|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 12 2016 06:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 06:12 LegalLord wrote:On October 12 2016 06:06 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 06:00 raga4ka wrote:On October 12 2016 05:38 PhoenixVoid wrote:On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Trump releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Trump talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!' Resorting to hypotheticals doesn't help your point. On October 12 2016 05:21 raga4ka wrote:On October 12 2016 03:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON ― The U.S. is in a shooting war in Yemen, where the American military has spent years vaporizing suspected terrorists in airstrikes and a Saudi-led coalition is busily slaughtering civilians with American refueling and intelligence support.
You wouldn’t know it from watching the second presidential debate Sunday night. Even after one of the deadliest attacks of the Saudi campaign — a series of airstrikes on a funeral in Sanaa, Yemen’s ancient capital, that killed more than 140 people Saturday — neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton was asked about whether the U.S. should keep aiding an ally that appears to be actively targeting civilians.
Since debate moderators won’t ask the presidential candidates about Yemen, we did. But neither campaign answered, and their public statements alone make it impossible to tell whether they would continue President Barack Obama’s policy of supporting the Saudi-led coalition’s war against the Houthi rebel group that now controls much of the western part of the country, including the capital.
“Shouldn’t this be something we’re discussing as a country?” asked Adam Baron, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, who lived in Yemen from 2011 to 2014. “Shouldn’t the American people be aware of the fact that the U.S. is a major part of a war in Yemen?”
Because the U.S. isn’t directly involved in the Saudi-led fight, there are no U.S. troops on the ground and both sides have committed human rights abuses, Yemen barely registers in the political consciousness of American voters. It’s hard to quantify exactly how little the electorate cares about Yemen because pollsters don’t even ask about it.
That helps explain why Clinton and Trump have been able to campaign for over a year without ever being made to outline a plan forward in the country. Source Yet when rebels in Aleppo are about to lose to Assad/Russia, US, Britain and France were screaming full lungs "WAR CRIMES". I guess an ally to the west like Saudi and Israel in the past can commit war crimes without anyone batting an eye. US of all countries have committed more war crimes then any other country in the past decade. That's why I'm supporting Trumptard to become president and slow down west imperialism and hypocrisy even by a little, but again it's Trump so it might just get worse... Trump is a man who promised to end ISIS in 90 days, so he won't exactly be playing faraway foreign policy actor. Trump is a clown, I can't take anything he says seriously. I hope if he ever gets to the white house that his advisors are at least smart people, but he seems more willing to cooperate with other super powers like Russia and China on global issues. Hillary on the other hand has already done things under the Obama administration I'm not a fan of and will continue her husband, the Bushes and Obama's foreign policy. Tensions in EU and Asia - refugee crisis, Ukraine, middle east and even the South China Sea are at a boiling point, I don't want to see how it could possibly get any worse then this. B: You assume we want to get along with Russia or that country wants to get along with the US. They have made no signs of wanting to do so and every sign they intent to actively oppose the US. You really ought not to comment on matters that you know nothing about. Man, the number of times I have felt the same way about you is mind boggling, yet I kept it to myself. You pass yourself off as some foreign policy expert, but most of yours posts boil down to “this was bad, we shouldn’t have gotten involved”. As if being isolationist policies were some new and novel thing we should be considering. Please explain why I should have any warm feelings for a country that is actively attempting to hack and influence our elections? Or attempted to take down a French TV station? That invaded a sovereign nation and annexed part of their country? And why I shouldn’t’ expect them to do the same going forward?
Just stop posting. You're embarrassing yourself. Global relations isn't that simple. Politics, even between just two countries, is more than just (a) for or (b) against. Most of the times it's actually both.
|
On October 12 2016 06:34 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 06:26 Plansix wrote:
Ponder this: many wars are fought for economic reasons, regardless of the reasons politicians cook up to win public support. Russia is not really sitting on the most rocking economy right now. Previously it didn’t make sense for anyone to engage in violent conflict because of our economic ties to each other. But that is losing public support due to rising nationalist views of self determination.
Right now, a lot of people think Russia is seeing what it can get away with. How far they can push it before someone bites back. And personally, I don’t expect it to stop until someone does. Yeah the second part is pretty accurate, to be fair Russia has been disrespected pretty hard so the moment they sensed weakness they were going to pounce. Strategically speaking, I dont really blame them either tbh, after watching super powers + Show Spoiler +(and they still consider themselves one regardless of the veracity of that) do pretty much whatever the fuck they want since the breakup they were always going to look for something to re-engage their geopolitical interests.
The instant the UK parliament and US congress voted down their respective leaders move to engage Syria after Assad crossed the “red line”, we were off to the races. At the time it seemed like nothing, but it sent a very clear message to the countries that might want to make a land grab or further their own interests, the US and UK isn’t going to do shit.
That is why I laugh at the Republicans when they talk about strong foreign policy and that Obama is weak. No shit, you took his legs out from under him to score political points back home. Far and wide all people saw was the US president unable to back up a promise he made on when the US would become involved. But they don't care. They believe they can just take back the White House and everyone over seas will forget that their party produced GWB.
On October 12 2016 06:43 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 06:17 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 06:12 LegalLord wrote:On October 12 2016 06:06 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 06:00 raga4ka wrote:On October 12 2016 05:38 PhoenixVoid wrote:On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Trump releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Trump talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!' Resorting to hypotheticals doesn't help your point. On October 12 2016 05:21 raga4ka wrote:On October 12 2016 03:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON ― The U.S. is in a shooting war in Yemen, where the American military has spent years vaporizing suspected terrorists in airstrikes and a Saudi-led coalition is busily slaughtering civilians with American refueling and intelligence support.
You wouldn’t know it from watching the second presidential debate Sunday night. Even after one of the deadliest attacks of the Saudi campaign — a series of airstrikes on a funeral in Sanaa, Yemen’s ancient capital, that killed more than 140 people Saturday — neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton was asked about whether the U.S. should keep aiding an ally that appears to be actively targeting civilians.
Since debate moderators won’t ask the presidential candidates about Yemen, we did. But neither campaign answered, and their public statements alone make it impossible to tell whether they would continue President Barack Obama’s policy of supporting the Saudi-led coalition’s war against the Houthi rebel group that now controls much of the western part of the country, including the capital.
“Shouldn’t this be something we’re discussing as a country?” asked Adam Baron, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, who lived in Yemen from 2011 to 2014. “Shouldn’t the American people be aware of the fact that the U.S. is a major part of a war in Yemen?”
Because the U.S. isn’t directly involved in the Saudi-led fight, there are no U.S. troops on the ground and both sides have committed human rights abuses, Yemen barely registers in the political consciousness of American voters. It’s hard to quantify exactly how little the electorate cares about Yemen because pollsters don’t even ask about it.
That helps explain why Clinton and Trump have been able to campaign for over a year without ever being made to outline a plan forward in the country. Source Yet when rebels in Aleppo are about to lose to Assad/Russia, US, Britain and France were screaming full lungs "WAR CRIMES". I guess an ally to the west like Saudi and Israel in the past can commit war crimes without anyone batting an eye. US of all countries have committed more war crimes then any other country in the past decade. That's why I'm supporting Trumptard to become president and slow down west imperialism and hypocrisy even by a little, but again it's Trump so it might just get worse... Trump is a man who promised to end ISIS in 90 days, so he won't exactly be playing faraway foreign policy actor. Trump is a clown, I can't take anything he says seriously. I hope if he ever gets to the white house that his advisors are at least smart people, but he seems more willing to cooperate with other super powers like Russia and China on global issues. Hillary on the other hand has already done things under the Obama administration I'm not a fan of and will continue her husband, the Bushes and Obama's foreign policy. Tensions in EU and Asia - refugee crisis, Ukraine, middle east and even the South China Sea are at a boiling point, I don't want to see how it could possibly get any worse then this. B: You assume we want to get along with Russia or that country wants to get along with the US. They have made no signs of wanting to do so and every sign they intent to actively oppose the US. You really ought not to comment on matters that you know nothing about. Man, the number of times I have felt the same way about you is mind boggling, yet I kept it to myself. You pass yourself off as some foreign policy expert, but most of yours posts boil down to “this was bad, we shouldn’t have gotten involved”. As if being isolationist policies were some new and novel thing we should be considering. Please explain why I should have any warm feelings for a country that is actively attempting to hack and influence our elections? Or attempted to take down a French TV station? That invaded a sovereign nation and annexed part of their country? And why I shouldn’t’ expect them to do the same going forward? Just stop posting. You're embarrassing yourself.
This is a strong counter argument. You should take this act on the road.
|
Wonder what this election would have looked like if both Sanders and Trump went independent after the primaries.
|
On October 12 2016 06:26 Plansix wrote:
Ponder this: many wars are fought for economic reasons, regardless of the reasons politicians cook up to win public support. Russia is not really sitting on the most rocking economy right now. Previously it didn’t make sense for anyone to engage in violent conflict because of our economic ties to each other. But that is losing public support due to rising nationalist views of self determination.
Right now, a lot of people think Russia is seeing what it can get away with. How far they can push it before someone bites back. And personally, I don’t expect it to stop until someone does.
US have gotten away with every war in the past decade, because no one really had the power to do anything about it.
Russia is doing this because she is feeling cornered right now and doesn't want to lose any more allies. After the coup in Ukraine you think Russia wants to lose Syria as a potential ally as well? Russians are feeling insecure and that's why the support for Putin's party has went up after his annexation of Crimea and involvement in Syria, because he looks out for Russia's global interests.
The west had a choice after the collapse of the Soviet Union. They could've offered a helping hand to countries like Russia and China who suffered a lot in WW2 to build ties and develop them in to a more stable, democracies even. Instead NATO expanded to the east to Russia's door step, something the west promised not to do.They build anti-missile shields surrounding Russia and China isolating them even more. I'm sorry but bringing democracy with terrorists, bombs and regime changes isn't really democratic, even if some countries are ruled by dictators.
Economic reasons are of course the main reasons to get involved, but just having any geopolitical presence in the region is also important.
|
On October 12 2016 06:54 zeo wrote:
Wonder what this election would have looked like if both Sanders and Trump went independent after the primaries.
Trump going independent after winning the republican primary...................?
|
On October 12 2016 06:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 06:12 LegalLord wrote:On October 12 2016 06:06 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 06:00 raga4ka wrote:On October 12 2016 05:38 PhoenixVoid wrote:On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Trump releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Trump talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!' Resorting to hypotheticals doesn't help your point. On October 12 2016 05:21 raga4ka wrote:On October 12 2016 03:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON ― The U.S. is in a shooting war in Yemen, where the American military has spent years vaporizing suspected terrorists in airstrikes and a Saudi-led coalition is busily slaughtering civilians with American refueling and intelligence support.
You wouldn’t know it from watching the second presidential debate Sunday night. Even after one of the deadliest attacks of the Saudi campaign — a series of airstrikes on a funeral in Sanaa, Yemen’s ancient capital, that killed more than 140 people Saturday — neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton was asked about whether the U.S. should keep aiding an ally that appears to be actively targeting civilians.
Since debate moderators won’t ask the presidential candidates about Yemen, we did. But neither campaign answered, and their public statements alone make it impossible to tell whether they would continue President Barack Obama’s policy of supporting the Saudi-led coalition’s war against the Houthi rebel group that now controls much of the western part of the country, including the capital.
“Shouldn’t this be something we’re discussing as a country?” asked Adam Baron, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, who lived in Yemen from 2011 to 2014. “Shouldn’t the American people be aware of the fact that the U.S. is a major part of a war in Yemen?”
Because the U.S. isn’t directly involved in the Saudi-led fight, there are no U.S. troops on the ground and both sides have committed human rights abuses, Yemen barely registers in the political consciousness of American voters. It’s hard to quantify exactly how little the electorate cares about Yemen because pollsters don’t even ask about it.
That helps explain why Clinton and Trump have been able to campaign for over a year without ever being made to outline a plan forward in the country. Source Yet when rebels in Aleppo are about to lose to Assad/Russia, US, Britain and France were screaming full lungs "WAR CRIMES". I guess an ally to the west like Saudi and Israel in the past can commit war crimes without anyone batting an eye. US of all countries have committed more war crimes then any other country in the past decade. That's why I'm supporting Trumptard to become president and slow down west imperialism and hypocrisy even by a little, but again it's Trump so it might just get worse... Trump is a man who promised to end ISIS in 90 days, so he won't exactly be playing faraway foreign policy actor. Trump is a clown, I can't take anything he says seriously. I hope if he ever gets to the white house that his advisors are at least smart people, but he seems more willing to cooperate with other super powers like Russia and China on global issues. Hillary on the other hand has already done things under the Obama administration I'm not a fan of and will continue her husband, the Bushes and Obama's foreign policy. Tensions in EU and Asia - refugee crisis, Ukraine, middle east and even the South China Sea are at a boiling point, I don't want to see how it could possibly get any worse then this. B: You assume we want to get along with Russia or that country wants to get along with the US. They have made no signs of wanting to do so and every sign they intent to actively oppose the US. You really ought not to comment on matters that you know nothing about. Man, the number of times I have felt the same way about you is mind boggling, yet I kept it to myself. You pass yourself off as some foreign policy expert, but most of yours posts boil down to “this was bad, we shouldn’t have gotten involved”. As if being isolationist policies were some new and novel thing we should be considering. Please explain why I should have any warm feelings for a country that is actively attempting to hack and influence our elections? Or attempted to take down a French TV station? That invaded a sovereign nation and annexed part of their country? And why I shouldn’t’ expect them to do the same going forward?
Oh man, you really did just go off the deep end.
First, let's address the actual content of your argument, because that's the easy part. You made a very idiotic claim, that Russia shows no signs of wanting to get along with the US, and that the US shows no signs of wanting to get along with Russia. Other than maybe the general cooperation on most matters of fighting terrorism, non-proliferation, space exploration, and generally keeping the peace around the world, matters whose importance are far more valued for both nations than any spats over NATO or Ukraine or Syria or whatever the flavor-of-the-decade conflict is. As for why you should have warm feelings for a foreign country that has done things you don't like... well no one told you that you have to. But you should at the very least acknowledge that all of those things you moan about - invading a sovereign nation and taking over the government, hacking other nations, sabotage, trying to influence other elections (including those in Russia by the way) are things that most countries who have the power to do, do under favorable circumstances. How you decide to think of Russia is your business - what ignorant statements you choose to make are a different story.
Second of all, let's get to the issue of FP knowledge. I'm not an "expert" nor did I ever claim to be - it's not my primary occupation, and while I know a fair bit more than the average person (and I have two languages worth of information to look at), there are definitely people who know more than I do (even if I do disagree with their conclusions often). However, you on the other hand are a foreign policy ignoramus. I've had strong disagreements with plenty of people who think differently than I do - Kwark, LT, and kwizach all come to mind. But I would never say anything quite like the comment that I just gave to you, because even if they make stupid mistakes or have an assholish/shitty demeanor (hell, I've done plenty of both myself), I don't doubt that they have studied the matter enough to have an informed opinion. And FWIW, while obviously I have a lot of non-interventionist opinions on wars that ended badly, if you think my opinion on FP in general boils down to "it was bad and we shouldn't have been involved," you couldn't be more wrong.
In your case, I responded as I did because your statement is about as ignorant as Trump's "why can't we use our nukes?" and in fact, just as dangerous. And further, I'd say that you are about as qualified to lecture anyone on FP as Trump himself. When your view of Russia is about as simple as "hurr durr pootin diktator and we da good guyz" and your view of the Iraq War is "I supported it like a dumb goon so I forgive other people for being the ones to push the war" then you really are no better than Trump on the FP front. That can be excused for your not running for president or in fact taking any position that would require any substantial knowledge of the subject, but have a little bit of self-awareness for fuck's sake.
So in short, if you don't know what you're talking about, then please just don't talk.
|
On October 12 2016 06:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 06:54 zeo wrote:
Wonder what this election would have looked like if both Sanders and Trump went independent after the primaries. Trump going independent after winning the republican primary...................?
I mean if he didn't win the primary, i think Trump and Sanders could have taken (or should I say could take) some states away from the two parties or taken enough votes in 'dead-set' states to make any state winnable for anybody.
|
I love the replies to this
|
On October 12 2016 07:21 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 06:58 Mohdoo wrote:On October 12 2016 06:54 zeo wrote:
Wonder what this election would have looked like if both Sanders and Trump went independent after the primaries. Trump going independent after winning the republican primary...................? I mean if he didn't win the primary, i think Trump and Sanders could have taken (or should I say could take) some states away from the two parties or taken enough votes in 'dead-set' states to make any state winnable for anybody.
So then nobody gets 270 electoral votes and then the Republican congress elect whomever the Republican running is.
|
On October 12 2016 07:21 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 06:58 Mohdoo wrote:On October 12 2016 06:54 zeo wrote:
Wonder what this election would have looked like if both Sanders and Trump went independent after the primaries. Trump going independent after winning the republican primary...................? I mean if he didn't win the primary, i think Trump and Sanders could have taken (or should I say could take) some states away from the two parties or taken enough votes in 'dead-set' states to make any state winnable for anybody.
Depends also if Cruz got the nomination or if it was open and went to a Rubio or Kasich or Romney.
|
On October 12 2016 07:21 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 06:58 Mohdoo wrote:On October 12 2016 06:54 zeo wrote:
Wonder what this election would have looked like if both Sanders and Trump went independent after the primaries. Trump going independent after winning the republican primary...................? I mean if he didn't win the primary, i think Trump and Sanders could have taken (or should I say could take) some states away from the two parties or taken enough votes in 'dead-set' states to make any state winnable for anybody.
Winning electoral votes is a lot harder than winning a few percent of the votes in any given state.
|
On October 12 2016 07:27 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 07:21 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 06:58 Mohdoo wrote:On October 12 2016 06:54 zeo wrote:
Wonder what this election would have looked like if both Sanders and Trump went independent after the primaries. Trump going independent after winning the republican primary...................? I mean if he didn't win the primary, i think Trump and Sanders could have taken (or should I say could take) some states away from the two parties or taken enough votes in 'dead-set' states to make any state winnable for anybody. So then nobody gets 270 electoral votes and then the Republican congress elect whomever the Republican running is.
Oh yeah, makes sense. A lot of people would be pissed though.
|
On October 12 2016 07:34 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 07:27 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On October 12 2016 07:21 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 06:58 Mohdoo wrote:On October 12 2016 06:54 zeo wrote:
Wonder what this election would have looked like if both Sanders and Trump went independent after the primaries. Trump going independent after winning the republican primary...................? I mean if he didn't win the primary, i think Trump and Sanders could have taken (or should I say could take) some states away from the two parties or taken enough votes in 'dead-set' states to make any state winnable for anybody. So then nobody gets 270 electoral votes and then the Republican congress elect whomever the Republican running is. Oh yeah, makes sense. A lot of people would be pissed though.
Congress choosing the president in a tie-breaker happened only once. It's considered to be one of the most corrupt affairs in US history.
|
If every Clinton scandal was true, I bet that liberal posters in this thread would still not vote for trump, but I'm curious if anyone would just not vote.
|
On October 12 2016 07:48 biology]major wrote:
If every Clinton scandal was true, I bet that liberal posters in this thread would still not vote for trump, but I'm curious if anyone would just not vote.
If Trump was at least 0.00001% better than Clinton, I'd vote for him. I would never allow myself the shame of voting 3rd party.
|
There is no circumstance in the universe under which I'd vote Trump. Third party, write in, just voting down ticket and skipping president sure.
|
Even if the craziest of Clinton's conspiracies were true, she'd still be miles ahead of what's been confirmed about Trump.
|
On October 12 2016 07:27 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 07:21 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 06:58 Mohdoo wrote:On October 12 2016 06:54 zeo wrote:
Wonder what this election would have looked like if both Sanders and Trump went independent after the primaries. Trump going independent after winning the republican primary...................? I mean if he didn't win the primary, i think Trump and Sanders could have taken (or should I say could take) some states away from the two parties or taken enough votes in 'dead-set' states to make any state winnable for anybody. So then nobody gets 270 electoral votes and then the Republican congress elect whomever the Republican running is.
Holy shit is this the GOP 18th dimensional chess long con super plan to take semi permanent control of the country? Trumps third party takes the reactionaries and the far right conservatives and the GOP takes the libertarians and moderate to normal conservatives. With Gerrymandering and the GOPs recent long term focus on the states instead of the national political game they'll control the congress and senate with a ~5% advantage against the popular vote.
With Trump's third party taking enough electoral votes to prevent anyone from getting 270 that leaves the GOP focused congress in charge of electing the next president every cycle.
|
On October 12 2016 07:57 Nevuk wrote:
Even if the craziest of Clinton's conspiracies were true, she'd still be miles ahead of what's been confirmed about Trump.
you underestimate the craziness of the alt right, like alex jones now saying that she and obama are literal demons
|
On October 12 2016 07:57 Nevuk wrote:
Even if the craziest of Clinton's conspiracies were true, she'd still be miles ahead of what's been confirmed about Trump.
Not true.
Clinton's scale of scandal is about national security, national policies, what goes behind the curtains of politics.
Trump's scandal is just him saying hilarious stuff.
Not even comparable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
