US Presidential Race 2016

[CitizenTID]

The man didn't realize that Russia was in Ukraine. He doesn't possess average intelligence let alone the brains to understand the nuances of world affairs. When asked what he would replace our current healthcare system with he said "Something terrific". When asked about how he would change our vetting process for refugees he said "We would keep it the same but do it with higher energy". He has also warned that if Hillary Clinton is elected she'd bring in 650 million immigrants in the first week, our population is currently 320 million. He's also in favor of torture and killing the families of suspected terrorists which is a war crime. If he gives an order like that and the military refuses to obey we could have a Constitutional crisis and possibly a military coup.

As far as deleting emails, grow the fuck up. It was a private fucking server, I get 75 emails every fucking day offering me discounts on everything from sunglasses to cruises and I delete all of them. If you don't think Hillary Clinton gets more bullshit emails than I do then you're stupid. And if you think that she nefariously deleted 30,000 emails because they were all incriminating your mind has been poisoned by Fox News.

There was no hack of her private server and there has been nothing incriminating that has come out in the leaks. People think there have been because they're confused about what Wikileaks has...

Oh for fucks sake, you're too stupid to reason with. It's very simple, I don't think we should risk nuclear annihilation to elect Trump because Hillary Clinton sent emails from a private server. Imagine if the person running against Hitler was far more qualified but people didn't vote for him because he sent some official letters w/ his own address as the return address? Wouldn't it have been better to avoid the fucking Holocaust and not elect Hitler if it meant overlooking the address thing?

Whilst it may be illegal of her to do so, I don't care remotely that she used a private server, I care about why she used it for certain things. To compare it to yourself deleting emails isn't the same, the story I believe to be true is that she deleted emails that she wants to remain secret from the judicial system/public domain once pressure started mounting. I'm not looking at the surface of things like you appear to be, it's a complex and unusual situation so I believe your missing things if you look at it conventionally - which is why things I might be saying comes across as unconventional (e.g. appearing to let Trump off with some bad behaviour in favour of his potential for greater positive impact on the world than Clinton, whose past behaviour I believe to have had a greater negative impact on the world). If I was a US citizen, I'd definitely rather both candidates be replaced, as a Brit (where your Presidency has a big potential to impact on UK political decisions) I'd have to think it over longer weighing up the things beneath the surface even further. Trump blows a lot of hot air, he doesn't have dictatorial power so some things he says are a bit irrelevant to what he can actually do.

Your looking at it from a very different perspective to me, your highest concern is domestic, mine is international. If I was a US citizen I'd be seething that the country has been embarrassed at the highest level and it is dragging on and domestic issues would weigh into my preference more - so Trump would be much less favourable because Clinton would at least near enough guarantee stability (Trump poses a risk). Hitler comparison isn't suitable considering what I've just said, not about simply using a private server. Yes Trump has made stupid nuclear remarks, but the US has a problem within military attitudes with that to begin with (as proven by the eagerness to use in the past) - yes Trump would appear more risky than Clinton with that, but I believe it was simply a stupid remark he wouldn't ever genuinely think about following through on because of improved Russian relations he would bring and his business focus (including within the middle east). All our opinions in this are based on a percentage of trust, we all have to realise we could be wrong. I generally put more value on likely potential of people's actions/things than what their image is now, because the long-term is much more important in these matters (whilst bearing in mind short term matters can significantly alter that).

It's not that I don't care about the US population by the way, I really very much do as I do the rest of the world, but the US govt.'s (and in turn US corporations') power of influence in UK politics is too great that I must think in the interest of UK citizens (our welfare) above US citizens first because that is our (bearing in mind our cultural differences) avenue to make change for ourselves and in the world.

 

[arfurclue]

Whilst it may be illegal of her to do so, I don't care remotely that she used a private server, I care about why she used it for certain things. To compare it to yourself deleting emails isn't the same, the story I believe to be true is that she deleted emails that she wants to remain secret from the judicial system/public domain once pressure started mounting. I'm not looking at the surface of things like you appear to be, it's a complex and unusual situation so I believe your missing things if you look at it conventionally - which is why things I might be saying comes across as unconventional (e.g. appearing to let Trump off with some bad behaviour in favour of his potential for greater positive impact on the world than Clinton, whose past behaviour I believe to have had a greater negative impact on the world). If I was a US citizen, I'd definitely rather both candidates be replaced, as a Brit (where your Presidency has a big potential to impact on UK political decisions) I'd have to think it over longer weighing up the things beneath the surface even further. Trump blows a lot of hot air, he doesn't have dictatorial power so some things he says are a bit irrelevant to what he can actually do.

Your looking at it from a very different perspective to me, your highest concern is domestic, mine is international. If I was a US citizen I'd be seething that the country has been embarrassed at the highest level and it is dragging on and domestic issues would weigh into my preference more - so Trump would be much less favourable because Clinton would at least near enough guarantee stability (Trump poses a risk). Hitler comparison isn't suitable considering what I've just said, not about simply using a private server. Yes Trump has made stupid nuclear remarks, but the US has a problem within military attitudes with that to begin with (as proven by the eagerness to use in the past) - yes Trump would appear more risky than Clinton with that, but I believe it was simply a stupid remark he wouldn't ever genuinely think about following through on because of improved Russian relations he would bring and his business focus (including within the middle east). All our opinions in this are based on a percentage of trust, we all have to realise we could be wrong.

It's not that I don't care about the US population by the way, I really very much do as I do the rest of the world, but the US govt.'s (and in turn US corporations') power of influence in UK politics is too great that I must think in the interest of UK citizens (our welfare) above US citizens first.

Hitler comparison may be suitable but in a different way. He was said to be involved in mesmerism - a kind of hypnotism - so is it possible that Trump is appealing to subconscious urges beyond the rational (intellectual) mind?

 

[CitizenTID]

Hitler comparison may be suitable but in a different way. He was said to be involved in mesmerism - a kind of hypnotism - so is it possible that Trump is appealing to subconscious urges beyond the rational (intellectual) mind?

Yeah, Hitler revealed his true intentions as he came into power and conned a lot of people on the way but I think we can agree Trump doesn't have the same level of intelligence and it's very unlikely he'd be so extreme, I think it's all self-interest in his profile and businesses for him - I just feel the byproduct results would be better for the world than Clinton's.

 

[buckshot]

Whilst it may be illegal of her to do so, I don't care remotely that she used a private server, I care about why she used it for certain things. To compare it to yourself deleting emails isn't the same, the story I believe to be true is that she deleted emails that she wants to remain secret from the judicial system/public domain once pressure started mounting. I'm not looking at the surface of things like you appear to be, it's a complex and unusual situation so I believe your missing things if you look at it conventionally - which is why things I might be saying comes across as unconventional (e.g. appearing to let Trump off with some bad behaviour in favour of his potential for greater positive impact on the world than Clinton, whose past behaviour I believe to have had a greater negative impact on the world). If I was a US citizen, I'd definitely rather both candidates be replaced, as a Brit (where your Presidency has a big potential to impact on UK political decisions) I'd have to think it over longer weighing up the things beneath the surface even further. Trump blows a lot of hot air, he doesn't have dictatorial power so some things he says are a bit irrelevant to what he can actually do.

Your looking at it from a very different perspective to me, your highest concern is domestic, mine is international. If I was a US citizen I'd be seething that the country has been embarrassed at the highest level and it is dragging on and domestic issues would weigh into my preference more - so Trump would be much less favourable because Clinton would at least near enough guarantee stability (Trump poses a risk). Hitler comparison isn't suitable considering what I've just said, not about simply using a private server. Yes Trump has made stupid nuclear remarks, but the US has a problem within military attitudes with that to begin with (as proven by the eagerness to use in the past) - yes Trump would appear more risky than Clinton with that, but I believe it was simply a stupid remark he wouldn't ever genuinely think about following through on because of improved Russian relations he would bring and his business focus (including within the middle east). All our opinions in this are based on a percentage of trust, we all have to realise we could be wrong.

It's not that I don't care about the US population by the way, I really very much do as I do the rest of the world, but the US govt.'s (and in turn US corporations') power of influence in UK politics is too great that I must think in the interest of UK citizens (our welfare) above US citizens first.

The very first thing here is false, it was not illegal. Colin Powell used a private server as well, he even advised her how to set up her own. It doesn't surprise me that you've bought into the conspiracy theories that she is involved in some sort of massive cover up when you don't even comprehend the basic fact that it was never illegal in the first place.

If you cared about facts you'd be asking why Colin Powell wasn't investigated at all for doing the exact same thing. Or maybe you'd ask why there was nobody calling for mass incarcerations of the Bush administration for deleting 22 million emails that they hid on private RNC servers. You should also note that the latest emails that the FBI is investigating were neither sent by or to Hillary Clinton. You might even wonder why Hillary Clinton is blamed for Benghazi even though she was not POTUS or Sec of Defense. Then you might ask why there were more investigations into Benghazi than there were 9/11. It might also seem odd that over 200 people died in embassies during W's time in office and only 4 during Obama's but republicans weren't calling for anybody in W's administration to go to jail.

And if you ask yourself those questions and answer them honestly and you have average intelligence the only logical explanation for this is that it's been a partisan witch hunt since the beginning.

 

[CitizenTID]

The very first thing here is false, it was not illegal. Colin Powell used a private server as well, he even advised her how to set up her own. It doesn't surprise me that you've bought into the conspiracy theories that she is involved in some sort of massive cover up when you don't even comprehend the basic fact that it was never illegal in the first place.

If you cared about facts you'd be asking why Colin Powell wasn't investigated at all for doing the exact same thing. Or maybe you'd ask why there was nobody calling for mass incarcerations of the Bush administration for deleting 22 million emails that they hid on private RNC servers. You should also note that the latest emails that the FBI is investigating were neither sent by or to Hillary Clinton. You might even wonder why Hillary Clinton is blamed for Benghazi even though she was not POTUS or Sec of Defense. Then you might ask why there were more investigations into Benghazi than there were 9/11. It might also seem odd that over 200 people died in embassies during W's time in office and only 4 during Obama's but republicans weren't calling for anybody in W's administration to go to jail.

And if you ask yourself those questions and answer them honestly and you have average intelligence the only logical explanation for this is that it's been a partisan witch hunt since the beginning.

I don't know your laws in and out, I made the comment based on things I've heard through the media - that handling confidential data on a private server is illegal due to the obvious difference in security measures (from what I can recall and it is very logical sense). Don't know if your just being blunt but dismissing it as a conspiracy theory is just lazy - it's a very legitimate concern (particularly since it's backed up by factual events in Benghazi where people want explanations) which is why it has had so much media attention. Talking about falsities and why people might wonder why she is blamed for Benghazi - she was Sec of State from 2009 to 2013 well through the Benghazi which she herself took responsibility for the security lapses (you can look that up).

I don't know about the other things you mentioned because I'm not American so very rarely watch your news (hence it's of less concern to me than it is to you) but none of that is relevant to now anyway (I'm discussing this in the context of the election which does affect and therefore concern me), it's been and gone - your relevant agencies can investigate it if they want/can.

Would just like to say since many people do it, that dismissing something as a conspiracy theory whenever it does your opinion no favours allows the people in question to get away with stuff because people who don't want to be labelled a conspiracy theorist nut job will be less inclined to speak out and question things. I'm speaking generally here, so as an example, if Clinton has done something awful and deleted evidence from that server, your doing more than you think to protect her because people similar to yourself are likely to do the same, by way of domino effect, it becomes socially conscious (as it has in general) that people labelled conspiracy theorists are nutjobs and that their questioning of things and opinions are worth less/little.

 

[buckshot]

I don't know your laws in and out, I made the comment based on things I've heard through the media - that handling confidential data on a private server is illegal due to the obvious difference in security measures (from what I can recall and it is very logical sense). Don't know if your just being blunt but dismissing it as a conspiracy theory is just lazy - it's a very legitimate concern (particularly since it's backed up by factual events in Benghazi where people want explanations) which is why it has had so much media attention. Talking about falsities and why people might wonder why she is blamed for Benghazi - she was Sec of State from 2009 to 2013 well through the Benghazi which she herself took responsibility for the security lapses (you can look that up).

I don't know about the other things you mentioned because I'm not American so very rarely watch your news (hence it's of less concern to me than it is to you) but none of that is relevant to now anyway (I'm discussing this in the context of the election which does affect and therefore concern me), it's been and gone - your relevant agencies can investigate it if they want/can.

Can I look it up on the same lying media outlets that led you to believe that using a private server was illegal? Because if that's the case I can also find out that Hillary Clinton adopted an alien baby (there is a real picture that is not photoshopped!) and that she and Bill hired prostitutes together for orgies. I mean, these stories are in the media so they are true, right? So since this is all true please continue to ignore the ELEVEN STRAIGHT HOURS OF TESTIMONY ON BENGHAZI that she gave and that the republican panel that grilled her COULDN'T FIND ONE SINGLE THING THAT SHE DID WRONG. Just keep quoting Fox News as a reliable source even though they've spent 25 years manufacturing fake stories and scandals about her.

You are out of your depth and the exact type of low-information person that they pander to. Since you're not American you have an excuse but please don't continue to spout bullshit that you don't know anything about. I don't come on here and pretend to be an expert on Brexit or English politics, I know what I hear but I also realize that I have to take it all with a grain of salt since I'm not sure of the sources. If I cared more I would research your issues and let the facts guide my opinions.

 

[CitizenTID]

Can I look it up on the same lying media outlets that led you to believe that using a private server was illegal? Because if that's the case I can also find out that Hillary Clinton adopted an alien baby (there is a real picture that is not photoshopped!) and that she and Bill hired prostitutes together for orgies. I mean, these stories are in the media so they are true, right? So since this is all true please continue to ignore the ELEVEN STRAIGHT HOURS OF TESTIMONY ON BENGHAZI that she gave and that the republican panel that grilled her COULDN'T FIND ONE SINGLE THING THAT SHE DID WRONG. Just keep quoting Fox News as a reliable source even though they've spent 25 years manufacturing fake stories and scandals about her.

No need, just stop being so ignorant and look to your best mate CNN:

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/15/us/clinton-benghazi/index.html

I was actually referring to mainstream media which led me to believe that: BBC, Sky, CNN, the debates etc. Again though your omitting the context of using a private server for sharing confidential documents without state supervision - maybe someone else can weigh in on whether that is illegal or not because i'm sure other people have seen the same stuff I did in which it was discussed. As I've said, it's not even of concern to my point in any case.

 

[CitizenTID]

You are out of your depth and the exact type of low-information person that they pander to. Since you're not American you have an excuse but please don't continue to spout bullshit that you don't know anything about. I don't come on here and pretend to be an expert on Brexit or English politics, I know what I hear but I also realize that I have to take it all with a grain of salt since I'm not sure of the sources. If I cared more I would research your issues and let the facts guide my opinions.

There is nothing I've said that insinuates I believe myself to be an expert on anything relating to the US election (or anything else discussed on the forum for that matter), I've had a continual stance of open mindedness - I've not even outright disagreed with any opinion of yours, all I said is it irked me when people have overlooked what's in the emails and look at the election like a personality contest. You appear that you feel your opinion is threatened by something simple I've questioned - I've not even given an opinion on the thing in question (what's in the emails). You claim I'm out of my depth and a low-information person and in the same paragraph say that if you yourself cared more to research the issues you'd let it guide your opinion - think that over. I retained an element of doubt in any statement regarding illegality and provided information to say otherwise regarding what you appeared adamant to be true, but it's besides my point anyway.

 

[buckshot]

No need, just stop being so ignorant and look to your best mate CNN:

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/15/us/clinton-benghazi/index.html

I was actually referring to mainstream media which led me to believe that: BBC, Sky, CNN, the debates etc. Again though your omitting the context of using a private server for sharing confidential documents without state supervision - maybe someone else can weigh in on whether that is illegal or not because i'm sure other people have seen the same stuff I did in which it was discussed. As I've said, it's not even of concern to my point in any case.

Taking responsibility is a sign of leadership, it doesn't mean she could have done anything to stop them from being killed. Was Churchill responsible for England's security during WWII? Should he have been jailed because people died during the bombings? What the fuck could Hillary Clinton do about an embassy in Libya being attacked by terrorists? Or Colin Powell or Condy Rice during their terms as Sec of State?

What the article doesn't mention is that the republican congress repeatedly turned down requests for funds to improve embassy security all over the world.

And for future reference you should also stop believing the bullshit that CNN is some left-leaning news organization that supports Clinton. They actually hired Trump's former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski as a political correspondent. The man is on CNN's payroll and is still being paid by the Trump campaign. In addition, he signed a non-disclosure agreement with Trump and would be in breach of contract and lose money if he criticized Trump. So they're paying a Trump spokesperson to go on their shows and lie to the American people. CNN has also given over $1 billion to Trump in free airtime because he's good for ratings. They would absolutely love to see him win the election, their ratings would go through the roof with all of the rape allegations, fraud trials, war crimes and death and destruction he would cause.

 

[arfurclue]

Yeah, Hitler revealed his true intentions as he came into power and conned a lot of people on the way but I think we can agree Trump doesn't have the same level of intelligence and it's very unlikely he'd be so extreme, I think it's all self-interest in his profile and businesses for him - I just feel the byproduct results would be better for the world than Clinton's.

i think you may be right in some ways. After i wrote I began to imagine that each vote in the election was the equivalent of a dollar investment. Trump seems to have some sort of 'talent' for getting these dollars but then the questions come. What does he do with this money? Who does it serve? What is his record when it comes to returns on investment? Not so sure that it paints the prettiest of pictures. Would this be better for the world than Clinton?

from politifact :
""Hundreds of companies" have filed for bankruptcy, Trump said earlier in the debate. "I used the law four times and made a tremendous thing. I'm in business. I did a very good job."

Trump's idea of very good business practice is to have it go bankrupt? A bankrupt America + arsenal of nuclear weapons = ???????