If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If

[valcont]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/national-enquirer-paid-to-kill-trump-affair-story-report.html

 

Oh Oh Melania got RickRolled..

 

[tengen]

A reporter has documented all the falsehoods told by Trump:

 

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/uselection/2016/11/04/donald-trump-the-unauthorized-database-of-false-things.html

 

Clinton is a paragon of honesty in comparison.

[TorontoRaptorsFan]

I think it's hilarious to see so many people here get worked up about the election yet have no control over the situation.

 

Second point is I also think a lot of people are foolish for putting down Trump when he's clearly been a success in life. I'm still laughing about the thread where a lot of people here were saying they would rather have Buffett's life than Trump's - which is crazy.

[valcont]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/report-melania-trump-worked-in-us-without-proper-permit/2016/11/05/3ddc5a8a-a302-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html

 

It can't get any better than this. Look at the republican base, you have evangelicals who preaches family values and are voting for an adulterer and an extremely unethical candidate. You have deplorables who don't like illegals but the candidate's wife was an illegal immigrant in this country. Bunch of pathetic hypocrites. Hilarious.

[rb]

I think it's hilarious to see so many people here get worked up about the election yet have no control over the situation.

 

Second point is I also think a lot of people are foolish for putting down Trump when he's clearly been a success in life. I'm still laughing about the thread where a lot of people here were saying they would rather have Buffett's life than Trump's - which is crazy.

Well i guess it depends on how different people view and define success. For you and Trump it's glitz and glamour. Other people have other definitions. You laugh at those people and call them crazy. I don't think they really care. The truth is that there are a lot of those people. Case in point is Buffett. He doesn't have Trump's life because he doesn't want it not because he can't afford it.

 

This idea that we should put the wealthy in charge of the country is called an Oligarchy. We've decided a long time ago that it's not a good thing.

[rb]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/report-melania-trump-worked-in-us-without-proper-permit/2016/11/05/3ddc5a8a-a302-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html

 

It can't get any better than this. Look at the republican base, you have evangelicals who preaches family values and are voting for an adulterer and an extremely unethical candidate. You have deplorables who don't like illegals but the candidate's wife was an illegal immigrant in this country. Bunch of pathetic hypocrites. Hilarious.

Don't forget about the women who are lining up behind the misogynist sexual assaulter. The fiscal conservatives who are lined up behind the guys who's gonna blow up the debt and deficit. The flag waving patriots who think that Russia's involvement in the election is just dandy. The list goes on.

 

There's a bunch of writes in Hollywood right now going like "Damn! Even we couldn't make this shit up!"

[Gregmal]

This idea that we should put the wealthy in charge of the country is called an Oligarchy. We've decided a long time ago that it's not a good thing.

 

This is not an idea that should be done in an absolute sense, but theres definitely merit to it. Truth is that there are people who simply shouldn't be able to vote, or at the least not have a vote count as much as other folks. Its, cute, warm, and fuzzy to some that everything goes around thinking they are equal. But there is something inherently flawed with a system in which some drug addict who relies on entitlements casts a vote that has the same power as Mark Cuban's vote. Because of the system, the vast majority of lower income folks only care about their entitlements and will cast misguided votes if they think it will result in getting something for nothing. How many of the "Obama iz gunna pay my gas billz!!" videos were out there? Or this gem..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJbOU4nmHQ

 

Then on the other end you have those highfalutin, wannabe philanthropist types in the upper middle class neighborhoods who mean well but are misguided as they preach about "giving back" based ideologies while driving 5 series BMWs and living in 800k homes.  And like Trump, they're all for giving back but conveniently abuse the system when it benefits them. Sandwiched in between are the middle class that is perpetually getting squeezed by real inflation, stagnant wages, and ever increases taxes, both direct and indirect.

 

Bottom line, is the people contributing should have more say than those that don't. There needs to be a balance of "creators" and "takers".

[Guest JoelS]

I fear people have become desensitised to the behaviour of Trump. I was watching a documentary on Saddam Hussein. The guy was a megalomaniac with an obsession for being a "winner" & building monuments to himself. The point is Trump fits the pattern. The same pattern of behaviour as guys like Erdogan in Turkey and countless others in history. His irrational and cruel persecution of the Central Park five for his own benefit. I see these videos of reporters being abused at his rallies and his encouragement of it. That is absolutely unacceptable in a modern democracy.

 

Why anyone would vote for such a person is beyond me.

[rb]

This idea that we should put the wealthy in charge of the country is called an Oligarchy. We've decided a long time ago that it's not a good thing.

 

This is not an idea that should be done in an absolute sense, but theres definitely merit to it. Truth is that there are people who simply shouldn't be able to vote, or at the least not have a vote count as much as other folks. Its, cute, warm, and fuzzy to some that everything goes around thinking they are equal. But there is something inherently flawed with a system in which some drug addict who relies on entitlements casts a vote that has the same power as Mark Cuban's vote. Because of the system, the vast majority of lower income folks only care about their entitlements and will cast misguided votes if they think it will result in getting something for nothing. How many of the "Obama iz gunna pay my gas billz!!" videos were out there? Or this gem..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJbOU4nmHQ

 

Then on the other end you have those highfalutin, wannabe philanthropist types in the upper middle class neighborhoods who mean well but are misguided as they preach about "giving back" based ideologies while driving 5 series BMWs and living in 800k homes.  And like Trump, they're all for giving back but conveniently abuse the system when it benefits them. Sandwiched in between are the middle class that is perpetually getting squeezed by real inflation, stagnant wages, and ever increases taxes, both direct and indirect.

 

Bottom line, is the people contributing should have more say than those that don't. There needs to be a balance of "creators" and "takers".

So basically screw that democracy thing.

 

Well now that we're disfranchising folks let take a closer look at that. Technically the president is not elected by the people but by the electoral college. Now let's go ahead and disfranchise the takers. Ok now the president is elected by the following states: California, Massachusetts, Wyoming, Oklahoma, New Jersey, Utah, Colorado, New York, Kansas, Ohio, Nebraska, Illinois, Minnesota, and Delaware.

 

Election night headline: Welcome Madame President!: Hillary Clinton makes history by becoming the first female president in a 151-43 electoral college landslide!

 

Btw, i gave Ohio to Trump in that EV count.

[alwaysinvert]

It is the same thing, the difference in some cases a matter of degree, not of kind.  Also comparing CNN news to Hannity or O'Reilly  isn't fair. Those two would be the first to admit that they are conservatives on the far right and that their shows are biased as such.  But compare the CNN news reporting to the Fox News news reporting and you will find they generally report on the same stories only one from the left and one from the right.  Are you going to tell me that Chris Wallace isn't a liberal and that you can't tell by the phrases he uses and the expression on his face as he talks about certain things?  It may be hard to notice when you agree with him, but he is coming from a left wing point of view. 

 

Just look at the post about Biden from me above, do you deny that he got a pass from the media where Dan Quayle did not?  If he were a Republican you would hear about him endlessly, but because he's a Democrat they ignore him and hope no one notices. 

 

Don't get me wrong I'm not criticizing the bias of any news source.  I don't think it is possible to be unbiased.  But for the most part Fox News is open about its bias and the rest of them claim to have none which is BS.

 

Again this is hard to see when it coincides completely with your own point of view.  All of these news outlets Fox and CNN alike are biased in favor of the United States in apposed to the Middle East for example, but none of them admit as much.  If you were to see a newscast in Iran or Russia you would notice the bias, but in the US you do not see it (unless you are on the left and you watch Foxnews).

 

It's truly staggering to me that people can't see this, and this is not unique  to the US. It is the exact same way here, and my guess is the same goes for every Western country. Most major publications are left-of-center including, and most egregiously so, public service broadcasters of both radio and tv. It's written in their statutes that they have to be objective but everybody except the journalists themselves knows they are left-leaning. The journalists vote +80% for the left but have somehow convinced themselves this doesn't show in either reporting, style or news selection. It's mind-blowing to me how this narrative can even sustain itself.

 

The only explanation I have - which doesn't involve malicious intent - is that leftists are worse at understanding different worldviews than their own and so consequently don't know when they are being biased. Which some of Jonathan Haidt's work seems to confirm.

 

What Haidt found is that conservatives understand liberals’ moral values better than liberals understand where conservatives are coming from. Worse yet, liberals don’t know what they don’t know; they don’t understand how limited their knowledge of conservative values is.

 

http://www.aei.org/publication/liberals-or-conservatives-whos-really-close-minded/ 

[Gregmal]

This idea that we should put the wealthy in charge of the country is called an Oligarchy. We've decided a long time ago that it's not a good thing.

 

This is not an idea that should be done in an absolute sense, but theres definitely merit to it. Truth is that there are people who simply shouldn't be able to vote, or at the least not have a vote count as much as other folks. Its, cute, warm, and fuzzy to some that everything goes around thinking they are equal. But there is something inherently flawed with a system in which some drug addict who relies on entitlements casts a vote that has the same power as Mark Cuban's vote. Because of the system, the vast majority of lower income folks only care about their entitlements and will cast misguided votes if they think it will result in getting something for nothing. How many of the "Obama iz gunna pay my gas billz!!" videos were out there? Or this gem..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJbOU4nmHQ

 

Then on the other end you have those highfalutin, wannabe philanthropist types in the upper middle class neighborhoods who mean well but are misguided as they preach about "giving back" based ideologies while driving 5 series BMWs and living in 800k homes.  And like Trump, they're all for giving back but conveniently abuse the system when it benefits them. Sandwiched in between are the middle class that is perpetually getting squeezed by real inflation, stagnant wages, and ever increases taxes, both direct and indirect.

 

Bottom line, is the people contributing should have more say than those that don't. There needs to be a balance of "creators" and "takers".

So basically screw that democracy thing.

 

Well now that we're disfranchising folks let take a closer look at that. Technically the president is not elected by the people but by the electoral college. Now let's go ahead and disfranchise the takers. Ok now the president is elected by the following states: California, Massachusetts, Wyoming, Oklahoma, New Jersey, Utah, Colorado, New York, Kansas, Ohio, Nebraska, Illinois, Minnesota, and Delaware.

 

Election night headline: Welcome Madame President!: Hillary Clinton makes history by becoming the first female president in a 151-43 electoral college landslide!

 

Btw, i gave Ohio to Trump in that EV count.

 

People who do not contribute should not be dictating the rules(which are a derivative of those elected to office) of the land and especially not be influencing the implementation of hardships upon those who are net creators or contributors. So its great and all that the Buffetts and Zuckerbergs of the world think "giving" more is a grand old idea. Its also not shocking that the have nots will support anything in which they "get" more. The ones getting royally effed are the middle class in between. Who are now consistently squeezed out of more and more; with the end game being the greater divide and ensuing class warfare in which those chasing the American Dream are cannibalized by those living "their" own versions of it.

[TorontoRaptorsFan]

I fear people have become desensitised to the behaviour of Trump. I was watching a documentary on Saddam Hussein. The guy was a megalomaniac with an obsession for being a "winner" & building monuments to himself. The point is Trump fits the pattern. The same pattern of behaviour as guys like Erdogan in Turkey and countless others in history. His irrational and cruel persecution of the Central Park five for his own benefit. I see these videos of reporters being abused at his rallies and his encouragement of it. That is absolutely unacceptable in a modern democracy.

 

Why anyone would vote for such a person is beyond me.

 

Yes he was a megalomaniac but look what happened when they got rid of him, Gaddafi, and Assad (barely). Those creeps were a system of checks and balances in the region. When they disappeared chaos, ensued.

[rb]

I fear people have become desensitised to the behaviour of Trump. I was watching a documentary on Saddam Hussein. The guy was a megalomaniac with an obsession for being a "winner" & building monuments to himself. The point is Trump fits the pattern. The same pattern of behaviour as guys like Erdogan in Turkey and countless others in history. His irrational and cruel persecution of the Central Park five for his own benefit. I see these videos of reporters being abused at his rallies and his encouragement of it. That is absolutely unacceptable in a modern democracy.

 

Why anyone would vote for such a person is beyond me.

 

Yes he was a megalomaniac but look what happened when they got rid of him, Gaddafi, and Assad (barely). Those creeps were a system of checks and balances in the region. When they disappeared chaos, ensued.

Because the US is just like Libya and Syria.

[alwaysinvert]

I fear people have become desensitised to the behaviour of Trump. I was watching a documentary on Saddam Hussein. The guy was a megalomaniac with an obsession for being a "winner" & building monuments to himself. The point is Trump fits the pattern. The same pattern of behaviour as guys like Erdogan in Turkey and countless others in history. His irrational and cruel persecution of the Central Park five for his own benefit. I see these videos of reporters being abused at his rallies and his encouragement of it. That is absolutely unacceptable in a modern democracy.

 

Why anyone would vote for such a person is beyond me.

 

Yes he was a megalomaniac but look what happened when they got rid of him, Gaddafi, and Assad (barely). Those creeps were a system of checks and balances in the region. When they disappeared chaos, ensued.

Because the US is just like Libya and Syria.

 

Of course not, don't be silly. It's exactly like Germany in 1933.

[ccplz]

No matter what happens with the election one thing is sure, this has been the greatest Game of Thrones episode.........ever.

 

GRRM couldn't make this up.

 

GRRM does have something to say about Trump though:

 

http://grrm.livejournal.com/504703.html?utm_source=twsharing&utm_medium=social

[Liberty]

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/24/documenting-trumps-abuse-of-women

 

"For his 1993 book, Harry Hurt III acquired Ivana’s divorce deposition, in which she stated that Trump raped her."

 

Also, a good tweet storm by a combat veteran :

[rb]

Well turns out that the new FBI thing was a pile of nothing.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-director-comey-says-agency-wont-recommend-charges-over-clinton-email/2016/11/06/f6276b18-a45e-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html

[EliG]

Trump's rally in Minnesota:

 

 

[Liberty]

Well turns out that the new FBI thing was a pile of nothing.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-director-comey-says-agency-wont-recommend-charges-over-clinton-email/2016/11/06/f6276b18-a45e-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html

 

So basically, if they had followed the usual FBI procedure of not commenting on ongoing work, nothing would've ever come out because there was nothing after all.

 

[cwericb]

alwaysinvest: "It's exactly like Germany in 1933."

This is exactly what I've been saying for months now.

 

Read this on Facebook and it tends to put things in perspective:

 

"If you needed open-heart surgery and had to pick between a doctor with a malpractice suit filed against them or the manager of a Wendy’s, which person would you choose to perform that surgery?

 

This is the American election in a nutshell."

 

 

 

[rb]

alwaysinvest: "It's exactly like Germany in 1933."

This is exactly what I've been saying for months now.

 

Read this on Facebook and it tends to put things in perspective:

 

"If you needed open-heart surgery and had to pick between a doctor with a malpractice suit filed against them or the manager of a Wendy’s, which person would you choose to perform that surgery?

 

This is the American election in a nutshell."

Except that there isn't even a malpractice suit, just a bunch of doctors from a rival hospital talking shit.

[Gregmal]

alwaysinvest: "It's exactly like Germany in 1933."

This is exactly what I've been saying for months now.

 

Read this on Facebook and it tends to put things in perspective:

 

"If you needed open-heart surgery and had to pick between a doctor with a malpractice suit filed against them or the manager of a Wendy’s, which person would you choose to perform that surgery?

 

This is the American election in a nutshell."

Except that there isn't even a malpractice suit, just a bunch of doctors from a rival hospital talking shit.

 

Yes but too many people that would generally be viewed as intelligent and capable are revealing themselves as pea brained and sheepish in regards to their following/understanding of the election. First, the president, is basically just a talking head. A character who by himself doesnt really do much. So its hilarious on several levels seeing people waste so much time nitpicking and scrupulously foaming at the mouth over the many flaws of Trump/Clinton. Especially so with the media thinking they have all this "gotcha" type fodder that seemingly backfires when the next poll results are released. The president is basically a hood ornament. The system is the rest of the car.

 

Essentially, both candidates are massively flawed. But this isnt about an individual candidate. Anyone who thinks so is missing the forest for the trees. I love reading these "Hey look! Clinton/Trump did this". Its a great form of entertainment actually. Tells you a lot about someones ability(or lack thereof) to see the bigger picture. What its come down to is that voting for Hillary is a vote for the status quo which is entirely corrupt, broken, and systematically skewed against 99.5% of the population.

[rb]

Right, the president is just a hood ornament. That's why they're fighting so hard to win that position. Is it because the whole executive branch of government has no power thus the president as the head of the executive branch has no power?

 

I mean i find it hard to believe that someone that carries the title commander in chief of the most powerful military is really ornamental. But then what do I know? I'm probably one of those with the pea brain.

 

Btw, the hood ornament has a 54% approval rating. The rest of the car has an approval rating around 13%. Obviously there's the bigger problem is with the rest of the car. The rest of the car is on the ballot as well. However I don't see any of you "change the status quo" people advocating for a change in the rest of the car.

[ccplz]

alwaysinvest: "It's exactly like Germany in 1933."

This is exactly what I've been saying for months now.

 

Read this on Facebook and it tends to put things in perspective:

 

"If you needed open-heart surgery and had to pick between a doctor with a malpractice suit filed against them or the manager of a Wendy’s, which person would you choose to perform that surgery?

 

This is the American election in a nutshell."

Except that there isn't even a malpractice suit, just a bunch of doctors from a rival hospital talking shit.

 

Still, a manager of Wendy's has no business performing open heart surgery.

[cwericb]

I doubt that even the good folks at Wendy's would hire Trump with his big mouth, comments about women, bankruptcies, etc.

If Wendys asked to see his resume, Trump would refuse to release it.