Jump to content

The 2016 US Presidential Election


Adamski

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

How man yon P&B are (openly) backing Trump?

I'm in the couldn't care less which monkey gets the job camp. I don't like either of them and I don't see either of them making any difference. Obama certainly didn't live up to the hype. I wonder if either of them will really be as bad as folk are assuming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well we know that the Hillary camp have cut off Assange's internet, who else would have motivation to silence him? Which makes you think that he must have something pretty damaging to her camp for her to now silence him. She has previously expressed desire to kill him, Now Podesta is making snobby jibes at him on twitter. 

 

Let+them+eat+cake+trigger+stats+mentionlist+politicalstreams_e2b220_6060833.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Suspect Device said:

How man yon P&B are (openly) backing Trump?

I'm in the couldn't care less which monkey gets the job camp. I don't like either of them and I don't see either of them making any difference. Obama certainly didn't live up to the hype. I wonder if either of them will really be as bad as folk are assuming.

Presidential power isn't all that it's cracked up to be but I think it would be unfair to minimise the influence Obama has had.

Going into his term, America's foreign policy was in complete tatters and the situation he inherited was ridiculously complex (the destabilisation of the Middle East by the Iraq War is often argued as the worst decision since the Bay of Pigs invasion in 61). He had a lot to take on and he had to weigh it up with personal ambition and balance short-term gains with long-term gains (there isn't really any point in setting the groundwork for good long-term achievements if you are going to be out of office and see everything reversed in an instant). It's pretty difficult to analyse this sort of thing when you don't have the benefit of being a decade or two ahead but there are many (respected) scholars who argue that his decision making has made the world a safer place. An issue like energy independence and the US not being so reliant on the Middle East may have Obama in the history books as one of the finest ever presidents a few years down the line.

On the economy, he inherited a dreadful situation and is now listed as one of the best ever job creators in history. This isn't down to him solely (he works with congress to set the budget) but he's operating against an obstructive force and when a decision gets to him in this regard, it's usually to address a major crisis. The bail out of the automobile industry was a huge moment and he's now hailed for that decision. Going back to energy policy, progress in this area would also have the impact of being financially more stable as well.

I'm not American or resident there so I won't go into other issues but the economy and foreign policy of the US are very important to our own country. If the US choose to destabilise the middle east, we become involved and our troops die (even if we were to not intervene, a migrant crisis is something that reaches our door step). If their financial industry collapse, ours is in big trouble and our tax goes to bailing them out. These things are important and we've got a candidate who, by every measure, threatens absolute havoc financially and on the world stage ("If we have nukes, why can't we use them?"). It is a huge issue if Trump wins and very well may have a bigger impact on our lives than Brexit.

I'd rather the Mafia run things than the Joker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jmothecat said:

Julian Assange vs Hilary. Even Trump supporters have to side with Clinton in that battle surely?

You may be the most brainwashed ideologue on the site, which is saying something :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm loving Wikileaks trolling Trump supporters. They had that day where Trump supporters expected some big shocking release (which Wikileaks intentionally helped mislead towards) and then had some minor anniversary announcement. Yesterday, they let a whole day go by with 'state actors' severing their internet and excited Trump supporters by the implication that the US or the UK had violated the sovereignty of the embassy only for them to announce 12 hours later that it was the Ecuadorian government themselves (who they have pissed off).

I can't wait for the day before election day for all the Trump people to pour even more money into them and get nothing in return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jmothecat said:

Julian Assange vs Hilary. Even Trump supporters have to side with Clinton in that battle surely?

Really? A guy who only wants to reveal the truth and as such is constantly slandered, threatened, accused and has to hide in a embassy because of it vs one of the people who slanders, threatens, accuses and has even been recorded saying why dont they kill him? 

Assange and Snowden have both been repeatedly threatened by the US and there is no doubt that if either left their current safe haven they would both wind up dead. That is the reality of telling the truth in America

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, EdgarusQPFC said:

Is there any proof that it actually happened, there are allegations that he did that, personally i think they are just trying to discredit and get rid of him. 

 

And the allegations have led to warrants for his arrest and questioning of which he's successfully avoided for four years now. You can have your own personal view on whether it's legitimate or not but it doesn't deny that it's not because he "tells the truth" that he hides from the Swedes is it?  Especially when Assange was in Sweden because he believed they were likely to protect him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He fled Sweden for Britain because he thought the Swedes might extradite him to the US if they arrested him. Only thing wrong with that excuse is that it's much easier for the US to get him extradited from Britain than it is from Sweden. I don't think he's been charged with anything in the US anyway, he's not been accused of hacking, only publishing, which is legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

He fled Sweden for Britain because he thought the Swedes might extradite him to the US if they arrested him. Only thing wrong with that excuse is that it's much easier for the US to get him extradited from Britain than it is from Sweden. I don't think he's been charged with anything in the US anyway, he's not been accused of hacking, only publishing, which is legal.

and yet Hillary still wants him dead

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...