US Elections 2016

[Jambo 4 Ever]

http://www.anonews.co/hillary-scandal/

[maroonlegions]

US State Department have just released more Clinton e-mails;

 

To and from Huma Abedin.

 

 

 

US State Dept has released 357 new Clinton emails: https://foia.state.gov/Search/Results.aspx?

Available in our search system shortly: 

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/

[Francis Albert]

I posted a week or so ago that the New Yorker , the epitome of liberalism, published a five page editorial endorsing Hillary without mentioning the e-mail issue. To be fair (maybe in response to the reaction to that) it has now published, while still endorsing Hillary, a lead critical of Hillary and the Clinton Foundation. While the Clinton family, according to the accounts of the Foundation, has not earned money from the Foundation (as if they would admit that!) email leaks have revealed it has earned money ($50m plus according to one who organised the fund raising) by leaning on contributors to pay Bill for appearances and speaches.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Francis Albert

[Peebo]

I posted a week or so ago that the New Yorker , the epitome of liberalism, published a five page editorial endorsing Hillary without mentioning the e-mail issue. To be fair (maybe in response to the reaction to that) it has now published, while still endorsing Hillary, a lead critical of Hillary and the Clinton Foundation. While the Clinton family, according to the accounts of the Foundation, has not earned money from the Foundation (as if they would admit that!) email leaks have revealed it has earned money ($50m plus according to one who organised the fund raising) by leaning on contributors to pay Bill for appearances and speaches.

To clarify, are you saying contributions have been made to the foundation in return for Bill Clinton appearing at events or making speeches?

 

Or the payments to Bill are separate to the $50M+?

 

I'm unclear what is being alleged here. Or, indeed, what is apparently wrong?

[Francis Albert]

To clarify, are you saying contributions have been made to the foundation in return for Bill Clinton appearing at events or making speeches?

 

Or the payments to Bill are separate to the $50M+?

 

I'm unclear what is being alleged here. Or, indeed, what is apparently wrong?

There is clearly from the New Yorker account (from a fiercely pro-Clinton media source) a link between the Clinton Foundation and the aggrandisement of the Clinton family fortune.

[Hendricks]

Its fairly obvious to anyone bar the most fervent Clinton supporter that there has been mass, hugely profitable pay for play scheme at work over many years since Bill Clinton's Presidency ended. Vast sums of money labeled as donations have been paid to the Clinton Foundation by individuals and organizations from around the globe in a you scratch our back we scratch yours manner. In addition to that he has also made tens of millions in speaking and appearance engagements by taking on commitments for large donors to the foundation. 

 

The book, Clinton Cash, The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, is well worth a read, 

[niblick1874]

Its fairly obvious to anyone bar the most fervent Clinton supporter that there has been mass, hugely profitable pay for play scheme at work over many years since Bill Clinton's Presidency ended. Vast sums of money labeled as donations have been paid to the Clinton Foundation by individuals and organizations from around the globe in a you scratch our back we scratch yours manner. In addition to that he has also made tens of millions in speaking and appearance engagements by taking on commitments for large donors to the foundation. 

 

The book, Clinton Cash, The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, is well worth a read, 

How about a WikiLeaks email, how about anything other than the MSM. How about anything. I wish all the knowledge I needed to figure it all out was up my.......

[Craig Gordons Gloves]

I'm a bit lost and I'm not watching hour long YouTube videos to learn shite from crazies.

 

That being said, what are we talking about with the Clinton foundation, is it that those that donate to it are then expecting Bill to speak? Or is it that they donate and then are leaned on to have Bill speak for a few hundred thousand bucks?

 

Regardless, what worries me is that Trump is now seen as a real possibility for president. This is a guy who doesn't give a monkeys **** about anyone other than himself, encourages hatred of different races, groups etc, wants to demonize an entire religion and the poor, and the disabled and the black community, Latino community etc.

 

In all honesty, I'd rather have a crooked politician for 4 years who can't do as much damage as Trump.

[niblick1874]

 

[alwaysthereinspirit]

I'm a bit lost and I'm not watching hour long YouTube videos to learn shite from crazies.

That being said, what are we talking about with the Clinton foundation, is it that those that donate to it are then expecting Bill to speak? Or is it that they donate and then are leaned on to have Bill speak for a few hundred thousand bucks?

Regardless, what worries me is that Trump is now seen as a real possibility for president. This is a guy who doesn't give a monkeys **** about anyone other than himself, encourages hatred of different races, groups etc, wants to demonize an entire religion and the poor, and the disabled and the black community, Latino community etc.

In all honesty, I'd rather have a crooked politician for 4 years who can't do as much damage as Trump.

So you finally see the light on Crooked Hillary. As for the rest of your post.........per normal.

[Craig Gordons Gloves]

So you finally see the light on Crooked Hillary. As for the rest of your post.........per normal.

I'm not quite sure what you mean about seeing the light about Crooked Hillary, if you look back, I've never been a Hillary fan boy, I'm anti bawbag and I've never been a fan of the right.

 

As for the per normal comment, do you mean I've not changed my thoughts on Trump or at I missing something?

Edited November 4, 2016 by Craig Gordons Gloves

[Watt-Zeefuik]

When I said "always", I meant always during the active course of the race over the last couple of years. So not really "always".

 

Fair enough.

 

Are you saying she's NOT corrupt and IS popular?

 

She is less corrupt than your average Washington politician.  I have already said this several times.  She is obviously not terribly popular now after a 3-year long smear campaign by her opposition party and their affiliated media outlets.

[Riddley Walker]

A quick glance around some websites show the polls tightening. Anyone more ITK than me reckon this is just a blip? Surely it's not actually going to happen...

 

If I were American, I'd much rather have Clinton. There aren't many politicians around who are not self-serving and a bit dodgy. I don't really get the "wicked" accusations. She is obviously power and money-hungry (SHOCK) and firmly part of the political establishment ( I understand the aversion to this but the Democrats voted for her over Sanders so they got what they asked for) but she is not Donald Trump ffs.

 

There will not be enough cornettes and face palms in the world if the US votes him in.

[Peebo]

There is clearly from the New Yorker account (from a fiercely pro-Clinton media source) a link between the Clinton Foundation and the aggrandisement of the Clinton family fortune.

Clear it may be, but I haven't read it. I was asking you to clarify the allegations you were posting about (more specific about this link, I suppose), as I wasn't clear from your post.

[Peebo]

I'm a bit lost and I'm not watching hour long YouTube videos to learn shite from crazies.

 

That being said, what are we talking about with the Clinton foundation, is it that those that donate to it are then expecting Bill to speak? Or is it that they donate and then are leaned on to have Bill speak for a few hundred thousand bucks?

Yup, this is what I was wondering, when asking Francis Albert to elaborate.

 

People/organisations pay a former president to make speeches etc.?

 

People/organisations donate to the foundation of a former president, and in return he makes speeches etc.?

 

People/organisations donate to the foundation of a former president and also pay him to make speeches etc.?

[GforGallo]

Shocking news from the Clinton campaign that killer Mike didn't get the message.

 

How different could this election have been with a Clinton / killer Mike ticket?

[Unknown user]

Yup, this is what I was wondering, when asking Francis Albert to elaborate.

 

People/organisations pay a former president to make speeches etc.?

 

People/organisations donate to the foundation of a former president, and in return he makes speeches etc.?

 

People/organisations donate to the foundation of a former president and also pay him to make speeches etc.?

Isn't it a matter of public record that Trump hasn't put a penny into his foundation since 2008, that it runs from 3rd party donations in return for things like speeches and appearances? What's the difference, what am I missing?

[Peebo]

Isn't it a matter of public record that Trump hasn't put a penny into his foundation since 2008, that it runs from 3rd party donations in return for things like speeches and appearances? What's the difference, what am I missing?

I've read similar. However, I was hoping Francis Albert could clarify the point he was making (or accusation he was repeating) rather than go straight to the whataboutery!

[Unknown user]

I've read similar. However, I was hoping Francis Albert could clarify the point he was making (or accusation he was repeating) rather than go straight to the whataboutery!

Ah nuts!

[Sidelight]

Fair enough.

 

 

She is less corrupt than your average Washington politician.  

 

This statement may or may not be true.

However you are deluding yourself, and I know that you are not, when highlighting only Washington.

The hypocrisy, double standards and corruption that exists within most national governments is inconceivable.

Hidden in plain view, denied, a testimony to the lies that is even unthought-of. America and Britain the perceived bastions of truth, fair play and democracy, are the outstanding candidates for leadership in the blood wealth and death power grab.

Look no further than the hellish situation in Syria and our countries blind and compromised relationship with Saudi Arabia.

[alwaysthereinspirit]

I'm not quite sure what you mean about seeing the light about Crooked Hillary, if you look back, I've never been a Hillary fan boy, I'm anti bawbag and I've never been a fan of the right.

 

As for the per normal comment, do you mean I've not changed my thoughts on Trump or at I missing something?

Two of your last posts have mentioned Trump encouraging hatred and also Trump giving validation to such things as hunting down Muslims and immigrants, validation that its ok to be a sexual predator, validation that its ok to mock the afflicted. These comments (your beliefs) are an insult to 10's of millions of Americans and an insult to 100's of thousands of police officers. People who would never think of chasing down or ridiculing a human being because they're different, or not arresting a sex offender because Trump is President and that then makes it ok.

We have had Obama now for 8 years and we have bad people among us. We had bad people among us before Obama and we'll continue to have bad people among us long after Clinton/Trump are gone. To think millions of Americans will change into animals because Trump becomes President was a ridiculous set of statements. I thought the first post on Trump validating things was terrible but then you came back with it again in a second post. That's why I said "as per normal"

[Homme]

.

[Francis Albert]

Clear it may be, but I haven't read it. I was asking you to clarify the allegations you were posting about (more specific about this link, I suppose), as I wasn't clear from your post.

I was really responding to an earlier post where someone said the Clintons' were not paid by or took money from the Foundation. That is no doubt true but e-mails between John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary for America, Robby Mook, Hillary's campaign manager and Doug Band, one of Bill Clinton's closest aides, make it clear that Bill Clinton used the foundation to "hustle" for business at foundation events. "Band says that ... he leaned on charitable donors to give the former President speaking engagements and consulting contracts" for what Band refers to as "Bill Clinton Inc." I am not saying there is anything illegal or unusual or new in these revelations, just that the Clintons used the Foundation for enriching themselves in ways other than receiving money directly. And that the Clinton campaign wanted to make sure that did not become public once the campaign got underway: Mook writes to Podesta in early 2015 "We really need to shut ... these paid speeches down".

 

And of course on the "whataboutery" response to my earlier post, I did not say and am not saying that Trump doesn't do the same and probably worse, just that the assertion that the Clintons do not benefit from the Foundation directly isn't the whole story.

Edited November 4, 2016 by Francis Albert

[Peebo]

I was really responding to an earlier post where someone said the Clintons' were not paid by or took money from the Foundation. That is no doubt true but e-mails between John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary for America, Robby Mook, Hillary's campaign manager and Doug Band, one of Bill Clinton's closest aides, make it clear that Bill Clinton used the foundation to "hustle" for business at foundation events. "Band says that ... he leaned on charitable donors to give the former President speaking engagements and consulting contracts" for what Band refers to as "Bill Clinton Inc." I am not saying there is anything illegal or unusual or new in these revelations, just that the Clintons used the Foundation for enriching themselves in ways other than receiving money directly. And that the Clinton campaign wanted to make sure that did not become public once the campaign got underway: Mook writes to Podesta in early 2015 "We really need to shut ... these paid speeches down".

 

And of course on the "whataboutery" response to my earlier post, I did not say and am not saying that Trump doesn't do the same and probably worse, just that the assertion that the Clintons do not benefit from the Foundation directly isn't the whole story.

Thanks for clarifying.,

[elvoys]

A quick glance around some websites show the polls tightening. Anyone more ITK than me reckon this is just a blip? Surely it's not actually going to happen...

 

If I were American, I'd much rather have Clinton. There aren't many politicians around who are not self-serving and a bit dodgy. I don't really get the "wicked" accusations. She is obviously power and money-hungry (SHOCK) and firmly part of the political establishment ( I understand the aversion to this but the Democrats voted for her over Sanders so they got what they asked for) but she is not Donald Trump ffs.

 

There will not be enough cornettes and face palms in the world if the US votes him in.

She seems to have a nasty side to her in private a bit like G Brown. The abuse she dished out to secret service as first lady was like she was talking to dogs. The off camera gloating in Gadaffis death seems to be a window into this.

 

Ironically, as much of a lech as he clearly is and a playground name calling bully to people he feels wronged by, Trump apparently is excellent with his subordinates.

[Sawdust Caesar]

are there only two options in American politics?

 

 

No, a lot. Think there is, or was, a communist party.

There was also a Make America Great Britain Again party ran by a Boris Johnson, obv not the real one.

 

As an aside my local vicar told me that there is already a porn film called Make America Gape Again.

Edited November 4, 2016 by Sawdust Caesar

[Peebo]

She seems to have a nasty side to her in private a bit like G Brown. The abuse she dished out to secret service as first lady was like she was talking to dogs. The off camera gloating in Gadaffis death seems to be a window into this.

 

Ironically, as much of a lech as he clearly is and a playground name calling bully to people he feels wronged by, Trump apparently is excellent with his subordinates.

Apart from, perhaps, the hundreds who have been involved in lawsuits filed against him.

[Don Dan]

Listened to the Pilger interview with Assange this morning. Clinton is anything but squeaky clean.

 

"In an interview with veteran journalist John Pilger, for Russia Today, Assange said the Saudi Government funds both ISIS and Clinton's foundation"

[Craig Gordons Gloves]

Two of your last posts have mentioned Trump encouraging hatred and also Trump giving validation to such things as hunting down Muslims and immigrants, validation that its ok to be a sexual predator, validation that its ok to mock the afflicted. These comments (your beliefs) are an insult to 10's of millions of Americans and an insult to 100's of thousands of police officers. People who would never think of chasing down or ridiculing a human being because they're different, or not arresting a sex offender because Trump is President and that then makes it ok.

We have had Obama now for 8 years and we have bad people among us. We had bad people among us before Obama and we'll continue to have bad people among us long after Clinton/Trump are gone. To think millions of Americans will change into animals because Trump becomes President was a ridiculous set of statements. I thought the first post on Trump validating things was terrible but then you came back with it again in a second post. That's why I said "as per normal"

 

**** me.  Yeah,clearly i'm completely insulting 10's of millions of Americans and 100's of thousand of police officers. Here's my point and if you want to read anything into it then go right ahead.

 

Trump is a ****in prick who appears to hold views that are contrary to being leader of a country with a vast amount of different types of people.  In the sense that he incites hatred of some of these groups.  According to him (and this isn't my belief) he thinks that all muslims should be banned from entering the US.  Now, many intelligent people know that's just ridiculous but there is a sizeable minority that don't. They look for the bogeyman to blame for when things have gone wrong.  Voila, Trump plays into the public fear and says "here's a bogeyman for you" and the idiots respond.  Trump says that he'll send all illegal immigrants back and build a wall to stop them getting in.  There's another bogeyman for you to focus your blame on. Immigrants - they're bad folks, really bad.  Now - see those gays, well a liberal supreme court decided it was ok for them to get married.  What i'm going to do is put in place a very conservative judge and ask for laws that will limit the rights of these gays.  As for his supposed treatment of woman - that validates to idiots that its ok to treat women differently.  

 

Did i say there would be rivers of blood? Did i say we would see an uprising? No - what i said is that there is a danger than the next president of the US is a guy who actually doesn't care about actions that his words could lead to.  Whoever is president sets the tone for the country.  Under Obama - the tone has been a more of a progressive one which thankfully, most sane people can deal with.  The danger with Trump is that the tone is very un-presidential.  Appealing to people's base fears.  

 

Not everyone that votes for Trump is an idiot, sadly, he is appealing to the idiots as well. 

 

And just to be very clear - I would rather not have Hillary either, but the choice is between these 2 and i'll take Hillary over Trump. 

[Maple Leaf]

Listened to the Pilger interview with Assange this morning. Clinton is anything but squeaky clean.

 

"In an interview with veteran journalist John Pilger, for Russia Today, Assange said the Saudi Government funds both ISIS and Clinton's foundation"

It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, that Saudi Arabia is an ally of the USA.  That isn't new.  They've been an ally of the USA through several Administrations, including both Bush Presidencies.  Putting money into the Clinton Foundation is not illegal.  Was Assange trying to make a point?

[Don Dan]

The point I gathered from it is that Clinton (Hilary and Bill) are corrupt. Here's the RT page which gives you a better chance to analyse it.

 

https://www.rt.com/news/365299-assange-pilger-saudi-clinton/

[Caspian Primrose]

Surely Trump won't be allowed to win this

[Maple Leaf]

The point I gathered from it is that Clinton (Hilary and Bill) are corrupt. Here's the RT page which gives you a better chance to analyse it.

 

https://www.rt.com/news/365299-assange-pilger-saudi-clinton/

I have to say that Assange comes across as very lame in that interview.  He prattles on about the large arms deal made between the USA and Saudi Arabia. So what?  Canada and the UK also sell arms to the Saudis.  I'll say it again;  Saudi Arabia is an ally of the West.

 

And did you notice his evasive answer when asked if he wanted Trump to win?  He answered that Trump "wouldn't be allowed to win".  The banks, intelligence organisations, arms companies ... don't forget the media ... are conspiring against Trump.  Dearie me.

 

I'd have more respect for Assange if he stopped hiding in a foreign embassy and went back to Sweden to face the allegations of rape against him.

[Kalamazoo Jambo]

The point I gathered from it is that Clinton (Hilary and Bill) are corrupt. Here's the RT page which gives you a better chance to analyse it.

 

https://www.rt.com/news/365299-assange-pilger-saudi-clinton/

 

You know RT is state-funded Russian media, and that Assange has a personal animus towards Hillary Clinton, right?

[John Findlay]

I have to say that Assange comes across as very lame in that interview. He prattles on about the large arms deal made between the USA and Saudi Arabia. So what? Canada and the UK also sell arms to the Saudis. I'll say it again; Saudi Arabia is an ally of the West.

 

And did you notice his evasive answer when asked if he wanted Trump to win? He answered that Trump "wouldn't be allowed to win". The banks, intelligence organisations, arms companies ... don't forget the media ... are conspiring against Trump. Dearie me.

 

I'd have more respect for Assange if he stopped hiding in a foreign embassy and went back to Sweden to face the allegations of rape against him.

The Saudi's play three sides. The West, Russia and the Arab side. The side they favour most is the latter.

[Don Dan]

You know RT is state-funded Russian media, and that Assange has a personal animus towards Hillary Clinton, right?

Oh yes. I like to read and watch a big selection of media outlets. I certainly don't believe all of what they say or promote. I make my own judgements. Hopefully coming away with a balanced view.

It's also enlightening what bias is put on the various news stories.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[alwaysthereinspirit]

**** me.  Yeah,clearly i'm completely insulting 10's of millions of Americans and 100's of thousand of police officers. Here's my point and if you want to read anything into it then go right ahead.

 

Trump is a ****** prick who appears to hold views that are contrary to being leader of a country with a vast amount of different types of people.  In the sense that he incites hatred of some of these groups.  According to him (and this isn't my belief) he thinks that all muslims should be banned from entering the US.  Now, many intelligent people know that's just ridiculous but there is a sizeable minority that don't. They look for the bogeyman to blame for when things have gone wrong.  Voila, Trump plays into the public fear and says "here's a bogeyman for you" and the idiots respond.  Trump says that he'll send all illegal immigrants back and build a wall to stop them getting in.  There's another bogeyman for you to focus your blame on. Immigrants - they're bad folks, really bad.  Now - see those gays, well a liberal supreme court decided it was ok for them to get married.  What i'm going to do is put in place a very conservative judge and ask for laws that will limit the rights of these gays.  As for his supposed treatment of woman - that validates to idiots that its ok to treat women differently.  

 

Did i say there would be rivers of blood? Did i say we would see an uprising? No - what i said is that there is a danger than the next president of the US is a guy who actually doesn't care about actions that his words could lead to.  Whoever is president sets the tone for the country.  Under Obama - the tone has been a more of a progressive one which thankfully, most sane people can deal with.  The danger with Trump is that the tone is very un-presidential.  Appealing to people's base fears.  

 

Not everyone that votes for Trump is an idiot, sadly, he is appealing to the idiots as well. 

 

And just to be very clear - I would rather not have Hillary either, but the choice is between these 2 and i'll take Hillary over Trump.

All Muslims - No (undocumented, no papers, background checks) Nothing wrong with that. I was checked when I moved here.

Illegal immigrants - All of them going back, never happen, was never going to happen. Costs would be astronomical.

The Wall - Britain has a "wall" (English channel) there will never be a "real" wall coast to coast. The "wall" will be more border patrols, not paid for by Mexico.

Supreme Court - not his decision, only his nominations, way tougher that his rhetoric will have him believe

Supposed treatment of woman (your words) - You have no idea if this will make more people turn in to sex predators based on him maybe being a low life scum bag around women.

You're doing ok on here yourself for pointing out the bogeyman.

[Maple Leaf]

The Saudi's play three sides. The West, Russia and the Arab side. The side they favour most is the latter.

Agreed.  And they get away with it because of their vast wealth, their vast oil reserves, and that they are the closest thing to a friend that the West has in the region.  With friends like that ... etc, etc.

[John Findlay]

Agreed. And they get away with it because of their vast wealth, their vast oil reserves, and that they are the closest thing to a friend that the West has in the region. With friends like that ... etc, etc.

Except the Israelis. Which could be argued is the proper 51st State.

[Kalamazoo Jambo]

Interesting Newsweek article came out today on Russia and the US election...

 

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-russia-hillary-clinton-united-states-europe-516895

[Maple Leaf]

Interesting Newsweek article came out today on Russia and the US election...

 

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-russia-hillary-clinton-united-states-europe-516895

 

The Russians might have been sticking their noses in, or maybe not.  We might never know, but the possibility exists. 

 

Julian Assange has definitely influenced the election, and he's Australian.

 

Has there ever been an American election where foreigners have played such an important role, probably a bigger role than any American?

[Unknown user]

The Russians might have been sticking their noses in, or maybe not. We might never know, but the possibility exists.

 

Julian Assange has definitely influenced the election, and he's Australian.

 

Has there ever been an American election where foreigners have played such an important role, probably a bigger role than any American?

Wasn't Obama Kenyan?

[Maple Leaf]

Wasn't Obama Kenyan?

Oh yeah.  Forgot about that one. 

[Craig Gordons Gloves]

All Muslims - No (undocumented, no papers, background checks) Nothing wrong with that. I was checked when I moved here.

Illegal immigrants - All of them going back, never happen, was never going to happen. Costs would be astronomical.

The Wall - Britain has a "wall" (English channel) there will never be a "real" wall coast to coast. The "wall" will be more border patrols, not paid for by Mexico.

Supreme Court - not his decision, only his nominations, way tougher that his rhetoric will have him believe

Supposed treatment of woman (your words) - You have no idea if this will make more people turn in to sex predators based on him maybe being a low life scum bag around women.

You're doing ok on here yourself for pointing out the bogeyman.

 

Thank you for proving my point.  As i said - sensible, sane people know that most of what he says he will do (and he does say he will do it) are not feasible.  However, there is a sizeable number of people that believe that what he says is the right way to go.  With that though - what you're saying is that it's ok for him to promise stuff that he has no way of enacting. 

 

You're also missing some of what i'm trying to say - Look at the UK before and after the brexit referendum  The overwhelming tone of the leave campaign was that foreigners are bad.  Since the vote, the rhetoric and invective towards foreigners has turned nastier.  In the same way that Trump's rhetoric has the potential to be divisive and turn nasty with groups of his supporters. 

 

All that being said - why do you believe Trump would make a better president? 

[Craig Gordons Gloves]

Interesting Newsweek article came out today on Russia and the US election...

 

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-russia-hillary-clinton-united-states-europe-516895

 

Both interesting - and slightly terrifying. 

[alwaysthereinspirit]

Thank you for proving my point.  As i said - sensible, sane people know that most of what he says he will do (and he does say he will do it) are not feasible.  However, there is a sizeable number of people that believe that what he says is the right way to go.  With that though - what you're saying is that it's ok for him to promise stuff that he has no way of enacting. 

 

You're also missing some of what i'm trying to say - Look at the UK before and after the brexit referendum  The overwhelming tone of the leave campaign was that foreigners are bad.  Since the vote, the rhetoric and invective towards foreigners has turned nastier.  In the same way that Trump's rhetoric has the potential to be divisive and turn nasty with groups of his supporters. 

 

All that being said - why do you believe Trump would make a better president?

I could be wrong in saying this but I'm not going back over the whole thread to check but I'm not sure I ever said he'd make a better President. I just don't believe she can be any good as President.

[Unknown user]

I could be wrong in saying this but I'm not going back over the whole thread to check but I'm not sure I ever said he'd make a better President. I just don't believe she can be any good as President.

Off the fence then, who would be better? Who would be worse?

[Mikey1874]

I think both would be surprisingly good Presidents.

[Mikey1874]

"Love Trumps Hate"

 

Hilary speech

[Francis Albert]

Thank you for proving my point.  As i said - sensible, sane people know that most of what he says he will do (and he does say he will do it) are not feasible.  However, there is a sizeable number of people that believe that what he says is the right way to go.  With that though - what you're saying is that it's ok for him to promise stuff that he has no way of enacting. 

 

You're also missing some of what i'm trying to say - Look at the UK before and after the brexit referendum  The overwhelming tone of the leave campaign was that foreigners are bad.  Since the vote, the rhetoric and invective towards foreigners has turned nastier.  In the same way that Trump's rhetoric has the potential to be divisive and turn nasty with groups of his supporters. 

 

All that being said - why do you believe Trump would make a better president? 

I was for Remain but I think it is a distortion to say that the "overwhelming tone of the leave campaign was that foreigners are bad". I also think that there is actually little evidence that rhetoric and invective has grown or turned nastier. The police stopped reporting "hate crime" numbers a few days after the vote because after an immediate  increase in reported incidents (reported anonymously on a web site and not substantiated or independently verified) the numbers soon dropped. The media has picked up and given prominence to incidents that would never have been reported before the campaign and vote. The idea that over 17m British voters are driven by racism and xenophobia and this would worsen as a result of leaving the EU  is as insulting as suggesting that millions of Americans would react to a Trump presidency  by becoming racist and violent toward ethnic and religious minorities, or would start treating women differently.