Comments on: How have events shaped the Clinton-Trump race?

By: Brainstorms

Brainstorms — Sat, 22 Oct 2016 17:17:34 +0000

And while you may be a cynic, I, for one, do NOT look forward to any excuses in 4 years.

God knows we’ve gotten more than 4 years’ worth of excuses regarding Trump in just the last several months.

By: Brainstorms

Brainstorms — Sat, 22 Oct 2016 17:16:11 +0000

You have a severe bias problem if you think that Hillary will go progressive on any of the items I mentioned.

No where on any of these blog posts did say that, or even imply that. Please make your political assertions without involving me.

Similarly, you do not see me making excuses for the Obama administration. I actually agree with you on some of your criticisms…

By: CanadianSteve

CanadianSteve — Sat, 22 Oct 2016 03:55:08 +0000

@Brainstorms
You have a severe bias problem if you think that Hillary will go progressive on any of the items I mentioned. The only one there that might not go corporate america’s way is TPP, and that’s only because she was forced into publicly opposing it to prevent losing the primary to Sanders. There will be a push to get that passed before she can be confirmed though.
Recall that Obama also came in 8 years ago as a progressive, and has since accomplished the following:
increased surveillance/police state
passed a formerly Republican health care plan that has enriched insurance companies (though to be fair, has increased coverage)
allowed wall street execs to go completely unpunished for almost taking down the world economy
made GWB tax cuts for wealthy individuals permanent
allowed too big to fail banks to get larger
allowed drug companies to set prices higher in the US than anywhere else in the world

and a significant part of this occurred while democrats also held a majority in the senate.

I look forward to the excuses in 4 years.

By: Gerrit Bogaers

Gerrit Bogaers — Fri, 21 Oct 2016 06:58:28 +0000

The third television debate (being held on 19 October 2016) between both running candidates for the presidential office proved Trump being a narcist, uncapable of becoming a suited President of the USA. In July, August this year my wife and I traveled in Ontario, (Toronto, Ottawa, Sault St. Marie and so on). The journey brought us into contact with many Canadians on diverse meetings, whom we met at random. All of them concerned people of various spectres of life. What they taught us is a well based concern of USA´s and world´s future with Trump as President. Some Canadians uttered a sertious thought of getting tens of thousands of new Canadian, namely former US citizens applying for Canadian citizenship after Trump supposedly having become President of the USA. With some distance looking at the present conditions of the USA, compared to those of Canada, I would not be surprised if (in the far?) future some northern states of the USA would leave the US-Union and become provinces of Canada. The souls of USA and Canada compared: Canada is much more civilized and has a better safety and caring policy for the common good of the multitude and wellbeing of all, compared to these basic ‘raisons d’etat’ of the USA. Compared with dogs, the USA is more a wild, hungry pittbul, and Canada is a vigilant Pyrenean Bergdog. Under Trump the unsound dog, being today´s USA would become bezark, under Clinton the USA could get more and more the characteristics of a very balanced Pyrenean bergdog. Needless to say what kind of dog most people prefer. Laren NH, Friday 21 October 2016

By: Brainstorms

Brainstorms — Fri, 21 Oct 2016 04:25:54 +0000

Steve, you’re confusing Hillary with someone like Mitch McConnell… Best read up on who these people actually are, not who their enemies claim them to be.

By: CanadianSteve

CanadianSteve — Fri, 21 Oct 2016 03:26:16 +0000

@Brainstorms
I’m not one of those “they are equally as bad” people. No question how horrible Trump is. So when I say long term good, I also imply short term harm. (Which is why the Supreme Court is such a problem… it lasts a long time)
Clinton is an experienced leader that has done a lot, and yes, she has some answers but they aren’t really that great. If there was a capable opponent that republicans could get behind she’d be getting her rear end kicked.
Sure, she answers questions better than Trump, but that doesn’t make her answers good, let alone good for the country.
What is her stand on Fracking? On fixing inequality? On cleaning up problems with Wall Street? Her private stand on the TPP? On prison reform? When she has to choose between bailing out a million people or bailing out a few billionaires, who do you think she’ll pick?
She is not a good candidate for 99% of Americans.

By: dean

dean — Thu, 20 Oct 2016 21:32:25 +0000

Kevin:
Thanks for answering my question about you.

Hillary’s comment was, essentially, “don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched, remember what happened when…”
without suggesting any positive benefit or further urging.

Trump’s comment went past that, based on the (100% false) accusation that Hillary wants to eliminate the 2nd amendment and saying that perhaps there is something the 2nd amendment supporters can do.

Do try to keep up.

By: Eric Lund

Eric Lund — Thu, 20 Oct 2016 20:45:19 +0000

@Kevin: There is a difference between pointing out the theoretical possibility that something could happen, and actually encouraging that thing to happen.

The former was what Clinton did: she correctly pointed out that RFK, then a leading contender for the Democratic Presidential nomination, was assassinated in June 1968. The Secret Service is supposed to prevent things like that from happening, but they are not always successful: there were two assassination attempts against Ford (both shooters missed) and one against Reagan (who was injured), and that’s just incidents I can name without resorting to Google. Granted that no such incident occurred with Obama during the 2008 primary campaign, but that’s hindsight.

Donald Trump advocated “second amendment solutions” to prevent Hillary’s judicial nominees from taking office. There are ways to interpret that as other than advocating Hillary’s assassination, but they imply a call for assassinating somebody, whether it’s Hillary’s voters or Hillary’s nominees. It’s a direct call to violent action of some kind.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 20 Oct 2016 19:42:25 +0000

dean,

“Kevin, were you just afraid people would forget what an idiot you are? Is that why you posted that?”

After Obama had a large lead, but had yet to clinch the nomination, Hillary was asked why she was still running. She responded;
well, its a long campaign, remember Bobby Kennedy.

When it was pointed out that that comment sounded like she was advocating the killing of Obama, she shrugged it off. 2 weeks later, she was asked the same question, and again gave the same answer.

How is that not the same thing Trump sis?

By: Wow

Wow — Thu, 20 Oct 2016 16:14:06 +0000

“” That’s an assumption.”

No it isn’t. Ecuador has officially admitted”

Fair enough, last I heard, and that was only yesterday, it was unstated who did it, but lots were going “Gaaah, Assange is just an ASSHAT!!! HOW can it be POSSIBLY true??!?!?”.

Blocking email/twitter/fb/blahblah was not considered because these people KNOW that Assange is making shit up, and they just want to see evidence that they’re right.