OT: The next President of the United States: ★★★ Donald Trump ★★★

[Bobbalu]

Come on you can't be that naive. Do you really think she was expecting to be able to drone strike a foreign embassy to get at Assange? She was not being serious.

Doesn't anybody actually read the leak? She said "He's walking out in the open, why can't we drone him?". This was before him being secluded in the Ecuadorian embassy. Does that sound like a joke?

So the answer is yes - she was serious and she is a raving psychotic lunatic. The other guy isn't much better, but lets not delude ourselves about the next president. We are going to see a lot of military action with Hillary.

Seems like she wants to pick a fight with Russia too. I don't know how either side can defend the ethics or morality of either candidate. That's why I could care less about them on a personal level. It doesn't determine my vote.

[Axl Rose]

No she isn't (to the bold part) you just think she is less objectionable to Trump. Which she isn't. Hillary should be sitting in a federal prison right now, end of story.

its easier for people to understand why Trump is objectionable rather than Hillary and thats probably why she'll win. i think ppl are being naive and are acting on emotions quite honestly.

if we boil both candidates down:
one will be a puppet for elite interest (who shouldn't even be a candidate as they stole the nomination) the other is saying its time to put America and its people first, its time to rework trade deals, its time clean up the government.

you tell me whose the better choice on your ballot.

Trump isn't perfect though. i was telling somebody the other day for a guy that lifted from Reagan, he should have studied him more and learned how to come off more personable....he'd blow the doors off this election.

[Bascitball]

So here's a good example of politifact's awesome work:




I'm really glad that this was deemed "mostly false." Can you imagine the horror if health insurance premiums increased? Oh, what's that you say, the magical subsidies will make it all better?

The affordable care act has cost me over $1,200 each of the past 2 years (still do not agree that this new tax is constitutional, but that's probably too far in the weeds for this forum). This is still cheaper than insurance would've cost, but for those of you getting free health-care....you're welcome. And no, I will not vote for more of this no matter how naughty the other candidate is.

[TheSuzerain]

No she isn't (to the bold part) you just think she is less objectionable to Trump. Which she isn't. Hillary should be sitting in a federal prison right now, end of story.

its easier for people to understand why Trump is objectionable rather than Hillary and thats probably while she'll win. i think ppl are being naive and are acting on emotions quite honestly.

if we boil both candidates down:
one will be a puppet for elite interest (who shouldn't even be a candidate as they stole the nomination) the other is saying its time to put America and its people first, its time to rework trade deals, its time clean up the government.

you tell me whose the better choice on your ballot.

Trump isn't perfect though. i was telling somebody the other day that for a guy that lifted from Reagan, he should have studied him more and learned how to come off more personable....he'd blow the doors off this election.

at that description of Trump.

You are stunningly naive if you think Trump will fight for the little guy. Taking Trump at his word takes a special kind of delusion.

[TheSuzerain]

I think the political climate is ripe for an anti-establishment candidate, and that could be a positive. I think that's where a lot of the push back arises from the more reasonable anti-Clinton people in this thread.

However, Donald Trump is the worst vessel I can imagine for such a movement. I would argue that anyone who genuinely wants to dislodge the establishment/elite interest should support Clinton because 4 years of her is preferable to Donald Trump being your champion.

[DuckIII]

I think the political climate is ripe for an anti-establishment candidate, and that could be a positive. I think that's where a lot of the push back arises from the more reasonable anti-Clinton people in this thread.

However, Donald Trump is the worst vessel I can imagine for such a movement. I would argue that anyone who genuinely wants to dislodge the establishment/elite interest should support Clinton because 4 years of her is preferable to Donald Trump being your champion.

You're right. But the issue I have is it presupposes that there is Trump support based solely on him being anti-establishment. That's not what it is. It's because these people absolutely LOVE what he says. He has given their hatred a mainstream voice after years of being told their prejudices are no longer publicly acceptable. And he is loved for it.

Almost no one who votes Trump will do so as a protest.

[greenl]

I think the political climate is ripe for an anti-establishment candidate, and that could be a positive. I think that's where a lot of the push back arises from the more reasonable anti-Clinton people in this thread.

However, Donald Trump is the worst vessel I can imagine for such a movement. I would argue that anyone who genuinely wants to dislodge the establishment/elite interest should support Clinton because 4 years of her is preferable to Donald Trump being your champion.

You're right. But the issue I have is it presupposes that there is Trump support based solely on him being anti-establishment. That's not what it is. It's because these people absolutely LOVE what he says. He has given their hatred a mainstream voice after years of being told their prejudices are no longer publicly acceptable. And he is loved for it.

Almost no one who votes Trump will do so as a protest.

My 78 year old mother is voting for Trump. She's doing so because he's the Republican nominee (that and she watches too much Fox news). Let's not forget there are large numbers of people (for both crummy parties) who blindly support a candidate because he/she has a specific letter next to his/her name.

It is ironic that the Republican party has been courting this kind of candidate for years. Their near constant stream of vitriolic rhetoric that includes sexism, nationalism, xenophobia and homophobia has manifested in the guise of Trump. If Trump destroys the Republican party- it is well deserved karma.

Non-sequitur: I support Joad Cressbeckler:

Watch on YouTube

[the ultimates]

Come on you can't be that naive. Do you really think she was expecting to be able to drone strike a foreign embassy to get at Assange? She was not being serious.

Doesn't anybody actually read the leak? She said "He's walking out in the open, why can't we drone him?". This was before him being secluded in the Ecuadorian embassy. Does that sound like a joke?

So the answer is yes - she was serious and she is a raving psychotic lunatic. The other guy isn't much better, but lets not delude ourselves about the next president. We are going to see a lot of military action with Hillary.

Seems like she wants to pick a fight with Russia too. I don't know how either side can defend the ethics or morality of either candidate. That's why I could care less about them on a personal level. It doesn't determine my vote.

Wasn't it Romney and the conservatives four years ago giving warnings about Russian cyber attacks, Crimea and them backing Al-Assad? Which they conservatives were actually right about. Now though when Clinton talks about it its picking a fight with Russia?

[cocktailswith_2short]

I will not fight Russians for this insane woman . I will kill politicians and shills before I kill a Russian .

[TimRobbins]

Doesn't anybody actually read the leak? She said "He's walking out in the open, why can't we drone him?". This was before him being secluded in the Ecuadorian embassy. Does that sound like a joke?

So the answer is yes - she was serious and she is a raving psychotic lunatic. The other guy isn't much better, but lets not delude ourselves about the next president. We are going to see a lot of military action with Hillary.

Seems like she wants to pick a fight with Russia too. I don't know how either side can defend the ethics or morality of either candidate. That's why I could care less about them on a personal level. It doesn't determine my vote.

Wasn't it Romney and the conservatives four years ago giving warnings about Russian cyber attacks, Crimea and them backing Al-Assad? Which they conservatives were actually right about. Now though when Clinton talks about it its picking a fight with Russia?

Some people just like made-up enemies and conflicts. Russia posses no threat whatsoever to US. It's a backward country with a decaying military and no economic power to support any sort of major conflict.

Whoever is trying to make Russia look like some sort of cold-war threat is either doing it for election purposes (Romney) or is simply psychotic (Hillary).

Personally, I'm tired of this country overusing its military power. I believe we should use military power only to protect the homeland from an imminent threat or as a last resort to stop a country like Iran going nuclear. We should not be fighting in Syria. We should definitely not be taking orders from the Shias in Iraq and we should not be fighting other unknown wars in Africa that we are currently engaged in (Somalia, Sudan, etc).

Unfortunately, it seems like Hillary is a fan of using military power, so we are apparently bound for more "humanitarian" wars. Great.

[the ultimates]

Seems like she wants to pick a fight with Russia too. I don't know how either side can defend the ethics or morality of either candidate. That's why I could care less about them on a personal level. It doesn't determine my vote.

Wasn't it Romney and the conservatives four years ago giving warnings about Russian cyber attacks, Crimea and them backing Al-Assad? Which they conservatives were actually right about. Now though when Clinton talks about it its picking a fight with Russia?

Some people just like made-up enemies and conflicts. Russia posses no threat whatsoever to US. It's a backward country with a decaying military and no economic power to support any sort of major conflict.

Whoever is trying to make Russia look like some sort of cold-war threat is either doing it for election purposes (Romney) or is simply psychotic (Hillary).

Personally, I'm tired of this country overusing its military power. I believe we should use military power only to protect the homeland from an imminent threat or as a last resort to stop a country like Iran going nuclear. We should not be fighting in Syria. We should definitely not be taking orders from the Shias in Iraq and we should not be fighting other unknown wars in Africa that we are currently engaged in (Somalia, Sudan, etc).

Unfortunately, it seems like Hillary is a fan of using military power, so we are apparently bound for more "humanitarian" wars. Great.

You and I have been over this before in this same thread. I know what your stance is I think I've been clear on mine. With that being said Russian hacking is a problem. Russia taking another part of a sovereign country is a problem. Just like they took Crimea they could easily say let's take a piece of Latvia.

[TimRobbins]

You and I have been over this before in this same thread. I know what your stance is I think I've been clear on mine. With that being said Russian hacking is a problem. Russia taking another part of a sovereign country is a problem. Just like they took Crimea they could easily say let's take a piece of Latvia.

Russian hacking (if it really exists) should be dealt with in the cyber realm. I don't care about Crimea - they can keep it.

As I've said before - Russia does not have the military or economic power to take over Latvia or any other former soviet satellite. It simply isn't going to happen.

[the ultimates]

You and I have been over this before in this same thread. I know what your stance is I think I've been clear on mine. With that being said Russian hacking is a problem. Russia taking another part of a sovereign country is a problem. Just like they took Crimea they could easily say let's take a piece of Latvia.

Russian hacking (if it really exists) should be dealt with in the cyber realm. I don't care about Crimea - they can keep it.

As I've said before - Russia does not have the military or economic power to take over Latvia or any other former soviet satellite. It simply isn't going to happen.

How much force or money do you think it takes to take over some of those former Russian republics? The Ukraine couldn't even put up a big enough fight to deter Russia from Crimea you think Latvia or Estonia would put up a better fight?

[ImSlower]

Tim, I absolutely agree with you regarding the military and our involvement with Middle East disputes. It's been a warground there for four millenia, and won't stop with 'help' from the USA. I don't want anyone to blow each other to hell, but I'd much rather we scale back our military presence to a "Don't Mess With Texas" thing than getting involved with untenable situations, where our military will only provoke rather than pacify. Unfortunately, there's bazillions of dollars of oil, and that's as important to our suits as anything.

The US as peace-keepers, heavily influenced by money just as much as civil liberties and world peace and all that, is simply not going to change. As much as my bleeding heart liberal self wants it. We are there for that bedamned oil.

I don't believe either party really will change any of that. I do think that our president has important influence on our civil liberties, from gun rights to voting rights to race, womens, and LGBT issues. In that regard, Trump scares the **** out of me. Hillary will keep up the gross status quo of pandering to corporate needs and interfering with impossible Middle East tensions. Though I find her distasteful as vinegar, seeing her in office will help my struggling minority friends marry who they love, find proper and legal employment in this country to support their families, and mitigate as much anti-American tension as her soulless self can. Trump would re-stock the Supreme Court to 1965, alienate billions even further against our country, and validate a scary, Ayn Rand culture of self-first, **** culture that at best would make a joke of our government, and at worst provoke unrecoverable tensions worldwide.

God willing, out of all this awful crap, in 2020 we find a brilliant, charismatic leader who manages to straddle the line between status quo politician and honest leader of the free world.

This post was sponsored by Tuesday day drinks

[cocktailswith_2short]

Say what again ? Alienate billions ? Hillary cant even fill a cafeteria if anybody gets alienated it will be the corrupt MSM . And your 2nd amendment views are working really well in Chicago aren't they ? You should be scared because if Hillary steals this election welcome to 1776. This elementary school childrens game with a leather ball isn't gonna mean jack squat .

[TimRobbins]

How much force or money do you think it takes to take over some of those former Russian republics? The Ukraine couldn't even put up a big enough fight to deter Russia from Crimea you think Latvia or Estonia would put up a better fight?

An occupation takes a lot more money and resources than the Russians have. Facts are that Putin has shown ZERO interest in anything other than his base in Crimea. There is ZERO evidence Putin is looking to rebuild the Soviet Union and even if he did, he's not capable of it.

Crimea is Russian. Let it go.

[Bascitball]

I think the political climate is ripe for an anti-establishment candidate, and that could be a positive. I think that's where a lot of the push back arises from the more reasonable anti-Clinton people in this thread.

This much should be obvious, but good on you for being reasonable enough to point it out.

However, Donald Trump is the worst vessel I can imagine for such a movement. I would argue that anyone who genuinely wants to dislodge the establishment/elite interest should support Clinton because 4 years of her is preferable to Donald Trump being your champion.

I can understand this viewpoint. Each side has to consider 2020. I think very few people will vote with this in mind, but consider this:

If the next 4 years (under either candidate) include: flat to negative growth or another full on recession, terrorism here in America, protests and riots in our cities, unpopular wars/international interference, and increasing healthcare prices - then 2020 will depend on which candidate wins this year.

If Hillary wins, and the above scenario takes place, you will likely get an ultra conservative like Ted Cruz in 2020.
If Trump wins, and the above scenario takes place, you will likely get an ultra liberal like Elizabeth Warren in 2020.

So is 4 years of your preferred candidate worth the extreme opposite later? For most, the answer is probably yes.

[dice]

So here's a good example of politifact's awesome work:




I'm really glad that this was deemed "mostly false." Can you imagine the horror if health insurance premiums increased? Oh, what's that you say, the magical subsidies will make it all better?

The affordable care act has cost me over $1,200 each of the past 2 years (still do not agree that this new tax is constitutional, but that's probably too far in the weeds for this forum). This is still cheaper than insurance would've cost, but for those of you getting free health-care....you're welcome. And no, I will not vote for more of this no matter how naughty the other candidate is.

you're confused. THE GROWTH RATE OF COST OF MEDICAL CARE/PREMIUMS HAS NOT INCREASED UNDER OBAMACARE. in fact, up until this year, the growth rate had slowed (which isn't saying much). when people suggested that obamacare was helping to slow down premium increases in past years, i noted that there was very little in the way of cost control in it. same goes for the big increase scheduled for next year - has little to do with obamacare. obamacare is primarily a health insurance subsidy along with some long overdue changes to guarantee very basic protections for those covered - ability to get healthcare with preexisting conditions, which has saved countless lives, elimination of scam low cost plans that provided next to nothing, etc.

i had multiple 50% or more increases in my insurance premiums before obamacare. i had one after obamacare as well. the medical device companies and the pharmaceutical industry are taking you for a ride. THEY are gouging you. and the rest of us as well. it's been ramping up for decades now. because our congress is bought off. nothing has changed. until we get single payer health insurance (which every progressive would love and every conservative would hate) like every other goddamn civilized nation on earth, the american middle class will continue to shrink. it's been going on for far too long and there's no end in sight. huge profits being made from people being sick

medicare for all. it's the only humane solution. our health results as a nation will greatly increase, the cost of health care will greatly decrease. it's a no brainer

peoples LIVES have been literally saved by obamacare. and the number of medical bankruptcies is plummeting. people complaining that it doesn't address cost as well are way out of line. it's not designed for that. a public option would have done it. republicans and "blue dog" democrats made sure that didn't get into the bill. blame them. they wanted to maintain status quo for their financial backers. to the detriment of almost all americans. mission accomplished

[cocktailswith_2short]

So here's a good example of politifact's awesome work:




I'm really glad that this was deemed "mostly false." Can you imagine the horror if health insurance premiums increased? Oh, what's that you say, the magical subsidies will make it all better?

The affordable care act has cost me over $1,200 each of the past 2 years (still do not agree that this new tax is constitutional, but that's probably too far in the weeds for this forum). This is still cheaper than insurance would've cost, but for those of you getting free health-care....you're welcome. And no, I will not vote for more of this no matter how naughty the other candidate is.

you're confused. THE GROWTH RATE OF COST OF MEDICAL CARE/PREMIUMS HAS NOT INCREASED UNDER OBAMACARE. in fact, up until this year, the growth rate had slowed (which isn't saying much). when people suggested that obamacare was helping to slow down premium increases in past years, i noted that there was very little in the way of cost control in it. same goes for the big increase scheduled for next year - has little to do with obamacare. obamacare is primarily a health insurance subsidy along with some long overdue changes to guarantee very basic protections for those covered - ability to get healthcare with preexisting conditions, which has saved countless lives, elimination of scam low cost plans that provided next to nothing, etc.

i had multiple 50% or more increases in my insurance premiums before obamacare. i had one after obamacare as well. the medical device companies and the pharmaceutical industry are taking you for a ride. THEY are gouging you. and the rest of us as well. it's been ramping up for decades now. because our congress is bought off. nothing has changed. until we get single payer health insurance (which every progressive would love and every conservative would hate) like every other goddamn civilized nation on earth, the american middle class will continue to shrink. it's been going on for far too long and there's no end in sight. huge profits being made from people being sick

medicare for all. it's the only humane solution. our health results as a nation will greatly increase, the cost of health care will greatly decrease. it's a no brainer

peoples LIVES have been literally saved by obamacare. and the number of medical bankruptcies is plummeting. people complaining that it doesn't address cost as well are way out of line. it's not designed for that. a public option would have done it. republicans and "blue dog" democrats made sure that didn't get into the bill. blame them. they wanted to maintain status quo for their financial backers. to the detriment of almost all americans. mission accomplished

Credit for this .Insane amount of time spent on this diatribe. The country is seething at the rising costs of healthcare for the same amount of service. Yet here's a novels worth of words supporting it with no real point or reason . When I was younger I wondered why people could be so naïve and fall under the spell of dictators . It's exactly posts like this . Obamacare good 2 legs badddd!!!!

[Bascitball]

So here's a good example of politifact's awesome work:




I'm really glad that this was deemed "mostly false." Can you imagine the horror if health insurance premiums increased? Oh, what's that you say, the magical subsidies will make it all better?

The affordable care act has cost me over $1,200 each of the past 2 years (still do not agree that this new tax is constitutional, but that's probably too far in the weeds for this forum). This is still cheaper than insurance would've cost, but for those of you getting free health-care....you're welcome. And no, I will not vote for more of this no matter how naughty the other candidate is.

you're confused. THE GROWTH RATE OF COST OF MEDICAL CARE/PREMIUMS HAS NOT INCREASED UNDER OBAMACARE. in fact, up until this year, the growth rate had slowed (which isn't saying much). when people suggested that obamacare was helping to slow down premium increases in past years, i noted that there was very little in the way of cost control in it. same goes for the big increase scheduled for next year - has little to do with obamacare. obamacare is primarily a health insurance subsidy along with some long overdue changes to guarantee very basic protections for those covered - ability to get healthcare with preexisting conditions, which has saved countless lives, elimination of scam low cost plans that provided next to nothing, etc.

i had multiple 50% or more increases in my insurance premiums before obamacare. i had one after obamacare as well. the medical device companies and the pharmaceutical industry are taking you for a ride. THEY are gouging you. and the rest of us as well. it's been ramping up for decades now. because our congress is bought off. nothing has changed. until we get single payer health insurance (which every progressive would love and every conservative would hate) like every other goddamn civilized nation on earth, the american middle class will continue to shrink. it's been going on for far too long and there's no end in sight. huge profits being made from people being sick

medicare for all. it's the only humane solution. our health results as a nation will greatly increase, the cost of health care will greatly decrease. it's a no brainer

peoples LIVES have been literally saved by obamacare. and the number of medical bankruptcies is plummeting. people complaining that it doesn't address cost as well are way out of line. it's not designed for that. a public option would have done it. republicans and "blue dog" democrats made sure that didn't get into the bill. blame them. they wanted to maintain status quo for their financial backers. to the detriment of almost all americans. mission accomplished

The ACA was passed when Dems had majorities in the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. You cannot pretend that they had to compromise on this bill - exactly zero republicans voted in favor. So they were able to go all in with their strategy to improve healthcare. Now, of course it would be unfair to expect perfection, but as leaders, they are accountable for the state of healthcare. We've had years to judge their ideas to fix the healthcare mess, and the results have not been so wonderful.

It's also telling that even while trying to defend ACA, you pitch a better solution (single payer). So which is it, ACA is great, or it needs to be replaced? You can try to believe both, but it's disingenuous. If we move towards single payer, can we as a nation at least have an honest debate about it?

From my personal perspective, the ACA penalty has cost me almost 2,500 over the last 2 years and will cost another 1,200 or 1,300 in April. Nobody from my family has been to any doctor in that time (besides well-being visits). Good luck winning over people that would rather have the freedom to choose.