Clinton VS Trump

[mattsmith48]

The US is one of the biggest polluting country in the world and in all 3 presidential debates the combine number of questions on climate change is a big fat zero, the most important issue of our time and no questions on about it and barely any mention of it. This is unacceptable!

[rioo]

I just watch this, www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFyRDC5Px9Y
why people really makes jokes about all of his family member. :D

[PlasmaHam]

The US is one of the biggest polluting country in the world and in all 3 presidential debates the combine number of questions on climate change is a big fat zero, the most important issue of our time and no questions on about it and barely any mention of it. This is unacceptable!
Maybe because not everyone in the world believes everything they read on the internet. Have you ever considered your views on this to be flawed? But hey, I guess you have to worry about the biannual Icecaps by Al Gore day! I heard that this year the Ice Caps will melt in July!(opps, Al gore was wrong again, I guess we wait til next year!

[Vlerchan]

PlasmaHam: I have a serious and bipartisan suggestion.

Lots of conservatives don't believe in climate change. As misguided as I feel that is it is something I have come to accept. Nevertheless I see a solid tax argument here. If a revenue-neutral carbon tax was imposed it would allow for more distortion-inducing (or harmful) taxes such as the federal income tax to be reduced. That would result in a net benefit to the economy irrespective.

But here is where it gets interesting. The idea of a carbon tax polls bad with liberals for what are - generally - quite stupid reasons. There's definitely an opportunity for conservatives to steal the Democrats thunder here and capture a lot of left-leaning to middle-ground voters - Porpoise101 and I for example - that care about climate change.

Considering the nominee is about to probably lose a landslide it's something worth considering.

---

On the debate: Donald lost when he let himself get dragged into that nasty women's pivot to Russia when he should have been discussing immigration - his strongest point. It went bad from that point on - otherwise - as in during the first 30 minutes - the debate was quite good and both candidates were even.

[PlasmaHam]

On the debate: Donald lost when he let himself get dragged into that nasty women's pivot to Russia when he should have been discussing immigration - his strongest point. It went bad from that point on - otherwise - as in during the first 30 minutes - the debate was quite good and both candidates were even. I found Hillary really struggling when it came to Russia, I really don't care who or what hacked her e-mail, and she never really claimed the e-mails to be false, but instead tried to shift the blame towards Russia. But I guess we can disagree on that. But yes, Trump's biggest weakness during this campaign is getting too involved in defending himself when he should be talking about the issues. When they talk about the issues, Trump blows her out of the water, but as soon as the personal issues comes up Trump struggles to crawl out.
PlasmaHam: I have a serious and bipartisan suggestion.

Lots of conservatives don't believe in climate change. As misguided as I feel that is it is something I have come to accept. Nevertheless I see a solid tax argument here. If a revenue-neutral carbon tax was imposed it would allow for more distortion-inducing (or harmful) taxes such as the federal income tax to be reduced. That would result in a net benefit to the economy irrespective.
That could be the Hail-Mary pass that saves the election, and from a purely economic standpoint it could make sense. While I feel that would turn off many of the Republican base, including myself, it would bring it a loud hoopla of disgruntled democrats to the Trump camp. I honestly find issues like this to be of lesser importance than many others here. I feel that a carbon tax could do no real serious harm if kept at a sensible level, and if this means Trump wins the election, then by all means bring it. Anything is better than Clinton right now.

[mattsmith48]

PlasmaHam: I have a serious and bipartisan suggestion.

Lots of conservatives don't believe in climate change. As misguided as I feel that is it is something I have come to accept. Nevertheless I see a solid tax argument here. If a revenue-neutral carbon tax was imposed it would allow for more distortion-inducing (or harmful) taxes such as the federal income tax to be reduced. That would result in a net benefit to the economy irrespective.

But here is where it gets interesting. The idea of a carbon tax polls bad with liberals for what are - generally - quite stupid reasons. There's definitely an opportunity for conservatives to steal the Democrats thunder here and capture a lot of left-leaning to middle-ground voters - Porpoise101 and I for example - that care about climate change.

Considering the nominee is about to probably lose a landslide it's something worth considering.

Trump being for a carbon tax would change the fact that Trump is a racist sexist xenophobic rapist maniac and that half the US is considering voting for that is kinda alarming.

On the debate: Donald lost when he let himself get dragged into that nasty women's pivot to Russia when he should have been discussing immigration - his strongest point. It went bad from that point on - otherwise - as in during the first 30 minutes - the debate was quite good and both candidates were even.

I thought it was Clinton's best debate. Everytime Trump lied I though she was better in this debate to tell him to his face that hes full of shit instead of telling people to go to her website. When he brought the Email thing to change discusion from the fact he is a rapist she should have immediately stoped him and go right back at attacking him on this for some reason its the the thing that hurts him the most and she should spend as much time as possible on this. Other attacks by Clinton where great and Trump couldn't defend himself and was acting like a child in response to some of her attacks and when he got to the election is rigged she did a great job to point that out that hes acting like a child everytime he lose its rigged and the other cheated.

[phuckphace]

But here is where it gets interesting. The idea of a carbon tax polls bad with liberals for what are - generally - quite stupid reasons. There's definitely an opportunity for conservatives to steal the Democrats thunder here and capture a lot of left-leaning to middle-ground voters - Porpoise101 and I for example - that care about climate change.

as you can probably recall I've argued before that there's a conservative argument for addressing environmental concerns but with the added complaint that it tends to get buried in dogmatic pseudoconservative purity spiraling. but I think that with this populist movement that's going on, there's new opportunities for the more pragmatic-minded among us to do exactly what you suggest here - counter the left-green stuff with our own proposals.

my favorite, by far, would be some variant of "globalism and mass immigration are bad for the environment," combined with the already increasing exposure to the decidedly anti-conservative stance of most mega-corporations during this election cycle. the conservative's inordinate faith in market-forces is eroding and couldn't have come at a better time, honestly.

Considering the nominee is about to probably lose a landslide it's something worth considering.

I've heard "landslide" from both sides but you can count me as someone who thinks it will be very close regardless of who wins. landslides are very rare on the whole, and don't lend themselves to easy prediction.

[Vlerchan]

I really don't care who or what hacked her e-mail[.]
If a rival power had hacked Republican staffer's emails with the ostensible aim of manipulating the result of a major nation election in favor of the other side, what would your reaction be? I don't think we should discount the contents of the emails - Clinton should still need to address those - but the lack of recognition of this as being a big deal, and for reasons that seem entirely partisan, is disturbing.

If this had happened to Trump, I would be denouncing Russia, too.

When they talk about the issues, Trump blows her out of the water, but as soon as the personal issues comes up Trump struggles to crawl out.
I think both of them are quite useless on the issues - except perhaps the social issues that came up in the first fifteen minutes: both were strong there - though I have an obvious bias towards Clinton's social-liberalism. For me, Clinton edges it because she knows what she's talking about on foreign policy and she had some awareness about how the national debt operates, though Trump certainly poses a stronger performance, in a pure rhetorical sense, on issues such as trade, etc., I can admit.

I agree with you that Clinton beats him on the issues of personals and has done a fantastic job - in pure respect to a campaigning perspective - turning the closing weeks of the election into a referendum on Trump's fitness.

While I feel that would turn off many of the Republican base, including myself[.]
I would have expected Republicans to take a lower federal tax over a carbon tax.

If the increase in the price of fuel bothers you to any extent you can always shift the savings made from the lower federal income tax take to purchasing the same amount of fuel (+carbon tax). But being as it opens up a broader range of consumption choices - with a lower federal taxation real incomes rise (or real prices fall), the reform would be tax neutral but also welfare-enhancing.

Everyone wins. Me, you, the environment.

[...] it would bring it a loud hoopla of disgruntled democrats to the Trump camp.
It won't. But it would make it easier for the Republicans to rebuild themselves with an image more amenable to shifting demographics. Trump's base will be smaller in four years than it is now, and smaller again the election-cycle after. Pursuing the platform he has proposed is not going to win elections, if it can't win them now.

Trump being for a carbon tax would change the fact that Trump is a racist sexist xenophobic rapist maniac and that half the US is considering voting for that is kinda alarming.
Just to emphasize, I think Trump is lost to people like Porpoise101 and I.

[...] the fact he is a rapist [...]
You'll find earlier posts where I said that people shouldn't be jumping to conclusions about Bill Clinton and the reason I probably wasn't taken very seriously is because the same sort of right-now-unsubstantiated accusations are just as rife among the Left.

We should take the accusations seriously but they aren't grounds to jump to conclusions about Trump. The Tape's at best lend itself to a lean towards the idea that he might have committed sexual assault - which is quite different to rape - but it's still no reason to hurl these sort of accusations with the strength you are doing now.

[...] and go right back at attacking him on this for some reason its the the thing that hurts him the most and she should spend as much time as possible on this.
Clinton doesn't want to needle Trump on an issue where his go-to response is going to be the accusations made against Bill.

[...] "globalism and mass immigration are bad for the environment," [...]
If you mean because they fuel the expansion of capitalist markets then a much more efficient means is taxing carbon. That's because it forces capitalist markets to invent means expand production in a more sustainable fashion - evade taxation.

Globalism itself couldn't be stopped without an awful lot more globalism.

landslides are very rare on the whole, and don't lend themselves to easy prediction.
I agree with this - though at the moment Clinton leads on average in all the swing-states, and the likes of Texas are pinkening, so I the landslide option has a much higher than would ever be usual chance.

[mattsmith48]

You'll find earlier posts where I said that people shouldn't be jumping to conclusions about Bill Clinton and the reason I probably wasn't taken very seriously is because the same sort of right-now-unsubstantiated accusations are just as rife among the Left.

We should take the accusations seriously but they aren't grounds to jump to conclusions about Trump. The Tape's at best lend itself to a lean towards the idea that he might have committed sexual assault - which is quite different to rape - but it's still no reason to hurl these sort of accusations with the strength you are doing now.

Bill Clinton had three women accusing him of rape two of them testified under oath that it never happened. For Trump its like fifty thousand women accusing him of doing the exact thing he said he does and that idiot accidentally confirmed it. Plus we already know he raped his ex wife.

EDIT: I just check the real number of women who accused Trump is now 10.

Clinton doesn't want to needle Trump on an issue where his go-to response is going to be the accusations made against Bill.

Fair enough

I agree with this - though at the moment Clinton leads on average in all the swing-states, and the likes of Texas are pinkening, so I the landslide option has a much higher than would ever be usual chance.

This thing is not over she should go for the landslide and attack Trump on everything he as done.

[Vlerchan]

Bill Clinton had three women accusing him of rape two of them testified under oath that it never happened. For Trump its like fifty thousand women accusing him of doing the exact thing he said he does and that idiot accidentally confirmed it. Plus we already know he raped his ex wife.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that the allegations made against Trump might be more credible. But I am anxious - especially in such a partisan context - of such strong shifts to utter damnation, on the current evidence.

I also thought that Ivana, in later years, described it as something that wasn't-rape-although-it-might-have-seemed-like-rape-when-I-first-wrote-about-it or something.

This thing is not over she should go for the landslide and attack Trump on everything he as done.
For a pure political perspective, I do agree. I am quite sure that his utter annihilation would plunge Republicans into paralysis: where Trump's floor will still make up a significant portion of the overall vote - and on such grounds, demand attentions so far as their policy platform is concerned, but not enough of the vote that it could get a person elected - and as association with them is toxic, collecting one vote or the other will be difficult.

We can see already that is happening and leaving Republican's floundering in a really tough place.

---

I think this might be the most ever uses of 'agree' I have ever made in a response to you :P.

Enemy of my enemy is your friend, and all, I guess.

[mattsmith48]

Don't get me wrong, I agree that the allegations made against Trump might be more credible. But I am anxious - especially in such a partisan context - of such strong shifts to utter damnation, on the current evidence.

I also thought that Ivana, in later years, described it as something that wasn't-rape-although-it-might-have-seemed-like-rape-when-I-first-wrote-about-it or something.

After a quick google search I didn't found anything about Ivana changing her story or anything like that

For a pure political perspective, I do agree. I am quite sure that his utter annihilation would plunge Republicans into paralysis: where Trump's floor will still make up a significant portion of the overall vote - and on such grounds, demand attentions so far as their policy platform is concerned, but not enough of the vote that it could get a person elected - and as association with them is toxic, collecting one vote or the other will be difficult.

We can see already that is happening and leaving Republican's floundering in a really tough place.

---

I think this might be the most ever uses of 'agree' I have ever made in a response to you :P.

Enemy of my enemy is your friend, and all, I guess.

Its fun when we all agree on stuff. :D

[sqishy]

phuckphace Flapjack mattsmith48 especially for your thoughts on agreement or disagreement (knowing your stronger stances).


I'm jumping in again to give an alternative descriptive (I am subtracting myself from most of this) account at a coherent position on all of this with Trump*.

[*I do say 'Trump' a lot below, it is only for sake of ease.]

- - - - - - - -

A person is a fool if they are directly offended/outraged by (in opposition to) Trump, and a person is also a fool if they directly support Trump.


Don't get into the simplistic for-or-against dichotomy that is the mostly-intended/foreseen playing field that Trump set up for most people. I used to think that Trump was an idiot more than a genius, but now I think the opposite (he still has some idiocy though in places :D ).

Why is this? There are two interlinked main aspects - Trump's strategy that maintains his political momentum, and Trump's strategy that makes it at least very difficult for any ordered opposition to attack him outside of his 'rules'.

- - - - - - - -

Political momentum through bare populism: Trump has cheated the previous political game, that had discussion on what is true and false about things to be a factor in the actions of those who play it. He also jumped beyond the original expected frame of journalism, where the seeking of coherent truth and falsehood in things is an end in itself and also a means to publicly evaluating things in an objective manner.

Trump lies about things to a level where contradictions make a fuzz that leaves journalism mostly at odds of wondering how they can evaluate something that keeps mutating all over the place with what it says and does. Trump also gets huge amounts of populist support that demonstrates how truth and falsehood simply becomes irrelevant in a seeking for political power.

Trump simply doesn't care about making an impression that shows him to (not) respectfully align with the consensus reality of things politically/socially/etc. Instead, he confidently constructs his own evolving reality for his supporters that is rich of showing all problems to lie in corrupt political establishments, alien people (illegals/etc), Islam, and terrorism (among other things).

The main reason he is so suddenly popular is that he is perceptive of the insecurities of a huge proportion of the US population, and he has used them to construct versions of reality that show these insecurities to neatly agree to those realities. Now this population of supporters has the powerful pervasive impression that they were right about what the true problems are in the world, and they have an already-powerful guy who is willing to run for presidency to show it and fix it!

Trump is a genius for seeing a new way of doing things that uses most/all of reality as a means which can be manipulated, rather than some tiresome end that all political action should try to (even just officially) end up respecting. He uses his charisma as a businessman to gather up all the irrational insecurities of a population, repeating them (with some subtle but critical adjustments) back to the same population to positively reinforce those feelings with him as a beacon in the center.

If you are one of the supporters of Trump in this 'direct' way (as in not an indirect supporter like I am for his qualities of entertainment), then you are a fool in how you are really a tool in Trump's agenda, way more than you are for Clinton's agenda (by the paradigm-exceptional nature of Trump's strategy as described). Congratulations.

- - - - - - - -

Political momentum through defence by chaotic presentation: Trump lies a lot about many things, and contradictions have been a norm with what he has said for a long while now. It is way more rational to see Trump as willingly lying about so many things, because it would be of strategic value to him - it is all on purpose.

This has the effect of populism on his target population when done right (ideally the entire population if he could) as set out above, but it also has the dual effect of putting at least most of your opponents in a weak position.

Putting it very simply, you cannot coherently attack a force that (to you) chaotically changes forms in ways that you cannot hold or even perceive sufficiently. It's like you are trying to catch a squirrel in a dense forest.

Trump knows that he is kicking up a lot of dust by firing comments all sorts of angles, many contradictory with others.

Both most of the Democrats' and Republican's media are in opposition to Trump, because of how he unexpectedly violates their expectations of having some level of respect for getting facts correct, or at least subscribing to one commonly relatively-static set of truths about things, a tradition or stable ethos.

Liberals are (at least mostly) particularly very angry and/or in shock with Trump, and are desperately trying every way of attacking Trump in some particular angle with what he has got wrong and what offensive thing he has said this time. He wants this, because he can use it as fuel for his supporters in showing how the enemy is not backing down or going down without a bitter battle. He uses the protests as extras on top of that.

You're a fool if you see Trump's actions as sincerely his own (not as a tool), and then vocalising this with angry enthusiasm that has to keep going for every new unexpected thing Trump says. You're a fool to be an indirect tool in his political agenda, doing what he wants, expressing your hatred against him with similar emotions that he has stirred up with his own followers. Congratulations.

- - - - - - - -

Now Trump has >40% of the US population which is enthusiastically spurring him on with a mix of fear, hatred, pride, joy and so on. He is an example of a new paradigm where objective reality as a backdrop for political activity is not a thing anymore, where whole worldviews of everyone in a certain population are of technological value for him.

Sure, all politics can be argued to have the technological usage of reality as a thing for politicians and parties where the populace is the toolbox, through psychological means in media, but Trump is new in that he is effectively entirely founding his campaign on this, and his only reliable consistency is that he is being inconsistent.

It's not so surprising then that Putin likes Trump, with Trump commenting positively about Russia but mainly also with how Trump is using a similar strategy that Putin is using, that of chaotic presentation that confuses opposition.

I hate him as I did before, of course, but this has to be admired. He has found a way to break into new territory, territory which few have thought of filling before him, partially hence the explosive expansion within it.

- - - - - - - -

What this alternate view suggests in conclusion is that you don't fall into the temptation of outright going for him or against him, because while the latter might stop him from getting POTUS, it will not defeat his strategy, nor the sentiment that has arisen in so many people. Do not think it will go away. Whatever the result, it has demonstrated a newer uglier way of doing politics.

It is funny that I've only recently made many connections between the Joker and Trump - both are playing with visceral fears and the demonstrative force of exponential escalation through their amplification, showing how previously 'civilised' people are really not as civilised as you would like to think.


Recognise the (as I see it) new paradigm of political activity that Trump uses, and recognise how dangerously potent it is. This backs why I feel riots will happen after the election results. Look at the picture differently, if you have not considered doing so already.

[Professional Russian]

Not that im being forced to but i have to vote for trump. Why? well obviously because im a racist, sexist, and want to watch america burn. No because i have to vote for who will be better long term in life and thats trump,how? If he gets elected the coal mines, gas wells, oil fields, and nuclear will start ramping back up and theyll need millions of people to work for them. As a welding engineer that spells out alot of money for me and long term employment. If Hillary gets elected we can say good bye to the coal mines, the oil fields, the natural gas business, and the nuclear industry essentially leaving us at the hands of the middle east for oil even worse then we already are. shed put millions and millions out of work in those fields. Obviously ive got other reasons but im not the mood to stir up that shit right now.

[phuckphace]

Paraxiom - I'll come back later to tackle your post, much too tired atm you see

----

I thought this was funny:

http://time.com/4540422/cardinal-dolan-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-al-smith/

Dolan Trump meets Cardinal Dolan. Hilary pls y u delet emails Hilary

[mattsmith48]

Not that im being forced to but i have to vote for trump. Why? well obviously because im a racist, sexist, and want to watch america burn. No because i have to vote for who will be better long term in life and thats trump,how? If he gets elected the coal mines, gas wells, oil fields, and nuclear will start ramping back up and theyll need millions of people to work for them. As a welding engineer that spells out alot of money for me and long term employment. If Hillary gets elected we can say good bye to the coal mines, the oil fields, the natural gas business, and the nuclear industry essentially leaving us at the hands of the middle east for oil even worse then we already are. shed put millions and millions out of work in those fields. Obviously ive got other reasons but im not the mood to stir up that shit right now.

Engaging in a war against the environment completely destroying it and undoing the little the US as done for climate change, how exactly is that good long term? Nuclear is the most dangerous way to produce energy, remember what happen in Japan a few years ago. And come on the oil and gaz industry will be fine when Clinton becomes president, shes pro fracking for fuck sakes. I wish you were right it would be awesome but your wrong, even if you were right whats wrong with stopping digging out a black rock and burning it?

If Trump is elected the stock market would crash before he even gets into office. He's gonna bring the US in another recession undoing all the good work Obama did to get the US out of the recession created by Bush. He would deport all the illegal immigrants creating millions of jobs that no one legally in the US wants to do like baby sitting and picking out fruits. He would make abortion illegal and privatise health care even more, killing millions US citizens in the process. Starting wars because he's mad at someone and very likely start a nuclear war.

I saw a poll yesterday where 45% of Republicans say they won't accept the result of the election if Trump lose. You guys nominated Hitler who got caught on tape saying he grabs women's pussy with out asking and you believe that the only way he could lose is if the election is rigged.

[Vlerchan]

also hildawg will move all oil production out of the US stuffing senators pockets who are invested in the middle east which will destroy our oil fields which employ millions.
Clinton praised United States energy independence in the second demand and given her status as a Hawk - and her alignment with Obama on the pivot from the ME - you can bet she wants nothing like was just described here.

I would also appreciate if you could explain to me why you think production of oil, gas, and coal will increase with Trump as president. I understand enough about oil production to realize that there's an international price, which Trump isn't going to be able to change, and current levels of production are in response to that. I amn't too sure about coal or gas, other than the expansion of the latter is weighing down the price of the former, and hurting employment there.

I also have no idea why you think this will affect nuclear energy production.

---

Odds are Trump's trade policies will be recession-inducing, which will undercut demand for energy. But whatever, let us focus on the certainties for now.

I'll add whilst I am on the topic, that Trump will not cause a stock market crash just by his election.

[Professional Russian]

Clinton praised United States energy independence in the second demand and given her status as a Hawk - and her alignment with Obama on the pivot from the ME - you can bet she wants nothing like was just described here.

I would also appreciate if you could explain to me why you think production of oil, gas, and coal will increase with Trump as president. I understand enough about oil production to realize that there's an international price, which Trump isn't going to be able to change, and current levels of production are in response to that. I amn't too sure about coal or gas, other than the expansion of the latter is weighing down the price of the former, and hurting employment there.

I also have no idea why you think this will affect nuclear energy production.

---

Odds are Trump's trade policies will be recession-inducing, which will undercut demand for energy. But whatever, let us focus on the certainties for now.

I'll add whilst I am on the topic, that Trump will not cause a stock market crash just by his election.

last i heard hilary wants to get rid of oil production in the US shut down coal mines get rid of nuclear programs and shut down gas wells as well as cut DoD funding. Never said trump was going to boost them but he defiently aint going to shit it somewhere else. but he will increase DoD funding which i LOVE DoD jobs

[Vlerchan]

last i heard hilary wants to get rid of oil production in the US shut down coal mines get rid of nuclear programs and shut down gas wells
I have no idea what source you are using but I don't believe that's actually the case.

but he will increase DoD funding which i LOVE DoD jobs
I can get behind fiscal stimulus during recessions but at times like this I think that private enterprise should be the engine of employment and broader-economic growth.

[Professional Russian]

I have no idea what source you are using but I don't believe that's actually the case.


I can get behind fiscal stimulus during recessions but at times like this I think that private enterprise should be the engine of employment and broader-economic growth.

you'd actually be surprised at home many department of Defense jobs are private. at the fab shop i used to work out we made hose reels for the navy, a buddy of mine working for BAE systems makes strikers and Bradley fighting vehicles. they outsource alot of work to private companies but they need to pay those workers wages

[Just JT]

I Voted for a third party candidate. I think both trump and Clinton are both horrible options for president

[Vlerchan]

you'd actually be surprised at home many department of Defense jobs are private. at the fab shop i used to work out we made hose reels for the navy, a buddy of mine working for BAE systems makes strikers and Bradley fighting vehicles. they outsource alot of work to private companies but they need to pay those workers wages
I understand that the DoD outsources it's work to private contractors but the root cause of such economic growth is still the government.

Given the huge amount of waste in the DoD budget I'd also prefer that the government spend smarter as opposed to more.

---

phuckphace: I had forgot to post about this pivot that I just remembered happened.

Donald Trump — who has built his campaign around a dramatic rollback of American’s multinational trade deals — said Wednesday that under his administration that there would be “more free trade” than there is under President Barack Obama.
“So my plan – we’re going to negotiate trade deals. We’ll have free trade. More free trade than we have right now,” Trump said during the third presidential debate.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-free-trade-obama-2016-debate-230028#ixzz4Nz9glqsq

He also seems to be emphasising a lot lately that it will be 2 million criminal illegal deported.

Given that does anyone want to help me think up a list of things that Trump differs from Ryan on - other than the emphasis on grievance politics.

[sqishy]

Paraxiom - I'll come back later to tackle your post, much too tired atm you see

This is me now too for a lot of the time here :D so I understand.

[Flapjack]

I think now it is cleat Clinton will win, I am troubled by the possibility of violence by Trump supporters. Apparently they're closing down some schools with polling stations for the day because of this risk.

[Stronk Serb]

To be honest, the system was rigged from the start. It has been like that for decades.

[mattsmith48]

I think now it is cleat Clinton will win, I am troubled by the possibility of violence by Trump supporters. Apparently they're closing down some schools with polling stations for the day because of this risk.

A week and a half left she as plenty of time to blew it. Again.

[Flapjack]

A week and a half left she as plenty of time to blew it. Again.
Well the FBI has reopened their investigation into her and I am sure Trump will milk that to death so yeah she could still blow it!
To be honest, the system was rigged from the start. It has been like that for decades.
Against who? It is definitely rigged against the third part candidates.

[PlasmaHam]

Against who? It is definitely rigged against the third part candidates.

Why don't you just ask Bernie Sanders and the DNC?

Clinton has taken a pretty significant drop in the polls. One poll I read had her lose ten points. I'm not sure about that, but she will definitely take some major hits here.

[StoppingTom]

So a (Trump supporting) woman in Iowa has been arrested for voting fraud, which she did because "it was rigged"

http://iowapublicradio.org/post/des-moines-woman-says-she-voted-twice-trump-because-polls-are-rigged#stream/0

[Flapjack]

Why don't you just ask Bernie Sanders and the DNC?
Yeahhh they rigged it big time against Bernie :'(

Clinton has taken a pretty significant drop in the polls. One poll I read had her lose ten points. I'm not sure about that, but she will definitely take some major hits here.
Yeah she has dropped, don't know it is as much as your claim however. This election might be closer than I had expected it to be.

[Vlerchan]

Clinton has taken a pretty significant drop in the polls. One poll I read had her lose ten points. I'm not sure about that, but she will definitely take some major hits here.
I'd appreciate if you could cite the sources in use here. Tracking polls are indicating that she's lost 0% (LA Times) to 2% (ABC) and IBD has her up 2% since yesterday. Far as I'm aware there's no other polls published and the likelihood is we won't see the true extent of the damage until the middle of the week.

[mattsmith48]

Well the FBI has reopened their investigation into her and I am sure Trump will milk that to death so yeah she could still blow it!

This is a horror movie, everytime you think you killed the monster he comes back even stronger and destroys the world.

I think she's doing the right thing by asking the FBI to release those emails to the public. We don't know what is in these emails, probably nothing, Trump doesn't care hes still going to go after her on this for the next week and a half, because using the wrong email is so much worst than anything he did in the last year.

Clinton has taken a pretty significant drop in the polls. One poll I read had her lose ten points. I'm not sure about that, but she will definitely take some major hits here.

Yeah she has dropped, don't know it is as much as your claim however. This election might be closer than I had expected it to be.

I'd appreciate if you could cite the sources in use here. Tracking polls are indicating that she's lost 0% (LA Times) to 2% (ABC) and IBD has her up 2% since yesterday. Far as I'm aware there's no other polls published and the likelihood is we won't see the true extent of the damage until the middle of the week.

Why would someone consider voting for Trump just because of a few emails, of anything that could be in these emails what could make her worst than Trump?

Posts merged. Use the multiquote button next time. ~Amethyst_

[Vlerchan]

Why would someone consider voting for Trump just because of a few emails, of anything that could be in these emails what could make her worst than Trump?
In using a private email server Clinton opened up state secrets to the to the possibility of exposure to hostile foreign forces. This at best demonstrates a level or incapacity that should exclude her from the job and at worst - in particular when taken in conjunction with the destruction of a number of emails held on that server - points to her own corruption.

Is what I imagine is going through the minds of Trump-leaners. I'd still elect her ahead of Trump.

[Porpoise101]

Yeahhh they rigged it big time against Bernie :'(
This is a myth. Even though the superdelegates of the primary supported Clinton overwhelmingly, she still got the popular vote of the Democratic primary. There have been many closer races in the Democratic primary (for example: Clinton vs Obama in 2008), but you never saw Clinton supporters denounce the system and say it was 'rigged'. To me, it shows that some Bernie's base is very anti-institution and anti-fact.

[Flapjack]

This is a myth. Even though the superdelegates of the primary supported Clinton overwhelmingly, she still got the popular vote of the Democratic primary. There have been many closer races in the Democratic primary (for example: Clinton vs Obama in 2008), but you never saw Clinton supporters denounce the system and say it was 'rigged'. To me, it shows that some Bernie's base is very anti-institution and anti-fact.
I wasn't talking about superdelegates although they would have frustrated me to no end had Bernie got the popular vote.

I was talking about how:
1. There had been a plot in the DNC designed to smear Bernie Sanders and to hand the Democratic nomination.

2. Emails show there has been repeated collusion between the DNC and the media

3. There has been questionable fundraising for both Hillary Clinton and the DNC

[mattsmith48]

In using a private email server Clinton opened up state secrets to the to the possibility of exposure to hostile foreign forces. This at best demonstrates a level or incapacity that should exclude her from the job and at worst - in particular when taken in conjunction with the destruction of a number of emails held on that server - points to her own corruption.

Is what I imagine is going through the minds of Trump-leaners. I'd still elect her ahead of Trump.

Using a private server was a mistake she admitted it, I think the destruction of evidence makes it look worst than it is, but even then its not near close of anything Trump did and not a reason to change your mind and vote for Trump.

[Porpoise101]

I wasn't talking about superdelegates although they would have frustrated me to no end had Bernie got the popular vote.

Hopefully you can understand that the party's elite did not want someone who has never been a Democrat in his life to suddenly become the most influential person in the party. It really hurts the party when an outsider comes in; look at how well the GOP is faring.

1. There had been a plot in the DNC designed to smear Bernie Sanders and to hand the Democratic nomination.

What could the party do? They didn't change the rules or anything to get him out. To me, it's obvious that the DNC would antagonize an outsider if it meant allowing a firm loyalist in the party to rise up.

2. Emails show there has been repeated collusion between the DNC and the media

What has that achieved? I'm not too keen on this so I don't really know the specifics of this transgression.

3. There has been questionable fundraising for both Hillary Clinton and the DNC

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: a major party has questionable fundraising!?!?!?

no way.

Our political finance situation in the US has really deteriorated for three reasons, none of which are Clinton's fault:

Globalisation- the rise in global corps has allowed foreign money to seep into the US
Consolidation- the more powerful the corporations have become, the more lobbying power they have gotten
Anonymous Financing- the more secret money floating around as a result of looser financing restrictions and the Internet, the worse its gotten

[Stronk Serb]

Well the FBI has reopened their investigation into her and I am sure Trump will milk that to death so yeah she could still blow it!

Against who? It is definitely rigged against the third part candidates.

Rigged against the third parties and well, against people who are new in politics and those who are anti-establishment. I think Bernie was robbed of the nomination.

This is a horror movie, everytime you think you killed the monster he comes back even stronger and destroys the world.

I think she's doing the right thing by asking the FBI to release those emails to the public. We don't know what is in these emails, probably nothing, Trump doesn't care hes still going to go after her on this for the next week and a half, because using the wrong email is so much worst than anything he did in the last year.







Why would someone consider voting for Trump just because of a few emails, of anything that could be in these emails what could make her worst than Trump?

Posts merged. Use the multiquote button next time. ~Amethyst_

After Clinton suggested a no-fly zone in Syria, that's when I said to myself that if WWIII is happening, it's because of that.

This is a myth. Even though the superdelegates of the primary supported Clinton overwhelmingly, she still got the popular vote of the Democratic primary. There have been many closer races in the Democratic primary (for example: Clinton vs Obama in 2008), but you never saw Clinton supporters denounce the system and say it was 'rigged'. To me, it shows that some Bernie's base is very anti-institution and anti-fact.

Well, both Bernie and Trump are anti-establishment that's why their parties sabotaged them. Except Trump was so popular that they couldn't find a replacement candidate.

[mattsmith48]

Rigged against the third parties and well, against people who are new in politics and those who are anti-establishment. I think Bernie was robbed of the nomination.

Well, both Bernie and Trump are anti-establishment that's why their parties sabotaged them. Except Trump was so popular that they couldn't find a replacement candidate.

Clinton got more votes that's why she got the nomination, yes a few things the democratic party did during the primary looked bad, but let's not forget bernie started at 1% in the polls and finished with 48% of the votes. Yes the party prefer one candidate to an other but I don't think it was rigged.

Trump won because he was exactly what the Republican party and their supporter are.

After Clinton suggested a no-fly zone in Syria, that's when I said to myself that if WWIII is happening, it's because of that.


What does the start of WWIII as to do with stupid people changing their mind on who they are going to vote for over a few emails?

[Stronk Serb]

Clinton got more votes that's why she got the nomination, yes a few things the democratic party did during the primary looked bad, but let's not forget bernie started at 1% in the polls and finished with 48% of the votes. Yes the party prefer one candidate to an other but I don't think it was rigged.

Trump won because he was exactly what the Republican party and their supporter are.



What does the start of WWIII as to do with stupid people changing their mind on who they are going to vote for over a few emails?

Well, George W. Bush endorsed Hillary, the man who gave radical groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS the power vacuum they needed to rise and be a threat. Also Hillary suggested a no-fly zone in Syria. Russia is committing airstrikes there, now it would be bad if the US started shooting down Russian planes. That would cause tension and war which hasn't hapened during the Cold War, hell, it would be worse than the Cuban Missile Crisis. Trump has said dumb things, but attacking the Russians... the last person that did that was Hitler and they didn't have nukes.

[PlasmaHam]

That would cause tension and war which hasn't hapened during the Cold War, hell, it would be worse than the Cuban Missile Crisis. Trump has said dumb things, but attacking the Russians... the last person that did that was Hitler and they didn't have nukes. There's an old adage among history fans, which is basically never to invade Russia. Napoleon did it, and it considerably weakened his army and began his downfall. Hitler did it, and resulted in a considerably weakened army and gaining an enemy that absolutely hated him. Even today, I would favor Russia over NATO if all out ground warfare broke out. Russia has considerably more tanks and artillery than NATO has in that area. If we actually ever directly attack Russia they will have plenty of conventional weapons to defend itself.

[Stronk Serb]

There's an old adage among history fans, which is basically never to invade Russia. Napoleon did it, and it considerably weakened his army and began his downfall. Hitler did it, and resulted in a considerably weakened army and gaining an enemy that absolutely hated him. Even today, I would favor Russia over NATO if all out ground warfare broke out. Russia has considerably more tanks and artillery than NATO has in that area. If we actually ever directly attack Russia they will have plenty of conventional weapons to defend itself.

The advantage the Soviets had during the Cold War is that they could hold the line on the European front since all their troops are at home, Siberia is too hard to push and impossible to maintain supply lines.

[phuckphace]

http://imgur.com/RyoNMwU.jpg

I take back all the mean things I've said about India in the past. in the next life they'll be reincarnated as white Übermenschen http://i.imgur.com/MclEtyn.gif

[Porpoise101]

image (http://imgur.com/RyoNMwU.jpg)

I take back all the mean things I've said about India in the past. in the next life they'll be reincarnated as white Übermenschen image (http://i.imgur.com/MclEtyn.gif)
You don't even know. In India, apparently Trump is a popular guy. Mostly because right-wing Indians dislike Muslims and he says he will be tough on China. I had the opportunity to talk to some real Indians (besides my family) this summer, and they were all talking about how "Trump would probably be good for India". Of course, Indians in the US are mostly anti-Trump (not really pro Hillary either).

Also, Trump had a rally (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/us/politics/trump-modi-indian-americans.html?_r=0) in which he pretty much tried to pander to Hindus and their anxieties. Not that the message resonated with me, but I felt special because no one really panders to any type of Asian during a campaign.

Also there has been this video floating around, but I'm not certain if it is legit.
1PG2V0YnokM

[Flapjack]

Also there has been this video floating around, but I'm not certain if it is legit.
1PG2V0YnokM
Oh it is real xD Tbh if the cutting wasn't so terrible it wouldn't be that bad, the message is just the standard BS from politicians.

[mattsmith48]

image (http://imgur.com/RyoNMwU.jpg)

I take back all the mean things I've said about India in the past. in the next life they'll be reincarnated as white Übermenschen image (http://i.imgur.com/MclEtyn.gif)

Is it just me or there are Hitler moustaches drawn on the Trump posters?

Well, George W. Bush endorsed Hillary, the man who gave radical groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS the power vacuum they needed to rise and be a threat. Also Hillary suggested a no-fly zone in Syria. Russia is committing airstrikes there, now it would be bad if the US started shooting down Russian planes. That would cause tension and war which hasn't hapened during the Cold War, hell, it would be worse than the Cuban Missile Crisis. Trump has said dumb things, but attacking the Russians... the last person that did that was Hitler and they didn't have nukes.

For once George W. Bush does something smart. I agree with PlasmaHam attacking Russia is suicide, Clinton knows that. Trump won't attack Russia because Putin controls him.

[Stronk Serb]

Is it just me or there are Hitler moustaches drawn on the Trump posters?



For once George W. Bush does something smart. I agree with PlasmaHam attacking Russia is suicide, Clinton knows that. Trump won't attack Russia because Putin controls him.

George doing something smart, pfff. Yet Clinton still wants to provoke Russia by imposing a no-fly zone in Syria. She wants to fucking target Assad, a Russian ally and the strongest opposition to ISIS. I mean the bitch is now worse than Trump as far as warmongering goes. A no-fly zone in Syria and attacking Assad equals to pissing on the still dormant Russian bear. You knew what happened 71 years ago when a guy with a funny moustache decided to piss on the Russians, and that was when the Russians didn't have nukes.

[phuckphace]

You don't even know. In India, apparently Trump is a popular guy. Mostly because right-wing Indians dislike Muslims and he says he will be tough on China. I had the opportunity to talk to some real Indians (besides my family) this summer, and they were all talking about how "Trump would probably be good for India". Of course, Indians in the US are mostly anti-Trump (not really pro Hillary either).

yeah well obviously the volume-discount H1B Pajeets who took over Silicon Valley aren't going to be too happy about the prospect of having to go back, but on the other hand I got mad respect for anyone who chooses to stay in their own country and do their own part to improve it. the anti-Muslim Hindus are funny because they're allowed to criticize Muslims in ways that whites in most Western countries can't (brown privilege I guess) and it also further proves that a large Muslim presence can't and won't get along with anybody, anywhere, period.

the Hindu-led anti-Muslim violence that occasionally flares up is another example of one of the things I envy about brown privilege - you can Endlösung anybody who becomes a problem and the int'l media won't judge you for it.

[mattsmith48]

George doing something smart, pfff. Yet Clinton still wants to provoke Russia by imposing a no-fly zone in Syria. She wants to fucking target Assad, a Russian ally and the strongest opposition to ISIS. I mean the bitch is now worse than Trump as far as warmongering goes. A no-fly zone in Syria and attacking Assad equals to pissing on the still dormant Russian bear. You knew what happened 71 years ago when a guy with a funny moustache decided to piss on the Russians, and that was when the Russians didn't have nukes.

Clinton is not perfect, but what ever she does it would never come even close to what Trump would do.

[PlasmaHam]

Clinton is not perfect, but what ever she does it would never come even close to what Trump would do.

I'm not sure that you ever actually read the stances by the candidates, but Clinton is the only one pushing a foreign policy agenda that will set us in conflict with Russia and get us involved in Syria. Trump has been mostly mute on the subject, but the general consensus is that Trump wants to ignore Syria and the Russian involvement in it. Which is far less likely to result in conflict than Clinton's.

[Flapjack]

I'm not sure that you ever actually read the stances by the candidates, but Clinton is the only one pushing a foreign policy agenda that will set us in conflict with Russia and get us involved in Syria. Trump has been mostly mute on the subject, but the general consensus is that Trump wants to ignore Syria and the Russian involvement in it. Which is far less likely to result in conflict than Clinton's.
This is true! One of the few positives I see for Trump personally is that he is friendly with the Russians and is not stuck in that cold-war era mindset that the Russians are by default the enemy however I do have concerns that Trump could be too friendly but I'd take that over Clinton's too hostile.

[Vlerchan]

... not stuck in that cold-war era mindset that the Russians are by default the enemy...
Worth noting that all serious commentators possess a mindset that is descended from the Great Games.

I figure - though - that claiming that someone is stuck in the 'Cold War' tends to feature as a good signal that someone hasn't studied Russo-Western relations.

---

It's worth noting that Trump has suggested boots on the ground in the Middle East.

The main target of the Russian campaign has also been the non-Islamist-aligned opposition so the idea that Trump could create a feasible alliance with Putin is further demonstration that when it comes to the conduction of foreign politics he just isn't a serious candidate.

[Stronk Serb]

Clinton is not perfect, but what ever she does it would never come even close to what Trump would do.

Well, unlike Clinton he wouldn't piss off the Russians and do what everyone during the Cold War tried to avoid, a direct confrontation of the two largest nuclear powers. A no-fly zone in Syria means Russian jets shot down and who would do the shooting? US Air Force. The best way to get nuked it to piss of someone hard enough that he nukes you, this is what pissing on the Russians would do. They are already pissed that the US bankrupted the USSR, that they are sanctioning them, now openly firing on their jets... a good way to make friends. Actually pulling out a little bit and letting the Russians restore order to Syroa wouldn't be a bad idea in the long run.

[Vlerchan]

OPEN LETTER TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM RECIPIENTS OF THE SVERIGES RIKSBANK PRIZE IN ECONOMIC SCIENCES IN MEMORY OF ALFRED NOBEL [...]

[...] By contrast, Donald Trump has no record of public service and offers an incoherent economic agenda. His reckless threats to start trade wars with several of our largest trading partners, his plan to deport millions of immigrants, his trillions of dollars of unfunded tax cuts, his casual suggestion that the United States could threaten default on its debt in order to renegotiate with our creditors as if Treasuries were a junk bond—each of these proposals could jeopardize the foundations of American prosperity and the global economy. His other rash statements about many subjects outside economics have also raised very serious concerns.

http://www.nobellaureatesforclinton.us/economics/

19 Nobel Prize winning economists signed this.

There was also a letter published in the WSJ and signed by 270 economists - 7 of which are Nobel-prize winners - berating Trump's economic plan.

It - of course - wont make a difference.

[phuckphace]

a bunch of economists complaining that the God-Emperor's plan will wreck their shit...let's see...I'm pretty sure that's the whole point of this thing. if anything losing their jobs is getting off easy - if it were me they'd be losing everything above their shoulders

of course the economy will contract as the fat is trimmed and the swamp is drained. cleaning house is a dirty job but must be done.

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

lmao, Lügenpresse BTFO

[mattsmith48]

PlasmaHam Stronk Serb There are other issues than Syria and letting Putin do whatever the fucks he wants, seems like you guys are forgeting that. If you look at all the issues and everything that was said in this campaign it should be clear that the US cannot let Trump be president, we already got throught this.

[PlasmaHam]

PlasmaHam Stronk Serb There are other issues than Syria and letting Putin do whatever the fucks he wants, seems like you guys are forgeting that.

You are the one who brought this up you know, saying that Trump is far worse than Clinton when it comes to Syria. And yes, I am aware that there are other issues, but this subject is very relevant to a Clinton vs Trump debate. It seems like the only reason you don't like us talking about this is because you don't want to admit a Clinton presidency could lead to nuclear war, like you have ranted so much about with Trump.

But I imagine in your mind that conspiracy theories about Trump ending the world is so much more relevant to this debate than foreign policy discussions and avoiding possible conflict with a nuclear power.

[StoppingTom]

honestly the catharsis of either side losing this election gives me the strength to go on for the next week

[Stronk Serb]

PlasmaHam Stronk Serb There are other issues than Syria and letting Putin do whatever the fucks he wants, seems like you guys are forgeting that. If you look at all the issues and everything that was said in this campaign it should be clear that the US cannot let Trump be president, we already got throught this.

You were always nagging how he would start WWIII, so now the true face if Hillary was revealed. She would start WWIII by pissing on the Russians. It's not a simple mstter, it's a matter of the entire world.

[Vlerchan]

Clinton - all likelihood - is going to negotiate Russian compliance before creating a no-fly zone. Though from the language she used in the third debate to describe the initiative - "for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria" - that has made it seem to me as if she wouldn't be looking to block all air traffic.

In other words: I'm not too worried - though am watching for changes in language as we approach the election date.

of course the economy will contract as the fat is trimmed and the swamp is drained. cleaning house is a dirty job but must be done.
This is profoundly meaningless and doesn't begin to approach the criticisms levied towards Trump at all.

An eonomic downturn also isn't going to affect tenured economists whose wages are guaranteed. It's going to affect families.

[Stronk Serb]

https://scontent-mrs1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14639804_1248088115234957_4274904013958720609_n.jpg?oh=0949928337bfb1b5707546055 9658660&oe=58938AFB

[Porpoise101]

Clinton - all likelihood - is going to negotiate Russian compliance before creating a no-fly zone. Though from the language she used in the third debate to describe the initiative - "for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria" - that has made it seem to me as if she wouldn't be looking to block all air traffic.

In other words: I'm not too worried - though am watching for changes in language as we approach the election date.
I agree.
From her campaign website (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/national-security/):

Embrace all the tools of American power, especially diplomacy and development, to be on the front lines solving problems before they threaten us at home. Diplomacy is often the only way to avoid a conflict that could end up exacting a much greater cost. It takes patience, persistence, and an eye on the long game—but it’s worth it.

From this section, it's clear she is more keen on 'dollar diplomacy' and not using aggression. Definitely more dovish than not, here at the least.

Be firm but wise with our rivals. Countries like Russia and China often work against us. Hillary has gone toe-to-toe with Russia and China and many other different leaders around the world. She knows we have to be able to both stand our ground when we must, and find common ground when we can.

Stand up to Vladimir Putin. Hillary has gone toe-to-toe with Putin before, and she’ll do it again. She’ll stand shoulder to shoulder with our European allies and push back on and deter Russian aggression in Europe and beyond, and increase the costs to Putin for his actions.

In this section, it's clear she is trying to project a 'diplomacy-first' methodology as her go-to solution. For Putin, she is harkening back to the containment strategy employed during, and even before, the Cold War. Syria is a bit too late to contain in my opinion, but then again I haven't been briefed by the CIA and the State Dept. The biggest weakness I see is her desire for cooperation among the Europeans. I am not sure how well that will work when cooperation seems to be at a low with them.

[mattsmith48]

You are the one who brought this up you know, saying that Trump is far worse than Clinton when it comes to Syria. And yes, I am aware that there are other issues, but this subject is very relevant to a Clinton vs Trump debate. It seems like the only reason you don't like us talking about this is because you don't want to admit a Clinton presidency could lead to nuclear war, like you have ranted so much about with Trump.

But I imagine in your mind that conspiracy theories about Trump ending the world is so much more relevant to this debate than foreign policy discussions and avoiding possible conflict with a nuclear power.

You were always nagging how he would start WWIII, so now the true face if Hillary was revealed. She would start WWIII by pissing on the Russians. It's not a simple mstter, it's a matter of the entire world.

Vlerchan and Porpoise101 explain it well there is not much to really be worried about Clinton's foreign policy. Yes she as made some mistakes in the past, but I'm sure she learned from it.

Trump on the other hand would give nukes to Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Japan, weaken and destroy the US relationship with their allies, banning all muslims would give power to ISIS, talking about ISIS his plan to defeat them is quote ''defeat them really, really fast.'' and ask why they make nuclear weapons if they are not going to use them.

So who is more dangerous, experienced Hillary or orange Hitler? Why at this point we still have to ask the question the answer is obvious Trump is a danger to all live on this planet, Clinton might not have the best ideas, people from both side might disagree with her on a few things but atlease the human race will still be around when she leaves office in four years.

[PlasmaHam]

Vlerchan and Porpoise101 explain it well there is not much to really be worried about Clinton's foreign policy. Yes she as made some mistakes in the past, but I'm sure she learned from it. Putin isn't a Middle Eastern dictator or such where she can just bully and threaten them into compiling with USA wants. I have a feeling that the likelihood of Clinton being able to force Russia out of Syria peacefully is very low. Just look at Crimea; Europe and America both made very harsh threats against Russia if the take over continued, yet ultimately those threats feel on deaf ears. The only way Clinton will be able to keep peace with Russia, is to simply stay out of Syria, which seems very unlikely for her.


Trump on the other hand would give nukes to Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Japan, weaken and destroy the US relationship with their allies, banning all muslims would give power to ISIS, talking about ISIS his plan to defeat them is quote ''defeat them really, really fast.'' and ask why they make nuclear weapons if they are not going to use them.
Conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy. Trumps says alot, but do you seriously expect him to do such?
So who is more dangerous, experienced Hillary or orange Hitler? http://i.imgur.com/SjQclIQ.jpg

[Flapjack]

Conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy. Trumps says alot, but do you seriously expect him to do such?

Gotta love it when even his own supporters know Trump cannot deliver on his horrific childish policies.

[phuckphace]

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

Cracker's Last Stand

[Porpoise101]

Trumps says alot, but do you seriously expect him to do such?

This is the #1 difference between pro-Hillary types and pro-Trump types.

With Hillary, it's pretty clear what she will do and where she stands. You can like it or hate it, but her team has written up a ton of plans/positions on all sorts of things. And she is predictable enough to follow them.

With Trump, if a supporter doesn't agree with something, they will pass it off. They will say "I don't think he will actually do it" about nearly any policy position they disagree with. I was reading an article about why certain people like Trump even though they don't fit the demographic stereotype. They supported some of his message, then passed of what they didn't like as something 'he wouldn't really do', whether that be banning Muslims/extreme vetting, striking down Roe v. Wade, or nuclear proliferation. The exception are the really fervent ones who actually want him to do everything he says. To me, this shows that Trump doesn't really have a large base and his more moderate supporters are projecting what they want to see onto him.

[Flapjack]

This is the #1 difference between pro-Hillary types and pro-Trump types.

With Hillary, it's pretty clear what she will do and where she stands. You can like it or hate it, but her team has written up a ton of plans/positions on all sorts of things. And she is predictable enough to follow them.

With Trump, if a supporter doesn't agree with something, they will pass it off. They will say "I don't think he will actually do it" about nearly any policy position they disagree with. I was reading an article about why certain people like Trump even though they don't fit the demographic stereotype. They supported some of his message, then passed of what they didn't like as something 'he wouldn't really do', whether that be banning Muslims/extreme vetting, striking down Roe v. Wade, or nuclear proliferation. The exception are the really fervent ones who actually want him to do everything he says. To me, this shows that Trump doesn't really have a large base and his more moderate supporters are projecting what they want to see onto him.
The problem with Trump is that I am sure he would not be able to do most of what he says but him trying to do it would still be disastrous, for example not paying the American debt.

[mattsmith48]

Putin isn't a Middle Eastern dictator or such where she can just bully and threaten them into compiling with USA wants. I have a feeling that the likelihood of Clinton being able to force Russia out of Syria peacefully is very low. Just look at Crimea; Europe and America both made very harsh threats against Russia if the take over continued, yet ultimately those threats feel on deaf ears. The only way Clinton will be able to keep peace with Russia, is to simply stay out of Syria, which seems very unlikely for her.

So let's just have the Pussy grabber in charge, not doing anything when Putin invade Ukraine and North Korea takes Eastern Asia hostage, because he's to busy starting a war because someone called him names on Twitter. Trump didn't even knew Russia was in Crimea until a reporter told him. Clinton as the experience to deal with Russia, Syria and North Korea, Trump wants to give nukes to their enemies, ban muslims and torture and kill families of terrorist.

Conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy. Trumps says alot, but do you seriously expect him to do such?

''He says those things, but he's not gonna do it.'' That's what people in Germany were saying about Hitler before he was elected, how did that turned out?

[Flapjack]

''The says those things, but he's not gonna do it.'' That's what people in Germany were saying about Hitler before he was elected, how did that turned out?
So well said!

[Abyssal Echo]

Who do you support? Trump
Why do you support them? He"s for the American people unlike Clinton who is only in it for power, control and money
Who do you think will win? Clinton

[PlasmaHam]

The polls here really are strikingly reflective of polls in the real world. Back when this first started in the summer, Clinton had a small, consistent lead, and then over September and early October she soared to a 7+ lead, now the poll shows Trump very close and sometimes tied with Clinton. I know this is conducted entirely different from actual election polls, but the consistency is pretty amazing.

[mattsmith48]

Why do you support them? He"s for the American people unlike Clinton who is only in it for power, control and money

Doing this for the power, control and money sounds like Donald Trump to me.

[Professional Russian]

D. Trump for president. that is all

[PlasmaHam]

Doing this for the power, control and money sounds like Donald Trump to me.
I'm pretty certain that a billionaire isn't running for president because he wants the money.

Anyone else getting annoyed with the constant videos by famous people basically shaming people into voting Hillary, and then mocking those who refuse to vote? I am, and on my search I came across this bit of comedy. Not exactly Clinton vs. Trump, but it does seem to express my feelings about this election pretty clear in a nonbias way.

fZR1IFo2FGQ

[mattsmith48]

I'm pretty certain that a billionaire isn't running for president because he wants the money.

I'm pretty certain that a billionaire wouldn't start a fake university to rob money from desperate people. Guess who did do this exact thing and says he is a billionaire.



Anyone else getting annoyed with the constant videos by famous people basically shaming people into voting Hillary, and then mocking those who refuse to vote? I am, and on my search I came across this bit of comedy. Not exactly Clinton vs. Trump, but it does seem to express my feelings about this election pretty clear in a nonbias way.

Who is shaming people into voting for Clinton?

fZR1IFo2FGQ

Seriously!? Censoring the word ''ass'' come on people.

Here's how Trump's first 100 days could look like.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com//report-on-business/rob-magazine/what-if-trump-wins-we-imagine-the-worst-case-scenario/article32556187/?cmpid=rss1&click=sf_globe

Posts merged. ~Amethyst_

[Professional Russian]

Here's how Trump's first 100 days could look like.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com//report-on-business/rob-magazine/what-if-trump-wins-we-imagine-the-worst-case-scenario/article32556187/?cmpid=rss1&click=sf_globe

i like day 52...although I think uncle ted should be president. beside the fact that is the most bullshit list ive seen in my life and if you honestly believe it i feel bad for you son cause you got issues

[PlasmaHam]

Here's how Trump's first 100 days could look like.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com//report-on-business/rob-magazine/what-if-trump-wins-we-imagine-the-worst-case-scenario/article32556187/?cmpid=rss1&click=sf_globe
I sure do hope you realize that that whole article you posted was a joke. I found it funny, even though it has no basis in reality.

I found day 95 and 52 to be pretty funny. I can almost imagine Trump and Putin riding shirtless around Camp David, probably the most realistic day on there. Trump, forging peace by riding shirtless on a Trump brand horse, 'MERICA!!!

[Vlerchan]

The FBI has found no evidence of criminality in the new batch of Hillary Clinton emails.
In a letter to members of Congress, FBI director James Comey said the agency had finished its review and found nothing to change its position.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37892138


Is it enough time for lost voters to swing back Clinton's direction, though?

I also agree with Porpoise101's assessment of Trump supporters above.

[mattsmith48]

i like day 52...although I think uncle ted should be president. beside the fact that is the most bullshit list ive seen in my life and if you honestly believe it i feel bad for you son cause you got issues

I sure do hope you realize that that whole article you posted was a joke. I found it funny, even though it has no basis in reality.

I found day 95 and 52 to be pretty funny. I can almost imagine Trump and Putin riding shirtless around Camp David, probably the most realistic day on there. Trump, forging peace by riding shirtless on a Trump brand horse, 'MERICA!!!

Yeah of course its a joke, I thought it was funny and laughter is good in these anxious and stressfull time.

The FBI has found no evidence of criminality in the new batch of Hillary Clinton emails.
In a letter to members of Congress, FBI director James Comey said the agency had finished its review and found nothing to change its position.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37892138


Is it enough time for lost voters to swing back Clinton's direction, though

Predictably there was nothing in the emails, they had no reason to say anything about it until they had read the emails. It still has done some damage if this was the only thing making those voters change their mind they have no reason to not change again unless they already voted.

[Professional Russian]

Yeah of course its a joke, I thought it was funny and laughter is good in these anxious and stressfull time.

The only thing im stressing about is whether the gas, oil, coal, and nuclear fields will still be around after tuesday

[mattsmith48]

The only thing im stressing about is whether the gas, oil, coal, and nuclear fields will still be around after tuesday

why wouldn't they be around after tuesday?

[Porpoise101]

I just wonder how many faithless electors we will have come December

[Professional Russian]

why wouldn't they be around after tuesday?

hilldawgs not a fan of them. especially nuclear and oil and coal

[mattsmith48]

hilldawgs not a fan of them. especially nuclear and oil and coal

What makes you think that?

[Professional Russian]

What makes you think that?

chatter within the industry aswell as unions...and since theyre signing my paychecks i like to believe that

[mattsmith48]

chatter within the industry aswell as unions...and since theyre signing my paychecks i like to believe that

So nothing base on facts?

[Professional Russian]

So nothing base on facts?

Lets put it this way. When it comes to your paycheck what the industry youre in says is fact. especially unions. i dont like unions but theyre usually right.

[mattsmith48]

Lets put it this way. When it comes to your paycheck what the industry youre in says is fact. especially unions. i dont like unions but theyre usually right.

So no its not base on any facts?

[Professional Russian]

So no its not base on any facts?

no clue. doesnt matter to me as long as i keep getting paid

[mattsmith48]

no clue. doesnt matter to me as long as i keep getting paid

That is a dangerous way to think.

[sqishy]

I think now it is cleat Clinton will win, I am troubled by the possibility of violence by Trump supporters. Apparently they're closing down some schools with polling stations for the day because of this risk.

The same can be said of Clinton supporters / Trump opponents if Trump wins though.


After Clinton suggested a no-fly zone in Syria, that's when I said to myself that if WWIII is happening, it's because of that.


This goes along with me feeling that a non-proxy war with Russia is more likely if Clinton gets in.

This goes along with me predicting that there will be a short but intense and direct war in Europe within the year (spring?), with a lot of death (hundreds of thousands), and nothing nuclear. I'm gladly standing by this until I get proven right or wrong. Let's see how crazy I am with this.



What does the start of WWIII as to do with stupid people changing their mind on who they are going to vote for over a few emails?

It has to do with Clinton and her eager subscribing to e.g. the idea of slapping more and more sanctions on Russia.


George doing something smart, pfff. Yet Clinton still wants to provoke Russia by imposing a no-fly zone in Syria. She wants to fucking target Assad, a Russian ally and the strongest opposition to ISIS. I mean the bitch is now worse than Trump as far as warmongering goes. A no-fly zone in Syria and attacking Assad equals to pissing on the still dormant Russian bear. You knew what happened 71 years ago when a guy with a funny moustache decided to piss on the Russians, and that was when the Russians didn't have nukes.

On point.


PlasmaHam Stronk Serb There are other issues than Syria and letting Putin do whatever the fucks he wants, seems like you guys are forgeting that. If you look at all the issues and everything that was said in this campaign it should be clear that the US cannot let Trump be president, we already got throught this.

Is the avoidance of a war not an argument against voting Clinton in? For sure I am not advocating for Trump solely because of that (because nothing is ever this simple), but still.


You were always nagging how he would start WWIII, so now the true face if Hillary was revealed. She would start WWIII by pissing on the Russians. It's not a simple mstter, it's a matter of the entire world.

I'm not as confident to say that the war will be global, but it is certainly a European matter in that Europe will be majorly effected.


Clinton - all likelihood - is going to negotiate Russian compliance before creating a no-fly zone. Though from the language she used in the third debate to describe the initiative - "for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria" - that has made it seem to me as if she wouldn't be looking to block all air traffic.

In other words: I'm not too worried - though am watching for changes in language as we approach the election date.

We shall see with time.



Trump on the other hand would give nukes to Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Japan, weaken and destroy the US relationship with their allies [...]

Just so you know, the US already has deep economic ties with Saudi Arabia (e.g. oil), so it is not like they are actual enemies. I don't see specifically what you mean with South Korea and Japan either.


[...] and ask why they make nuclear weapons if they are not going to use them.

That ISIL has not already directly used nuclear weaponry is noteworthy though.


So who is more dangerous, experienced Hillary or orange Hitler? Why at this point we still have to ask the question the answer is obvious Trump is a danger to all live on this planet, Clinton might not have the best ideas, people from both side might disagree with her on a few things but atlease the human race will still be around when she leaves office in four years.

Both Clinton and Trump are very dangerous. I expect new war to be more likely with Clinton.


I sure do hope you realize that that whole article you posted was a joke. I found it funny, even though it has no basis in reality.

I like to think that things would paradoxically be more clear (and much different) in general if most people realised that 'basis in reality' simply is not relevant in the election race strategy Trump is using. As I said before in a longer post, this is simultaneously ingenious and very dangerous (of similarities to Nazi Germany) for Trump.

Throw out adherence to reality instead of pretending that Trump cares about it, like be honest here even.


[...] I thought it was funny and laughter is good in these anxious and stressfull time.

"Now's not the time for fear. That comes later."

No, really, I mean it.

(It just so happens I have a nice quote handy in my memory.)


why wouldn't they be around after tuesday?

E.g. bad riots.


That is a dangerous way to think.

In fairness there are more dangerous ways to think. :\

[mattsmith48]

It has to do with Clinton and her eager subscribing to e.g. the idea of slapping more and more sanctions on Russia.

Sanction is the only way they've come up with to try to prevent Russia from invading other countries.

Is the avoidance of a war not an argument against voting Clinton in? For sure I am not advocating for Trump solely because of that (because nothing is ever this simple), but still.

Of course shes going to start wars, but she know how to smartly start a war no matter how stupid that war is. In addition wars Clinton would start would also be because of a real threat even if that threat is really low instead of Trump starting a war over tweets or because someone call him names.


Just so you know, the US already has deep economic ties with Saudi Arabia (e.g. oil), so it is not like they are actual enemies. I don't see specifically what you mean with South Korea and Japan either.

Its dangerous to give nuclear weapons to other countries and it could get out of control and it would be a matter of time before countries no one wants to see aquire nuclear weapons, aquire nuclear weapons.

That ISIL has not already directly used nuclear weaponry is noteworthy though.

ISIL has not use nuclear weapons because they don't have any if they get one they would use it without a question.



"Now's not the time for fear. That comes later."

No, really, I mean it.

(It just so happens I have a nice quote handy in my memory.)

Your right its not time to fear, its time to fucking panic.


E.g. bad riots.

How bad a riot as to go that all the gas, oil, coal, and nuclear fields would desapear in one night.

[Professional Russian]

Your right its not time to fear, its time to fucking panic.

you're blowing this out of proportion. theres nothing to panic about.


How bad a riot as to go that all the gas, oil, coal, and nuclear fields would desapear in one night.

NOW THAT'S SOMETHING TO FUCKING PANIC ABOUT....or maybe not cause someones gotta rebuild them

[PlasmaHam]

Sanction is the only way they've come up with to try to prevent Russia from invading other countries. And look at how well that is going. Clinton's eagerness to increase sanctions on Russia will result in nothing more but increased tensions between the two countries.
Of course shes going to start wars, but she know how to smartly start a war no matter how stupid that war is. In addition wars Clinton would start would also be because of a real threat even if that threat is really low instead of Trump starting a war over tweets or because someone call him names.
Russia, is not a threat. Syria and Assad, is not a threat. Now that may change, but currently Clinton is advocating direct involvement in a war that is of no threat to ourselves nor will somehow drastically change the world. mattsmith48, we are attempting to have reasonable discussion here, so please move your "Trump will nuke the world" rants to the mental health section.

Its dangerous to give nuclear weapons to other countries and it could get out of control and it would be a matter of time before countries no one wants to see aquire nuclear weapons, aquire nuclear weapons. So, should we follow the Democrat's way of dealing with nuclear weapons? Giving multi-million dollar payouts to potentially hostile countries to keep a nuclear deal that would probably not work?

Your right its not time to fear, its time to fucking panic.
You are way too paranoid about Trump, probably because you believe everything you read. I fear a Clinton administration, but that doesn't mean that we are all doomed.

How bad a riot as to go that all the gas, oil, coal, and nuclear fields would desapear in one night.

Given that over 95% of Americans directly depend on these resources for their modern life, I'll say that would be a pretty bad riot. I'm afraid that you do not realize the huge implications of an immediate fossil fuel shutdown. Of everything, this is the one thing to panic about.

[mattsmith48]

you're blowing this out of proportion. theres nothing to panic about.

Have you seen this campaign and the polls, everyone should be panicking rightnow

NOW THAT'S SOMETHING TO FUCKING PANIC ABOUT....or maybe not cause someones gotta rebuild them

- Doesn't answer the question, how bad a riot as to go that it would cause all of them to be destroyed?

- If they do get destroyed, why rebuild them? Why not take advantage of this situation to switch to renewable and clean energy?

And look at how well that is going. Clinton's eagerness to increase sanctions on Russia will result in nothing more but increased tensions between the two countries.

Never said it was a great strategy, but its better than doing nothing.

Russia, is not a threat. Syria and Assad, is not a threat. Now that may change, but currently Clinton is advocating direct involvement in a war that is of no threat to ourselves nor will somehow drastically change the world. mattsmith48, we are attempting to have reasonable discussion here, so please move your "Trump will nuke the world" rants to the mental health section.

They are as much of a threat to Americans than Syrian refugees, muslims or undocumented immigrants.

So, should we follow the Democrat's way of dealing with nuclear weapons? Giving multi-million dollar payouts to potentially hostile countries to keep a nuclear deal that would probably not work?

From what I understand from the Iran deal, Iran as to give almost all their nuclear material and what is left to them is for energy and is highly regulated, with frequent inspections, and the relieve of sanctions against Iran. The only issue I have with this is letting them produce energy from nuclear plant when there is much cleaner and safer way to get energy.

You are way too paranoid about Trump, probably because you believe everything you read. I fear a Clinton administration, but that doesn't mean that we are all doomed.

Since WWII this is the closest weve come from another Nazi Germany, have you seen this campaign? The RNC didn't remind you of rallies of a certain dictator in the 30s?

Given that over 95% of Americans directly depend on these resources for their modern life, I'll say that would be a pretty bad riot. I'm afraid that you do not realize the huge implications of an immediate fossil fuel shutdown. Of everything, this is the one thing to panic about.

I don't see why it as to do with anything, but I have explained in the climate change tread how it could be done, you probably didn't see it because you were too busy trying to defend conspiracy theories.

[Professional Russian]

Have you seen this campaign and the polls, everyone should be panicking rightnow



- Doesn't answer the question, how bad a riot as to go that it would cause all of them to be destroyed?

- If they do get destroyed, why rebuild them? Why not take advantage of this situation to switch to renewable and clean energy.

i dont know i didnt bring up riots. and rebuold them because of the millions and millions of jobs that would result from it

[Jinglebottom]

The elections are tomorrow? I think I'm a little bit too excited to find out who's gonna win. :P

[AgentHomo]

Who do you support? CLINTON!!!!
Why do you support them? She isn't a racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, xenophobic ignorant religious republican.
Who do you think will win? Clinton!


Please guys vote Clinton! I will literally kill myself if Tr*** is voted in office because this country will see another Holocaust. Please vote Clinton to save millions of lives!!!!

[PlasmaHam]

Have you seen this campaign and the polls, everyone should be panicking rightnow Yea, you are definitely taking things way out of proportion.


- Doesn't answer the question, how bad a riot as to go that it would cause all of them to be destroyed?

- If they do get destroyed, why rebuild them? Why not take advantage of this situation to switch to renewable and clean energy?

I do not even understand what your first question, so I am ignoring it. As for the other question, I'm afraid you once again do not understand the basics of economics and the way society works.
They are as much of a threat to Americans than Syrian refugees, muslims or undocumented immigrants.

Americans killed in the last year by Muslim terrorists, Syrian refugees, and illegal immigrants:+/-4000 people

Americans killed in the last year by Russia or Assad: 0

You remind me of those crazy liberals who believe that radical Christianity is the real threat. Shifting the blame to a different group despite no logical backing.

From what I understand from the Iran deal, Iran as to give almost all their nuclear material and what is left to them is for energy and is highly regulated, with frequent inspections, and the relieve of sanctions against Iran. The only issue I have with this is letting them produce energy from nuclear plant when there is much cleaner and safer way to get energy.
Somewhat, I believe I also read that Iraq must be given 60 day warning of inspections, and that the 400 million dollar payout is currently going to increase it's military presence around the globe. I don't call that a smart deal.


Since WWII this is the closest weve come from another Nazi Germany, have you seen this campaign? The RNC didn't remind you of rallies of a certain dictator in the 30s? http://i.imgur.com/SjQclIQ.jpg
(I am never going to quit doing this, so stop undermining the death of millions of people over your petty dislike of Trump.)

By your logic, anyone who has passionate and patriotic supporters is automatically Hitler. Does anyone else see the craziness in that?
Who do you support? CLINTON!!!!
Why do you support them? She isn't a racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, xenophobic ignorant religious republican.
Who do you think will win? Clinton!


Please guys vote Clinton! I will literally kill myself if Tr*** is voted in office because this country will see another Holocaust. Please vote Clinton to save millions of lives!!!!
https://s17.postimg.org/dq2ki4tz3/httpspostimg_orgimagemnq83v54t.gif
You won.... All of the above! Congratulations on your liberal outrage!

[StoppingTom]

The FBI has found no evidence of criminality in the new batch of Hillary Clinton emails.
In a letter to members of Congress, FBI director James Comey said the agency had finished its review and found nothing to change its position.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37892138


Is it enough time for lost voters to swing back Clinton's direction, though?

I also agree with Porpoise101's assessment of Trump supporters above.

I think people have already made their minds up for the most part before the FBI reopened the investigation.

That being said, Director Comey needs to resign. A blatant breach of protocol with the (seeming) intent to sway voters is...not a good look. That, and he'll likely be fired if he doesn't.

[PinkFloyd]

Please guys vote Clinton! I will literally kill myself if Tr*** is voted in office because this country will see another Holocaust. Please vote Clinton to save millions of lives!!!!

I think you're blowing this way out of proportion. I personally am voting third party because Trump is just too much for me and seems to make empty promises. Clinton is extremely crooked. I know it's a card played a lot, but she is certainly not the face of the United States of America I want to see.

Anyways, as I was saying... What's your evidence that the united states will commit a major GENOCIDE. Seriously, listen to yourself. a lot, and I mean A LOT went in to the formation of the holocaust. You expect me to believe that the US government (under Trump) will just go ahead and build thousands of these?:
http://www.vho.org/D/gzz/BallA-B-Luft.jpg

No, that certainly will not happen.

[phuckphace]

No, that certainly will not happen.

unfortunately http://i.imgur.com/Ci6vdDb.png

[KimuraWannabe116]

Who do you support? - Donald J. Trump

Why do you support them? - I have supported Mr. Trump the day he announced his candidacy in June 2015, and I had known about him before his announcement. Despite the rhetoric prepetuated against him by the media by taking most of his speeches and things he has said during his candidacy out of context (having a strong stance against ILLEGAL immigration, but being called a racist in the process), he has been able to create a strong passionate base of supporters which has lead him this far. He is not a perfect human being by any stretch of imagination (the 2005 tape recording) but he is far better than the Wall Street brought pathological lying criminal who makes light out of defending a child rapist and who has literally put the nations security at risk (Of all people to have had access of such emails, Anthony Weiner?!) Hillary Clinton. Also, even Obama himself said "She'll say anything, and change nothing" back in the 08' campaign...

Who do you think will win? - Very sketchy at the moment, its unpredictable imo. Unfortunately if we had a competent and truthful system, Hillary wouldn't have even been the nominee.

[Cjmccjface]

Which one do I pick, a rat or a mice.

I hate trump, but I'am too much of a conservative to vote for Clinton.

Personally

Posts merged. Please edit your post next time. ~Amethyst_

[Vlerchan]

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/06/GA_2016.06.29_balanceofpower-1-09.png
I mean to post this not as a means to claim that the United States should listen to Europe. But rather it should realise that the problems of faces is global and these are the polities it will have to interact with in order to solve them.

You can't close oneself off to this world - an underemphasised point of the Clinton campaign.

Americans killed in the last year by Muslim terrorists, Syrian refugees, and illegal immigrants:+/-4000 people

Americans killed in the last year by Russia or Assad: 0
There's a qualititative difference insofar as Russia is a long-run strategic threat.

[mattsmith48]

PlasmaHam ''What if someone stole your land?'' The others are fair criticism of the right, but ''What if someone stole your land?'' in what context would that be used?

[PlasmaHam]

PlasmaHam ''What if someone stole your land?'' The others are fair criticism of the right, but ''What if someone stole your land?'' in what context would that be used?

I honestly have no idea what you are asking, nor how to answer it. Would you mind elaborating?

[mattsmith48]

Talking about this
image (https://s17.postimg.org/dq2ki4tz3/httpspostimg_orgimagemnq83v54t.gif)
You won.... All of the above! Congratulations on your liberal outrage!

PlasmaHam ''What if someone stole your land?'' The others are fair criticism of the right, but ''What if someone stole your land?'' in what context would that be used?

[mattsmith48]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/incoming/article32706599.ece/BINARY/w620/Web-Tueedcar08co1.jpg

[PlasmaHam]

Talking about this


PlasmaHam ''What if someone stole your land?'' The others are fair criticism of the right, but ''What if someone stole your land?'' in what context would that be used?

Idk, that image is just for jokes, I didn't make it, I just found it hilarious. I don't know what that last one means honestly, nor do I see the relevancy in this debate. I wasn't trying to make a factual argument with that image, I just wanted to show how the poster was acting so much like your stereotypical outraged liberal.

[mattsmith48]

Most of the outragous things about Trump that proves he shouldn't be president.

-Calling mexicans are rapist
-Wanting to deporting 11 millions people
-The muslim ban
-Starting the birther movement
-Wanting to kill the familly of terrorist
-Wanting go back to torturing people
-Wanting to give nukes to Saudi Arabia
-Wanting to punish women for getting an abortion
-Having a dick measuring contest during a presidential debate
-Starting a fake university
-Telling his supporter to murder his political opponents
-Asking Russia to hack in his opponent's Emails
-Praising Putin and saying he's a great leader
-Being fine with Putin jailling and killing journalists
-Making fun of a disable reporter
-Wanting to fuck his own daughter
-Saying climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese
-The 6 bankruptcies
-Not paying taxes for 20 years
-Calling a juge a mexican and saying he give a fair jugement in the Trump University case because of his mexican heritage
-The feud with the Khan family
-Saying the election is rigged
-Kicking out a baby out of one of his rallies
-Doing cocaine before two debates
-Slut shaming former miss universe on Twitter in the middle of the night
-Saying veterans who got capture aren't war heros
-Not giving money he promessed to charity
-Insulting every single minority
-Being endorsed by the KKK
-Pussygate
-Raping 12 women
-Saying Clinton would triple the population of the US in a week
-His staff having to take away his Twitter because they know he can't control himself

If anyone think of something else feel free to mention it :)

[phuckphace]

guys guys, it's MAGA day chill tf out

today we MAGA and shitpost our hearts out!

example: my roommate who is a blond, grey-eyed Ubermensch with YUGE pecs is refusing to vote Trump, not realizing that in doing so he rescinds all claims to heterosexuality henceforth (pussy status: ungrabbed) ahahahahahaha this is so fun to rub in, even if Hillary wins he'll have to live with the fact that he's now inextricably associated with the depressive flaming homos who voted Hillary to keep their gubmint-subsidized Truvada scrips coming lol just lol forever and ever

and remember: don't let Lügenpresse sneak into your brain and drag you down - we've discredited them already and regardless of the outcome tonight there's work to do

H A I L V I C T O R Y

[Vlerchan]

538 is saying there has been a small shift towards Clinton since the last FBI announcement and predicting a Clinton win.
Sam Wang is predicting the same with a wider margin.
Politico's running surveys of party insiders and finding that there's a much greater confidence in Clinton winning.

---

I'm hoping that tomorrow though we can put the toxicities of the last 12 months behind us and work together to hold Clinton to account.

[mattsmith48]

538 is saying there has been a small shift towards Clinton since the last FBI announcement and predicting a Clinton win.
Sam Wang is predicting the same with a wider margin.
Politico's running surveys of party insiders and finding that there's a much greater confidence in Clinton winning.

---

I'm hoping that tomorrow though we can put the toxicities of the last 12 months behind us and work together to hold Clinton to account.

This thing was only 12 months long?! It felt like it was 12 years.

[phuckphace]

someone on /pol/ just posted this, figured ROTW would appreciate (I giggled tbh)

http://i.imgur.com/6f8jsAu.jpg

[ThisBougieLife]

I have no classes today, so will be voting in a couple hours--gonna walk to the polls because I know there will be nowhere to park. I'm a blond gray-eyed Teutonic, but I'm bisexual, so Hillary has already grabbed half my pussy ;) Good luck, Hildawg

[phuckphace]

just voted (Gott erhalte Trumpf den Kaiser) and already I've lost my appetite for dick

if this keeps up I'll end up fathering a whole litter of phucklets...gonna be YUGE

[Professional Russian]

ypu know they say trumps behind well there's a reason for that...all the Trump supporters had to go to work today. gotta wait till they get off to get their votes in

[Porpoise101]

ypu know they say trumps behind well there's a reason for that...all the Trump supporters had to go to work today. gotta wait till they get off to get their votes in
Agreed. We have to wait til the polling places actually close.

Were there any interesting state proposals/initiatives? In Michigan they are potentially going to make a regional public transportation authority if it passes. But in other states they have more interesting things I've heard.

[PinkFloyd]

Just casted my vote for Gary Johnson about 20 minutes ago

PS: anyone think it's funny that the Democratic option's bar is red and the republican's is blue? Kinda backwards haha

[Professional Russian]

Agreed. We have to wait til the polling places actually close.
and people are voting for hillary for pretty stupid reasons...like a friend of mine voted for her because trump made fun or disabled kids...like fucking really?

[Porpoise101]

PS: anyone think it's funny that the Democratic option's bar is red and the republican's is blue? Kinda backwards haha
Well if you think about it the Dems should be red because they are more leftist and the republicans should be the other color. It's weird that they are backwards from the rest of the world.

[phuckphace]

I don't like making predictions due to lack of psychic ability but I wouldn't be surprised if Trump captures a historical percentage of the black vote.

he definitely won't capture all or even most, but likely far more than any Republican in recent memory. I know four black dudes, three of whom live in the ghetto and have the whole sagging pants/Trayvon hoodie thang who are all enthusiastically MAGA.

the Schwarzabteilung will be potent troll material to piss off white libs with, FO SHIZZLE

[StoppingTom]

as much as i love memes i'd also like to just remind everyone that ROTW is for serious discussions so take any potential shitposts elsewhere, i really don't feel like doing work and moving/deleting posts

[Vlerchan]

Jesus.

[Porpoise101]

Here's an old adage on this important night for us Americans, and it's holding true tonight:
"So goes Detroit, so goes the world"

If Clinton underperforms in Wayne County (Detroit), Trump wins and it's all over. It makes me feel special because Michigan is always neglected. But this isn't the type of attention I'd like tbh.

Also the futures markets have fallen 600 points.

[mattsmith48]

Also the futures markets have fallen 600 points.

Called it

[Leprous]

Rip @all US peeps

[Flapjack]

So a guy that can't have his own twitter account is now running one of the most powerful and influential countries in the world...

[sqishy]

I know that the results are out now, but I'm doing my mass replying again.

- - - - - - - -

Sanction is the only way they've come up with to try to prevent Russia from invading other countries.

Attempting to economically disable the opponent in a critical manner in the short-term is not doing much to help relations in the long-term, at all. It would be expected that Russia would react appropriately distastefully to such sanctions.


Of course shes going to start wars, but she know how to smartly start a war no matter how stupid that war is. In addition wars Clinton would start would also be because of a real threat even if that threat is really low instead of Trump starting a war over tweets or because someone call him names.

Real threat?

Clinton was in favour for the Iraq invasion in 2003...


Its dangerous to give nuclear weapons to other countries and it could get out of control and it would be a matter of time before countries no one wants to see aquire nuclear weapons, aquire nuclear weapons.

What about being consistent with your trust in the democratic US by following through with trusting certain other countries?


ISIL has not use nuclear weapons because they don't have any if they get one they would use it without a question.

I've heard multiple times that building the components for an crude-or-better (but functional) nuclear weapon is not majorly difficult if you know enough electronics/engineering. 'Household' materials is one word for it. What is difficult is acquiring suitably fissile nuclear material.

So if ISIL could recruit at least one informed-enough person for construction and get into a certain trade deal or whatever, they have their nuke.

I expect that to be easier than most think, especially with that ISIL has achieved so far. This is why I am more surprised that one nuke has not gone off yet, because I think there is more to this than just wanting to get/make and use a nuke. Better still, they may not necessarily want to use a nuke.


Your right its not time to fear, its time to fucking panic.

I didn't mean 'later' by today.


How bad a riot as to go that all the gas, oil, coal, and nuclear fields would desapear in one night.

I meant it mostly in dark humour.

I wouldn't be majorly surprised if one or two plants are damaged though, but that would need some powerful sentiment on the hand of the rioters.


So, should we follow the Democrat's way of dealing with nuclear weapons? Giving multi-million dollar payouts to potentially hostile countries to keep a nuclear deal that would probably not work?

Leaving the democrats aside, most people don't see the US as inherently even potentially hostile though. That's a large presumption to hold.


Given that over 95% of Americans directly depend on these resources for their modern life, I'll say that would be a pretty bad riot. I'm afraid that you do not realize the huge implications of an immediate fossil fuel shutdown. Of everything, this is the one thing to panic about.

Unfortunately the US has overall kept huge dependence on fossil fuels, so it wouldn't be a surprise if they all went away.

I'd like to think that it would be one side argument in favour of weaning off fossil fuels, but that's not going to happen when you have certain powerful companies.


Have you seen this campaign and the polls, everyone should be panicking rightnow

Panic is an irrational reaction (meant literally). Whatever about it reacting justifiably or not to a certain event, it is irrational, it is harder to control.

Calm down.


If they do get destroyed, why rebuild them? Why not take advantage of this situation to switch to renewable and clean energy?

Sort of what I was saying.


I don't see why it as to do with anything, but I have explained in the climate change tread how it could be done, you probably didn't see it because you were too busy trying to defend conspiracy theories.

It would be a more productive debate on climate change if you defined 'conspiracy' and how fuzzy the is/not distinction is, before going any further in that. Would you agree?



Please guys vote Clinton! I will literally kill myself if Tr*** is voted in office [...]

No. Don't.


Americans killed in the last year by Muslim terrorists, Syrian refugees, and illegal immigrants:+/-4000 people

Americans killed in the last year by Russia or Assad: 0

I don't know about the verified statistics of US death from Russia/Assad, but I do know that you're using a very slippery slope by grouping Syrian refugees along with illegal immigrants and terrorists, because it gives the impression that they are a major contributor along with the others to this '~4000 people killed' statistic.


You remind me of those crazy liberals who believe that radical Christianity is the real threat. Shifting the blame to a different group despite no logical backing.

Count me as a supposed 'crazy liberal' then. You got me there!

I am not however shifting the blame away from whoever is responsible for what.

Instead I am trying to show how the situation is way more complex than a more simplistic view that I see you taking, that you happen to be right and righteous and that there is one main enemy we need to deal with.


By your logic, anyone who has passionate and patriotic supporters is automatically Hitler. Does anyone else see the craziness in that?

That is a slippery slope too, yes.


I think people have already made their minds up for the most part before the FBI reopened the investigation.

That being said, Director Comey needs to resign. A blatant breach of protocol with the (seeming) intent to sway voters is...not a good look. That, and he'll likely be fired if he doesn't.

It did at least look like it was timed critically, yes.



image (http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/06/GA_2016.06.29_balanceofpower-1-09.png)
I mean to post this not as a means to claim that the United States should listen to Europe. But rather it should realise that the problems of faces is global and these are the polities it will have to interact with in order to solve them.

You can't close oneself off to this world - an underemphasised point of the Clinton campaign.

This is why I don't settle with polls.

It's also generally why I did not make a definitive prediction for this.


Most of the outragous things about Trump that proves he shouldn't be president.

-Calling mexicans are rapist
-Wanting to deporting 11 millions people
-The muslim ban
-Starting the birther movement
-Wanting to kill the familly of terrorist
-Wanting go back to torturing people
-Wanting to give nukes to Saudi Arabia
-Wanting to punish women for getting an abortion
-Having a dick measuring contest during a presidential debate
-Starting a fake university
-Telling his supporter to murder his political opponents
-Asking Russia to hack in his opponent's Emails
-Praising Putin and saying he's a great leader
-Being fine with Putin jailling and killing journalists
-Making fun of a disable reporter
-Wanting to fuck his own daughter
-Saying climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese
-The 6 bankruptcies
-Not paying taxes for 20 years
-Calling a juge a mexican and saying he give a fair jugement in the Trump University case because of his mexican heritage
-The feud with the Khan family
-Saying the election is rigged
-Kicking out a baby out of one of his rallies
-Doing cocaine before two debates
-Slut shaming former miss universe on Twitter in the middle of the night
-Saying veterans who got capture aren't war heros
-Not giving money he promessed to charity
-Insulting every single minority
-Being endorsed by the KKK
-Pussygate
-Raping 12 women
-Saying Clinton would triple the population of the US in a week
-His staff having to take away his Twitter because they know he can't control himself

If anyone think of something else feel free to mention it :)


Even if all of them are true, you are missing the point here.

I'm totally in favour for a consistent and just system where democracy actually happens where it is said to happen.

However, with the half-mess that the US is (and was) though, along with other things, attempting to promote the above just does not have any effect. If you want to make significant change to certain parts of the political environment, you need to be as realistic (not fast-track optimistic) as those who do change things through use of perhaps-grey-area strategies. This minimally needs you to not fall into the traditional for/against dichotomy that even the non-traditional Trump has used. Don't react how you are expected to react by your opponent, because what they expect is probably what is indirectly/directly part of their strategy.

Do bear in mind that facebook, youtube, etc use algorithms to feed you similar content to what you show to them that you like, so that means that most of everyone keeps reinforcing their own views. For example, the US republicans hardly ever critically affect the US democrats through that medium and vice-versa, and no major change happens. All you are doing there is talking to your own crowd, not your target one.

Is it really so much of a surprise then, after learning of that probably-surprising-to-most (unfortunately) feature of major sections of the popular internet?


Trumpism (as I could call it now) shows very well how most people actually vote through more irrational emotive reactions than more rational thinking.

No offence intended, but I think you are naive to think that adherence to reality is a major force in this politics. It is not, especially not now.


Reality is a manipulative means, not a respected end. It is a tool, and many/most opponents (like you) are together with supporters in the game that Trump is / has been playing.


I feel like I need to say this more often from now on.


538 is saying there has been a small shift towards Clinton since the last FBI announcement and predicting a Clinton win.
Sam Wang is predicting the same with a wider margin.
Politico's running surveys of party insiders and finding that there's a much greater confidence in Clinton winning.

---

I'm hoping that tomorrow though we can put the toxicities of the last 12 months behind us and work together to hold Clinton to account.

Time to revise your stance then.


Jesus.

:D

HAH.


Called it

Well it isn't so bad taking what happened in June. :rolleyes:


So a guy that can't have his own twitter account is now running one of the most powerful and influential countries in the world...

The evil genius he is.

[Rendez-Vous]

hell yeah

[samuel15]

Who do you support? Dr. jill stain
Why do you support them? I like all her topics and agree with her.
Who do you think will win? Trump....

[Professional Russian]

last night the American people voted to make this country great again. and I couldn't be any happier.

[phuckphace]

hell yeah

please send the KGB my thanks for rigging this for us, couldn't have done it without you tovarish

[Exocet]

Trump didn't have a chance,right,hahaha.

[PlasmaHam]

Called it

Similar thing happened at Brexit. There is uncertainty among investors of how exactly this change would effect their stocks, that doesn't mean they all believe that the event will crash the economy. Trump represent the needed change in the economy, Clinton represented the status quo. So it is not unreasonable for the market to shake when the status quo changes, for the better or worse.

[StoppingTom]

for better or worse it's gonna be a more interesting 4 years

[Porpoise101]

If Trump turns out to be a good guy he could pull a Jackson and limit the special interests. Of course Jackson caused intermittent financial crises throughout the 19th century, but I'm trying to be positive here and get with the MAGA feel.

[sqishy]

for better or worse it's gonna be a more interesting 4 years

Even 4 months is a huge stretch to attempt predictions, so yes, yes indeed.

Entertaining, interesting and strange times are approaching and are already here.

[mattsmith48]

Trump didn't have a chance,right,hahaha.

I keep saying the entire time he had a chance and that Clinton would find a way to blow this up.

Similar thing happened at Brexit. There is uncertainty among investors of how exactly this change would effect their stocks, that doesn't mean they all believe that the event will crash the economy. Trump represent the needed change in the economy, Clinton represented the status quo. So it is not unreasonable for the market to shake when the status quo changes, for the better or worse.

I think its more because of Trump's unpreditability, we don't know what he's gonna do, and they don't like that, Brexit is different, they knew what would and will happen if GB leave the EU. From what I read its back up again, expect it to go down again when were getting closer to January 20th.


I didn't see anyone mention it, its one of the few good news we had on Tuesday, showing that they are still few people with some kind of decency living in the US, Pot is now legal for recreational use in California, Massachusetts and Nevada you guys are going to need it for the next 4 years.

[PlasmaHam]

I think its more because of Trump's unpreditability, we don't know what he's gonna do, and they don't like that, Brexit is different, they knew what would and will happen if GB leave the EU. From what I read its back up again, expect it to go down again when were getting closer to January 20th. Brexit was unpredictability, and so was Trump. The funny thing is, stocks soared to record highs over the last day once the election news settled into, so there is clearly not doom and gloom in investors eyes, just uncertainty.

Source (http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/11/10/dow-hits-new-record-as-street-cheers-trump-victory.html)

[Rendez-Vous]

please send the KGB my thanks for rigging this for us, couldn't have done it without you tovarish

I'm gonna tell mr. Putin that phuckplace thanked him, ok-ok

[phuckphace]

I'm gonna tell mr. Putin that phuckplace thanked him, ok-ok

I've put together a hit-list of journalists, please also pass this on :D

[heresjohnny]

Brexit was unpredictability, and so was Trump. The funny thing is, stocks soared to record highs over the last day once the election news settled into, so there is clearly not doom and gloom in investors eyes, just uncertainty.

Source (http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/11/10/dow-hits-new-record-as-street-cheers-trump-victory.html)


Two or three days does not a career make.

Look at this:
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/historical/DJ/2001/9/linewchart.html

It was going good, and then it tanked...and that was long before 2007-2009 happened.

[PlasmaHam]

Two or three days does not a career make.

Look at this:
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/historical/DJ/2001/9/linewchart.html

It was going good, and then it tanked...and that was long before 2007-2009 happened.

Great! Because the stock market records for September 2001 are relevant in what way?:confused:

[Porpoise101]

Great! Because the stock market records for September 2001 are relevant in what way?:confused:
He's bringing it up to show that the markets can react harshly towards a new President. However, the reason the markets tanked really wasn't the effect of Bush (unless you are a conspiracy theorist). They were the result of 9-11.