Donald Trump

K-9

Ah here, God knows how much Trump has put in.

We know he takes a fair chunk out charging for the use of Trump Towers etc. though, very altruistic like that.

Billy86

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Hahaha of course I haven't, because they are!
All media tends to be, be it Snopes - Because their writers have their own interests, Breitbart - Because their writers have theirs, RTE - Because their board is appointed by people who hope to be working for the Brussels gravy train later, or RT - Because Putin, etc etc...

Oh, ok. You're just avoiding discussing the actual content that was put to you regarding it because what's the point discussing with the details if they don't fit your paranoia. The co-founder being an independent and former Republican really didn't help that narrative, I guess.

I'm guessing all of the fact checkers like FactCheck, About, Politifact and Politico, are in on this big conspiracy, so. :pac:

Greedy American couldn't get his snout in the trough because there were too many greedy Americans in the way.
Look up how much other bankruptcies cost.. To people with connections to each other who would continue getting funding for even more than they declared bankruptcy to avoid paying back.. This is how billionaires play..

So, his money from questionable sources, could be worse, Could be money not really backed by anything and Russia is a pretty cheap place to do business.

But because it's Trump, and because this doesn't fit with your own little narrative, best to ignore it and pretend it isn't there I guess?

If you have a problem with Clinton's business getting foreign money, you have a problem with Trump's business getting foreign money. If you don't have a problem with Trump's business getting foreign money, then you don't have a problem with Clinton's business getting foreign money. It's that simple.

But how much of that Russian money has he spent on his campaign? I'm going to assume he has, because I'm sure as hell assuming Clintons been spending middle East despot money on hers, even if she doesn't need to, given she's backed by money making Trumps total worth look like **** all...

Truth is, he's spent very little. Far less than the Clintons. One thing he's always said is that if he loses, it will be because he didn't get enough votes. It will not be because he poured a billion dollars into it.
Vote rigging is a given - not sure why he's whingeing about that tbh, most states don't even require voter ID... - But the idea is to win by a margin big enough that it cannot be rigged away, unlike the 2000 election.. If you don't, then tough. Buy you don't piss a third of your worth down the drain, for any reason. You piss your backers money, not yours.
That said, he's still managed to piss leagues more of his own money than anyone else so far

Trump hasn't 'pissed' any of his own money away - it's why he keeps calling it a 'loan', he is trying to profit off his own campaign and this isn't the only example. Nearly 20% of all payments in May alone were to his own businesses and family members - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/22/us/politics/donald-trump-self-funding-payments.html

But don't take my word on it, The Donald pondered as much back in 2000 - “It’s very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.”

We also don't know the extent of the Trump loans from Russia or how much 'additional' funds he could have received given how he doesn't want to tell anyone about his finances, not even releasing his tax returns. Of course, a lot of that likely has to do with suspicions that he is barely a fraction as rich as he claims (he tried to sue a writer for saying his worth was I believe closer to $250mn but failed, and a some prominent people have come out stating similar lately), which would mean if your theory is correct, the $47mn-odd he has claimed to have 'self financed' likely is in large part due to investors funneling through his businesses as you are accusing Clinton. If both parties are up to this, it stands to reason that Trump's dodgy 'self financing but not self financing' as a percentage of his total funds blows Clinton's right out of the water.

To keep the tsunami of salty tears at bay on the off chance he wins

Actually, Hillary may require a similar structure..

Clinton wouldn't be building any wall because it is stupid, first and foremost from a financial perspective, and would threaten to bankrupt the USA like Trump has bankrupted his own businesses all too often.

El_Dangeroso

This HL Mencken quote reminded me of Trump supporters today:
"The only kind of freedom the mob can imagine is freedom to annoy and oppress its betters"

Widdershins

Billy86 wrote: »

Oh come on now, you can do better than websites actively campaigning for Trump, surely? Founded 2015 with no active links on their privacy statement, disclaimer, or 'contact us' text at the bottom of the page, how curiously interesting... especially after just the tiniest glance at their front page.

I'm saying your source is reliable as crayoned etchings on toilet paper. One tiny example being this article, titled "Wikileaks Confirms Hillary Sold Weapons To ISIS", and in the very first paragraph it admits "Wikileaks founder Julian Assange claims he has proof to the contrary."

If I claim I have proof of Trump raping that 13 year old child then threatening to murder her that he is currently accused of, I take it you'll be accepting that as gospel too?

I was under the impression wikileaks is trustworthy .
I'm not campaigning for either ..and like most people here I won't be voting for either , and nothing anyone posts is going to influence the result . I'm not invested in it.


http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/wikileaks-confirms-hillary-sold-weapons-isis-drops-another-bombshell-breaking-news/

Billy86

Widdershins wrote: »

I was under the impression wikileaks is trustworthy .
I'm not campaigning for either ..and like most people here I won't be voting for either , and nothing anyone posts is going to influence the result . I'm not invested in it.


http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/wikileaks-confirms-hillary-sold-weapons-isis-drops-another-bombshell-breaking-news/

Sorry but that's another right wing nutjob website - glance at the front page is all it takes. I hope it's not somewhere you frequent, because it's not somewhere to get valid news. If anything, it's an even-further-right version of Breitbart. They even literally do the exact same thing I said of the other article, saying Wikileaks 'CONFIRMS' and then going on to confirm absolutely nothing in the article, just claims.

Wikileaks actual leaks are trust-worthy (don't recall any scandals to the contrary, though I could be wrong), but they have not leaked anything. They've been saying for weeks, if not months, that they have 'the evidence' or 'killer blow' or 'bombshell' or 'sensationalist synonym' that will 'get Hillary arrested'... but no delivery on it.

Now maybe they do have it, and maybe they don't. Personally I'm thinking the DNC emails were the 'motherload' that Assange (himself also reasonably cosy with Russia, at least compared to his relations with the US) hoped would turn the election for Trump, but it has gone very, very badly since then for him. Who knows I could be wrong, but if they do have them they're leaving it pretty late by now to release anything.

Widdershins

Billy86 wrote: »

Sorry but that's another right wing nutjob website - glance at the front page is all it takes. I hope it's not somewhere you frequent, because it's not somewhere to get valid news. If anything, it's an even-further-right version of Breitbart.

No , it's new to me . Thanks .

Renegade Mechanic

Billy86 wrote: »

Oh, ok. You're just avoiding discussing the actual content that was put to you regarding it because what's the point discussing with the details if they don't fit your paranoia. The co-founder being an independent and former Republican really didn't help that narrative, I guess.

I'm guessing all of the fact checkers like FactCheck, About, Politifact and Politico, are in on this big conspiracy, so. :pac:

But because it's Trump, and because this doesn't fit with your own little narrative, best to ignore it and pretend it isn't there I guess?

If you have a problem with Clinton's business getting foreign money, you have a problem with Trump's business getting foreign money. If you don't have a problem with Trump's business getting foreign money, then you don't have a problem with Clinton's business getting foreign money. It's that simple.

Trump hasn't 'pissed' any of his own money away - it's why he keeps calling it a 'loan', he is trying to profit off his own campaign and this isn't the only example. Nearly 20% of all payments in May alone were to his own businesses and family members - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/22/us/politics/donald-trump-self-funding-payments.html

But don't take my word on it, The Donald pondered as much back in 2000 - “It’s very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.”

We also don't know the extent of the Trump loans from Russia or how much 'additional' funds he could have received given how he doesn't want to tell anyone about his finances, not even releasing his tax returns. Of course, a lot of that likely has to do with suspicions that he is barely a fraction as rich as he claims (he tried to sue a writer for saying his worth was I believe closer to $250mn but failed, and a some prominent people have come out stating similar lately), which would mean if your theory is correct, the $47mn-odd he has claimed to have 'self financed' likely is in large part due to investors funneling through his businesses as you are accusing Clinton. If both parties are up to this, it stands to reason that Trump's dodgy 'self financing but not self financing' as a percentage of his total funds blows Clinton's right out of the water.


Clinton wouldn't be building any wall because it is stupid, first and foremost from a financial perspective, and would threaten to bankrupt the USA like Trump has bankrupted his own businesses all too often.

^^ None of that matters, Billy because at the end of the day, the media we both generally watch for world events, wants Hillary, not Trump in the Whitehouse.

So anything that doesn't shine the sun out of Hillarys arse is simply never going to come from that direction - it will only ever be found in sites you lot can comfortably sit back, call racist conspiracy whacko sites and ignore while watching the "screaming adoring crowds at the Hillary Rally".

That's just common business sense. It's in your interest as a business to see Hillary "I aspire to Merkel" Clinton elected, why on earth would you make that difficult?

But no amount of smug sanctimony is going to stop me seeing the bull****. I'm quite good at it. I see Trump has plenty beneath his top - always did. But I see plenty more under Clinton, so as always, my preference goes to the loudmouth.
I don't expect Trump to win. Anything from Bill "taking one for the team" and letting Hillary ride a wave of sympathy into thr white, to Hillary out-spending Trump 100s to 1 to Trump pulling out because he was a Clinton Plant all along, there to demolish the Republican party (crazy theory granted, but one the little voice in my head can't quite dismiss for some reason...) There are way more chances for Hillary to take it. But my God will I laugh if Trump does.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

This HL Mencken quote reminded me of Trump supporters today:
"The only kind of freedom the mob can imagine is freedom to annoy and oppress its betters"

That must be mighty fine view of your own tonsils you've got there. :rolleyes:


Here's a few reasons why I reckon Trump is idea.

One, he gets in and reneges on his promises like every politician ever. People are more riled up now than they've been and another broken promise may set them off, launching a genuine change of government, forced by the people.

Two, he gets in and starts work on TPP, TTIP etc etc, breaking the promise that he wouldn't.
With Hillary at the helm that stuff is guaranteed. Congratulations morons, Nestlé can sue Enda Kenny if Ireland does anything to impinge on their profits, like a sweet tax to tackle obesity, meaning you, the tax cattle cough up...
With Trump at the helm, surrounded by children who will oppose anything he does, simply because it's Trump that's doing it, these things will almost definitely not see the light of day at least until he's gone. It'll be for the wrong reasons but who cares when the result is right..

Three, he actually audits the Federal Reserve and starts enforcing stricter regulations on them.
I really want to see what happens if he tries that tbh. The last president with such notions above his station kinda "lost the head"


TLDR; Trump is full of **** but Clinton is full of so much more it's hilarious. If it's Hillary, it's war. Guaranteed.

Billy86

Widdershins wrote: »

No , it's new to me . Thanks .

It's usually a tell tale when only these types of sites are reporting it. Now, I have seen on more known sites that Assange claims to have the evidence, which is true. Whether he actually has it or not is something else. If he does have it and releases it, it will be absolutely everywhere. But for the mean time, the only places calling it 'confirmed' are basically places not to be trusted.

Usually a quick way to gauge the validity is to jump on the front page and see what the top 10-20 stories look like. You get the odd left wing wacko site too, but on the far right there has been an abandonment of facts and reality, so they tend to be more common. Failing that just put 'trump' into their search bar and see what you get, then do the same for 'clinton'.

For example on this site, Trump gives you:
1. Bristol Palin UNLEASHES on Hypocritical Feminist Celebs Over MELANIA Trump!!
- (Weird, trashy) defense article of Trump.

2. Bush Just Made a MASSIVE Announcement About Donald Trump! BREAKING NEWS
- purposely deceptive, it was about Jeb Bush's son saying he will vote Trump, not any of the 'known' Bushs (GHW, GW, Jeb, even Barbara).

3. She Vandalized This “Hispanics For Trump” Sign – Then She Did Something Even Crazier
- painting Trump as a victim and people not voting for him as psychopaths. But mainly just a trashy tabloid story.

4. Here’s The Truth About “Trump vs. The Crying Baby” – Media Won’t Report This!
- defense article of Trump mocking and kicking a woman out of his conference last week because her baby was crying.

5. BOOM!! Trump Has A Huge Plan To Unite The Party Tonight!
- Sensationalist trashy headline about how great Trump is.

While Clinton gives you:
1. BREAKING: FBI Conducts Massive Raid into Hillary Clinton Supporter’s Office!
- That's an electrical union, the International Brotherhood* of Electrical Workers. Not sure what it has to do with Clinton.

*Yes, if it gains any wheels in the right wing cicrle jerk ,I 100% expect 'Brotherhood' to be used as evidence they are Muslim terrorists, and/or at least have ties to them.

2. BREAKING: Prominent Anti-Hillary Clinton Researcher, FOUND DEAD at 54!
- This feeds into the right wing conspiracy theory that the Clinton's have had hundreds and hundreds of people murdered, with no attempt to cover their tracks, as some sort of 'masterplan'. Because 'masterplans' involve not covering your tracks...

3. Breaking News: ARREST Just Stunned Hillary Clinton’s Campaign TO THE CORE!
- A trial for a Chinese billionaire that the website is desperately trying to connect dots to Clinton on. And even if that is true (I tend to take the stance that these websites are lying unless proven otherwise; the same for the left wing ones), the trial won't take place until 2017, as in after the election and after Trump/Clinton have assumed office. It's a pile of bunk.

4. ‘Other Woman’ Emerges In 2016 Who Could STOP Hillary Clinton’s Campaign!
- Saying Jill Stein could take votes off Hillary, which is very possible. However, why they feel to wrap the whole story in a mask of sexual assault allusions is... not beyond me. It's because they're a propaganda website, and not a news website.

5. BREAKING: Smoking Gun Surfaces, PROVES Hillary Clinton Broke Federal Law!
- You wouldn'tr believe it but this is the exact same story, re. Assange/Wikileaks/'the killer blow' emails. As in the exact same quote. It's a technique you see by the right wingers quite often, including in here - say the same lie over and over and over and over and over and over and over... and eventually, some might begin to believe you. Of course, once again, there is ZERO proof and just a claim from Assange.


Just saying to be careful where you get your news and what you believe, there's some ssshhhhnnnnaaakkkkyyy f*ckers out there.

Widdershins

Billy86 wrote: »

...t you believe, there's some ssshhhhnnnnaaakkkkyyy f*ckers out there.

Yes , it was remiss of me . American politics , and the coverage of it, is a tricky one to navigate and you need to spend the time as you say checking into the source ..i rushed it and neglected to .

Billy86

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

^^ None of that matters, Billy because at the end of the day, the media we both generally watch for world events, wants Hillary, not Trump in the Whitehouse.

The fact that Trump fans even get wound up when the media merely repeat what he says paints quite a bit of the picture here.

So anything that doesn't shine the sun out of Hillarys arse is simply never going to come from that direction - it will only ever be found in sites you lot can comfortably sit back, call racist conspiracy whacko sites and ignore while watching the "screaming adoring crowds at the Hillary Rally".

Nope.

This is from 538.com - http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/content/80/S1/250/F1.large.jpg - and shows how far to the left/right on news stories (top left) and how far to the left/right on opinion pieces (top right) most major sources are.

When the left starts trying to regularly use DailyKOS as their definitive news source, then you know they've gone into cuckoo land. Been on Breitbart yet today?

That's just common business sense. It's in your interest as a business to see Hillary "I aspire to Merkel" Clinton elected, why on earth would you make that difficult?

But no amount of smug sanctimony is going to stop me seeing the bull****. I'm quite good at it. I see Trump has plenty beneath his top - always did. But I see plenty more under Clinton, so as always, my preference goes to the loudmouth.
I don't expect Trump to win. Anything from Bill "taking one for the team" and letting Hillary ride a wave of sympathy into thr white, to Hillary out-spending Trump 100s to 1 to Trump pulling out because he was a Clinton Plant all along, there to demolish the Republican party (crazy theory granted, but one the little voice in my head can't quite dismiss for some reason...) There are way more chances for Hillary to take it. But my God will I laugh if Trump does.

All you are being good at here is self delusion, convincing yourself everyone else in the room is crazy and you're the sane one.

Now Clinton is far from an angel either, but she hasn't been building her campaign up on xenophobia, racism, intolerance, bigotry, sexism... and if that stuff doesn't matter to you, a complete and utter lack of any kind of viable financial plan. The two even sync in, like dropkicking all illegals out at once which would probably ruin the country on it's own, then building a wall they cannot afford (never even mind the maintenance and staffing), and antagonising for war by trying to demand Mexico do so. He's a load of bluster with zero planning or viability, and what little he has laid out looks like a highly efficient way for him to bankrupt the country like he has done to his own companies so often.

Clinton is outspending Trump 4-1 I believe, but don't let facts get in the way of some good old fashioned paranoia.

Arcade_Tryer

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

This HL Mencken quote reminded me of Trump supporters today:
"The only kind of freedom the mob can imagine is freedom to annoy and oppress its betters"

There are so many H. L. Mencken quotes that can be applied to Trump.

Another example ~ Whenever you hear a man speak of his love for his country, it is a sign that he expects to be paid for it.

I love this country. I love this country. You know, I really love this country. I really do. I love this country!

Billy86

Widdershins wrote: »

Yes , it was remiss of me . American politics , and the coverage of it, is a tricky one to navigate and you need to spend the time as you say checking into the source ..i rushed it and neglected to .

Ah no worries, it's murky as feck. Keep an eye out for the " alt right" language and sensationalism, it's usually a giveaway. They look to tap into people feeling angry, oppressed, or desperate and their method of doing so is fuelling that anger up into such a fervor that facts and reality no longer mean anything. When you see it on the left, it's sometimes the "bleeding heart" stuff stereotyped, but is more often than not the same old anger and furor pointed in a different direction.

Basically just scumbags on a mission for themselves and knowingly trying to pass lies off as truth non stop, and not caring for the consequences (3, 2, 1...). I reckon this carry on is going to be detrimental for society in the decades to come. But who knows how much?

Widdershins

Is it worth voting at all if it comes down to the best out of a bad lot? It strikes me that it is almost a matter of who is the lesser of two evils.
Did George Carlin have a point with his statement about voters having no right to complain once they chose their 'master'?
Then again , is it wrong to waste the vote that the chartists, suffragettes fought for .
I'm glad I don't have to vote in this one .

Billy86

Widdershins wrote: »

Is it worth voting at all if it comes down to the best out of a bad lot? It strikes me that it is almost a matter of who is the lesser of two evils.
Did George Carlin have a point with his statement about voters having no right to complain once they chose their 'master'?
Then again , is it wrong to waste the vote that the chartists, suffragettes fought for .
I'm glad I don't have to vote in this one .

That is pretty much what it is. There are lots of people in the Dems, and some in the Reps, that I would prefer over her. We're basically seeing the 'turd sandwich vs giant douche' episode of South Park from 12-odd years back playing out in real life. That said, I'd even be voting Bertie back in ahead of Trump!

InTheTrees

Trump can't find financing in the USA because of his multiple bancrupcies so hes being propped by Russian oligarchs.

Is that refreshing and welcome?

The soviet union was a military super power because it encompassed the entire eastern bloc, but I dont know that Russia by itself qualifies. It has about the population of Germany and France now, and has been in economic crisis for a few years.

InTheTrees

Widdershins wrote: »

Is it worth voting at all if it comes down to the best out of a bad lot? It strikes me that it is almost a matter of who is the lesser of two evils.

Well the two of them will go in opposite direction if elected so it does make a difference.

The political influence of appointing supreme court judges will be felt for possibly decades. And the supreme court hangs in the balance right now, 4 "conservatives" and 4 "liberals". The next president will appoint a replacement for the recently deceased conservative judge scalia.

If there is to be any hope for gun control, campaign finance reform, abortion rights, minority voting rights, and more, then its vital that trump does not win.

It is one of the most important aspects of this election.

CMOTDibbler

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Aye, it's the one that denys the military industrial conplex some of the billions to be made sending people off to die

The military industrial complex? What? Are you living in the 1960s?

The world has moved on. We now live in an information age and that's where the power lies. All somebody has to say is "Wikileaks" and people go weak at the knees.

LordSutch

I find his hand gestures & his hair fascinating to watch. Very distinctive & persuasive (to many) I guess.

http://media.vanityfair.com/photos/56cb5d18ab73e22d6d9321f6/master/h_590,c_limit/donald-trump-short-fingered-vulgarian-fingers-bruce-handy-ss13.jpg
https://bearingdrift.com/wp-content/uploads/trump_600px.jpg
https://fortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/525783312.jpg?w=840&h=485&crop=1

He shouldn't be let anywhere the White House though IMO..

Renegade Mechanic

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The military industrial complex? What? Are you living in the 1960s?

The world has moved on. We now live in an information age and that's where the power lies. All somebody has to say is "Wikileaks" and people go weak at the knees.

Well over half a trillion a year and you reckon it doesn't exist? What would you call it then...

CMOTDibbler

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Well over half a trillion a year and you reckon it doesn't exist? What would you call it then...

There you go again putting words in my mouth.

Half a trillion a year is peanuts in comparison to information technology. Apple alone accounts for almost half of that.

Edit: Just in case you don't understand the power of the IT world and its effect on the 'military industrial complex' (chortle). The FBI still can't get Apple to unlock an iPhone and WhatsApp's end to end encryption means secure messaging that not even WhatsApp can decrypt without access to the device. Hell, I can't even access WhatsApp messages that were on my old phone once I transferred my account.

take everything

Donald Trump never takes off his jacket.

Widdershins

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

There you go again putting words in my mouth.

Half a trillion a year is peanuts in comparison to information technology. Apple alone accounts for almost half of that.

Edit: Just in case you don't understand the power of the IT world and its effect on the 'military industrial complex' (chortle). The FBI still can't get Apple to unlock an iPhone and WhatsApp's end to end encryption means secure messaging that not even WhatsApp can decrypt without access to the device. Hell, I can't even access WhatsApp messages that were on my old phone once I transferred my account.

I thought this was interesting
http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-company-said-helping-fbi-unlock-san-bernardino-iphone/

Trent Houseboat

InTheTrees wrote:

Well the two of them will go in opposite direction if elected so it does make a difference.

The political influence of appointing supreme court judges will be felt for possibly decades. And the supreme court hangs in the balance right now, 4 "conservatives" and 4 "liberals". The next president will appoint a replacement for the recently deceased conservative judge scalia.

If there is to be any hope for gun control, campaign finance reform, abortion rights, minority voting rights, and more, then its vital that trump does not win.

It is one of the most important aspects of this election.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 82 and Kennedy is 80. There is a good chance of three* appointments in the next presidential term. I don't know why more isn't being made of this by both sides.

*If Clinton wins, they might approve the moderate Garland in the lame duck season for fear of whatever godless femenazi Clinton might nominate.

CMOTDibbler

Widdershins wrote: »

I thought this was interesting
http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-company-said-helping-fbi-unlock-san-bernardino-iphone/

Yep, Apple are still holding firm so it's gone to 'consultants'

I'm sure they'll be able to do it, but the issue of encryption and personal devices and communication systems is causing sleepless nights in the inteligence community.

If you look at the WhatsApp encryption, it's completely private. There's no transmission of the encryption keys, so nothing that could intercept them and store them. Now there's always the possibility of a 'back door' through that system, eliminating the private keys, but the potential fallout would be very embarrassing for WhatsApp and could completely kill their business.

The corollorary is that anybody else could create a similar app with similar encryption and the whole merry-go-round starts up again.

Samaris

Politifacts is pretty good for anyone looking for where it is -proven- that either of them (or indeed anyone else) lied. Yes, you can say it's biased, but I'll point out that they go for both sides pretty equally (although there's no denying that Trump is currently feeding the mill, but having said that...there's a difference between bias and someone being actually bonkers.)

ScumLord

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The military industrial complex? What? Are you living in the 1960s?

The world has moved on. We now live in an information age and that's where the power lies. All somebody has to say is "Wikileaks" and people go weak at the knees.

UP until people start pointing guns at each other again. Then wikileaks will be utterly powerless. Social media is the power of the mob.

CMOTDibbler

ScumLord wrote: »

UP until people start pointing guns at each other again. Then wikileaks will be utterly powerless. Social media is the power of the mob.

I'm not just talking about the power of the mob. I'm talking about where the money is and what that implies in terms of changing power structures.

Social media is being used by (for example) IS to recruit and as a communication system. This wouldn't have been possible even ten years ago. There's a change in the theatre of guerilla warfare, where now anyone, anywhere could be the enemy.

InTheTrees

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Aye, it's the one that denys the military industrial conplex some of the billions to be made sending people off to die

The military industrial complex? What? Are you living in the 1960s?

The world has moved on. We now live in an information age and that's where the power lies. All somebody has to say is "Wikileaks" and people go weak at the knees.

I think there's still a thriving military industrial complex that has embraced the information age. I mean can you really be a participant in modern info war if you don't have the ability to launch satelites? And that takes some industry.

WikiLeaks can embarass some politicians, but I doubt they'll ever be publishing sensitive defense information from any side.

gormdubhgorm

Would Trump do much worse then Nixon and the two Bush presidents?
I doubt it.
There seems to be some people that seem to think that he is an American version of Hitler.

Hillary is clearly the most qualified on paper but if you were the job interviewer would you warm to Hillary?

In comparison to Trump she makes him seem like a people person!

The thing I like about Trump is that he does not seem as beholden to vested interests as he used his own money to run for office.

Personally, I wouldn't vote for either candidate and it shows up why America need a strong third party. America is not really a Democracy it is a Duopoly with vested interests taking one side or the other.

El_Duderino 09

gormdubhgorm wrote:

Hillary is clearly the most qualified on paper but if you were the job interviewer would you warm to Hillary?

No you wouldn't warm to her in the classic sense that interviews are biased towards people who can ingratiate themselves to others.

She's the most qualified by far. She has drawbacks but they are political. Trump's drawbacks are psychological. Only one of them should ever be running for high political office.

She's not my girlfriend and I don't feel obliged to defend her every policy. But trump isn't even in the potential president league.

Hillary was in favour of military action in Libya and Syria. Maybe that wasn't a terrible idea, maybe it was. (I spoke with a Syrian doctor who said the time for military action to depose the leader was about 2-3 years ago, before the opposition became the powerful organisation we now know as ISIS).

You can debate the merits of her idea but you can't really put it in the same league as Trump's comments on maybe not supporting NATO allies or the alleged question about why they don't use nukes more often.

The security fellas who said he is now in their language 'an unwitting agent for Putin'