary - a lot - and I think she has been given a bad rap she doesn’t deserve. But her vote for the Iraq War made me promise her that I would never vote for her again. To date, I haven’t broken that promise. For the sake of preventing a proto-fascist from becoming our commander-in-chief, I’m breaking that promise. I sadly believe Clinton will find a way to get us in some kind of military action. She’s a hawk, to the right of Obama. But Trump’s psycho finger will be on The Button, and that is that. Done and done.

Hillary has a lot problems that have been created by Hillary. As far as the button for Trump, you will find no button on the Resolute Desk.

Let’s face it: Our biggest problem here isn’t Trump - it’s Hillary. She is hugely unpopular — nearly 70% of all voters think she is untrustworthy and dishonest

Bingo. Hillary did it to herself.

4. The Depressed Sanders Vote. Stop fretting about Bernie’s supporters not voting for Clinton - we’re voting for Clinton! The polls already show that more Sanders voters will vote for Hillary this year than the number of Hillary primary voters in ‘08 who then voted for Obama. This is not the problem. The fire alarm that should be going off is that while the average Bernie backer will drag him/herself to the polls that day to somewhat reluctantly vote for Hillary,

Not anymore. Not after the email issue and Bernie getting the crappy end of the stick courtesy of his own people. Bernie supporters are going independent. Stein.

And again...more email issues. Do these folks believe emails are really private???? Hillary is under investigation for using unsecured servers. The DNC is busy sinking Bernie using servers that get hacked.

[Mr Quatro]

Just another problem for Hillary to pretend it does not exist. Further, it has been suggested the Russians released these email. I guess the Russians are part of the vast rightwing conspiracy. Nothing but a shame, disgrace and circus.

I like what one guy said this morning, "The Russians didn't send the emails" :woot:

[Nippelspanner]

It is time for a woman to be president.
Why? :hmmm:
Why does your POTUS' sex/gender play a role?

I always thought what matters is if the person is fit for the job. Unfortunately, social-political agendas seem to be way more important these days. In Germany we have the "Frauenquote" ('Women-quote') which guarantees that if a man and a woman apply for any job and both are qualified in the same way - the Woman will get the job "because muh oppression!".
(I despise this law tremendously, it is hypocritical, wrong and completely unnecessary!)

I really don't like where western culture is heading...

[AVGWarhawk]

Why? :hmmm:
Why does your POTUS' sex/gender play a role?



Because it simply is. Other countries have put women in similar positions. Why does a country that vomits the word "equility" all the time not have a woman as president? POTUS sex/gender do not play a role however what does it say 8 years ago when a Jr Senator African American was slug shot to the front? In light of the email scandal concerning Bernie Sander not getting the support from the DNC, do you believe this was not done 8 years ago to Hillary? You will find in posts of mine over the past 8 years that every bit of BO campaign 8 years ago was orchestrated and Hillary was asked to step aside, it was not her turn. She took it with the promise to be kept in the limelight(Sec of State) which went sour on her anyway. When they say it it is rigged it really is rigged.

I'm not a Hillary fan but I do feel she was screwed 8 years ago by her own party. Bernie is feeling the burn from his own party as well.


You missed the part where I said Hillary is not it. :up:

[Nippelspanner]

No, I didn't miss it and I even agree, but that wasn't my point.
My point is that we have to apply full brakes to the current course we (westerners) are on,
because we neglect what is important over stupid "feelings-related" issues.

My point, to break it even shorter is: Sex/gender must not matter.

[AVGWarhawk]

No, I didn't miss it and I even agree, but that wasn't my point.
My point is that we have to apply full brakes to the current course we (westerners) are on,
because we neglect what is important over stupid "feelings-related" issues.

My point, to break it even shorter is: Sex/gender must not matter.

I agree that sex and gender should not matter. But there is a 3rd tier. Race. Sure, we are all Americans. However there is still a separation. African American, Irish American, American(Native American), Spanish Americans and the list goes on. What if a white woman was elected before a black man? I wonder what would have transpired. Even today religious affiliation is taken into consideration. Bernies being Jewish was apparently an issue.

At any rate...looks like the green party is gaining traction with Jill Stein. She is getting the Bernie supporters. She just might be the one instead of the what we are presently faced with.

[August]

At any rate...looks like the green party is gaining traction with Jill Stein. She is getting the Bernie supporters. She just might be the one instead of the what we are presently faced with.

A fair number of them are going to Johnson as well.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/22/sanders-voters-for-gary-johnson

[AVGWarhawk]

A fair number of them are going to Johnson as well.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/22/sanders-voters-for-gary-johnson

I have not hear of Gary Johnson. Or Stein for that matter. This is getting really interesting.

[August]

I have not hear of Gary Johnson. Or Stein for that matter. This is getting really interesting.

There's a good chance the Libertarians will make the necessary 15% poll ratings to be allowed to participate in the presidential debates this fall.

Bernie could probably have made that mark too if he hadn't sold out.

[AVGWarhawk]

There's a good chance the Libertarians will make the necessary 15% poll ratings to be allowed to participate in the presidential debates this fall.

Bernie could probably have made that mark too if he hadn't sold out.

Good point.

[Catfish]

Why? :hmmm:
Why does your POTUS' sex/gender play a role?

I always thought what matters is if the person is fit for the job.

See here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2420775&postcount=2277

[vienna]

A bit of humor in the campaign: Trump has been roundly condemned by various musicians for using their songs, without their permission, as part of his campaign. The latest is the George Harrison song "Here Comes The Sun" and his estate has used to Twitter to express their dissatisfaction:


As Mr Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, took to the stage to introduce her father, her arrival was accompanied by the Harrison-penned Beatles’ hit Here Comes the Sun.

Shortly afterwards, the official Twitter account of the George Harrison estate, wrote: “The unauthorised use of #HereComestheSun at the #RNCunCLE is offensive & against the wishes of the George Harrison estate."


But that is not where it ended. In a clear indication of the estate’s disapproval of Mr Trump, the account then tweeted: “If it had been Beware of Darkness we might have approved it!”




George would have loved that last line... :haha:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/george-harrisons-family-objects-to-donald-trumps-use-of-here-comes-the-sun-a7150811.html


A video, featuring several prominent recording artists, was produced by a US political humor program on the subject of illegal song use by political campaigns:


https://youtu.be/KxbcN5H7dlM


All right, humor's over, back to the vitrol...






<O>

[mapuc]

After have been watching some video clip from the GOP summit and some from the ongoing Democrats ditto-I came to this conclusion-The American voters seems not to have a bored election ahead.

Today I saw a clip from the DNC where some woman said-something like-To you Mr Trump-we do not fall for your fancy words

Is that correct ? Trump is what I know in the lead in some survey and I know many people like what he has to say.

Here is what I think will happen if Trump is elected-After the "installation" he will be told by the more experienced politicians that all what he have promised his followers can't be done. Or he know these thing.

Markus

[Bubblehead1980]

I would never vote for a marxist like Bernie.However, I respected the fight he put up and how if not for the corrupt and rigged Democratic primary with super delegates, he would likely have won the nomination. Just like any half wit marxist, he fell in line and is supporting Hillary.Kudos to his supporters who are refusing to do so.Makes me wonder if Bernie was really sincere or just running to generate "buzz" for the Dem primary. hmm

There is but one party that has not changed this cycle, that is the Democratic party.Corrupt business as usual.Republican party had a successful insurgency(oh how they wish they had been a little more corrupt and installed a super delegate system before this year, could have stopped Trump) and has put forth a nominee that will actually do what is needed.Perfect or ideal? No. Right man for the time? Absolutely.

Sad part is, if Dems were not so corrupt would have nominated Bernie and believe Bernie would have absolutely won the general election where as Hillary likely will not.

[em2nought]

Sad part is, if Dems were not so corrupt would have nominated Bernie and believe Bernie would have absolutely won the general election where as Hillary likely will not.

As corrupt as those folks are, if the polls start to go heavily in Trump's favor I'm not sure there will even be an election. Dr. Carson isn't so sure either http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/ben-carson-might-obama-cancel-the-2016-election-28523/

[Onkel Neal]

I would never vote for a marxist like Bernie.However, I respected the fight he put up and how if not for the corrupt and rigged Democratic primary with super delegates, he would likely have won the nomination. Just like any half wit marxist, he fell in line and is supporting Hillary.Kudos to his supporters who are refusing to do so.Makes me wonder if Bernie was really sincere or just running to generate "buzz" for the Dem primary. hmm

There is but one party that has not changed this cycle, that is the Democratic party.Corrupt business as usual.Republican party had a successful insurgency(oh how they wish they had been a little more corrupt and installed a super delegate system before this year, could have stopped Trump) and has put forth a nominee that will actually do what is needed.Perfect or ideal? No. Right man for the time? Absolutely.

Sad part is, if Dems were not so corrupt would have nominated Bernie and believe Bernie would have absolutely won the general election where as Hillary likely will not.

Trump is a fraud, as bad as Bill Clinton's wife any day. As President he will be spending a lot of time in courting from lawsuits against his various scams. Too bad he didn't make Bernie Madoff his VP choice, that would have been about right.

[VipertheSniper]

As corrupt as those folks are, if the polls start to go heavily in Trump's favor I'm not sure there will even be an election. Dr. Carson isn't so sure either http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/ben-carson-might-obama-cancel-the-2016-election-28523/

Seriously? Can't factcheck here at work, but that seems pretty far fetched.

[Catfish]

Outrage and scandal!

Obama grabs power as a dictator and declares himself the Sultan of the mUSlimized America !
Read all about it in Fox News' Special Edition !!

really :haha:
On the other hand this would be probably better than Trump or Hillary :yeah:

Well it is all not soo funny after all, with those two "candidates" :hmm2:

[Betonov]

Obama looks more like he'd wan't early elections than extend his mandate

[Penguin]

On the other hand this would be probably better than Trump or Hillary :yeah:

Well it is all not soo funny after all, with those two "candidates" :hmm2:

Anyone who votes for any of them for the sake of lesser evil and not because they are convinced of their abilities, just strengthens the two party sytem. I had the same discussion in Germany back then when folks voted for Schröder just to prevent Stoiber. (to be fair: the last chancellor candidate I would have had supported was good, old Willy :))

[AVGWarhawk]

A bit of humor in the campaign: Trump has been roundly condemned by various musicians for using their songs, without their permission, as part of his campaign. The latest is the George Harrison song "Here Comes The Sun" and his estate has used to Twitter to express their dissatisfaction:

<O>

This has happened in past campaigns. Nothing new.

[AVGWarhawk]

Here is what I think will happen if Trump is elected-After the "installation" he will be told by the more experienced politicians that all what he have promised his followers can't be done. Or he know these thing.

Markus

The same became of Obama and past nominiees/Presidents. Obama was promising the world. After he was nominated he was provided the real goings on in the world. Such a Gitmo. His promises were quietly left on the drawing board. Of course Trump will not build a wall and have Mexico pay for it.

[AVGWarhawk]

As corrupt as those folks are, if the polls start to go heavily in Trump's favor I'm not sure there will even be an election. Dr. Carson isn't so sure either http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/ben-carson-might-obama-cancel-the-2016-election-28523/

Well, according to BO things in the country are not as bad as Trump claims. Further, the DNC claims violent crime has gone down. The country is not as divided as people think according to BO. So, pulling the anarchy card will not work. Doing so would produce anarchy.

[AVGWarhawk]

Trump is a fraud, as bad as Bill Clinton's wife any day. As President he will be spending a lot of time in courting from lawsuits against his various scams. Too bad he didn't make Bernie Madoff his VP choice, that would have been about right.

I do not think Trump is a fraud. He is a showman if anything. A statesman certainly not. I would say much of what he has done with his campaign looks like another episode of reality TV. He stand by waiting on ratings that he generates for the network on that day. To me he plays this as if it is a game.

[AVGWarhawk]

Anyone who votes for any of them for the sake of lesser evil and not because they are convinced of their abilities, just strengthens the two party sytem. I had the same discussion in Germany back then when folks voted for Schröder just to prevent Stoiber. (to be fair: the last chancellor candidate I would have had supported was good, old Willy :))

We are always told a no vote is a vote for the other person.

[Catfish]

... After he was nominated he was provided the real goings on in the world. Such a Gitmo. His promises were quietly left on the drawing board. Of course Trump will not build a wall and have Mexico pay for it.

The Bush administration deliberately located the detention camp in Guantanamo for the purposes of evading any law – one of the clearest historical examples of raw executive power displacing elementary constitutional and human rights principles.

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to blame Obama of being "leftist" and "muslim", and generally not quite enough on the politically "rightist" side, and then top it with accusing him not to shut down Guantanamo. Not that he did not try, but it seems he did not succeed.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/01/why-obama-has-failed-to-close-guantanamo

I thought not being able to close Guantanamo would be the only thing the right liked about him? :hmmm:


B.t.w. Trump has vowed to keep the prison open, but he says all kinds of things, and mostly they contradict each other.

[AVGWarhawk]

The Bush administration deliberately located the detention camp in Guantanamo for the purposes of evading any law – one of the clearest historical examples of raw executive power displacing elementary constitutional and human rights principles.

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to blame Obama of being "leftist" and "muslim", and generally not quite enough on the politically "rightist" side, and then top it with accusing him not to shut down Guantanamo. Not that he did not try, but it seems he did not succeed.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/01/why-obama-has-failed-to-close-guantanamo

I thought not being able to close Guantanamo would be the only thing the right liked about him? :hmmm:

B.t.w. Trump has vowed to keep the prison open, but he says all kinds of things, and mostly they contradict each other.

Catfish...did I state ANYWHERE on this site that Obama is leftist, Muslim or generally not on the rightest side? It is hard to accept being labeled as hypocritical when I have not stated these things. And again, Obama promised to shut Gitmo until he was advised of the REAL deals such as evading laws. Also to find closing Gitmo was not going to happen on his watch no matter what. Sure, he tried but it was not in the cards. Further, pulling out of Iraq. He campaigned on that quite a bit. That was quieted for a very long time after being advised of what was really happening in Iraq at that time. BO was a Jr Senator who was absent a majority of his Jr Senator roll. BO was far less in the know at that time then we care to account. Candidates promise the moon and the stars until they are advised that we don't own the moon and the start to be promising these things.

[Catfish]

^ Sorry, i read too much opinionated anti-Obama text pieces and let it all out over you :oops:
No you indeed did state nothing of the above.

Regarding becoming president: Apart from corruption and all that a to-be-elected prseident will still have some ideals. However as soon as he becomes the president, i take it he is only then informed about what is really possible, and what not. By advisors, the secret service(s), and so on.

[AVGWarhawk]

^ Sorry, i read too much opinionated anti-Obama text pieces and let it all out over you :oops:
No you indeed did state nothing of the above.

Regarding becoming president: Apart from corruption and all that a to-be-elected prseident will still have some ideals. However as soon as he becomes the president, i take it he is only then informed about what is really possible, and what not. By advisors, the secret service(s), and so on.

As a person, I like Obama.His views on some things not so much. But that is no different than other people I know. The past 8 years has taken it's toll. He simply looks wiped out. Personally, I would not want the job no matter the pay and benefits. Much is left on his shoulders that he has no control over.

When formally elected to run for the party things change. More information concerning world events are shared. Insiders start to talk. It is a next level.

[VipertheSniper]

Well, according to BO things in the country are not as bad as Trump claims. Further, the DNC claims violent crime has gone down. The country is not as divided as people think according to BO. So, pulling the anarchy card will not work. Doing so would produce anarchy.

Regarding violent crime:
You make that sound like the DNC is pulling that out of thin air (or maybe I'm just reading too much into your statement). As far as I know the FBI statistics support that.

[AVGWarhawk]

Regarding violent crime:
You make that sound like the DNC is pulling that out of thin air (or maybe I'm just reading too much into your statement). As far as I know the FBI statistics support that.

Correct, the statistic support that. As a result BO can not attempt to pull a martial law act because the statistics do not support nor does the day to day activity across the US support anything remotely close to enacting martial law. For some reason people(Ben Carson) keep harping on BO enacting martial law so he can stay in power. I do not see that happening. There is no call for it.

[Oberon]

How long before someone reckons that John Hinckley Jr was released by Obama to assassinate Trump? :hmmm: :haha:

[AVGWarhawk]

How long before someone reckons that John Hinckley Jr was released by Obama to assassinate Trump? :hmmm: :haha:

It depends on Jodie Foster dating him.

[mapuc]

On a Danish Debate program where to former Ministers of Foreign Affairs have their own show. During the candidate campaign they showed pictures now and then from some of the leading news paper in USA.

In one of them You could see Dem and Rep arguing in front of the camera(public) and what looked like a magnifying glass, it had enlarged a little part of the picture-and there the reader could se them holding hands behind the back of the couch

Are the American politics exactly as European politics ? Only giving a showtime for the voters, so they think they have influence

I hope I misunderstood this painting.

Markus

[Skybird]

German commentator had - considering the terribly bad alternatives Trump and Clinton - a brilliant idea: Michelle Obama for president.

Indeed. Why not? Better than Clinton or Trump she would be any time.

:)

[vienna]

Seriously? Can't factcheck here at work, but that seems pretty far fetched.

CommDigiNews is a spin-off from The Washington Times, a part of the "Unification Church" conglomerate, founded by Rev. Sun Myung Moon, a Korean Christian (a loose application of the term) evangelist whose followers are well-known as "Moonies". The whole Moon organization is a hodge-podge religion, politics, conspiracy theorists, and some rather whacked-out side projects. The leaning of the group is heavily conservative, politically. What you may think of their reportage is up to you, but the background of the reporters ad reporting gives cause to take their purported facts with a good-sized grain of salt...



<O>

[Oberon]

No, nonono, no...Vladimir Putin for President. :yep:

[Nippelspanner]

No, nonono, no...Vladimir Putin for President. :yep:
You wrote Tsar wrong.

[AVGWarhawk]

German commentator had - considering the terribly bad alternatives Trump and Clinton - a brilliant idea: Michelle Obama for president.

Indeed. Why not? Better than Clinton or Trump she would be any time.

:)

Michelle has made a victory garden. In 8 years a garden. :shifty:

[Platapus]

No the President can't suspend elections.

It was not true when people were predicting that Bush would suspend elections, and it is still not true now that people are saying that Obama will suspend elections. The president simply does not have that authority.

Congress, on the other hand, does have the authority to set another date for the election (Article 2 sec 1 US Constitution) but such a change must be with the consent of the individual state (U.S.C 3 sec 7 and 8) and must allow for the transmission and counting of the votes on the sixth day of January (section 15)

It should be noted that even during our civil war, our presidential elections were still held. That is one area where the US differs from some other countries.

I am very confident that who ever becomes president next year will also be accused of attempting to postpone future elections. It seems to be a common lament.

Concerning the declaring of Martial Law, there is disagreement whether the President even has the authority to declare Martial Law or whether that power rests with the Congress. Martial Law is not defined in the Constitution. Article 1 Section 9 describes only two specific instances that may be considered Martial Law but only indirectly.

In 1863, Lincoln imposed Congressionally-authorized martial law. The authorizing act allowed the President to suspend habeas corpus throughout the entire United States. In 1866, the SCOtUS found this suspension unconstitutional.

In the late 19th century to the Mid 20th century Martial Law was imposed but only for very restricted circumstances.

This list does not include instances where governors have imposed Martial Law.

So no, the President does not have the authority to postpone elections. Even if the President could impose a general state of Martial Law (never been done before) it is highly likely that it would be overturned by the Legislative and or Judicial Branches.

[mapuc]

^ I have an off topic question to a part of what you wrote

"Concerning the declaring of Martial Law, there is disagreement whether the President even has the authority to declare Martial Law or whether that power rests with the Congress

What if a future President declare Martial law and the Congress does not approve this and the President say
- so what I have the military they support me and he or she use the military to "fulfil" this step.

End of the off topic question

Markus

[Platapus]

^ I have an off topic question to a part of what you wrote

"Concerning the declaring of Martial Law, there is disagreement whether the President even has the authority to declare Martial Law or whether that power rests with the Congress

What if a future President declare Martial law and the Congress does not approve this and the President say
- so what I have the military they support me and he or she use the military to "fulfil" this step.

End of the off topic question
Markus

An interesting question. It would depend on what actions the military would be taking.

If the military were to take actions not authorized by the Constitution and the decisions of the Legislative Branch and possibly the Judicial Branch then we would have what is called a coup.

In that case, the might of the military does put them in a position of authority. But it would be an illegal authority. Remember the President is the Commander in Chief only due to the authority of the constitution. The President does not have the authority to suspend the authority of the Constitution.

They would be, in effect deserting, their country and become the domestic enemy that the rest of us have sworn to defend against. When the country got back to its normal situation, these, now ex-members of the military would be brought up on charges.

However the chances of this happening are very small. And there is no guarantee that all of the military would desert. What would result is what we have seen in some other countries where a portion of the military stages a coup but the rest of the military remains loyal to the government.

Lots of dead guys ensues. :nope:

So yes, if the President feels that he or she has the support of the military, he or she can stage a coup. But it would be illegal, and that person would cease to be considered President and the Vice President would step in.

There is no way a President could take such action against the decision of the congress or the SCotUS without breaking the law.

[vienna]

One of the advantages of being "of an age" (OK, OK, 'old', happy now?) is you have a broad base of experiences to draw upon. What Platapus says is right: the same old, tired, and nonfactual allegations, theories, ad accusations come up every election year. One of my favorites in the past has been the claimed move to amend the US Constitution to allow to serve more than two four-year terms, usually because the party of the incumbent claims their guy has been so great we [I]gotta keep him on in office. The first time I remember this was when Nixon won reelection in 1972. There were calls from the GOP Far Right to make the Constitutional change. Little did they expect the 1972 GOP-Nixon campaign slogans of "Nixon's The One!" and "Four More Years! would end up be an accusation and the possible added prison time Nixon could face for each revealed offense, if convicted. The call for revoking the term limit was echoed again after the reelection of Reagan and GW Bush (curiously, there was no such call, as I remember, after Clinton's reelection). What was absurd about the whole idea was it was totally unworkable. Aside from the fact such a change would most likely not be made to affect a sitting President (the cries of foul from whoever was the opposition party would surely kill the idea), there is no logistical way to secure not only the required super-majority of each of both houses of Congress, much less get three-quarters of the states to each vote on and approve an amendment in time to insure the continuation of the incumbent's hold of the Oval Office. This idea of revoking term limits comes up almost every reelection and is just as false as the rest of the tin-foil hat based theories, conspiracies, and other such rot. As always, during the election cycles, healthy skepticism of anything smacking of partisan "sky is falling" mania is recommended...



<O>

[vienna]

Trumps's latest manifestation of his foot-in-mouth disorder is his flippant call for the Russian government hackers to hack Hillary's emails and those of the DNC. Backpedaling, as is his usual position, he now claims to have had no dealings with Russia at all, with the exception of the sale of one of his houses to a Russian. Also, as usual when Trump solidly declares his innocence, the real truth is just about 180 degrees from his 'truth':

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/07/27/trumps-claim-that-i-have-nothing-to-do-with-russia/

Here is a link to the June, 2016 story cited in the article above:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-financial-ties-to-russia-and-his-unusual-flattery-of-vladimir-putin/2016/06/17/dbdcaac8-31a6-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html

How can you tell when Trump is lying? His lips will be moving...

There have been some on the Right who are trying to spin mention of any implied Russian favoritism for a Trump Presidency as an indication of the respect and admiration of the Russians towards Trump. We don't know if this is a true evaluation; however, one thing is known: the Russian government, for all intents and purposes, Putin, do nothing that is not fully advantageous to their interests, never have and never will; if the Russians want Trump in the Oval Office, it is not because they respect or admire him, it is solely because they believe they will profit greatly, politically, financially, and in the realm of world power if Trump is President; the Russians will never try to back a President who they feel will stand up to their machinations or who will curtail their efforts. No matter how hard it is spun, Russian intents can't be discounted...


<O>

[Reece]

I love Trump, I hope he wins!!:yep:

[vienna]

Trying a bit of wit, are we?... :D



<O>

[August]

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51ysufZiVFL.jpg

[vienna]

What a devastating argument! The logic, the factual reasoning, the deep philosophical artfulness you presented is overwhelming! There is no reason to have an election, now! We must vote for a lying, fraudulent, unethical, amoral, sociopath just because it is obvious there is no other choice!...

Is this a case of the doctor saying "We had to kill the patient in order to cure his disease!"? There has to be better course of treatment. The US needs a second, or in this case, a third opinion...



<O>

[August]

What a devastating argument! The logic, the factual reasoning, the deep philosophical artfulness you presented is overwhelming! There is no reason to have an election, now! We must vote for a lying, fraudulent, unethical, amoral, sociopath just because it is obvious there is no other choice!...

Reading comprehension lesson: "Anyone" means the opposite of "someone in particular". What a overly defensive reaction on your part. Trump in your head much or is any slight to your criminal goddess causing your koolaid to turn sour?

[nikimcbee]

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51ysufZiVFL.jpg
:up:

Wake me after the election.

[AVGWarhawk]

Bill Clinton 1986 illegal immigration speech:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/17/bill-clinton-sounded-like-trump-on-illegal-immigration-in-1996-video/


Is Trump so different in his stance on illegal immigration?


According to Pelosi, guns, gays and God make white men hate Hillary. Just when I had it all figured out. Now this.

[mapuc]

After have seen some videoclips from the DNC and GOP on Danish TV I truly hope our way of doing an election doesn't turn into the way the American politicians are running an election.

(I have written, erased, written erased, used google translate and still I can't get it grammatically correct)

Markus

[mako88sb]

After have seen some videoclips from the DNC and GOP on Danish TV I truly hope our way of doing an election doesn't turn into the way the American politicians are running an election.

(I have written, erased, written erased, used google translate and still I can't get it grammatically correct)

Markus


Yes, I hope the same for the way Canada does elections. Might not be perfect but much better than the USA's system. No offense intended but it really seems to be turning into a never-ending gong show down there.

[vienna]

Reading comprehension lesson: "Anyone" means the opposite of "someone in particular". What a overly defensive reaction on your part. Trump in your head much or is any slight to your criminal goddess causing your koolaid to turn sour?

My criminal goddess? I don't have any dog in this fight and I never have. I am still seriously considering the idea of a write-in vote, as vain a gesture as that may be, but at least I would still be voting and expressing my view...

I do notice there was no response to any of the very many facts about Trump myself and many others have posted; is it because there is no defense for the indefensible? What are your responses, in detail and factually, to what has been revealed about the sheer paucity of character, honesty, integrity, ethics, and morality displayed by Trump throughout his life? Is their no argument to be given to refute what is a well-documented history of sleaze, slime, and deception? Or will the response be just the posting of another trite meme? To all the Trump supporters: Trump is your product; gives us really good reasons why the voters should buy it...



<O>

[August]

I do notice there was no response to any of the very many facts about Trump myself and many others have posted; is it because there is no defense for the indefensible? What are your responses, in detail and factually, to what has been revealed.

Why should I defend Trump? I've already stated who i'm probably voting for and why.

[vienna]

Why should I defend Trump? I've already stated who i'm probably voting for and why.

So, no answer, again?...



<O>

[vienna]

A bit of humor (and, perhaps, truth) from Stephen Colbert:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvkFkzpVYJ4

"The evil of two lessers": summed up this election perfectly...



<O>

[MaDef]

My criminal goddess? I don't have any dog in this fight and I never have. I am still seriously considering the idea of a write-in vote, as vain a gesture as that may be, but at least I would still be voting and expressing my view...

I do notice there was no response to any of the very many facts about Trump myself and many others have posted; is it because there is no defense for the indefensible? What are your responses, in detail and factually, to what has been revealed about the sheer paucity of character, honesty, integrity, ethics, and morality displayed by Trump throughout his life? Is their no argument to be given to refute what is a well-documented history of sleaze, slime, and deception? Or will the response be just the posting of another trite meme? To all the Trump supporters: Trump is your product; gives us really good reasons why the voters should buy it...<O>LOL.... Simple answer. He isn't a professional politician. Nor does he speak like one.

[August]

So, no answer, again?...

Please explain why a Gary Johnson supporter ought to have to defend Donald Trump and maybe I can answer it.

[AVGWarhawk]

Gary Johnson. CEO Cannabis Sativa. If elected I'm sure the first order of business will legalizing marijuana in all states.

“I generally believe this is changing the planet for the better,” said Johnson,

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/gary-johnson-marijuana-108501#ixzz4FknVtKSj



Is this guy high or something?

[August]

Gary Johnson. CEO Cannabis Sativa. If elected I'm sure the first order of business will legalizing marijuana in all states.

“I generally believe this is changing the planet for the better,” said Johnson,

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/gary-johnson-marijuana-108501#ixzz4FknVtKSj



Is this guy high or something?

Not in the last few months I understand! :D

[Betonov]

A bit of humor (and, perhaps, truth) from Stephen Colbert:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvkFkzpVYJ4

"The evil of two lessers": summed up this election perfectly...



<O>


Thank god Colbert stays true to mocking both sides. The Daily show really exibits first class Hillary kiss assery and I don't even want to know how Bill Maher is doing :nope:

[vienna]

I watched the speech by Hillary last night on the local CBS station here in Los Angeles/Southern California area and immediately after CBS ended their coverage an ad came on the air. It is for a political action group called Next Generation California (NextGen-CA), funded by a billionaire California activist. The ad gives a taste of what the Trump campaign and the GOP will have to deal with in the next three months:

https://youtu.be/1YscUuh3Xfs

Given how much footage is out there of Trump assailing various groups of prospective voters the GOP is likely to lose, it will be interesting to see how the GOP campaign will deal with the problem they face. Somehow, the term "hoist with your own petard" comes to mind...



<O>

[AVGWarhawk]

I watched the speech by Hillary last night on the local CBS station here in Los Angeles/Southern California area and immediately after CBS ended their coverage an ad came on the air. It is for a political action group called Next Generation California (NextGen-CA), funded by a billionaire California activist. The ad gives a taste of what the Trump campaign and the GOP will have to deal with in the next three months:

https://youtu.be/1YscUuh3Xfs

Given how much footage is out there of Trump assailing various groups of prospective voters the GOP is likely to lose, it will be interesting to see how the GOP campaign will deal with the problem they face. Somehow, the term "hoist with your own petard" comes to mind...



<O>

Plenty of footage of the opposing team walking back statements. Attack adds are the norm. Most are cherry picking what a candidate said. Many do not complete the remainder of the statement. It gets twisted. Many twist the truth. None-the-less, Trump has said these things as depicted in this particular add.

[vienna]

It makes it pretty difficult for the GOP to garner those much need votes from the demographics Trump has been so cheerfully bashing over the past several months. The GOP needs those voters if they stand any chance at all of winning and the vast catalog of Trump's ramblings just ain't helping. Like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight, but I do like to see the strategies used by the campaigns and parties; it is, to me, sort of like watching a chess game; however, it seems the GOP is down by a couple of pawns...



<O>

[AVGWarhawk]

It makes it pretty difficult for the GOP to garner those much need votes from the demographics Trump has been so cheerfully bashing over the past several months. The GOP needs those voters if they stand any chance at all of winning and the vast catalog of Trump's ramblings just ain't helping. Like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight, but I do like to see the strategies used by the campaigns and parties; it is, to me, sort of like watching a chess game; however, it seems the GOP is down by a couple of pawns...



<O>

Long road yet. Certainly more damning emails will appear in October. But I agree, Trumps mouth moves at 100 mph. His brain lags behind at 50 mph. On the other hand, Hillary smiles and pretends all is well in the land. Four Federal investigations and rigging the campaign gets you to the top. I guess all is well in her land.

Vote Mickey Mouse!

[vienna]

Long road yet. Certainly more damning emails will appear in October. But I agree, Trumps mouth moves at 100 mph. His brain lags behind at 50 mph. On the other hand, Hillary smiles and pretends all is well in the land. Four Federal investigations and rigging the campaign gets you to the top. I guess all is well in her land.

Vote Mickey Mouse!

There were nine investigations alone on the Benghazi incident, a couple of which were by the FBI, and a couple of bi-partisan congressional investigations chaired by GOP members; none of the investigations turned up any "smoking gun" or culpability; the last bi-partisan investigation was such a waste of time and taxpayer money, the GOP chairman had the committee's final report released just minutes before close of business on a Friday, a tactic used in government circles to avoid press and public scrutiny; the major news outlets basically either shut down or go to skeleton staffs or second-stringers, making it unlikely to get any significant blow-back until the following Monday's news cycle; it also allows the entity releasing whatever the embarrassing item is time to get their ducks in a row if the Bandini should hit the fan...

Don't know about Mickey Mouse; not sure I could vote for him: what is he hiding be hind those big gloves? Can you trust a mouse who keeps a dog as a pet while he has another dog as a best friend? And, what's with the high voice? At least he would mirror Trump's position: there's a big wall around Disneyland...

Maybe we should try to bring Harold Stassen back to life: given the choices this year, he might finally have a chance:


Stassen was later best known for being a perennial candidate for the Republican Party nomination for President of the United States, seeking it nine times between 1944 and 1992 (1944, 1948, 1952, 1964, 1968, 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992). He never won the Republican nomination, much less the presidency; in fact, after 1952, he never even came close, but continued to campaign actively and seriously for President until just a year before his death.


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

Speaking of long shots, Wendell Willkie pulled off getting the GOP nomination in 1940 after six ballot rounds at the deadlocked GOP convention that year. Actually, he was a very interesting person:

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



<O>

[mapuc]

A friend had postet a breaking news story saying the Democrats have been hacked for the third time

If true then I wonder,
Do they not take internet security serious in that party ?

Markus

[vienna]

No matter how good the internet security is, there's little defense against a motivated and persistent hack attack. You build a better mousetrap, they build better mice. While the internet security of the parties is probably pretty high, I doubt it equals stringent government standards (even the government, with all their safeguards gets hacked); add to the mix the human factor of non-compliant, careless, or technologically untrained users on any system and you've created any numbers of cracks to exploit. Remember, the main way they were able to crack Enigma was the penchant of coders to use rote, repeated phrases in their transmissions; once you know what you're looking for, it gets easier to find. The surprise is not that it happened again, it is it has not happened more often. For all the GOP knows, they've been hacked themselves, probably by the same putative "allies" alleged to be aiding Trump. Remember, almost all hacks are not detected until long after the breaches are made...


<O>

[Jeff-Groves]

There was a time when a Hacker's Creed was
'Do no damage. Leave no trace.'
Seems it's become
'Ya I was here and messed up your stuff'

Basement dwelling wanna be's now days.

[mapuc]

^ My cousin who works with computer told me once that at one company they had two or three computers without ANY connection to the internet whatsoever these computer contained sensitive information works and there were many security step before an employee could but a disc into one of these computer drive.

That if I understand it correctly is security even the wall was somehow protected.

Markus

[AVGWarhawk]

Here is an idea. Stop send emails.

[Jeff-Groves]

^ My cousin who works with computer told me once that at one company they had two or three computers without ANY connection to the internet whatsoever these computer contained sensitive information works and there were many security step before an employee could but a disc into one of these computer drive.

That if I understand it correctly is security even the wall was somehow protected.

Markus

Ya. I worked for a company that had security like that.
They threw all their 3 1/2" disks in a dumpster after slicing them.
Did you know that does not stop recovery of the information?
:haha:

I don't work for them any longer.
:yeah:

[mapuc]

On one of the Danish public service channel, they are showing a series about former Presidential race for the White House.

Here is the description of tonight's episode

"American documentary from 2016 (Race for the White House) Way to
The Oval Office is long and sometimes dirty. Actor Kevin Spacey
explains some of the most sensational election campaigns in US history.

The election campaign in 1828 is no exception and is particularly notorious for personal attacks between presidential candidates, Andrew Jackson
and John Quincy Adams. Through archive photos, interviews and
reconstructions portrayed the dramatic election campaign."

Have set my recorder to record it, cause I'm going to watch another program, tomorrow I'm going to see it.

Markus

[Sailor Steve]

I've mentioned the election of 1800 many times, and the rhetoric then was as nasty as it gets. Nothing changes.

[Skybird]

No matter how good the internet security is, there's little defense against a motivated and persistent hack attack. You build a better mousetrap, they build better mice. While the internet security of the parties is probably pretty high, I doubt it equals stringent government standards (even the government, with all their safeguards gets hacked); add to the mix the human factor of non-compliant, careless, or technologically untrained users on any system and you've created any numbers of cracks to exploit. Remember, the main way they were able to crack Enigma was the penchant of coders to use rote, repeated phrases in their transmissions; once you know what you're looking for, it gets easier to find. The surprise is not that it happened again, it is it has not happened more often. For all the GOP knows, they've been hacked themselves, probably by the same putative "allies" alleged to be aiding Trump. Remember, almost all hacks are not detected until long after the breaches are made...


<O>
Cutting the wire or leaving the plug out if not needed, helps. Using Microsoft, Apple, Google etc, helps not really. More directly the opposite.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

On one of the Danish public service channel, they are showing a series about former Presidential race for the White House.

Here is the description of tonight's episode

"American documentary from 2016 (Race for the White House) Way to
The Oval Office is long and sometimes dirty. Actor Kevin Spacey
explains some of the most sensational election campaigns in US history.

The election campaign in 1828 is no exception and is particularly notorious for personal attacks between presidential candidates, Andrew Jackson
and John Quincy Adams. Through archive photos, interviews and
reconstructions portrayed the dramatic election campaign."

Have set my recorder to record it, cause I'm going to watch another program, tomorrow I'm going to see it.

Markus

I like Kevin Spacey!!

I've been watching House of Cards season 4, and I remarked to my father "The real election is far worse than the one depicted in this show," but we're only up to like episode 3

[vienna]

MAD Magazine, which may be the only truly sane publication in the US, in its October 2016 issue, has printed on the back cover bumper stickers to use to express what may be the only true choice this Election Year:

http://media.dcentertainment.com/sites/default/files/imce/2016/06-JUN/MAD-Magazine-Neither_5773f2f2def534.96110948.jpg





<O>

[Platapus]

unlike the "lessor of two evils", it is more like "Scraping the bottom of the barrel"

:nope:

[vienna]

...and it is, apparently, a very, very, very deep barrel...



<O>

[Platapus]

...and it is, apparently, a very, very, very deep barrel...



<O>

A very deep slimy barrel that does not smell too good. :nope:

Or are we at the point when we are under the barrel looking for those slimy slugs?

[mapuc]

Yesterday an American FB friends wrote,

"You say I shouldn't support Trump, then give me an alternative and I'm not talking about Clinton as an alternative.
That is your problem, you who are against Trump you haven't got a reliable alternative to these two candidate"
(taken from my memory, so some word could be wrong, but the essential is there)

Markus

[Sailor Steve]

...

:rock:

Mirrors my sentiments exactly.

[vienna]

http://media.dcentertainment.com/sites/default/files/imce/2016/06-JUN/MAD-Magazine-Trump-Escalator_5762d98523a0a9.20828394.jpg




<O>

[August]

The Libertarians are the only hope for the nation. I'm telling ya!

http://tracesofreality.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/gary-johnson-live-free.jpg

[AVGWarhawk]

There is no hope for this nation when Congress is consistently deadlocked or simply signs off legislation without reading whats in it. Looking only to make the history books.

[Oberon]

when Congress is consistently deadlocked

I thought that was supposed to be a good thing, I mean, imagine what would have happened if Obama had had a democratic Congress throughout his two terms? Neal would have had to have bought a new server! :haha:

[August]

I thought that was supposed to be a good thing,

It is. Gridlock is the best form of government for the common man.

[Aktungbby]

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/donald-trump/) has long demonized his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/hillary-clinton/), such as referring to her as “Crooked Hillary,” his chosen nickname.
But on Monday night, he went even further, actually calling her “the devil.”
:D Well that settles my vote!:http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?pictureid=7048&albumid=815&dl=1381536131&thumb=1 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/album.php?albumid=815)

[Catfish]

I repeat that there is a bad flaw in the system, when among millions of Americans, just of all those two can become the new president.
I have the faint idea there could be some better ones around.

I see that you have to have money, and millions of it, just for the electoral campaign, so what the hell has all this to do with "democracy"?
A normal common man has not even a chance, unless - as we are told - you make your typical american way from a dishwasher to Rockefeller in no time. Fat chance. Other than that it is the same as the hundreds of years old concept of the rich aristocrate electors, electing their King/Kaiser/whatever :hmmm:

[Aktungbby]

I repeat that there is a bad flaw in the system, when among millions of Americans, just of all those two can become the new president.
I have the faint idea there could be some better ones around.


As my brother-in-law (a rabid Republican) said during a recent camp outing: If this is the best we can do we deserve what we get..." personally I'm disgusted and won't bother voting. :nope:

[Mr Quatro]

Everything is going to be okay ... everyone is going to keep their jobs no matter which one wins and payday is more important than this
hoopera about who the next president is going to be.

I think the next POTUS is going to be Donald Trump he is not finished bringing out the dirty laundry on Hillary and Bill.
A man with his much money does not need to make stuff up with those two.

Trump will give us four years of some great laughs and no wall and starts all over again in just two or three more years on who the next president will be.

November 2020 is either Hillary or Donald saying, "I told you so" :woot:

[Betonov]

November 2020 is either Hillary or Donald saying, "I told you so" :woot:

Quote of the thread

[Platapus]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-you-can-get-the-baby-out-of-here/


Donald Trump asked a woman with a crying baby to leave his rally in Virginia on Tuesday.


It all started when the baby began crying during the event.


"Don't worry about that baby, I love babies. I love babies. I hear that baby crying. I like it. What a baby, what a beautiful baby. Don't worry, don't worry. The mom's running around, like don't worry about it, you know. It's young and beautiful and healthy and that's what we want," the GOP presidential nominee declared.


Trump continued to talk for another minute, about how China has "ripped us to shreds." The baby's cries seemed to grow louder, and the GOP nominee interrupted his riff on China to say he was just kidding.


"Actually I was only kidding," he said, apparently addressing the mother. "You can get the baby out of here. That's all right. Don't worry." Trump addressed the rest of the crowd.


"I think she really believed me that I love having a baby crying while I'm speaking. That's okay. People don't understand. That's okay," he said.


Lemme guess. Trump was only kidding about kidding. :nope:


Babies, mothers, family members of dead military. Things you don't want to alienate when you are running for office.

[vienna]

...

I think the next POTUS is going to be Donald Trump he is not finished bringing out the dirty laundry on Hillary and Bill.
A man with his much money does not need to make stuff up with those two.

...



There is no doubt there is 'dirty laundry' aplenty on both sides yet to come. The real problem may become the source. The only notable leak of data so far has been the DNC emails which, surprise, surprise, merely pointed out a bias against Bernie Sanders in the primaries, not really surprising since Sanders is, by self-proclamation, an Independent who only signed on to the DEM Party very recently in order to benefit from the exposure and financing he would gain in his campaign efforts; if Sanders had run as an Independent, we probably never would have heard of him, he never would have participated in any of the debates, and his funding would have been noticeably less; the fact the DNC did not fully embrace his candidacy is hardly surprising, a shock, or a real scandal. The whole Sanders/DNC hoopla only came to light due to an alleged hack of the DNC by Russian state-sponsored hackers and the release of the emails by Wiki-Leaks and Assange. This alleged triad of Trump, Russian-sponsored hackers, and Assange is going to pose problems in determining the veracity of any future "leaks". Unless there is substantial, independent, neutral third-party verification of future allegations, the reliability of any future information will be highly suspect. Why? Well, the fact Trump and his campaign hierarchy have substantial, verifiable ties to the Russian oligarchy (including Putin), the fact the Russians have proven to somewhat less than scrupulous in dealing with the accurate dispensing of facts (disinformation, anyone?) when the end serves their own interests, the fact Assanage has a self-proclaimed personal animus towards Hillary Clinton and he might very well stand to benefit if Trump were to take the Oval Office and, perhaps, "forget" about taking any action against Assange for his espionage escapades. There is a whole lot of reasonably possible "quid pro quo" involved in the interweaving of these entities, enough to make a reasonable person take any released data with a healthy dose of salt. Trump is skating on a very thin sheet of ice: the connections and dependence of himself (he is in deep financially to big-money Putin cronies since American Banks will no longer lend him money due to his many bankruptcies) and his senior campaign staff (campaign manager Paul Manafort has been a long time consultant for Russian interests, including deposed Ukraine President, Viktor Yanukovich; Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page has existing ties to the Russian state-controlled giant oil conglomerate Gazprom and has delivered speeches and written article praising the Russian oligarchy; foreign policy advisor, retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, is a regular commentator for RT [Russia Today] the state-controlled media/propaganda outlet and close friends with many in the Putin inner-circle) gives more than a cause for reasonable doubt about any future leaks of "facts" from sources aligned with Russian hacker or the Russian state. Could any reasonable, sensible person, in the face of the backgrounds of the sources, give full credence to any such leaks with corroboration from non-connected sources?...

The interconnections of Trump and his cronies with Putin and his cronies is a very big chip in play; the general US public is not yet fully aware of the connection and their implications; an attempt to use "facts" gleaned from Russian sources would most likely result in a push-back from the DEMs and when they use the opportunity to shine a light on this dark corner of the Trump campaign, how will Trump defend himself with so many real facts about his Russian dealings out in the open? Sometimes it seems as if he's playing a very risky game of political 'chicken'...

One of the many articles published about Trump and the Russians posits a very interesting idea: what if the Russians have already hacked and secured a copy of Trump's tax returns and are using them as leverage against Trump, sort of keeping him in line; ordinarily this may sound a bit far-fetched, but, given the way things have been going, maybe not...

Here are links to articles setting out the Trump/Russia/Assange connections:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-boot-trump-russian-
connection-20160725-snap-story.html

http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/

http://time.com/4426818/donald-trump-julian-assange-vladimir-putin/

http://time.com/4397022/donald-trump-vladimir-putin/



<O>

[mapuc]

As someone once told me about politics and how it will affects people depending on where they are on the ladder of (sorry forgot the word)

If you are unemployed, poor and do not expect to get a job during the new or the old government reign-then its almost unimportant which party or politicians who you cast your vote on

If you have a low wage employee then it's the same.

Can't remember everything I do remember him saying if you are filthy rich then its unimportant who you cast you vote on.

So if I remember correctly It doesn't matter if you are poor and/or unemployed. Rich or filthy rich, then its unimportant which government there are in control of the country.
They will whip you if you are poor and feed you with silver spoon if you are rich.

In your case Republican President or Democrat President.

Markus

[vienna]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-you-can-get-the-baby-out-of-here/




Lemme guess. Trump was only kidding about kidding. :nope:


Babies, mothers, family members of dead military. Things you don't want to alienate when you are running for office.

"To launch an attack as he did on Captain Khan's mother, a Gold Star mother, who stood there on that stage with her husband honoring the sacrifice of their son," she told reporters gathered at a campaign stop in Ashland, Ohio, "I don't know where the bounds are. I don't know where the bottom is."This quote from Hillary Clinton (I don't agree with much she's got to say, but I do about this) pretty much sums it up: we don't know where the bottom is and we probably will see Trump get much deeper in the muck. Considering Trump benefited from draft deferments during the period he would have been eligible, during the Vietnam War, and given his lame attempts to brush off inquiries into his suspect "medical deferment", he should never question the service of those who gave their all and their families. There's low and there is lower: this is the lowest. And to declare he had made equivalent "sacrifices" to those who served is just one more reason Trump is far from fit to sit in the Oval office. So far he has alienated women, minorities, middle-class workers, and now the veterans and their families. It is significant that the latest polls are showing Trump with 39% of the vote and Clinton with 46%; previously, they were tied at 39%, leaving 22% of the voters either undecided or independent; now the undecided/independent has shrunk to 15% and Clinton garnered the 7% who have now made up their minds. This does not bode well for the GOP. Given that Trump is incapable of keeping his ignorance concealed, it may be expected there will be more undecided making up their minds and it most likely won't be in favor of Trump. If the GOP loses the White House, they have only themselves to blame; they knew fully well what they were getting with Trump and they did nothing to stop it...

Here are links to articles regarding Trumps lack of a military record:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/us/politics/donald-trump-draft-record.html?_r=0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-military_us_579f6933e4b0e2e15eb66f92


Still not voting for either candidate, but Trump is lower than a snake's belly in the bottom of Death Valley...



<O>

[Mr Quatro]

Those missing emails may not really be missing! :o

NSA whistleblower: Agency has Clinton's deleted emails:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nsa-whistleblower-agency-clintons-deleted-122519001.html

[mako88sb]

Trumps toast now. Looks like everyone is going ballistic when they saw him eating KFC with a fork and knife.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/donald-trump-kfc-1.3703796

[vienna]

Early on in the whole GOP/Trump mess, I had a possible theory on why Trump is acting so oddly; now it may not be such a long-shot theory: is it possible Trump is trying to get out of running for President, but doing so in such a way as exculpate himself? He is a tremendous egoist and probably got into the race not really expecting to get very far, but now has found himself in a position where he can't bow out. His over-blown ego won't let him quit lest it seem he was quitting of his own volition; his persona is one of a person who doesn't give up or back down, who stands his ground. In order to get out, he needs some outside influence or force to oust him; basically he needs a scapegoat, a whipping boy. He can either blame the media, the GOP, the DEMs, or anyone else, but never himself; he needs to be seen as the victim, the offended party. This is classic blowhard behavior, externalizing any problems to avoid blame. He's done it all his life and now he may be doing so on a grand scale...

Another reason may be he has come to see a lot of his past actions and activities are going to see the light of day and seriously tarnish his image of a guy in control of all aspects of his life and wholly successful. His dubious, if not, perhaps, illegal business dealings and his current questionable connections are being reported with great regularity and with great documentation. And there are the tax returns: it is entirely possible, if not a certainty, Trump's returns would entirely upend his financial "kingdom" if even half of the suppositions about the contents are correct. As the campaign goes on, there will be much more pressure to open the books, and his dodge of "Well, I'm in an audit and can't release the data" no longer holds water; the IRS has already indicated there is no impediment on there side to releasing the returns...

So, the possibilities are either protecting an overblown ego and public image or protecting himself and his holdings from a level of scrutiny he has never before faced; and,in order to get out, he deliberately makes outlandish, offensive, vile, and hateful remarks as a means to be forced out and having someone, other than himself, to blame for his own failings...

If none of the above, then Trump truly is an offensive, narcissistic, venal, avaricious, amoral, sociopath who should never be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office. The truly sad part of the whole affair is, when he goes down, either being removed from the ballot or losing on Election Day, he will take down the GOP, in much the same manner Nixon did in the 70s; I am seeing some of the same desperation and moral conflict in GOP members today that was seen when they agonized over whether or not to finally do the right thing and get behind impeaching Tricky Dick...

The more things change, the more they remain the same...


<O>

[Platapus]

There are six major groups of voters (with the exception of some out-layers who may vote for third parties)

1. The Not Trump voter who is not necessarily in favour of Clinton
2. The Not Clinton voter who is not necessarily in favour of Trump
3. The Never a Democrat voter who is not necessarily in favour of Trump
4. The never a Republican voter who is not necessarily in favour of Clinton
5. The pro Clinton voter
6. The pro Trump voter

The problem is that all these voters have different motivations even though different subsets may cast a vote for the same candidate.

I find my self in category 1. But don't think for a second that I think Clinton is a good candidate. :nope:

How the political parties deal with attracting these different, but related types of voters can be challenging.

The bottom line

Just because someone is going to vote for Clinton does not mean they think Clinton is the best candidate, only a better (less worse) choice than Trump. And the same, of course, applies to the other side. A Trump voter may not like Trump, but it is a better (less worse) choice then Clinton.

This makes polling difficult to correlate. Especially if the poll is just asking Clinton or Trump? That's not the entire question that needs to be asked. It is more complicated than that. It is important to understand the motivation of the voters if the political parties are going to generate a good plan to attract voters.

Don't confuse a number 1 and five or Number 2 and 6 They are not the same!

[Onkel Neal]

The truly sad part of the whole affair is, when he goes down, either being removed from the ballot or losing on Election Day, he will take down the GOP, in much the same manner Nixon did in the 70s; I am seeing some of the same desperation and moral conflict in GOP members today that was seen when they agonized over whether or not to finally do the right thing and get behind impeaching Tricky Dick...



The truly sad part is that enough Republicans voted for him in the primaries to get his this far. They did this to themselves.

[August]

There are six major groups of voters (with the exception of some out-layers who may vote for third parties)

3rd party hater!

https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/s320x320/e35/12328396_920372628075505_329178425_n.jpg?ig_cache_ key=MTIyNzMwMDY0NjQyODg3NDYwNw%3D%3D.2

[August]

The truly sad part is that enough Republicans voted for him in the primaries to get his this far. They did this to themselves.


If they put Clinton in the oval office then they did this to us all.

[Platapus]

3rd party hater!




I think it will be a long time before the US will accept a third party. The two party system and the resulting plurality of votes is so strongly ingrained in our culture I think a change will be difficult.

The advantage of a two party system is that with few exceptions the winning side garners a majority of votes cast.

In a three party system we could have a "winner" garnering only 40% of the vote. That won't sit well with the citizens. It also makes it difficult for the winner to proclaim that they received a "mandate from the people" as presidents are wont to say.

I also think we would have a problem with coalition governments of multiple parties. We, in the US, like such things clean and dichotomous. It is tough to maintain the "us vs. them" attitude with coalition governments. :)

Change to a multi party system could happen and probably will. But not for a while.

[Sailor Steve]

There are six major groups of voters
I find myself in categories 1-4. All four of them. Where do I get off this train?

[Oberon]

I find myself in categories 1-4. All four of them. Where do I get off this train?

Cassandra Crossing. :sunny:

[August]

Well maybe this election will change that. I wouldn't be surprised if the Libertarians and Greens take 30% of the vote this election. I hope they do because the last thing we want is either Clinton or Trump thinking they have a mandate.

[Oberon]

Just found this on imgur, seems pretty unbiased:

http://i.imgur.com/V5KHrWa.jpg

[Betonov]

Why is Gary Johnson not a thing ???

Personally I preffer Jill Stein but I distrust any green party when it comes to the economy :hmmm:

[Onkel Neal]

There are six major groups of voters (with the exception of some out-layers who may vote for third parties)

1. The Not Trump voter who is not necessarily in favour of Clinton
2. The Not Clinton voter who is not necessarily in favour of Trump
3. The Never a Democrat voter who is not necessarily in favour of Trump
4. The never a Republican voter who is not necessarily in favour of Clinton
5. The pro Clinton voter
6. The pro Trump voter

The problem is that all these voters have different motivations even though different subsets may cast a vote for the same candidate.

I find my self in category 1. But don't think for a second that I think Clinton is a good candidate. :nope:

How the political parties deal with attracting these different, but related types of voters can be challenging.

The bottom line

Just because someone is going to vote for Clinton does not mean they think Clinton is the best candidate, only a better (less worse) choice than Trump. And the same, of course, applies to the other side. A Trump voter may not like Trump, but it is a better (less worse) choice then Clinton.

This makes polling difficult to correlate. Especially if the poll is just asking Clinton or Trump? That's not the entire question that needs to be asked. It is more complicated than that. It is important to understand the motivation of the voters if the political parties are going to generate a good plan to attract voters.

Don't confuse a number 1 and five or Number 2 and 6 They are not the same!

I'm in #7: Not Clinton, Never Trump.

Clinton is a terrible candidate, the worst since...Trump. Honestly, how can anyone "support" either one of these two is beyond me.

If they put Clinton in the oval office then they did this to us all.

Yep, they certainly did, because they put Trump in the nominee position and gave the election to Hillary.

[Oberon]

Clint has been deployed again, now we know things are getting desperate...at least no chairs were harmed in the making of this quote. :haha:

[Jimbuna]

Trumps biggest dilemma if he is elected president will be finding a cabinet position for the thing on his head!

[August]

Trumps biggest dilemma if he is elected president will be finding a cabinet position for the thing on his head!

It's called hair. You probably don't remember what that is... :D

[Oberon]

http://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2015/12/I-dont-care-Im-a-fire-engine-GIF.gif?gs=a

[Reece]

It's called hair. You probably don't remember what that is... :D
Yes but Trumps hair is always trying to escape!!:yep:

[Jimbuna]

It's called hair. You probably don't remember what that is... :D

Hey!....I resemble that remark :stare:

[Mr Quatro]

Post 2403 should be in every voting booth :yep:

[Aktungbby]

http://i.investopedia.com/dimages/graphics/opening_a_bank_account_in_costa_rica_as_an_america n.jpg?quality=80&width=680&height=680http://www.therealcostarica.com/residency_costa_rica/costa_rica_residency.html (http://www.therealcostarica.com/residency_costa_rica/costa_rica_residency.html) & http://www.transitionsabroad.com/listings/living/livingabroadin/living_abroad_in_costa_rica_moving.shtml (http://www.transitionsabroad.com/listings/living/livingabroadin/living_abroad_in_costa_rica_moving.shtml)

[vienna]

Just found this on imgur, seems pretty unbiased:
...


Not a bad little primer...


http://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2015/12/I-dont-care-Im-a-fire-engine-GIF.gif?gs=a


I've always maintained you get more accomplished, faster, by taking a "middle-of-the-road" approach than you do if you veer too much to the right or the left... :yep:



<O>

[mapuc]

I hope is was just joking or Trump didn't say those things

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html

Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump. And three times [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked at one point if we had them why can't we use them," Scarborough said on his "Morning Joe" program.

Markus

[Nippelspanner]

Video highlighting Hillary's bizarre behavior (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqbDBRWb63s)

Very interesting, and it seems plausible to be honest.

[STEED]

Donald Trump backed by Clint Eastwood, who blasts 'kiss-ass generation' for being too sensitivehttp://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-05/clint-eastwood-says-people-should-just-get-over-trump/7692582

Go ahead and make my day, Trump. :03:

[vienna]

It's getting even more interesting for the GOP down ballot races: a prominent GOP House member is airing TV ads stating, firmly, if he is re-elected to Congress, and Trump is elected President, he would oppose Trump. I do not recall a member of either party, a member of Congress, no less, openly campaigning on a platform of opposing the Presidential nominee of their party:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/republican-releases-ad-promising-to-stand-up-to-trump-226642

Maybe Trump really isn't divisive as many have charged; he seems to be uniting a very large portion of Americans against him...



<O>

[Torplexed]

I hope is was just joking or Trump didn't say those things

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html


Markus


It's pretty sad when you have to explain to a presidential candidate decades-old concepts like deterrence, the nuclear triad and all those other policies that Trump never cared about or understood. I'm seriously thinking his "secret" plan to "solve" the ISIS problem is to just start nuking random spots in the Middle East.

[em2nought]

It's pretty sad when you have to explain to a presidential candidate decades-old concepts like deterrence, the nuclear triad and all those other policies that Trump never cared about or understood. I'm seriously thinking his "secret" plan to "solve" the ISIS problem is to just start nuking random spots in the Middle East.

Just for our enemies to think that our POTUS is capable of that is a better method of fighting this war than anything done in the past sixteen years. :salute:

[AndyJWest]

Video highlighting Hillary's bizarre behavior (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqbDBRWb63s)

Very interesting, and it seems plausible to be honest.

Plausible? Nope. Being a serial poster of inflammatory click-bait YouTube rants doesn't qualify anyone to make a medical diagnosis.

[August]

Plausible? Nope. Being a serial poster of inflammatory click-bait YouTube rants doesn't qualify anyone to make a medical diagnosis.

It doesn't qualify anyone to do anything else either but that doesn't make what he said implausible.

[Nippelspanner]

It doesn't qualify anyone to do anything else either but that doesn't make what he said implausible.
This.
Not sure what's so wrong with that particular video?
Just some observations backed up with medical facts.
Wanna share what's so wrong about it?

[Betonov]

To be honest, she does have some un-nerving motions in that video that don't look too voluntary.

[Nippelspanner]

To be honest, she does have some un-nerving motions in that video that don't look too voluntary.
Yes exactly. I always thought "she's really weird", especially after that one moment where she looked "surprised" due to the red ballons. I shook it off as bad acting, though this video highlighting numerous situations like that really raise one's suspicion.

Also, AndyJWest, no one made a diagnosis in that video, just asked questions and created theories. Maybe you watch a video next time before you judge it? :hmmm:

[Betonov]

I thinl people have a gut feelingg when (lets say this case for argument sake) to recognise when a person is having such reactions due to an actuall mental problem and not bad acting. Something that was left in us since when we were animals and the pack survival dependet on us weeding out such individuals.

I had such a gut feeling she wasnt acting or exagerrating.

[Mr Quatro]

I watched the video and all I saw were photo shop exertations being repeated to make her look silly. I'm not fan of Hillary due to her lying husband, but to be fair those are not real untouched photos.

[AVGWarhawk]

I'm not fan of Hillary due to her lying husband,

Now just hold on....Hillary is as good a liar as Bill.

[AndyJWest]

Yes exactly. I always thought "she's really weird", especially after that one moment where she looked "surprised" due to the red ballons. I shook it off as bad acting, though this video highlighting numerous situations like that really raise one's suspicion.

Also, AndyJWest, no one made a diagnosis in that video, just asked questions and created theories. Maybe you watch a video next time before you judge it? :hmmm:

How about not assuming that I hadn't watched the video? Hmmm?

And no it isn't a 'diagnosis' - it is a 'theory' put together for YouTube by a right-wing conspiracy theorist. Partisan clickbait. I am quite sure that by searching video recordings of more or less anyone who has had as much exposure as Hilary Clinton it would be possible to find sufficient material to play back in slow-motion loops in order to 'demonstrate' supposed medical conditions if you wanted to engage in dirty politics.

[Nippelspanner]

How about not assuming that I hadn't watched the video? Hmmm?
A very likely assumption, since you claimed the video made a diagnosis - which it clearly did not.


And no it isn't a 'diagnosis' - it is a 'theory' put together for YouTube by a right-wing conspiracy theorist. Partisan clickbait. I am quite sure that by searching video recordings of more or less anyone who has had as much exposure as Hilary Clinton it would be possible to find sufficient material to play back in slow-motion loops in order to 'demonstrate' supposed medical conditions if you wanted to engage in dirty politics.
Watson is hardly a conspiracy theorist, nor a right-winger - he is a conservative who is sick and tired of all the PC SJW crap that's going on for too long already.
Guess his criticism hit a little close to home, or why do you attack him so harshly without debunking anything he said?

And the claim that this video is basically fake is ridiculous.
Multiple posters here already said "I had the feeling..." and if you would do some research, you would have known that Watson is not the first one to point out the obvious,
experts in the field did so as well - just right wing conspiracy nuts too I guess.

But hey, enjoy your PC buzzwords.

[Oberon]

She'd hardly be the first president to suffer from a mental illness. Lincoln had depression so bad that his friends thought he'd top himself. Reagan managed to get through the latter years of his presidency with the possible onset of Alzheimers, some people wager that Churchill had bipolar disorder, and it wouldn't surprise me.
The President is not a dictator, there are checks and balances in the system, if Clinton falls ill or starts behaving erratically then the system will take over to compensate.

[Subnuts]

So, basically.

Clinton becomes President: Congress spends four years trying to stop her from doing things.

Trump becomes President: Congress spends four years telling him that, no, you can't actually do that thing you want to do.

[AndyJWest]

A very likely assumption, since you claimed the video made a diagnosis - which it clearly did not.


Watson is hardly a conspiracy theorist, nor a right-winger - he is a conservative who is sick and tired of all the PC SJW crap that's going on for too long already.
Guess his criticism hit a little close to home, or why do you attack him so harshly without debunking anything he said?

And the claim that this video is basically fake is ridiculous.
Multiple posters here already said "I had the feeling..." and if you would do some research, you would have known that Watson is not the first one to point out the obvious,
experts in the field did so as well - just right wing conspiracy nuts too I guess.

But hey, enjoy your PC buzzwords.

Ok, so now you are accusing me of lying when I say I've watched the video? Pathetic...

[Nippelspanner]

Ok, so now you are accusing me of lying when I say I've watched the video? Pathetic...


- You claimed earlier the video/Watson made a diagnosis.
- It absolutely didn't.
- I came to the logical conclusion that you must not have seen the (whole) video, since your accusation was completely unjustified.

Blame yourself for your mistakes, not others.

[AndyJWest]

Ok, let me explain it to you as if you're a toddler, maybe that helps:

- You claimed earlier the video/Watson made a diagnosis.
- It absolutely didn't.
- I came to the logical conclusion that you must not have seen the (whole) video, since your accusation was completely unjustified.

Blame yourself for your mistakes, not others.

So someone posts a video entitled 'The Truth About Hillary's Bizarre Behavior', which states that "..one expert told me that Hilary has high-functioning autism, with attendant soiciopathy" and it isn't purporting to be a diagnosis? What about "signs of cognative impairment, personality disorder - or both"? Sure, you can claim that it isn't a 'diagnosis', but why is the video citing unnamed 'experts' if it is just a 'theory'? It is a clear and unequivocal attempt claim that HC is medically disqualified to be President, cobbled together out of badly-edited video segments and unverifiable claims by supposed 'experts'. YouTube clickbait, and unworthy of further comment. If you want to base your political analysis on such garbage, fine - but don't expect to be taken seriously. At least, not by anyone capable of critical thinking beyond the level of YouTube...

[Nippelspanner]

If you want to base your political analysis on such garbage, fine - but don't expect to be taken seriously. At least, not by anyone capable of critical thinking beyond the level of YouTube...
Ah yes, it's YouTube = can't be valid. Great argument.
I could mention again that Watson isn't known for what you claim this video is. I rather have the feeling that you're the one who only sees what he wants to see and dismisses everything else without having a single argument.
So much for critical thinking skills and wanting to be taken serious.

[Platapus]

is this really something worth arguing about?

[AndyJWest]

Ah yes, it's YouTube = can't be valid. Great argument.
I could mention again that Watson isn't known for what you claim this video is. I rather have the feeling that you're the one who only sees what he wants to see and dismisses everything else without having a single argument.
So much for critical thinking skills and wanting to be taken serious.

Yeah. Well I have the feeling you lack the education and/or cognitive skills to be worth debating with. How do you like my 'theory', mister 'anyone who disagrees with me is a toddler'?

[Nippelspanner]

Yeah. Well I have the feeling you lack the education and/or cognitive skills to be worth debating with. How do you like my 'theory', mister 'anyone who disagrees with me is a toddler'?
Well, I'm not the one who struggled to understand a rather simple video and who brushed everything off blindly without any sort of argument - but whatever floats your boat. :up:

[AndyJWest]

Well, I'm not the one who struggled to understand a rather simple video and who brushed everything off blindly without any sort of argument - but whatever floats your boat. :up:

I'm quite sure the video was simple enough for anyone who liked its conclusions to 'understand'. As for my boats, sometimes they float, sometimes they don't. Sometimes even intentionally.

[Sailor Steve]

And the mud-slinging continues. Thread locked for a day so people can cool off.

[Sailor Steve]

Okay, twelve hours later and it's open again. No harm, no foul, everyone gets a fresh start.

Be aware that this thread is now under close scrutiny. Argue the issues. Argue the candidates. Argue each other's posting habits, beliefs, or personal hygiene again and you will come under a hostile personal attack from the staff. That won't be pretty. Just a friendly warning.

[Platapus]

We seemed to have covered why all the candidates stynk.

How about we try a new approach.

Can anyone post something good about the candidates?

Someone?


Anyone?


Bueller?...


Sigh

<Crickets chirping>

:D

[Oberon]

http://i.imgur.com/JayrG5d.jpg

[Betonov]

Can anyone post something good about the candidates?

Someone?



None of them is dumb.
They both play the electorate like Chopin a piano.

[August]

Gary Johnson is Pro-pot legalization, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-choice, pro-leave Americans alone to live their lives in peace.

[vienna]

Gary Johnson is Pro-pot legalization, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-choice, pro-leave Americans alone to live their lives in peace.


...and not very likely to win...




<O>

[August]

...and not very likely to win...

That wasn't the question. What are you trying to say? That we have to vote one of the big party candidates?

[vienna]

Nope,not saying that; just making an observation. The only recent impactful Presidential candidate not of the two major parties, was Perot and he did make a significant impact; I have the feeling, if he had run his race in the current political climate, he might actually win; I know I'd vote for him. The main problem with almost all the third-party or independent candidates is they tend to be pretty much one-trick ponies, either focusing on very narrow issues or focusing on issues appealing only to a very narrow segment of voters. What is Johnson's stand on the economy, government spending, national security/anti-terrorism, national defense, etc.; what are his workable, sensible, realistic solutions to problems or issues other than those you listed; if a voter doesn't smoke pot, own a gun, is indifferent to the issue of choice, or feel the government is not all that onerous, what does Johnson offer those voters? There is a vast number of votes who were affected, in a very large lot of cases, adversely by the Great Recession and probably really want to know what anyone running will do to prevent a repeat of the Bush debacle. I really doubt, when the debates occur, the main attention will be given to whether or not Bubba can fire u a doobie. As long as third-party or independent candidates limit themselves to only issues not really affect the everyday lives of the voters, they will probably not make a real dent on the process...

Thought some of you (particularly Platapus) might find this interesting; came across this article regarding Trump's claims of wide-spread voter fraud; like other such sort of broad conspiracy theories, it doesn't survive the test of practical application and logistics:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/05/donald-trump-is-wrong-rigging-an-election-is-almost-impossible/

As Robin Williams used to say "Reality! What a concept!"...




<O>

[Platapus]

As a precinct chief, I can say that at least in Virginia, there are so many cross references and checks that any voter fraud would be most improbable.

What Trump either does not know or does not care, is that there are representatives of both major political parties working as election officials. Whenever possible the Chief and Assistant Chief represent opposing parties. The Chief and Assistant Chief are the only election officials that have to disclose their party affiliation.

Our new optical scanners scan and photograph each ballot, so there is a dual record of the votes.

I thought that Trump was way out of line. Our election officials take their responsibilities very seriously. His comments about people voting several times makes me wonder if Trump ever voted in a precinct.

[Platapus]

Gary Johnson is Pro-pot legalization, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-choice, pro-leave Americans alone to live their lives in peace.


The Libertarians are also in favour of Jury Nullification and that is even part of their platform. I find that so personally repugnant that it eliminates any chance I can ever vote for the Libertarian party.

We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law. From the Libertarian Platform.

[August]

The Libertarians are also in favour of Jury Nullification and that is even part of their platform. I find that so personally repugnant that it eliminates any chance I can ever vote for the Libertarian party.

Well I personally like that part of their crime and justice plank a lot.

I know this is heresy to you but the reality is that laws are not always just nor are they justly applied. If 12 people decide the facts of a particular case merit that a defendant they do not know or have never met ought not to suffer the often draconian penalties that result by say the practice of piling on charges or minimum sentences etc then nothing, not a judges instructions or your personal disgust is going to be able to stop them from making it happen anyways.

[Sailor Steve]

Until this day I had never heard of jury nullification. After reading several articles on the history, causes and effects of that practice, I agree with August. I also start to find Gary Johnson and the Libertarians more attractive.

[Mr Quatro]

We seemed to have covered why all the candidates stynk.

How about we try a new approach.

Can anyone post something good about the candidates?

Someone?

:D

I liked Trump when he was asked by a reporter, early on in the run for the GOP nomination, what he would change in the US government if elected POTUS.

Trump said, "Absolutely everything"

Remember the exit polls,for the GOP at least, showed that the majority wanted someone that was not a career politician

[Aktungbby]

I liked Trump when he was asked by a reporter, early on in the run for the GOP nomination, what he would change in the US government if elected POTUS.

Trump said, "Absolutely everything"

Remember the exit polls,for the GOP at least, showed that the majority wanted someone that was not a career politician http://media.cagle.com/46/2015/12/08/172714_600.jpg
:arrgh!:

[Oberon]

http://i.imgur.com/bShpcyJ.png

[August]

http://api.ning.com/files/7F975s5rOKhU668yak7Q081ZtEiZLDAZIkg-1cjlnGYk1mEgh7fuH6hvGuZoJwZ0jWOlSkfCgCywGT0UxASPJq cVlfOOlRDT/12160.info.jpg?width=600&height=437

[August]

https://grrrgraphics.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/hillary_cartoon_ben_garrison.jpg

[Mr Quatro]

Least we should forget how spoiled we are with less than 90 days till the election.

April 1800
April – Voting begins in the United States presidential election, 1800; it will last until October. The result is not announced until February 1801.

[Hottentot]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/91/10/54/9110545dfb334942c6674e790d32d6bd.jpg

[AVGWarhawk]

Until this day I had never heard of jury nullification. After reading several articles on the history, causes and effects of that practice, I agree with August. I also start to find Gary Johnson and the Libertarians more attractive.

I'm not entirely sold on Gary Johnson. I have a hard time with position of CEO of a marijuana company. But that is just me.

[mapuc]

When I saw an article about trump in a Swedish online news paper I recalled August picture # 2458 some pages back

The headline in the article

"Donald Trump is a notorious liar"

Says two American professors
Douglas Brinkley and Theda Skocpol

In my two countries-every politicians do nothing then lie to us-and we believe them.

Markus

[AndyJWest]

Any thoughts on this?

Evan McMullin: Independent candidate launches presidential bid

Former CIA agent Evan McMullin is set to announce his independent presidential bid as an alternative to Republican nominee Donald Trump, US media reports. Mr McMullin, the chief policy director of the House Republican Conference, is backed by an anti-Trump group. He is likely to face challenges in appearing on some state ballots just three months before Election Day. The 40-year-old Mormon has never held elected office.
Mr McMullin is an outspoken critic of Mr Trump on social media, calling the businessman an "authoritarian".
...

"It's never too late to do the right thing, and America deserves much better than either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton can offer us. I humbly offer myself as a leader who can give millions of disaffected Americans a conservative choice for President," Mr McMullin said. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37012626

Does he stand the slightest chance of actually getting a significant number of GOP and undecided voters behind him? Or just enough to damage Trump's chances? Or not enough to matter?

[August]

Any thoughts on this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37012626

Does he stand the slightest chance of actually getting a significant number of GOP and undecided voters behind him? Or just enough to damage Trump's chances? Or not enough to matter?

Never heard of him, nor I'm guessing neither have most other people. I doubt he'd make much of a dent.

[Oberon]

He's ex-CIA, so perhaps there'll be a lot of Floridas this time around. :haha:

[Platapus]

The Logic is hard to refute

https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS560x560~forums/58162435/10619a20336645a09f176fcdb50e8e27

[Oberon]

Does seem to be the current trend to express dissatisfaction with the wealthy upper class ruling the country by voting in a wealthy member of the upper class. :hmmm:

[Catfish]

A bit OT, only reacting to Oberon's post:

Does seem to be the current trend to express dissatisfaction with the wealthy upper class ruling the country by voting in a wealthy member of the upper class. :hmmm:

Same as in England and .. everywhere. Must be some delusional thinking.

I guess it is because there are still people who think they belong to this certain "upper class" in certain countries, which again will never let "the people" in.
Thinking they can become rich or the president, if they start as dishwashers and only adapt and work hard enough. Seldom works though.

Also strange what i saw in Germany:
- People who get unemployment benefits, call others who get it freeloaders or worse, looking down upon them.
- Also people from abroad rage against other immigrants or speak dismissive of them, even if they are from the same country.

If i only vote for them, they will accept me and i will rise to their level. Fat chance.
So good old egoism, grudge and the idea to deserve, and be, something better than your neighbour.

[August]

Does seem to be the current trend to express dissatisfaction with the wealthy upper class ruling the country by voting in a wealthy member of the upper class. :hmmm:

Don't confuse the wealthy class with the ruling class. There are members of the former (such as Trump) that do not belong to the latter.

[Catfish]

Don't confuse the wealthy class with the ruling class. There are members of the former (such as Trump) that do not belong to the latter.

Though you have to be a member of the wealthy class, to become one of the ruling class. There is almost never anyone of the not wealthy or not ruling class, among the applicants.

[AVGWarhawk]

Don't confuse the wealthy class with the ruling class. There are members of the former (such as Trump) that do not belong to the latter.

The wealthy class use the ruling class as puppets. Indirectly one and the same.

[Mr Quatro]

It is after all a numbers game :yep:

The rich decide who runs for office :yep:

The poor decide which one will win :yep:

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

[August]

Though you have to be a member of the wealthy class, to become one of the ruling class. There is almost never anyone of the not wealthy or not ruling class, among the applicants.

Correct, however it'd be wrong to assume they were one in the same as Oberon implied.

[Platapus]

Though you have to be a member of the wealthy class, to become one of the ruling class. There is almost never anyone of the not wealthy or not ruling class, among the applicants.

If a rich person becomes the ruling class, it may not be a problem. What I have a problem is that a ruling class becomes rich. :nope:

[vienna]

The Logic is hard to refute

https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS560x560~forums/58162435/10619a20336645a09f176fcdb50e8e27

Oddly and actually, this could very easily be applied to Condoleezza Rice who, according to the State Dept. GIO Report, in response to questions about her use of emails, claims she used neither State Dept. nor private email servers to conduct State Dept. business during her tenure as Secretary of State. The GIO report, significantly, has commentary on the email usage claims and history of the Secretaries prior to and following her tenure, but just recounts and does not comment on Rice's assertion; it wold seem such a statement was so far-fetched as to just meirt simple retelling. This sort of mishandling, misuse, and malfeasance, was endemic to the Secretaries of State throughout the time of Albright to Kerry; this is one of the very major reasons the Justice Department found itself without a winnable case against Clinton; the can of worms was just to big...



<O>

[August]

When confronted by Clintons failings do her supporters always try put the blame on someone else. Besides whatever her predecessors did or didn't do, none of them ever tried to deny they had done it. She did and continues to do so.

[Oberon]

Could always use the second amendment to solve the problem! :yep:

[Reece]

http://linuxsolutions.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/CLINTON.jpg
It's only a small lie, they don't count, right?

[Betonov]

Looks like the better part of the Clinton campaign is the VP candidate

http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-should-listen-to-kaine-on-vocational-schools-1470698401#livefyre-comment
(the article opens at the comment section, it seems to bypass the need to log in to see the whole article, just scroll up)

Slovenia has the same problem, we have university diplomas working in fast food joints while our company has trouble hiring an electrician.

[Cybermat47]

At first I was interested to see who America's next President would be.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rYLPNVk_UkM/Vv39Mj4AjAI/AAAAAAAATII/4x658qWZaVol5-fDxgN9a-MGgfsdsqqMg/s640/These%252Bcomics%252Bare%252Bfunny%252Blike%252Bfi lthy%252Bfrank%252Bis%252Bfunny%252Byou%252B_ffb29 a5352eb8604dab82990be5d3f94.gif

Then Donald Trump started running and got popular.

http://i.makeagif.com/media/4-23-2015/XIHD0A.gif

And now the next PotUS will either be Trump or Clinton.

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view4/4068409/pink-guy-o.gif

I hope American states have the right to secede.

[August]

Shot 4 times in the back and left for dead. Cops say robbery but watch and wallet were not taken.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-murdered-dnc-staffer-was-wikileaks-source.html

Assange implies murdered DNC staffer was WikiLeaks' source

[vienna]

Shot 4 times in the back and left for dead. Cops say robbery but watch and wallet were not taken.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-murdered-dnc-staffer-was-wikileaks-source.html



Quote:
Assange implies murdered DNC staffer was WikiLeaks' source

So, Assange, known to have an extreme animus towards the Clintons and who is openly fearful of a possible Clinton Presidency due to the heightened possibility he may finally be served up to US justice, implies wrongdoing and it is to be taken as fact? Why, that's all we really need!! Let's get the ropes and string 'em all up!! No need for investigation, evidence, due process, adjudication, and verdict!!...

Frankly, until there is real, verifiable, solid evidence, this all falls under the tinfoil-hat/Trump wishful thinking realm. Implication is not real information; it is broad speculation, noting more and has as much value as rumor and innuendo. All in all,...meh...



<O>

[Betonov]

Plus, with all her state department contacts I think Clinton has enough power to make it look like an accident.

[AndyJWest]

Wouldn't the Clinton camp rather have the leaker exposed, rather than making it impossible to find out for sure who was behind it? I'd have thought that if the guy really was bumped off because he was involved in the leaks, the people most likely to be responsible would be whoever he was leaking to - they are the ones with the most to lose from any information he held getting out. Frankly though, given that this is all based around Assange's vague insinuations, I see no reason to give it any credibility anyway.

[vienna]

Wouldn't the Clinton camp rather have the leaker exposed, rather than making it impossible to find out for sure who was behind it? I'd have thought that if the guy really was bumped off because he was involved in the leaks, the people most likely to be responsible would be whoever he was leaking to - they are the ones with the most to lose from any information he held getting out. Frankly though, given that this is all based around Assange's vague insinuations, I see no reason to give it any credibility anyway.

AndyJWwest has a good point: there would be no gain to doing such an act for the Clintons, particularly now when the scrutiny is so intense. It would profit them more to "follow the money", so to speak, and find out who would be involved in any leaks and expose them to the light; it would be a bonus if any of the participants could be linked to the Trump campaign or their operatives; all this makes a Clinton "hit" all the more unlikely...

Another scenario would be the alleged Russian connection to the leaks; if the Russians were involved, they might be motivated to clean up loose ends to minimize their exposure; an added win for them would be to foment further doubt and chaos in the Presidential election. It is all the fodder for spy novels, but interesting to mull over anyway... :hmmm:

CNN is keeping a list of GOP leaders and notables who are not going to back Trump and gives info on if they are going to back Clinton, vote third party, write-in (a choice I'm leaning towards), vote independent, or abstaining from voting for President:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/donald-trump-republican-opposition/

CNN says it plans to update the list as the campaign wears on...

It should be noted any votes for third parties, independents, write -ins, etc. would be votes taken away form the GOP; any votes for Clinton only exacerbates the GOP's woes...



<O>

[Oberon]

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/04/putin%20smile%202_0.jpg

[August]

implies wrongdoing and it is to be taken as fact?

Did I use the words "taken as fact"? Did the article use the words "taken as fact"? Are you so such a hillary fanboi that you can't help but make this type of pavlovian response every time someone says something against her?

I'm guessing (note: not to be taken as fact) that the answers are no, no and yes.

[August]

Wouldn't the Clinton camp rather have the leaker exposed, rather than making it impossible to find out for sure who was behind it? I'd have thought that if the guy really was bumped off because he was involved in the leaks, the people most likely to be responsible would be whoever he was leaking to - they are the ones with the most to lose from any information he held getting out. Frankly though, given that this is all based around Assange's vague insinuations, I see no reason to give it any credibility anyway.

Unless he had more to leak.

[vienna]

Did I use the words "taken as fact"? Did the article use the words "taken as fact"? Are you so such a hillary fanboi that you can't help but make this type of pavlovian response every time someone says something against her?

I'm guessing (note: not to be taken as fact) that the answers are no, no and yes.

There answers are: No, No, and No; so sorry, but you did not give the correct answers, but we have a lovely parting gift of a lifetime supply of unsubstantiated Trump Baloney for you...

I am not and never have been a fan of the Clintons; this I've stated many times; however, I do understand that fact makes it harder for your selective narrative to hold any water since you don't seem able to back up any of the things you post with verifiable proof; innuendo, implication, supposition or just plain wishful hoping do not a good argument make; I know your boy Trump is taking a serious drubbing in the polls, mainly from his addiction to foot-in-mouth (actually, he lately seems to be nibbling at his own kneecaps), but all the conspiracy theories and allegation in the world won't change the very apparent fact Trump is a non-starter and will most very likely go down as one of the worst candidates ever fielded by any political party in US history. As I have said: I have no dog in this fight; I, like the vast majority of Americans, will just have to endure four years of whichever administration wins in November...

BTW, I must compliment you on learning so much from Trump; your proclivity to avoid actually responding to a presentation of unpleasant fact by instead personally attacking the deliverer would make the Donald proud...

Unless he had more to leak.

...and, again, perhaps he didn't, and there is no proof for either theory; hardly a basis to impugn any one...

This death will probably become more fodder for the tinfoil hat crowd and be added to the so-called "Clinton Body Count". This is a list compiled by conspiracy enthusiasts and has been debunked quite often; the proponents of the "Count" are solely basing their claims of suppositions and are woefully short on facts or proof. I note this list here because I am sure it will be dredged up again in light of the most recent incident. Here is a link to a site that has looked into the "Clinton Body Count" and have published the actual, known facts in each case:

https://www.truthorfiction.com/clintonfriends/

The state of politics is such today anyone can post the most outlandish tripe and expect it to be given serious weight; I could post something like "Donal Trump secretly enjoys dressing up in women's lingerie, a long blond wig, and twerk the night away"; as I said, outlandish; but, hey, wait: he does have those rather feminine hands, quite small ones at that... :hmmm:

:haha:



<O>

[August]

Trump Baloney for you...

See that's exactly what I mean. Trumps name isn't mentioned even once in that article yet you seem forced to try and make this about him instead of Clinton like it should be. For someone who claims not to be a supporter of hers your commentary is pretty much one sided.

And BTW as I have repeatedly said in this thread i'm voting Libertarian. Who do you support?

[AndyJWest]

See that's exactly what I mean. Trumps name isn't mentioned even once in that article yet you seem forced to try and make this about him instead of Clinton like it should be. For someone who claims not to be a supporter of hers your commentary is pretty much one sided.

And BTW as I have repeatedly said in this thread i'm voting Libertarian. Who do you support?

Clinton's name isn't mentioned in the article either...

[August]

Clinton's name isn't mentioned in the article either...

No but whose campaign was the DNC helping? Who immediately hired the disgraced former head of the DNC who was responsible? It's not Bernie (who is mentioned).

[AndyJWest]

No but whose campaign was the DNC helping? Who immediately hired the disgraced former head of the DNC who was responsible? It's not Bernie (who is mentioned).

Who's campaign was the leaker helping?

[August]

Who's campaign was the leaker helping?


Judging by the Bernie Bro's reaction to the leak i'd say the Stein campaign mostly, the Johnson campaign some and the Trump campaign not at all. I doubt few if any voters switched their allegiance to Trump although it might perhaps cause a few more Democrat voters to stay home on election day.

[AndyJWest]

What Seth Rich's family have to say regarding the latest speculation:
"The family welcomes any and all information that could lead to the identification of the individuals responsible, and certainly welcomes contributions that could lead to new avenues of investigation," Brad Bauman, a spokesman for the family, told International Business Times. "That said, some are attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy, and in their attempts to do so, are actually causing more harm than good and impeding on the ability for law enforcement to properly do their job. For the sake of finding Seth's killer, and for the sake of giving the family the space they need at this terrible time, they are asking for the public to refrain from pushing unproven and harmful theories about Seth's murder."
http://www.ibtimes.com/seth-richs-family-shoots-down-conspiracy-theories-about-dnc-staffers-murder-after-2400026

[Buddahaid]

Good luck with that. Might as well blow into a hurricane to stop it.

[Oberon]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpkRJNdWcAAbYfv.jpg:large

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

http://www.sanderhicks.com/images/imagesjan04/reagan.jpg

[Nippelspanner]

^
Lame appeal for emotion that overshoots.
Basically, she said "you're responsible for other people's actions because words do hurt!"
No, he - or anyone - is not!
Why is self-responsibility so out of fashion among people these days? :hmmm:

Also, am I the only one who thinks Trump didn't 'imply' that someone should shoot Hillary? I think it is ludicrous to say he did, but it's Trump, let's bash him... (as if there aren't enough true reasons to do so).

[Oberon]

So words are not responsible for peoples actions, individual people are responsible for their actions? :hmmm: