US Presidential Race

From what I read these days isn't it more likely Hillary would be worse for American - Russian relations AKA the biggest potential conflict at this moment in time?

Neither of these plebs should be allowed within a 10 mile radius of the white house but I think a lot of people are going to end up voting against Trump in fear of having a war mongering retard as their leader and end up with exactly that.

RealGunner wrote:Honestly if Trump was becoming the president of some small country then most would just consider it as banter.

But it's too risky for a powerhouse like USA. Having someone like Trump have control of Nuclear weapons is just insane. Substitute him with Obama and we would be currently witnessing a war between USA and Iran.

For the safety of everyone, Hillary is the wisest choice.

Even if Hillary was as crazy as Trump, she would still be safer. She's seemingly held to a much higher standard than Trump who's always defended by shit arguments like "He doesn't mean it" and "We love Trump, he always says what he means".

I have no idea why anyone would vote for him at all. Politics in not something where you vote for banter or for a revolution (revolution as a result of Trump not being able to do anything).

Guy has no politics and is a crazy hothead. Meanwhile Hillary is attacked for not doing anything of note.

Freeza, have you been following the news concerning Hillary lately?

Lex wrote:Freeza, have you been following the news concerning Hillary lately?

You're talking about the "reopening" of a case that wasn't closed that contained no new information regarding Hillary about a case where Hillary has done nothing criminal in the first place?

Haven't heard about it.

Ah one of those, eh. Hillary's done nothing wrong, butter wouldn't melt in her mouth, sun shines out of her arse etc etc. Gotcha.

I don't share any political beliefs with Hillary Clinton at all and she's obviously been stupid about creating the single email from the start. That doesn't make it criminal and everything about the case has been overblown.

RealGunner wrote:Honestly if Trump was becoming the president of some small country then most would just consider it as banter.

But it's too risky for a powerhouse like USA. Having someone like Trump have control of Nuclear weapons is just insane. Substitute him with Obama and we would be currently witnessing a war between USA and Iran.

For the safety of everyone, Hillary is the wisest choice.

You say that, yet it's Hillary who has a proven track record of STARTING wars, and is the biggest hawk in her campaign so far, single handedly restarting the Cold War we waited DECADES for it to end. and now FBI found all her claims of Trump-Putin connection is non-existent and that was the conclusion of their investigation. Funnily, the Russian state TV endorsed Hillary last week. LOL



Back to wars, some of Hillary Clinton wars (Voted and advocated, or facilitated):
Iraq
Libya
Syria
Yemen

Those wars, 2 millions Muslims dead. 5,000 US citizens dead....millions of muslims displaced.

What is the outcome? Saddam dead, Gaddafi dead, and she wants Assad dead too.

Is Iraq now better off than they were in 2003 ? NO
Is Libya now better off than they were in 2011 ? NO
Is Syria now better off than they were in 2010? NO

Trillions of dollars wasted. All for proxy wars....at least Obama, for all his faults, had the decency to say toppling and murdering Gaddafi was the biggest mistake of his tenure, Hillary still champions it and has no regrets ! and about Iran, Clinton was the one who very famously said in a 2008 primary debate with Obama: "I want Iranians to know that if I'm president, we'll attack Iran, and we'll obliterate them."



and despite the fact that Trump talks a lot tougher on Iran (Nuclear deal + ransom payments), he's the one that actually wants to militarily cooperate with Iran and Russia in Syria. Not like Hillary' Syria policy which is basically is a WWIII AGAINST Iran/Russia.

It's very clear who's the warmonger in this case and could bring destruction to the world.










In the last week, New York Times & Washington Post (two massively pro Hillary papers) have come up with editorials how defeating ISIS will make Middle East worse, and "Don't Defeat ISIS, Yet", and how we should allow "ISIS a safe path from Mosul to Syria".

Why? Because for CIA/Neocons/Hillary, the aim is toppling Assad and getting that gas pipeline project through. It's clear as hell, which candidate is the WAR candidate, and it's not Donald Trump.


Btw, you guys perhaps know Peter Thiel. Many of you have never been to America, and may wonder why Trump has a strong appeal, you'll do well to listen to 10 minutes of this well impassioned and articulate business entreprenuer lays it out to you. Great watch:

Agreed with Sepi

Trump nor any of Trumps associates throughout the campaign have been associated with Russia or Putin, and clearly Putin would be furious with a Trump win. He's always been a big fan of Hillary iirc (sarcasm)

Nah Tom you are definitely correct to worry about Hillary and her relationship with Russia. It worries me too. What worries me more? A president that Putin likes.

A president that Putin likes can only mean bad things for America

CBarca wrote:Agreed with Sepi

Trump nor any of Trumps associates throughout the campaign have been associated with Russia or Putin, and clearly Putin would be furious with a Trump win. He's always been a big fan of Hillary iirc (sarcasm)

Nah Tom you are definitely correct to worry about Hillary and her relationship with Russia. It worries me too. What worries me more? A president that Putin likes.

A president that Putin likes can only mean bad things for America

Again, I have presented my arguments with facts, videos, quotes.

FBI yesterday concluded that they found no relationship between Putin and Trump (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html?_r=0) . And if you actually watched the Russia TV endorsement of Hillary, you'd know it's because they say she's careless, forgets classified material, and easy to influence (She sold 20% of US Uranium to Russia when she was Secretary of State)http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html . But of course they're sarcastic, last week a survey of Russian citizens were taken, and over 50% said they are worried that a new world war is on the horizon because of Syria. So Most Russians want Trump, because they want peace. If you bother to read about Russian culture and history, you realize they despise wars. Russians lost 25 MILLION people in WWII. To this day, Victory day on May 9th is the biggest celebration day in the country. Yep, for normal people...we want peace. Maybe you're a hot head 20 year old and fancy enlisting for the draft and #FightingForHer , then good luck mate

Do you prefer America and Russia to be allies, or to be at war ? I prefer peace and cooperation between world' 2 biggest giants, not tension and war.

And funnily enough, Putin seems to genuinely care more about Europeans and their future than the EU leaders. Watch this short clip from yesterday:



"But a society, that cannot protect its children today, has no tomorrow. It does not have a future." ~Vladimir Putin

The Russian endorsement is not serious, or at best, a move from Russia to appear as if they aren't supporting Trump in a time when Hillary and democrats have repeatedly made attempts to tie together Trump and Russia (for good reason). You can't find it on a reputable site anywhere, and looking up "Russian TV endorsement" only brought up an article from the BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35811495 about their endorsement of Trump a while back. I had to specify "Russian TV endorsement Hillary" to find anything. Don't mention this like this is some legitimate, reputable endorsement. I imagine you will just say the liberal media is ignoring it though. Fair enough for you--whatever confirms your worldview. Putin cares more about Europeans than their EU leaders? I am supposed to believe that too?

You don't need to educate me on Hillary's hawkish nature. I've acknowledged it, I've said it worries me. It really does--I'm not a Hillary fan at all. I would have heavily considered voting for a republican candidate if the candidate wasn't Trump (that being said, the other candidates were downright embarrassing as well, and getting beat by Trump is somewhat a reflection of that).

However, Trump's cluelessness not only on the domestic level but also on foreign policy is worrying for just about anyone. His responses on nuclear policy, rambling at best, contradictory and utterly clueless at worst (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/09/27/what_exactly_was_donald_trump_trying_to_say_about_nuclear_weapons_last_night.html). A man who doesn't know what the nuclear triad is. Unacceptable. It is no wonder that Putin and Russia have been for Trump for a long time, with things as hostile as they are and with Russia doing as badly as they have been, you think they wish for a president like Hillary? Absolutely not. Someone like Trump? A dunce they can take advantage of, and whose own politics do, in some ways, represent the authoritarian values of present day Russia.

I don't need to cite Trump and his associates (Manafort, didn't he run Trump's campaign for quite a while?) connections to Russia, it's been well documented.

Neither Russia nor the US want war and the US has been incredibly careless since the Cold War in their relations with Russia--this is admitted. However, Russia do not want to be friends. They never have. Electing Trump is great banter, but RG is right. It's not safe. Not for the US, not for the world. I might not like Hillary's foreign policy and do consider it worrying, but at least she's competent.

Slightly related and worth reading: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/10/trump-putin-alt-right-comintern/506015/

https://mobile.twitter.com/kimmieguy/status/793652019940569088/video/1

Not the first time Hillary demonised voters. Aren't politicians supposed to fight their rivals not their rivals' supporters?

Over the course of the election I've seen news of hillary supporters vandalising property, assaulting Trump supporters with weapons (a bag of bricks on one occasion), one shot a Trump supporter in the leg. Then there was the ludicrous Trump rally violence which Trump got flack for in the media. Turned out an organisation coordinating with the Clinton campaign was giving protesters "agitator training" to go to trump rallies to start violence, this included using homeless people who were willing to do "crazy shit".


Ah but none of this matters because xenophobia, therefore hitler, therefore evil, therefore my side good and can do no wrong.

This is literally modern politics in one picture:


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUqZoumWsAAnupz.jpg

If it isn't obvious already, believing the above picture (which Clinton supporters evidently do) gives you moral cover to be thugs and subvert democracy (both of which is happening), all because of a wall.

DuringTheWar wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:

CBarca wrote:Sepi with further proof that the fringe left and the fringe right are actually quite close

Not sure if communist Sepi or Trump loving Sepi is better

I'm sorry but they are not. That's defamatory stuff to delegitimize far left opinions

Fringe left = Marxism

Marxist-motivated murders in the 20th century >100,000,000

Being a Marxist means attaching yourself to a belief system with an awful historical record.

Now now, I know REAL Marxism has never been tried, and things would have went swimmingly IF ONLY YOU (or Viva) had been in charge of things. But it's better to look at the record of what malevolent Marxist utopians actually do, not their delusions of righteousness and grande delusions of being able to architect a perfect egalitarian system.

You make good points but none of it shows in any way why fringe right and fringe left are similar/close/the same, as lazy totalitarianism discourse wants us to believe.

Other than both have spawned governments who killed lots of people.

Why don't you start a petition to allow Obama a third season as president? IMO that would be the path of the least damage, if you ask me...

As convincing as you are, Sepi, Trump is simply not a better candidate than Hillary yet they both have significant problems to the point where I simply won't vote for either of them. And no, that doesn't mean I will necessarily vote for Johnson or Stein.

One can't be trusted with the nuclear codes and the other can't be trusted with top secret national security data.

It's like choosing whether to eat shit or vomit.

I don't understand some people like the posters above backing Trump. What in the world is positive about Trump as a presidential candidate? Don't mention Hilary, just Trump. What is he good at? what credentials does he have? how is he fit to be president?

So many things about him should immediately disqualify him to be president. So what is this outstanding thing that makes all his nonsense unimportant and turns him him into a fit candidate?

Is it the xenophobia? the racism? the complete lack of diplomatic ability? the arrogance? the dishonesty? the lack of political experience? the almost absolute lack of facts in his speeches? his inflammatory responses? his child-like behavior? his clear hunger for power and personal gain over his country's? or I guess now the new thing to like is his amicability with Putin?

People need to get a grip of themselves. Its like none of them has ever encountered a populist leader.

rincon wrote:I don't understand some people like the posters above backing Trump. What in the world is positive about Trump as a presidential candidate? Don't mention Hilary, just Trump. What is he good at? what credentials does he have? how is he fit to be president?

So many things about him should immediately disqualify him to be president. So what is this outstanding thing that makes all his nonsense unimportant and turns him him into a fit candidate?

Is it the xenophobia? the racism? the complete lack of diplomatic ability? the arrogance? the dishonesty? the lack of political experience? the almost absolute lack of facts in his speeches? his inflammatory responses? his child-like behavior? his clear hunger for power and personal gain over his country's? or I guess now the new thing to like is his amicability with Putin?

People need to get a grip of themselves. Its like none of them has ever encountered a populist leader.  

Populism is so bad. Especially since the populist politicians never have any actual policies. This election in general has been totally without actual political discussions like education, economy, environment etc. all areas where Trump won't do better than Hillary.

Guy speaks science and believes global warming is a host. I can't even comprehend how little actual politics have been discussed in this election. Trump actually has gained more than he has lost by those tape leaks of him, since his awful personality and his treatment towards women is actually attrributes he shares with the people who vote for him. It only helped them identify with him as a candidate.

Even if Trump wins, luckily the American system is built in a way that nothing gets done. Well, except the nuclear missiles being launched at Iran, Saudi Arabia and Hillary's backyard.


Edit: speaking of populist leader. We had a populist party win the election in Denmark last election, but they declined to take charge which lead to them breaking their promises etc. which is why I can't see more than one term in any case.

Hapless_Hans wrote:

DuringTheWar wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:


I'm sorry but they are not. That's defamatory stuff to delegitimize far left opinions

Fringe left = Marxism

Marxist-motivated murders in the 20th century >100,000,000

Being a Marxist means attaching yourself to a belief system with an awful historical record.

Now now, I know REAL Marxism has never been tried, and things would have went swimmingly IF ONLY YOU (or Viva) had been in charge of things. But it's better to look at the record of what malevolent Marxist utopians actually do, not their delusions of righteousness and grande delusions of being able to architect a perfect egalitarian system.

You make good points but none of it shows in any way why fringe right and fringe left are similar/close/the same, as lazy totalitarianism discourse wants us to believe.

Other than both have spawned governments who killed lots of people.

Yeah I agree with you Hans, an inaccurate and lazy statement on my part.

CBarca wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:

DuringTheWar wrote:


Fringe left = Marxism

Marxist-motivated murders in the 20th century >100,000,000

Being a Marxist means attaching yourself to a belief system with an awful historical record.

Now now, I know REAL Marxism has never been tried, and things would have went swimmingly IF ONLY YOU (or Viva) had been in charge of things. But it's better to look at the record of what malevolent Marxist utopians actually do, not their delusions of righteousness and grande delusions of being able to architect a perfect egalitarian system.

You make good points but none of it shows in any way why fringe right and fringe left are similar/close/the same, as lazy totalitarianism discourse wants us to believe.

Other than both have spawned governments who killed lots of people.

Yeah I agree with you Hans, an inaccurate and lazy statement on my part.

I mean I get your point that to hold 'fringe' political positions, i.e. such that stand in stark contrast to widely acceptable, normative, mainstream opinions/worldviews, one tends to be required to have a certain mentality - a mentality which often tends to include paranoid, messianic, cryptic, bitter, resentful (due to perceived or true outsiderdom/being persecuted) traits.

This of course pertains to both far left and far right positions/groups, so you're right that you have quite some cases with similar character traits on both sides.

@Pedram

On the other hand, with either Clinton or Trump threatening to get their hands at the steering wheel of the USofA, shouldn't there be a public outcry of about all of the people in the US including the people sitting in the houses?

There should be.....but there won't be.

Lot of people I know believe both of them are terrible, but don't care enough to say anymore about it than that.

KKK officially endorsed Trump

This should spell the end of primaries all together. Parties should just choose their candidate, and if the public doesnt like them they will just suffer during the general election. We don't need to have this happen again. Trump isnt any kind of republican at all, and despite wha they are stereotyped as Racism and Misogyny are not synonymous with American conservatism.

Funny to think how the first republican president was more modern in his way of thinking and more for equality than the candidate in 2016. To think the party has regressed from what it was in 1860 is comical.

So it turns out that all the "new" e-mails in the "re-opened" case were all duplicates. No new info. FBI Director just wanted to play politics.



Guy should be in prison for interfering with this election like this.