US Elections 2016

[Peebo]

Wooing "the blacks" still going well.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37370110

[jack D and coke]

Rumours of Clinton being a rapist and Hilary attempting to silence the woman.

The more I've read about the pair of them the more convinced I am the Clintons are psychopaths.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sraman]

The way I look at, someone's health is a private affair and she should be under no obligation to discuss her health unless she's suffering from mental health issues. I realise many may disagree with regards to the job she's going for but that's my look on it.

 

Every job application asks about your health and past medical conditions. You don't have to disclose this information but if you left that part of the application blank you probably wouldn't be considered for the job. And why the discrimination towards mental health?

[Norm]

Every job application asks about your health and past medical conditions. You don't have to disclose this information but if you left that part of the application blank you probably wouldn't be considered for the job. And why the discrimination towards mental health?

Because I'd be less concerned that someone with, say, a heart problem or pneumonia has control of the largest military budget in the world than someone who, for example, hears voices or suffers from some kind of psychosis.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

So, a) You've been championing someone who is extremely closed due to nonsense from the whole US political system (as highlighted above the whole US political system is right wing, which is backed up by points 1, 8 & 9 of your meme). To paraphrase Bob Geldof, Is this any way for a POTUS to be? and b ) According to you, hiding the truth (or as some prefer to call it, lying) is bullshit. Again, is this any way for a POTUS to be?

 

As I said, BIGGEST story of the week.

 

Point a) is a complete muddle but as far as "championing," apparently this is a hard point to get since I keep having to say it over and over again, but let's try one more time.

 

Clinton is not my ideal candidate.  She is too much of an inteventionist, too tied to Bill, too tied to Wall St., and I'd rather the first female POTUS weren't a former First Lady.  I wanted a better candidate to emerge, but none did. (With all due respect to Sen. Sanders, who is a deeply honorable man and ran a very good protest candidacy but is far too much of a Washington pariah to be an effective POTS.)

 

But this is a country of over 300 million people, and picking the one person to be the chief executive means it's highly unlikely I get my ideal candidate.  Clinton is a dependable supporter of Democratic policies who did a very good job as head of the State Department and whose former subordinates speak highly of her ability to listen to advice, make strong decisions based on that advice, and foster a strong, functional, and collegial environment.  She has demonstrated leadership on a number of fronts like on S-CHIP and supporting women's education abroad.  She is not an ideal candidate, but she is a very good one.  Yes, she is paranoid because of decades of absolute horseshit from people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and the New York Post, but I don't hold that against her, because I would be too.

 

She is up against a narcissist with a tenuous grip on reality who is unleashing the worst of white supremacist and xenophobic elements of the US.  He is far and away the worst Presidential candidate of my lifetime, and that includes Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, who were absolutely awful Presidents.  Why the **** would I NOT be "championing" Clinton?  Why wouldn't ANYONE?  I would "champion" f---ing John McCain over Trump.

 

Regarding this marble-mouth stuff about her health.  There have been a number of outright lies posted about her health, (the "Hillary conquers the stairs" is a prime example) wherein old information or video or photos were doctored to imply health problems that were entirely fictitious.  She didn't tell everyone she has pneumonia until the incident at the September 11 memorial service.  Pneumonia is not a permanent condition, and is not all that surprising, as national campaigning is pretty notorious for exposing one to a barrage of diseases (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-best-advice-george-bush), so no, I can't understand how this is actually news.

[niblick1874]

Apparently this is a genuine email Colin Powell about Hilary ...

Oooft[emoji1]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

This is all heading towards a very dark place.

 

http://observer.com/2016/09/wikileaks-guccifer-2-0-obama-sold-off-public-offices-to-donors/

Edited September 15, 2016 by niblick1874

[Sraman]

Because I'd be less concerned that someone with, say, a heart problem or pneumonia has control of the largest military budget in the world than someone who, for example, hears voices or suffers from some kind of psychosis.

 

 

Here's a scenario for you: Your Country is at the forefront of the biggest war the world has ever seen, in fact, you could say that your political leader would be the head of the force for good against evil. Do you call in the guy with severe mental health problems, who is open about his condition, to take up that role or go for the guy that conceals his medical condition then collapses halfway through the campaign? Remember, you can also call on the guy in the wheelchair for assistance if the going starts to get too tough.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Here's a scenario for you: Your Country is at the forefront of the biggest war the world has ever seen, in fact, you could say that your political leader would be the head of the force for good against evil. Do you call in the guy with severe mental health problems, who is open about his condition, to take up that role or go for the guy that conceals his medical condition then collapses halfway through the campaign? Remember, you can also call on the guy in the wheelchair for assistance if the going starts to get too tough.

 

Do recall that if Clinton somehow becomes incapacitated during her Presidency, what happens next is extremely well-defined.  Tim Kaine becomes President.

 

And he's ALSO eminently qualified to be President, having been both an Attorney General, a Governor, and a Senator.

[Sharpie]

Do recall that if Clinton somehow becomes incapacitated during her Presidency, what happens next is extremely well-defined.  Tim Kaine becomes President.

 

And he's ALSO eminently qualified to be President, having been both an Attorney General, a Governor, and a Senator.

 

Remember the Alexander Haig scenario when he grabbed the reins of the Presidency when the President was incapacitated, he had to be told the line of succession. I can understand your dilemna, like most of us you have a preference of one of the parties for their policies and practises, this election is I believe fairly unique in that neither candidate offers a great deal. If the other party candidate was outstanding that may make a decision easier, but there is really no second choice here, just have to vote party as opposed to candidate.

 

I think Eisenhower was my first Presidential competition, there have been some good candidates from both sides but also some doozies, but as I have done frequently, say, this is without doubt the worst I have seen.

[Sraman]

Point a) is a complete muddle but as far as "championing," apparently this is a hard point to get since I keep having to say it over and over again, but let's try one more time.

 

Clinton is not my ideal candidate.  She is too much of an inteventionist, too tied to Bill, too tied to Wall St., and I'd rather the first female POTUS weren't a former First Lady.  I wanted a better candidate to emerge, but none did. (With all due respect to Sen. Sanders, who is a deeply honorable man and ran a very good protest candidacy but is far too much of a Washington pariah to be an effective POTS.)

 

But this is a country of over 300 million people, and picking the one person to be the chief executive means it's highly unlikely I get my ideal candidate.  Clinton is a dependable supporter of Democratic policies who did a very good job as head of the State Department and whose former subordinates speak highly of her ability to listen to advice, make strong decisions based on that advice, and foster a strong, functional, and collegial environment.  She has demonstrated leadership on a number of fronts like on S-CHIP and supporting women's education abroad.  She is not an ideal candidate, but she is a very good one.  Yes, she is paranoid because of decades of absolute horseshit from people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and the New York Post, but I don't hold that against her, because I would be too.

 

She is up against a narcissist with a tenuous grip on reality who is unleashing the worst of white supremacist and xenophobic elements of the US.  He is far and away the worst Presidential candidate of my lifetime, and that includes Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, who were absolutely awful Presidents.  Why the **** would I NOT be "championing" Clinton?  Why wouldn't ANYONE?  I would "champion" f---ing John McCain over Trump.

 

Regarding this marble-mouth stuff about her health.  There have been a number of outright lies posted about her health, (the "Hillary conquers the stairs" is a prime example) wherein old information or video or photos were doctored to imply health problems that were entirely fictitious.  She didn't tell everyone she has pneumonia until the incident at the September 11 memorial service.  Pneumonia is not a permanent condition, and is not all that surprising, as national campaigning is pretty notorious for exposing one to a barrage of diseases (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-best-advice-george-bush), so no, I can't understand how this is actually news.

 

With point a) I used your words to show that your statement was a bit silly considering Clinton could in no way, outside of the bubble that is the US, be considered left wing and I used the points in your meme about the Russians to highlight this. Talk about a muddle, the most right wing of right wingers is accused of being a Russian sympathiser. I mean, let's face it, the reason the good ol' US of A shuns anything remotely left wing is a hangover from the cold war and your point about Sanders proves this.

 

The rest of your post seems to state that you have no other choice but to champion Clinton, which, as I quite correctly stated, you have been doing, even to the extent of trying to de-bunk her health issues as mumbo jumbo from Trump and his supporters, in fact, you are still doing this in this very post stating, and I paraphrase, that she is likely to come down with something as that's what happens on the campaign trail. If this is so obvious why did she feel the need to lie about it? Could this be the reason for it being the biggest story of the week? Even without the lies, a candidate for the biggest job in world politics, the only candidate who can stop the madman, collapses in the middle of a campaign and you wonder why this is front page news?

 

For the record, I don't support Trump. I, like most (relatively)* sane people, find him absolutely abhorrent. The fact that he is so disgusting to most people has kept the UK TV media (not sure about the US media as I don't live there) focused on him and allowed Hillary to go about her business pretty much under the radar. Trump is a freak show and freak shows have, throughout history, (due to human nature) been big business and I'm sure that when Hillary is back to full health the focus shall return to the freak.

 

Again, for the record, I don't really like Niblicks posting style but find his contribution to this thread absolutely necessary, otherwise we would all be slapping each other on the back and congratulating ourselves for going with the good guys when, as you yourself state in the quoted post, there aren't really any good guys left (or even allowed to be left) in this whole sorry affair.

 

 

 

* this is directed towards me and is in no way a slur on any other poster. It also goes someway to explaining my replies to Norm.

[Norm]

With point a) I used your words to show that your statement was a bit silly considering Clinton could in no way, outside of the bubble that is the US, be considered left wing and I used the points in your meme about the Russians to highlight this. Talk about a muddle, the most right wing of right wingers is accused of being a Russian sympathiser. I mean, let's face it, the reason the good ol' US of A shuns anything remotely left wing is a hangover from the cold war and your point about Sanders proves this.

 

The rest of your post seems to state that you have no other choice but to champion Clinton, which, as I quite correctly stated, you have been doing, even to the extent of trying to de-bunk her health issues as mumbo jumbo from Trump and his supporters, in fact, you are still doing this in this very post stating, and I paraphrase, that she is likely to come down with something as that's what happens on the campaign trail. If this is so obvious why did she feel the need to lie about it? Could this be the reason for it being the biggest story of the week? Even without the lies, a candidate for the biggest job in world politics, the only candidate who can stop the madman, collapses in the middle of a campaign and you wonder why this is front page news?

 

For the record, I don't support Trump. I, like most (relatively)* sane people, find him absolutely abhorrent. The fact that he is so disgusting to most people has kept the UK TV media (not sure about the US media as I don't live there) focused on him and allowed Hillary to go about her business pretty much under the radar. Trump is a freak show and freak shows have, throughout history, (due to human nature) been big business and I'm sure that when Hillary is back to full health the focus shall return to the freak.

 

Again, for the record, I don't really like Niblicks posting style but find his contribution to this thread absolutely necessary, otherwise we would all be slapping each other on the back and congratulating ourselves for going with the good guys when, as you yourself state in the quoted post, there aren't really any good guys left (or even allowed to be left) in this whole sorry affair.

 

 

 

* this is directed towards me and is in no way a slur on any other poster. It also goes someway to explaining my replies to Norm.

I apologise if you took my post as a slur on those with mental health issues. It wasn't the intention. Just my opinion that mental health in a world leader would be a bigger concern than physical health.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

With point a) I used your words to show that your statement was a bit silly considering Clinton could in no way, outside of the bubble that is the US, be considered left wing and I used the points in your meme about the Russians to highlight this. Talk about a muddle, the most right wing of right wingers is accused of being a Russian sympathiser. I mean, let's face it, the reason the good ol' US of A shuns anything remotely left wing is a hangover from the cold war and your point about Sanders proves this.

 

The rest of your post seems to state that you have no other choice but to champion Clinton, which, as I quite correctly stated, you have been doing, even to the extent of trying to de-bunk her health issues as mumbo jumbo from Trump and his supporters, in fact, you are still doing this in this very post stating, and I paraphrase, that she is likely to come down with something as that's what happens on the campaign trail. If this is so obvious why did she feel the need to lie about it? Could this be the reason for it being the biggest story of the week? Even without the lies, a candidate for the biggest job in world politics, the only candidate who can stop the madman, collapses in the middle of a campaign and you wonder why this is front page news?

 

For the record, I don't support Trump. I, like most (relatively)* sane people, find him absolutely abhorrent. The fact that he is so disgusting to most people has kept the UK TV media (not sure about the US media as I don't live there) focused on him and allowed Hillary to go about her business pretty much under the radar. Trump is a freak show and freak shows have, throughout history, (due to human nature) been big business and I'm sure that when Hillary is back to full health the focus shall return to the freak.

 

Again, for the record, I don't really like Niblicks posting style but find his contribution to this thread absolutely necessary, otherwise we would all be slapping each other on the back and congratulating ourselves for going with the good guys when, as you yourself state in the quoted post, there aren't really any good guys left (or even allowed to be left) in this whole sorry affair.

 

 

 

* this is directed towards me and is in no way a slur on any other poster. It also goes someway to explaining my replies to Norm.

 

 

1) You do know Russia is now ruled by a right wing, corporatist oligarchy backing an authoritarian, right?  Like, being friends with Russia is no longer a sign of leftism?  Like it's a government that, you know, hypothetically, might make up excuses for not extraditing Russian-born bankers wanted in Lithuania for fraud and massive theft?

 

2) The Marxist left is dead in the US outside of a few minor corners and in critical studies in the academy.  Fortunately, there's a variety of versions of leftism beyond revolutionary communism.  One of those is the Alinskyite community organizer radical form, which both Obama and Clinton have strong ties to (and which the US right continues to shriek about in absolute ignorance of what it actually means).  

 

3) Sanders is a Washington pariah not just because of his leftism (that's certainly part of it) but because he is dispositionally a bit of a political loner.  That makes him a very good protest candidate and a very bad viable candidate.  He is not notably more leftist than Elizabeth Warren (who was the US left's first pick for nominee, before she made it clear she wasn't running), but he's considerably more of a pariah.

 

4) I have repeatedly drawn a line between different allegations against Clinton's health here, and admitted I was wrong on one of them.  Things like "Clinton conquers the stairs" were shared around the internet with a false story of context. (It elided the fact that the photograph was from February on a set of icy steps, and instead claimed it was taken in the summer.)  We then went to Trump talking about Clinton coughing, which while it turned out to be true in this case, was hardly a credible source.  We now have confirmation of Clinton's pneumonia, and all of the nutjobs who pushed "Clinton conquers the stairs" are saying, "see, we were right!"  No, you weren't. Two different things.

 

5) A couple things that I thought should be obvious, but maybe aren't -- you're seeing a very different representation of the race in the UK than you see in the US.  This is less true in Canada but it's still true.  We're watching different representations of the races here.  I have no doubt that the UK media are covering this phase of the Trump campaign with a mixture of bemusement and horror, but it's very different here with the panoply of local media outlets owned by various corporate holding companies plus the national ideologically-affiliated media outlets.  

 

Additionally, while the winner of the Presidency impacts the entire world because of the US's hegemonic position, it affects those of us who live here a lot more.  A Trump win would be between a real bummer and an absolute catastrophe for not just myself, but for a wide range of people I know.  A landslide Trump defeat would mean he would probably take with him people like Gov. Pat McCrory of NC, who has extremely close ties to electricity giant Duke Energy and has bent over backwards in office to let them off the hook for poisoning water supplies with coal ash dumps.  And that's in addition to all of the should-be-old-news-but-maybe-aren't things like cabinet positions and judge appointments.  (If you haven't been following the Merrick Garland nomination, that's the most extreme but hardly the only example.)

 

So my insistence on pushing a vote for Clinton might seem strange if you if you look at it as a popularity contest between two septuagenarians.  I can assure you that to a US citizen, the choice is far, far more than that.

 

6) Finally, on niblick.  I hold up the archive of this thread that I have repeatedly attempted to discuss in good faith with him.  What I've gotten for my troubles is a series of accusations of ignorance and/or conspiracy with globalists and refusal to engage with questions of source.  When I have offered counter arguments or asked questions, his response boils down to more accusations and name-calling, or, far more often, he simply disappears for a week before re-appearing with more nonsense, pretending the prior conversation didn't happen (and at times accusing me of silence on the issues I was the first to bring up).  I'm finally, like everyone else, so completely pissed off at his nonsense that I have no good faith left to give.  If he wants to actually behave like a civil and polite human being, we might even be able to have a conversation.  Until that happens, I'm going to ignore him as much as I can stand to.

[niblick1874]

Post 49 Is the post that set the tone and that was you UA. Just as you made that acusation up, the rest is made up as well, in fact, it's the other way round. You are the one that does what you claim I do.   

Edited September 15, 2016 by niblick1874

[Sraman]

I apologise if you took my post as a slur on those with mental health issues. It wasn't the intention. Just my opinion that mental health in a world leader would be a bigger concern than physical health.

 

 

No apology needed as I didn't take it that way at all Norm. I understand your concerns and I think everybody would feel a bit put off if a candidate for leader of their country came out and stated that they did suffer with mental health issues but we should really be learning from history, which is why I used the Churchill analogy.

[joseywales]

I think Donald trump is absolutely hilarious he said I hope Hillary Clinton gets well soon then right after says she couldn't stand up on stage for 1 hour and a half like him. But please please usa make Donald trump president he is box office gold.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I think Donald trump is absolutely hilarious he said I hope Hillary Clinton gets well soon then right after says she couldn't stand up on stage for 1 hour and a half like him. But please please usa make Donald trump president he is box office gold.

Yes, because it is a good idea to have a nuclear button in the hands of a fruitloop.

 

[Sraman]

1) You do know Russia is now ruled by a right wing, corporatist oligarchy backing an authoritarian, right?  Like, being friends with Russia is no longer a sign of leftism?  Like it's a government that, you know, hypothetically, might make up excuses for not extraditing Russian-born bankers wanted in Lithuania for fraud and massive theft?

 

2) The Marxist left is dead in the US outside of a few minor corners and in critical studies in the academy.  Fortunately, there's a variety of versions of leftism beyond revolutionary communism.  One of those is the Alinskyite community organizer radical form, which both Obama and Clinton have strong ties to (and which the US right continues to shriek about in absolute ignorance of what it actually means).  

 

3) Sanders is a Washington pariah not just because of his leftism (that's certainly part of it) but because he is dispositionally a bit of a political loner.  That makes him a very good protest candidate and a very bad viable candidate.  He is not notably more leftist than Elizabeth Warren (who was the US left's first pick for nominee, before she made it clear she wasn't running), but he's considerably more of a pariah.

 

4) I have repeatedly drawn a line between different allegations against Clinton's health here, and admitted I was wrong on one of them.  Things like "Clinton conquers the stairs" were shared around the internet with a false story of context. (It elided the fact that the photograph was from February on a set of icy steps, and instead claimed it was taken in the summer.)  We then went to Trump talking about Clinton coughing, which while it turned out to be true in this case, was hardly a credible source.  We now have confirmation of Clinton's pneumonia, and all of the nutjobs who pushed "Clinton conquers the stairs" are saying, "see, we were right!"  No, you weren't. Two different things.

 

5) A couple things that I thought should be obvious, but maybe aren't -- you're seeing a very different representation of the race in the UK than you see in the US.  This is less true in Canada but it's still true.  We're watching different representations of the races here.  I have no doubt that the UK media are covering this phase of the Trump campaign with a mixture of bemusement and horror, but it's very different here with the panoply of local media outlets owned by various corporate holding companies plus the national ideologically-affiliated media outlets.  

 

Additionally, while the winner of the Presidency impacts the entire world because of the US's hegemonic position, it affects those of us who live here a lot more.  A Trump win would be between a real bummer and an absolute catastrophe for not just myself, but for a wide range of people I know.  A landslide Trump defeat would mean he would probably take with him people like Gov. Pat McCrory of NC, who has extremely close ties to electricity giant Duke Energy and has bent over backwards in office to let them off the hook for poisoning water supplies with coal ash dumps.  And that's in addition to all of the should-be-old-news-but-maybe-aren't things like cabinet positions and judge appointments.  (If you haven't been following the Merrick Garland nomination, that's the most extreme but hardly the only example.)

 

So my insistence on pushing a vote for Clinton might seem strange if you if you look at it as a popularity contest between two septuagenarians.  I can assure you that to a US citizen, the choice is far, far more than that.

 

6) Finally, on niblick.  I hold up the archive of this thread that I have repeatedly attempted to discuss in good faith with him.  What I've gotten for my troubles is a series of accusations of ignorance and/or conspiracy with globalists and refusal to engage with questions of source.  When I have offered counter arguments or asked questions, his response boils down to more accusations and name-calling, or, far more often, he simply disappears for a week before re-appearing with more nonsense, pretending the prior conversation didn't happen (and at times accusing me of silence on the issues I was the first to bring up).  I'm finally, like everyone else, so completely pissed off at his nonsense that I have no good faith left to give.  If he wants to actually behave like a civil and polite human being, we might even be able to have a conversation.  Until that happens, I'm going to ignore him as much as I can stand to.

 

Right left or centre, Russia is the bogeyman to the US and it will take several generations before the cold war cools in the minds of those that hold the strings. I also believe the reason they won't hand over Romanov is due to sour grapes caused by the break up of the Soviet Union and there subsequent reduction in power. I base this assumption on Putin's portrayal in the UK media right enough so maybe I'm not giving him enough credit.

 

Again, you talk of leftism, US leftism. This is what the UK Labour Party, the PLP anyway, seem to be wanting to replicate over here but it looks like everyone is able to see this for what it is, Tory Lite, and, thankfully, Jeremy Corbyn seems to be on track to take the leadership election. If your left is right your right has free reign to be absolutely bonkers which is exactly the situation you find yourselves in at the moment.

 

We have to look after the poor isn't a left wing mantra, nor is it centrist or right wing it is just what has to be done and Americans are reminded of this fact, it's not conjecture on my part but a set in stone fact, every time they look at a dollar bill. The all seeing eye sits atop a pyramid, the pyramid needs a strong base or it will crumble to the ground. You don't build a strong base by persecuting the poor, which seems to be the case in the US. It's all about the race to the top, the American Dream is fast turning into a nightmare.

 

You are correct in that I don't have the background, or even the inclination to find out the background, on all these senators and representatives, which is why I don't comment on them. It's tough enough knowing who to hate or respect in this country, let alone Europe, without bringing the whole US electoral system into my thought process. All I see is the race for the Presidency and it seems to me that, whoever gets in, the gulf between rich and poor will widen even further, which, unfortunately, can also be said of the rest of the so called first world. Yes there are opportunities for all, it just so happens that the best opportunities are already reserved for a select few no matter how smart or how hard working they are. Sorry, I've went off on one, will check your post to see where I'm at.

 

I do realise that your insistence on championing Clinton is all you have, due to the choice presented to you, and if I was in the same position I would have no hesitation in voting for her over Trump, although I don't think I would be pushing her so hard. But it is like choosing the other end of the shitty stick only to find out that end is also covered in shit. I guess, in the end, that is the point I am trying to make and I really hope the politics of America starts to take a turn for the better as, as you say, due to their position in world politics, this doesn't just affect America, as is seen with the current UK Labour Party fiasco I have already mentioned.

 

As for my backing of Niblick, I have witnessed you presenting your olive branches on this thread and you are to be commended wholeheartedly for trying to do so. I have already stated I am not keen on Niblicks posting style and It would be good for all if he could tone it down slightly and enter into a dialogue with yourself as you two are way better placed and way more informed than I to present both sides of this race from a layman's level but, my point still stands that his input is needed to provide balance to this discussion as we all (by all, I mean the whole world) seem to be caught in the headlights of Trumps insanity and we just can't get our heads around why he is doing so well or even how he managed to be chosen to represent the opposition in the first place. I also get Niblicks insistence on doing "your own research" as, ultimately, and admirably, this is a good thing, even though, as previously stated, I don't really have the time or inclination to do so, I get the point you make in response to his links being biased and trying to de-bunk them for this reason but I'm sure the links you post are biased as well, just in the opposite direction. Niblick has pointed this out, through his statement that this election is so toxic it is driving a massive wedge between the people of America There are two clear sides in this election with a massive gulf between them and the powers that be are responsible for creating this great divide putting neighbours and friends at each others throats. The violence on both sides is ridiculous and it will take a very long time to bring the sides close enough together to even begin to heal the rift created and Niblick, in his own way, is questioning why they are doing this? I do believe, and hope, that you and Niblick would be able to discuss this over a pint (or a cup of tea, if you're a teetotaller like me) without coming to blows as, even though you are coming from different angles/sides, you both make good, valid points in amongst the bickering, the bickering that is not designed by either you or Niblick but by the authorities responsible for what is fast becoming a fiasco.

 

Again, as you quite correctly state, this affects more that just the US, as highlighted by our discussion and this thread in general. It appears that I have more in common with your side of the debate than Niblicks and I hope that Trump gets demolished but I can also see where Niblick is coming from with his mistrust of Clinton and the Democrats and, to be frank (I like Frank but he's not a candidate), the whole system and why he is asking us all to question what the hell is going on here. The outcome of this election will not be pretty and it's going to be left up to the Niblicks and the UA's of this world to sort out the mess as it seems that mess is exactly what the powers that be are wanting.

 

 

There you go, after all of this pish I've just realised you said you were in Canada but I can't be arsed to change all the yous and yours. Nice move by your lot to legalise smack and provide help to addicts rather than using them to con people into thinking their the middle class and closer to the cream than they really are. I hope it works out.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Nah, Niblick's in Canada as far as I can tell.  I'm in Virginia.

 

Beyond that I don't have another post in me tonight (yes, I know and that).

[joseywales]

Yes, because it is a good idea to have a nuclear button in the hands of a fruitloop.

 

I like Donald trump what see is what you get a born leader who can make the tough decisions that need to be made. But as I said I like trump and Hillary lacks the strength and character to be president and recent events have proven she is unfit for office

Edited September 16, 2016 by joseywales

[Watt-Zeefuik]

I like Donald trump what see is what you get a born leader who can make the tough decisions that need to be made. But as I said I like trump and Hillary lacks the strength and character to be president and recent events have proven she is unfit for office

 

Yeah, see to me this sounds like arguing that the OF have proven that they are the most morally upstanding clubs in the SPFL and that clubs like Hearts have shown that we're too violence-ridden and sectarian to be allowed to represent Scotland in Europe.

[Auld Reekin']

I like Donald trump what see is what you get...

 

I see a fascistic, sociopathic, manipulative, lying, xenophobic, shitebag.

[jack D and coke]

Yes, because it is a good idea to have a nuclear button in the hands of a fruitloop.

 

Because it's the responsibility of one man eh[emoji23]

Presidents, PM's whatever are frontmen nothing more.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Because it's the responsibility of one man eh[emoji23]

Presidents, PM's whatever are frontmen nothing more.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If only this was true.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Clinton is the lesser of two evils but she'll be damn lucky to win this. Her campaign seems to be "errrrr, let's hope Trump alienates enough people."

 

As much a sham of a politician as the buffoned one I'm afraid.

[Norm]

Yet another pro-Republican paper coming out in favour of Johnson. I can't see it happening but he's pushing the electoral commission to put him in the first debate, despite not having the required 15% in the polls, under the proviso that should his ratings fail to rise above the 15% after the debate, he would refrain from asking to be on any more.

[Craig Gordons Gloves]

I like Donald trump what see is what you get a born leader who can make the tough decisions that need to be made. But as I said I like trump and Hillary lacks the strength and character to be president and recent events have proven she is unfit for office

 

Josey - tell me what tough decisions Trump has had to make? Tell me how he is a born leader? (no such thing btw) and with regards to what you see is what you get - i'd rather not have a lying, cheating, misogynistic, narcissist, racist, publicity hound as president.

[Sharpie]

Josey - tell me what tough decisions Trump has had to make? Tell me how he is a born leader? (no such thing btw) and with regards to what you see is what you get - i'd rather not have a lying, cheating, misogynistic, narcissist, racist, publicity hound as president.

 

As well as a shocking comb over, an insult to all such as me who accept our follicle challenge.

[Lovecraft]

As well as a shocking comb over, an insult to all such as me who accept our follicle challenge.

 

Don't like the guy, but fair play.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/37382534

[Sharpie]

Don't like the guy, but fair play.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/37382534

Well I'm conv inc ed as of today I am going to start my combover just like Donald, I figure in thirty years I will be sporting a thick head of hair. Of course I will be 121, but age is just a number.

[Maple Leaf]

Well I'm conv inc ed as of today I am going to start my combover just like Donald, I figure in thirty years I will be sporting a thick head of hair. Of course I will be 121, but age is just a number.

You're 91??  Remarkable! 

[Sharpie]

You're 91??  Remarkable! 

 

My math ability went with my hair, anyway the whole thread is about dishonesty and transparency, why should I be different to two Presidential hopefuls.

[joseywales]

I see a fascistic, sociopathic, manipulative, lying, xenophobic, shitebag.

I like people that say how it is maybe he says the things people want to say but don't at least he has the balls to be different.

[joseywales]

Josey - tell me what tough decisions Trump has had to make? Tell me how he is a born leader? (no such thing btw) and with regards to what you see is what you get - i'd rather not have a lying, cheating, misogynistic, narcissist, racist, publicity hound as president.

I think what America needs is someone different who like I said can make tough decisions and get the economy going helping creating jobs but at the same time protecting American values. But also he is a born leader because of the billions he has made and is a example of the American dream.

[joseywales]

As well as a shocking comb over, an insult to all such as me who accept our follicle challenge.

The man has style and is a dab hand at building wall's a vote for trump is a vote for change and a vote for Hillary is basically Obama lite no change whatsoever. But trump will make America great again you just watch he is a genius.

[Cade]

The man has style and is a dab hand at building wall's a vote for trump is a vote for change and a vote for Hillary is basically Obama lite no change whatsoever. But trump will make America great again you just watch he is a genius.

 

seek urgent medical attention

[Sharpie]

The man has style and is a dab hand at building wall's a vote for trump is a vote for change and a vote for Hillary is basically Obama lite no change whatsoever. But trump will make America great again you just watch he is a genius.

 

 

Being as how I don't have a vote I can't help promote this change, he will have to be a dab hand at building walls thats one of his big changes. Having been bankrupt on at least one occasion he does have experience at recovery, unfortunately the Presidnt of the United States unlike the President of Trump enterprises makes a major miscalculation not dollars or bankruptcy will result but deaths and damages that will never be recovered.

 

I will watch for sure for his genius, having it pointed out that he is one makes me admire his strategy in the campaign of keeping this attribute secret. However I hope you are not commenting to me in the belief that I am a Trump or Clinton fan, if you read my other posts you will clearly see I am neither, nor am I an American, strictly an interested bystander who has no ability to make any difference.

[Seymour M Hersh]

Yes, because it is a good idea to have a nuclear button in the hands of a fruitloop.

 

 

The button is not in his hand but you know that or at least i hope you know it.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

The button is not in his hand but you know that or at least i hope you know it.

Look up the definition of commander-in-chief and get back to us.

[Seymour M Hersh]

Look up the definition of commander-in-chief and get back to us.

 

He cannot just flip a switch and launch their ICBM's. Stop being such a prat.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

He cannot just flip a switch and launch their ICBM's. Stop being such a prat.

No, he can't "literally" do that. However, he can give an executive order to launch. Not that I'm saying he would but you don't let the dumb kid play with matches either for the same reason.

[Sharpie]

My understanding is that there is a case goes everywhere with the President, he has a code, and is the only person with it, if he enters the code that is the signal to the military that use of nuclear weapons is authorised by Presidential order. He does not have his hand on any trigger, but those who do can do nothing until the President authorises. It is certainly frightening to consider the danger of any loose cannon, no pun intended, having that code.

[Cade]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/22/nuclear-football-donald-trump

[Norm]

Johnson and Stein excluded from the 1st debate.

[Maple Leaf]

The chances of Trump launching a nuclear attack are vanishingly small.  But he has extensive unilateral powers, and that is where he can make a long-term impact on the United States.

 

The President is both the head of state and head of government of the United States of America, and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments ? each led by an appointed member of the President's Cabinet ? carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government. They are joined in this by other executive agencies such as the CIA and Environmental Protection Agency, the heads of which are not part of the Cabinet, but who are under the full authority of the President. The President also appoints the heads of more than 50 independent federal commissions, such as the Federal Reserve Board or the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as federal judges, ambassadors, and other federal offices. The Executive Office of the President (EOP) consists of the immediate staff to the President, along with entities such as the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of the United States Trade Representative.

The President has the power either to sign legislation into law or to veto bills enacted by Congress, although Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds vote of both houses. The Executive Branch conducts diplomacy with other nations, and the President has the power to negotiate and sign treaties, which also must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. The President can issue executive orders, which direct executive officers or clarify and further existing laws. The President also has unlimited power to extend pardons and clemencies for federal crimes, except in cases of impeachment.

 

With a compliant Congress, there isn't much that Trump could not do.

[Gorgiewave]

The chances of Trump launching a nuclear attack are vanishingly small.  But he has extensive unilateral powers, and that is where he can make a long-term impact on the United States.

 

The President is both the head of state and head of government of the United States of America, and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments ? each led by an appointed member of the President's Cabinet ? carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government. They are joined in this by other executive agencies such as the CIA and Environmental Protection Agency, the heads of which are not part of the Cabinet, but who are under the full authority of the President. The President also appoints the heads of more than 50 independent federal commissions, such as the Federal Reserve Board or the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as federal judges, ambassadors, and other federal offices. The Executive Office of the President (EOP) consists of the immediate staff to the President, along with entities such as the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of the United States Trade Representative.

The President has the power either to sign legislation into law or to veto bills enacted by Congress, although Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds vote of both houses. The Executive Branch conducts diplomacy with other nations, and the President has the power to negotiate and sign treaties, which also must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. The President can issue executive orders, which direct executive officers or clarify and further existing laws. The President also has unlimited power to extend pardons and clemencies for federal crimes, except in cases of impeachment.

 

With a compliant Congress, there isn't much that Trump could not do.

Get a win at McDiarmid Park?

[Seymour M Hersh]

No, he can't "literally" do that. However, he can give an executive order to launch. Not that I'm saying he would but you don't let the dumb kid play with matches either for the same reason.

 

Another utterly useless analogy. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Another utterly useless analogy. 

Cool. You keep thinking that.

[Bridge of Djoum]

Get a win at McDiarmid Park?

Rhobbie oot, The Donald in!!! 

 

Go 1-1-8 and get in aboot them, Don will sort it out.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

For reference -- a very good, very long list of reasons to actually vote for Clinton (and not just against Trump).

 

A few that are big ones for me -- my comments in bold:

 

 

5. She supported comprehensive immigration reform in 2007 and continues to support it.

 

10. She was one of the prime movers behind SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, eventually signed into law by Bill Clinton. For those used to the NHS it's hard to imagine how awful the US healthcare system can be at times.  SCHIP is one of the biggest steps taken in my lifetime to make it less awful and is H Clinton's greatest achievement IMO.

16. She favors closing the carried-interest loophole. The carried-interest loophole is one of the biggest ways that very wealthy people get out of paying a lot of their taxes.  It's a huge issue.

26. She supports Dodd-Frank. This is a bill to regulate Wall St. more tightly.  It's been blocked by Republicans.
 

35. She supports automatic voter registration at age 18. I know, seems like we should already have this, but we don't.

36. She has a lifetime score of 94 percent from the AFL-CIO and 98 percent from AFSCME. These are two of the three biggest organized labor organizations in the US (SEIU is the other and has endorsed her and is putting a big effort behind her).  Labour's power in the UK has declined, but it's nothing compared to the implosion that the US has experienced. 

She wants to spend $275 billion (over five years) on rebuilding infrastructure. Our bridges and highways are literally falling apart.  This isn't anywhere near enough -- it needs to be between $100-200 billion/year. But it's a start.

[niblick1874]

What a cesspit.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-idUSKCN11M1JK