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

[Ctownbulls]

W/o any proof??!? 9 women have come forward saying he inappropriately groped them. His own words are on tape. No proof?

9 women come forward nearly at the same time -- 3 weeks before Election Day. It's the same tactic that was used against Herman Cain, except that was done to him during the primary season, and after Cain suspended his campaign nothing ever happened to resolve any of those accusations. Plus, it's the same feminist bleeding liberal attorney representing these Trump accusers as the Cain accusers.

And the thing is, Trump's sexism and history of sexual assault isn't even his worst trait! The fact that he keeps claiming he won't accept the results of the election is extremely dangerous b/c it motivates nut bags to do the things nut bags do.

That would categorize Al Gore and John Kerry as nut bags, as well. There's already video evidence from Project Veritas that the Democratic National Committee has been directly involved in rigging the voting process and paying people to incite violence at Trump rallies.

Trying to rationalize with a Trumpy is impossible. Nice username by the way, it properly matches whom you are supporting.

I completely understand the need to for an anti-establishment candidate. I completely understand how people are fed-up with government/politics and feel like a drastic change is needed. Unfortunately, people have gotten so wrapped up in that concept that they fell in love with Trump. The idea and the concept is fine, the candidate unfortunately is not.

[Bobbalu]

I feel sorry for this country. I don't even know why people pick sides anyway. Politics is just professional wrestling. There are no rivals, just actors reading from a script. The US was founded off of more than just 2 options, but the our legislative branch has been monopolized and monetized.

I just have to ask, how are the same people who caused all the problems going to fix them? Answer is...they can't. If they knew how, they wouldn't have caused them to begin with.

[coldfish]

You don't have to like Trump or Clinton but the record of service speaks itself. You can say Clintons a liar, so is Trump that's been proven time and time again. Clinton is a bad decision maker, so is Trump. He's filed for bankruptcy in the past and Trump University was a total sham. The President and Clinton won't say the words radical islam. Trump won't say Russia is behind the DNC hacks yets his own VP pick in said the evidence points towards Russia. Now from all the things Clinton has done as a Senator and Secretary of State ask yourself would Trump have done better?

IMO, with how ineffective Clinton was as Senator and Secretary of State, you have to ask if Trump would have been worse?

As bad as she was, I think the answer is that yes, Trump would actually be worse. He seems to have some pretty deep personality flaws that make him particularly unsuited to deal with other countries.

.....

And I still don't get the Russian thing. Russia was not a global bad actor 8 years ago. Now if it really is this big bad global demon, I wouldn't think that Democrats would want to discuss it. Our relations with Russia over the past 8 years have not been a "win" for the Obama administration (or his secretaries of state).

[FecesOfDeath]

Trying to rationalize with a Trumpy is impossible. Nice username by the way, it properly matches whom you are supporting.

I completely understand the need to for an anti-establishment candidate. I completely understand how people are fed-up with government/politics and feel like a drastic change is needed. Unfortunately, people have gotten so wrapped up in that concept that they fell in love with Trump. The idea and the concept is fine, the candidate unfortunately is not.

Are you really going ad hominem on this?

It was clear with Herman Cain, and it's been clear with Donald Trump. If you're an outsider, you cannot ever run for president for either of the two major parties, because every single establishment with a vested interest in politics is going to skewer you, and it's doubly worse if you're an outsider Republican. It really does not matter; they could've nominated the most saintly and inoffensive non-politician with enough wealth to not depend on corporate donors who can influence his or her positions, and the media and Republican and Democratic establishments would've found a way to turn him or her into the next Pol Pot or Queen Mary I.

[the ultimates]

You don't have to like Trump or Clinton but the record of service speaks itself. You can say Clintons a liar, so is Trump that's been proven time and time again. Clinton is a bad decision maker, so is Trump. He's filed for bankruptcy in the past and Trump University was a total sham. The President and Clinton won't say the words radical islam. Trump won't say Russia is behind the DNC hacks yets his own VP pick in said the evidence points towards Russia. Now from all the things Clinton has done as a Senator and Secretary of State ask yourself would Trump have done better?

IMO, with how ineffective Clinton was as Senator and Secretary of State, you have to ask if Trump would have been worse?

As bad as she was, I think the answer is that yes, Trump would actually be worse. He seems to have some pretty deep personality flaws that make him particularly unsuited to deal with other countries.

.....

And I still don't get the Russian thing. Russia was not a global bad actor 8 years ago. Now if it really is this big bad global demon, I wouldn't think that Democrats would want to discuss it. Our relations with Russia over the past 8 years have not been a "win" for the Obama administration (or his secretaries of state).

Well the last line was a rhetorical question. Russia has been known to hack U.S. government infrastructure for years. Its getting played because of their possible ties to the wikileaks stuff but has always been a threat. Its one of the reasons and Clinton and former Secretary of State Powell had private servers. Russia has backed Al-Assad for years and annexed Crimea. The U.S. has used economic sanctions which hurt the Russian economy and made Putin double down on defiance.

What's really funny is four years ago Romney and the Republicans were saying Russia was a threat. Now you have to use the jaws of life to get Trump to even slightly acknowledge Russia may have done something wrong.

[ImSlower]

Trying to rationalize with a Trumpy is impossible. Nice username by the way, it properly matches whom you are supporting.

I completely understand the need to for an anti-establishment candidate. I completely understand how people are fed-up with government/politics and feel like a drastic change is needed. Unfortunately, people have gotten so wrapped up in that concept that they fell in love with Trump. The idea and the concept is fine, the candidate unfortunately is not.

Are you really going ad hominem on this?

It was clear with Herman Cain, and it's been clear with Donald Trump. If you're an outsider, you cannot ever run for president for either of the two major parties, because every single establishment with a vested interest in politics is going to skewer you, and it's doubly worse if you're an outsider Republican. It really does not matter; they could've nominated the most saintly and inoffensive non-politician with enough wealth to not depend on corporate donors who can influence his or her positions, and the media and Republican and Democratic establishments would've found a way to turn him or her into the next Pol Pot or Queen Mary I.

I disagree. If the Republicans had found this saintly and inoffensive non-politician you speak of, hundreds of thousands of liberals like myself would have jumped on his/her boat to get away from Clinton. Unfortunately, instead of this saintly, inoffensive person, we have Donald Trump. I wanted to vote for McCain back in 2000, but Dubya beat him out, and I grudgingly voted for Gore. Same as this year, when I will grudgingly vote for Clinton, because Trump is a goddamn disaster. If the Republicans had found this unicorn you speak of, he or she would have waltzed into the white house.

[DuckIII]

Not to mention Trump won the GOP primary.

Trump isn't losing because the establishment is scared of him. He's losing because the majority of Americans know he is repugnant and dangerous.

Moreover, let's not misstate why Trump has support. It's not because normal people are yearning for an outsider. Its because racist, sexist, xenophobes became marginalized by political, legal and mainstream social institutions over the last 10 years and finally found someone repulsive enough to actually build a campaign on their prejudices. Its no more complex and no less sickening than that.

[the ultimates]

Not to mention Trump won the GOP primary.

Trump isn't losing because the establishment is scared of him. He's losing because the majority of Americans know he is repugnant and dangerous.

Moreover, let's not be polite about why Trump has support. It's not because normal people are yearning for an outsider. Its because racist, sexist, xenophobes became marginalized by political, legal and mainstream social institutions over the last 10 years and finally found someone repulsive enough to actually build a campaign on their prejudices. Its no more complex and no less sickening than that.

Look el pato you're getting rounded up and moved out hombre.

[HomoSapien]

It certainly does feel as if Trump knows he's about to lose, which is why he's really doubling down on this voter fraud/not going to accept defeat thing.

[johnnyvann840]

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/19/a-peek-into-the-clinton-campaign-in-damage-control-mode-from-the-podesta-emails/

This is a good article that shows HRC's campaign covering up for lies she made on tv about her reasons for supporting a bill that would've made it harder for poor people to discharge their debts.

In short she said that "women's and children's groups" were begging her to support the bill when in reality they were opposed to it. Her campaign wanted to bring out some of these groups to defend her but one of her policy advisors found:

We have a problem. HRC overstayed [sic] her case this morning in a pretty big way,” she wrote. The advocates they were thinking of going to had all attacked the bill at the time. “Marcia, Judy and I have been figuring out what we could say that doesn’t contradict their 2001 statement.” In a follow-up email, she explained, “She said women groups were all pressuring her to vote for it. Evidence does not support that statement

The National Women's Law Center said in 2001 the year the bill was voted on:

“This bill puts the interests of credit card companies ahead of the needs of women and children owed child support and other families struggling to cope with family breakup, job loss, or catastrophic medical expenses,”

ON the show she repeatedly says she wants to set the record straight but as her policy advisor said in an email:

we cannot put something out proactive here b/c the record just isn’t good

Elizabeth Warren attacked her at the time for her position on the bill.

I agree that she is the better candidate but we need to not give her a complete pass when she goes on tv and lies to the American people. It's part of the reason why so many people are completely disillusioned with the political process and the media. All I hear on the radio or tv is that the Russians stole these emails, for which no proof has been provided and doesn't change the fact that they show a campaign actively trying to deceive and manipulate the public.

Exactly.

[FecesOfDeath]

Trying to rationalize with a Trumpy is impossible. Nice username by the way, it properly matches whom you are supporting.

I completely understand the need to for an anti-establishment candidate. I completely understand how people are fed-up with government/politics and feel like a drastic change is needed. Unfortunately, people have gotten so wrapped up in that concept that they fell in love with Trump. The idea and the concept is fine, the candidate unfortunately is not.

Are you really going ad hominem on this?

It was clear with Herman Cain, and it's been clear with Donald Trump. If you're an outsider, you cannot ever run for president for either of the two major parties, because every single establishment with a vested interest in politics is going to skewer you, and it's doubly worse if you're an outsider Republican. It really does not matter; they could've nominated the most saintly and inoffensive non-politician with enough wealth to not depend on corporate donors who can influence his or her positions, and the media and Republican and Democratic establishments would've found a way to turn him or her into the next Pol Pot or Queen Mary I.

I disagree. If the Republicans had found this saintly and inoffensive non-politician you speak of, hundreds of thousands of liberals like myself would have jumped on his/her boat to get away from Clinton. Unfortunately, instead of this saintly, inoffensive person, we have Donald Trump. I wanted to vote for McCain back in 2000, but Dubya beat him out, and I grudgingly voted for Gore. Same as this year, when I will grudgingly vote for Clinton, because Trump is a goddamn disaster. If the Republicans had found this unicorn you speak of, he or she would have waltzed into the white house.

I think Mitt Romney was pretty close to a unicorn. We all know how the media transformed him into a Mormon devil.

[DuckIII]

I don't remember that at all, actually.

I remember him getting beat by a Secret Muslim though.

[GetBuLLish]

Well the last line was a rhetorical question. Russia has been known to hack U.S. government infrastructure for years. Its getting played because of their possible ties to the wikileaks stuff but has always been a threat. Its one of the reasons and Clinton and former Secretary of State Powell had private servers.

How is it humanly possible to believe something like this? Like where could you have possibly formed this thought?

[the ultimates]

Well the last line was a rhetorical question. Russia has been known to hack U.S. government infrastructure for years. Its getting played because of their possible ties to the wikileaks stuff but has always been a threat. Its one of the reasons and Clinton and former Secretary of State Powell had private servers.

How is it humanly possible to believe something like this? Like where could you have possibly formed this thought?

So are you saying Powell didn't use a private server?

[GetBuLLish]

Well the last line was a rhetorical question. Russia has been known to hack U.S. government infrastructure for years. Its getting played because of their possible ties to the wikileaks stuff but has always been a threat. Its one of the reasons and Clinton and former Secretary of State Powell had private servers.

How is it humanly possible to believe something like this? Like where could you have possibly formed this thought?

So are you saying Powell didn't use a private server?

First, I am referring to the underlined.

Second, Powell used a private email and Clinton used a private server. One of the many reasons why the Clinton/Powell comparison is a meritless partisan tactic.

[the ultimates]

How is it humanly possible to believe something like this? Like where could you have possibly formed this thought?

So are you saying Powell didn't use a private server?

First, I am referring to the underlined.

Second, Powell used a private email and Clinton used a private server. One of the many reasons why the Clinton/Powell comparison is a meritless partisan tactic.

She was said to be breaking the law by using a private email server that could contain classified emails. So it's not about the server it's about the emails. Powell used a personal computer and private phone line to get around the state department. Where was the investigation on that breach?

“What were the restrictions on your use of your BlackBerry?” Clinton asked Powell on the morning of January 23, 2009, two days after she was sworn in as Secretary of State.

“President Obama has struck a blow for berry addicts like us,” she wrote. “I just have to figure out how to bring along the State Dept.”

Powell, in his reply, said he didn’t have a Blackberry, but used a personal computer hooked up to a private phone line to communicate with friends and world leaders “without it going through the State Department servers.”

[GetBuLLish]

She was said to be breaking the law by using a private email server that could contain classified emails. So it's not about the server it's about the emails. Powell used a personal computer and private phone line to get around the state department. Where was the investigation on that breach?

“What were the restrictions on your use of your BlackBerry?” Clinton asked Powell on the morning of January 23, 2009, two days after she was sworn in as Secretary of State.

“President Obama has struck a blow for berry addicts like us,” she wrote. “I just have to figure out how to bring along the State Dept.”

Powell, in his reply, said he didn’t have a Blackberry, but used a personal computer hooked up to a private phone line to communicate with friends and world leaders “without it going through the State Department servers.”

I'm not going to get into the server vs. email discussion since it's clearly pointless. But why don't you answer my question about your Russia comment? What is your basis for that?

[the ultimates]

She was said to be breaking the law by using a private email server that could contain classified emails. So it's not about the server it's about the emails. Powell used a personal computer and private phone line to get around the state department. Where was the investigation on that breach?

“What were the restrictions on your use of your BlackBerry?” Clinton asked Powell on the morning of January 23, 2009, two days after she was sworn in as Secretary of State.

“President Obama has struck a blow for berry addicts like us,” she wrote. “I just have to figure out how to bring along the State Dept.”

Powell, in his reply, said he didn’t have a Blackberry, but used a personal computer hooked up to a private phone line to communicate with friends and world leaders “without it going through the State Department servers.”

I'm not going to get into the server vs. email discussion since it's clearly pointless. But why don't you answer my question about your Russia comment? What is your basis for that?

Here is just one link from Newsweek. You really think Russia has tried to hack the state department or department of defense before?

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/05/15/russias-greatest-weapon-may-be-its-hackers-328864.html

[ozbull]

You have a candidate who believes climate change is a hoax, perpetuated by the Chinese. He wants to rip up the Paris Climate agreement and believes 'clean coal' is a thing.

He says 'clean coal' with a straight face ffs.

Unfortunately, he's not alone. Australia's former PM, a religious bigot, also happily resides in the anti-fact camp.

You have another candidate who believes climate change needs to be acted on.

I know there's a mountain load of other issues at play, but to me, the health and future of the planet and species that inhabit it are THE most important aspect of your election, and all elections around the globe.

To deny climate change or to delay acting on it, in the face of overwhelming evidence from our smartest minds, is the height of selfishness.

Yet, it hasn't been talked about at all in three presidential debates. Incredible.

[GetBuLLish]

Here is just one link from Newsweek. You really think Russia has tried to hack the state department or department of defense before?

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/05/15/russias-greatest-weapon-may-be-its-hackers-328864.html

I asked for a basis for your comment that Clinton and Powell used private a email/server to avoid being hacked by Russia. You have not provided any basis. You can't provide a basis since there is none because your comment makes no sense. It's just a partisan reflex to defend Clinton ("BUT RUSSIA!").