US Politics

[Penguin]

govt run is a disaster, private insurers and hospitals milk you good for proper care, and are you seriously trying to compare India to the US ?

No, I'm just wondering how come your concern with and criticism of US healthcare, in view of your flags. Healthcare coverage in my country no doubt is better than in the US.

I'm older than you. That's for certain.

Sure. That's probably also why I've been at this forum for more than a decade, which is easily half decade longer than you have.

 

[T-72]

No, I'm just wondering how come your concern with and criticism of US healthcare, in view of your flags. Healthcare coverage in my country no doubt is better than in the US.

none, not an issue that concerns me.

ok, my bad, just checked, I missed that you were not quoting me in your post earlier.

 

[-SINAN-]

^^^Assuming that's why you said the word Pennsylvania irritates Turks. 98% of the population here doesn't even know this individual exists and are innocent citizens.

Yeap, you assumed right.

Erdoğan often talks about that individual as "The one resides's in Pennsylvania"......so everybody is like..... Pennsylvania = Coup

Ofcourse population has no fault, and it's not about American people.

Have fun trying to conquer though

Well, i think we would try...if
1-) You had not been the world's superpower.
2-) You didn't posses nuclear weapons.
3-) Your army had equal firepower to Greece's army.

 

[Penguin]

The United States has a vast record of interference in the elections and regime changes of other nations. The Russians are using jus computers and other low-tech means to create an impact whilst the Americans are renowned for using lethal force, blackmail and occupation as their preferred methods.

The Russians have such a history too. But is there a history of US government actively interfering with the Russian process?

Well, that is sour grapes for the white male who didn't earn a degree or has a salary which doesn't satisfy him. It is also sour grapes when the white male blames others for terrorism etc. when his own government has groomed Jihadi elements during the Cold War against Russia. Blaming Obama, Russia, Muslims and the Mexicans won't resolve their educational and salary woes. I don't like to single out one ethnic group, but for the sake of this discussion I will have to use the term "white male". Unfortunately, this has been the problem of the angry and dissatisfied white male all along. It has always been a nasty blame game towards others and playing the victim card. Instead of blaming others, this specific groups needs to have a hard look at itself. To make matters worse, voting for Trump won't resolve their problems one bit. Trump has no political record and even if he had he wouldn't be able to address their personal issues. Besides, he says a lot of ridiculous stuff, but he can't deliver on half of his promises and you know this too. He backtracks every minute. I don't know whether the "aggrieved" white male should trust Trump because if his promises aren't fulfilled the disappointment is going to be immense.

Agree. Mind you, we are talking about the US electorate here, not the world population of white males.

You keep putting words in my mouth regarding Russia. I've never defended Russian actions pre and post WWII etc. I've already explained that Russia has its fair share of problems like any other country. They certainly made mistakes and are still committing errors. No country is perfect. The irony is that you keep singling out Russia as the primary evil when the country that you are defending is guilty of similar crimes and worse. We cannot dispute that Russia has always been considered a threat and an enemy by the US because it challenges their hegemonic designs. There is no other way of putting this. We can see a similar pattern for China now. The same rhetoric all over again. The truth is that Americans are insecure and are always on the outlook for enemies to unify. Their track record proves this. For the record, I'm not anti-American. I'm just very critical of the double standards and the hypocritical ways of this country.

You mistake my comments for 'defending America'. As a European, how can one not be concerned with military sabre rattling from the East? E.g. http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-norway-nuclear-targets-2016-11 And how has Norway 'offended' Russia exactly? Norway agreed to host 330 U.S. Marines for a rotational training deployment. Mind you, during the 1980’s for example, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s commitment to the defense of northern Europe resulted in annual winter training exercise in Norway and the USMC routinely deployed to Norway with a regimental headquarters and an infantry battalion along with supporting aviation and logistics units.

Again, you accuse Russia of information warfare, but hasn't the US done worse by forcefully overthrowing regimes and waging wars on false pretenses? Doesn't the US interfere in the affairs of other nations? Don't you know that the US hacks Russian and other systems in the world? What about Edward Snowden's revelations? Should we just give the US a free pass? Russia might be guilty, but let's not kid ourselves. The Americans are the undisputed masters of duplicity.

I don't accuse Russia of that, the US Government does. That is a big difference, it is not simply my opion.
I don't have to like or defend US foreign policy, just like I don't have to like or defend Russia's foreign policy.
Where is the evidence of (comparable) US information warfare activities directed specifically against the Russian electoral processes?
As a citizen of a small (there are cities with a larger population than the Netherlands) Western European nation, lucky enough to have escaped replacement of Nazi-German occupation with Soviet occupation during/after WW2 (the country was mostly liberated by Canadian and Polish troops), I am acutely aware of the limited influence that my own country has and can have on these two giant countries, and the humongous concequences we stand to suffer from their actions. So I am concerned either way.

 

[T-72]

I don't accuse Russia of that, the US Government does. That is a big difference, it is not simply my opion.
I don't have to like or defend US foreign policy, just like I don't have to like or defend Russia's foreign policy.
Where is the evidence of (comparable) US information warfare activities directed specifically against the Russian electoral processes?

As a citizen of a small (there are cities with a larger population than the Netherlands) Western European nation, lucky enough to have escaped replacement of Nazi-German occupation with Soviet occupation during/after WW2 (the country was mostly liberated by Canadian and Polish troops), I am acutely aware of the limited influence that my own country has and can have on these two giant countries, and the humongous concequences we stand to suffer from their actions. So I am concerned either way.

Trump is still better equipped to deal with the Russian threat than that crazy woman.

 

[T-Rex]

Trump is still better equipped to deal with the Russian threat than that crazy woman.

There's only one reason why the indians worship modi as a bhagwan.

 

[Solomon2]

Quite ironic for camp Clinton to be saying this of anyone, isn't it?

It's hard for me to tell if groupthink blinds them or if they actually realize what they're doing.

Trump is still better equipped to deal with the Russian threat than that crazy woman.

The record suggests Hillary doesn't see the Russians as a "threat" but as a source of Clinton Foundation revenue and an occasionally useful political foil. How Trump sees the Russians is anybody's guess...maybe depends on his mood...

 

[Desert Fox]

Democrats, Media, NeverTrump Have National Panic Attack​

Stunned by FBI bombshell, pundits and Clinton allies whip up new 'Red Scare'
by Jim Stinson | Updated 02 Nov 2016 at 10:24 AM

There have been few political meltdowns such as the ones being seen in real time now, thanks to Democrat Hillary Clinton’s woes with the FBI.

There’s James Carville turning into an exploding pumpkin on CNN on Monday. There’s Harry Reid threatening the FBI director with a violation of the 1939 Hatch Act.

And there’s the new Red Scare — the suggestion that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is a Manchurian candidate, a tool of the Russian KGB. That silly charge is back and bigger than ever. In their frenzy to tar Trump as somehow tied to Russian President Vladimir Putin, media big shots are not even watching their own reports.

On Tuesday morning, CBS News morning host Gayle King asked why the FBI wasn’t looking at Trump’s alleged ties to Russia. Just minutes earlier, CBS News reporter Norah O’Donnell cited a New York Times article stating there were no Trump ties to Russia, per the FBI.

Slate also got burned by, of all outlets, The Times. The left-wing digital outlet reported, breathlessly, that Trump’s servers had been communicating with a Russian bank. Then The Times story came out debunking the claim as nonsense.

And there's Geraldo Rivera, the old Clinton hatchet man from the 1990s. The commentator went ballistic on Monday and Tuesday when he suggested Clinton's email scandal was dumb and harmless. He called the Clinton email issue a "GOP plot."

Reid sent the first command to attack President Obama's FBI director on Sunday. The Democratic Senate minority leader accused FBI Director James Comey of violating the 1939 Hatch Act, a law against government officials using their position or government resources for campaign purposes, for daring to mention a Democratic candidate within two weeks of an election.

Longtime Democratic guru James Carville then freaked out on Monday.

In an already infamous meltdown on MSNBC, Carville, a longtime operative for the Clinton family, melted down in an extended rant. He even blamed the anchor for siding with the Republicans and the KGB.

"This is in effect an attempt to hijack an election," Carville said. "It's unprecedented … the House Republicans and the KGB are trying to influence our democracy."

Carville repeatedly asserted House Republicans and Russian intelligence were manipulating a pliant FBI.

The meltdowns are a good sign that Trump is closing in on the target. Democrats know voters generally do not like to vote for candidates under current criminal investigation.

On Friday, Comey said he was looking anew at Clinton's server, which she used from 2009 to 2013 while secretary of state. The FBI had declined to press charges on July 5, when Comey announced Clinton's handling of classified material did not constitute "gross negligence."

But when new emails were discovered in October on a laptop owned by Huma Abedin, longtime Clinton aide, the FBI changed its tune. Reportedly, there are 650,000 emails on a laptop owned by Abedin and her estranged husband, ex-Congressman Anthony Weiner.

Weiner is under investigation for repeatedly engaging in online sex talk with a minor.

And in one fell swoop, the Clinton campaign was hobbled. Here was a scandal that had sex and misbehavior mixed in, giving it long-term legs in the media.

But unlike Trump's trash talk caught on a hot mic, the FBI is involved in this one. It also resurrects the email issue, which the Clinton campaign has been dealing with since it was first broken by The New York Times on March 2, 2015.

Democrats have since been rushing to the media and sites such as fivethirtyeight.com, the equivalent of Valium for liberals, where they received assurances that Clinton is ahead in the polling averages and projections.

The New York Times chipped in to do its part. The newspaper resurrected the issue of Trump's income taxes with a story that Trump may have used a "legally dubious" tax deduction in the 1990s. Lower in the story, The Times admits the deduction was "outlawed" after Trump and other businessmen used it — which means it wasn't that dubious.

And, again, The Times admitted it didn't have a copy of Trump's income taxes. For any year. The anxiety is not just confined to media outlets and Democrats.

The "NeverTrump" faction of the GOP is also in full panic mode as the Republican nominee increasingly looks likely to win or lose in a tight contest — leaving them out in the wind.

The Weekly Standard, a chief proponent of NeverTrump elitism, is now in the third stage of grief: bargaining. It tweeted out a link to a story calling on Trump to pledge to serve one term.

And there is Ohio Gov. John Kasich who made a point of telling the media that he officially broke his pledge to support his party's presidential nominee. He instead wrote in Arizona Sen. John McCain on his ballot. Top Kasich aide John Weaver was a staffer on McCain's failed 2000 bid.

CNN then reported the Kasich story — and used three reporters to do so.

The election is in one week, so the panic is unlikely to subside. Expect the next stage to begin soon: the throwing of the kitchen sink.

@T-72 @Nilgiri @C130 @boomslang

 

[cloud4000]

Trump is still better equipped to deal with the Russian threat than that crazy woman.

Please explain how given the allegations that Trump is a Russian stooge?

 

[T-72]

The record suggests Hillary doesn't see the Russians as a "threat" but as a source of Clinton Foundation revenue and an occasionally useful political foil. How Trump sees the Russians is anybody's guess...maybe depends on his mood...

Please explain how given the allegations that Trump is a Russian stooge?

A nationalist or a traitor, they should make their minds up already, because it cant be both.

To anyone watching, it's clear as day, Trump is a strongman nationalist who wont let the US be bullied around by hostile actors. Him proposing a detente with Russia is common sense, not appeasement and not coming from a place of weakness. Dealmaker Trump setting the stage for negotiations by expressing a willingness to be flexible and work together, he's put a big idea out there, let's see how they respond..

read his book

 

[Solomon2]

 

[cloud4000]

A nationalist or a traitor, they should make their minds up already, because it cant be both.

To anyone watching, it's clear as day, Trump is a strongman nationalist who wont let the US be bullied around by hostile actors. Him proposing a detente with Russia is common sense, not appeasement and not coming from a place of weakness. Dealmaker Trump setting the stage for negotiations by expressing a willingness to be flexible and work together, he's put a big idea out there, let's see how they respond..

read his book

I have read Trump's book way back in the 1980s when I was in high school. I'm sorry, but negotiating a real estate deeal is vastly different excercise than negotiation with other countries. The stakes are so much higher and not always about dollars and cents.

Even if we give Trump the advantage of doubt, what kind of deal will he be seeking from Russia and Putin? What interests will Trump sacrifice to reach such a deal? And why is so Putin so enamored with Trump that he's willing to help him win by hacking Democracts? And what about the rumors about Trump and his advisors being in bed with Russian moneymen?

Sorry. There are just too many questions. I may not trust Clinton, but when it comes to Russia, I trust Trump even less.

 

[RabzonKhan]

The Economist magazine, has endorsed Hillary for president.

Hillary is going to be good for the economy and business, the madman on the other hand is going to be a disaster, since the race has tightened, thanks to Republican FBI chief's the so-called, October surprise, the markets are already shaky.

America’s best hope

Why we would cast our hypothetical vote for Hillary Clinton

Nov 5th 2016

A QUARTER of Americans born since 1980 believe that democracy is a bad form of government, many more than did so 20 years ago. If the two main parties had set about designing a contest to feed the doubts of young voters, they could not have done better than this year’s presidential campaign. The vote, on November 8th, is now in sight, yet many Americans would willingly undergo the exercise all over again—with two new candidates. Of course that is not on offer: the next president will be either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

The choice is not hard. The campaign has provided daily evidence that Mr Trump would be a terrible president. He has exploited America’s simmering racial tensions (see article). His experience, temperament and character make him horribly unsuited to being the head of state of the nation that the rest of the democratic world looks to for leadership, the commander-in-chief of the world’s most powerful armed forces and the person who controls America’s nuclear deterrent.

That alone would stop us from casting a vote, if we had one, for Mr Trump. As it happens, he has a set of policies to go with his personality. A Trump government would cut taxes for the richest while imposing trade protection that would raise prices for the poorest. We disagree with him on the environment, immigration, America’s role in the world and other things besides. His ideas on revenue and spending are an affront to statistics. We would sooner have endorsed Richard Nixon—even had we known how he would later come to grief.

Our vote, then, goes to Hillary Clinton. Those who reject her simply because she is a Clinton, and because they detest the Clinton machine, are not paying attention to the turpitude of the alternative. Although, by itself, that is not much of an endorsement, we go further. Mrs Clinton is a better candidate than she seems and better suited to cope with the awful, broken state of Washington politics than her critics will admit. She also deserves to prevail on her own merits.

Like Mr Trump, Mrs Clinton has ideas we disagree with. Her tax plan is fiddly. Her opposition to the trade deal with Asia that she once championed is disheartening. The scale of these defects, though, is measured in tiny increments compared with what Mr Trump proposes. On plenty of other questions her policies are those of the pragmatic centre of the Democratic Party. She wants to lock up fewer non-violent offenders, expand the provision of early education and introduce paid parental leave. She wants to continue Barack Obama’s efforts to slow global warming. In Britain her ideological home would be the mainstream of the Conservative Party; in Germany she would be a Christian Democrat.

In one sense Mrs Clinton is revolutionary. She would be America’s first female president in the 240 years since independence. This is not a clinching reason to vote for her. But it would be a genuine achievement. In every other sense, however, Mrs Clinton is a self-confessed incrementalist. She believes in the power of small changes compounded over time to bring about larger ones. An inability to sound as if she is offering an overnight transformation is one of the things that makes her a bad campaigner. Presidential nominees are now expected to inspire. Mrs Clinton would have been better-suited to the first half-century of presidential campaigns, when the candidates did not even give public speeches.

However, a prosaic style combined with gradualism and hard work could make for a more successful presidency than her critics allow. In foreign policy, where the president’s power is greatest, Mrs Clinton would look out from the Resolute desk at a world that has inherited some of the risks of the cold war but not its stability. China’s rise and Russia’s decline call for both flexibility and toughness. International institutions, such as the UN, are weak; terrorism is transnational.

So judgment and experience are essential and, despite Republican attempts to tarnish her over an attack in Benghazi in 2012, Mrs Clinton possesses both. As a senator she did solid work on the armed-services committee; as secretary of state she pursued the president’s policies abroad ably. Her view of America has much in common with Mr Obama’s. She rightly argued for involvement early on in Syria. She has a more straightforward view of America’s capacity to do good; her former boss is more alert to the dangers of good intentions. The difference is of degree, though. Mrs Clinton helped lay the foundations for ending the embargo on Cuba, striking a nuclear deal with Iran and reaching agreement with China on global warming. A Clinton presidency would build on this.

Keep America great

The harder question is how Mrs Clinton would govern at home. It is surely no coincidence that voters whose political consciousness dawned in the years between the attempted impeachment of Bill Clinton and the tawdriness of Mr Trump have such a low opinion of their political system. Over the past two decades political deadlock and mud-slinging have become normalised. Recent sessions of Congress have shut the government down, flirted with a sovereign default and enacted little substantive legislation. Even those conservatives inclined to mistake inaction for limited government are fed up.

The best that can be said of Mr Trump is that his candidacy is a symptom of the popular desire for a political revival. Every outrage and every broken taboo is taken as evidence that he would break the system in order that, overseen by a properly conservative Supreme Court, those who come after him might put something better in its place.

This presidential election matters more than most because of the sheer recklessness of that scheme. It draws upon the belief that the complexity of Washington is smoke and mirrors designed to bamboozle the ordinary citizen; and that the more you know, the less you can be trusted. To hope that any good can come from Mr Trump’s wrecking job reflects a narcissistic belief that compromise in politics is a dirty word and a foolhardy confidence that, after a spell of chaos and demolition, you can magically unite the nation and fix what is wrong.

If she wins, Mrs Clinton will take on the burden of refuting the would-be wreckers. In one way she is the wrong candidate for the job. The wife of a former president, who first moved into the White House almost 24 years ago, is an unlikely herald for renewal. In her long career she has at times occupied a no-man’s-land between worthy and unworthy, legal and illegal. That is why stories about the Clinton Foundation and her e-mails, which the FBI is looking at again, have been so damaging. They may barely register on the Trump-o-Meter of indiscretions but, in office, Mrs Clinton’s reputation for rule-breaking could destroy her.

In another way, she is well-suited to the task. Herding bills through Congress to the point of signing requires a tolerance for patient negotiating and a command of sleep-inducing detail. Though it has been hard to hear above the demand to “lock her up”, Mrs Clinton has campaigned for an open, optimistic country. She can take heart from the fact that, outside Washington, there is more bipartisanship and problem-solving than most Americans realise, and from the fact that popular pessimism has far overshot reality. Around 80% of Trump supporters say that, for people like them, America is worse than it was 50 years ago. That is false: half a century ago 6m households lacked a flushing lavatory. It is also a most un-American way to see the world. The time is ripe for a rebound.

In elections we have sometimes hoped for Congress and the presidency to be controlled by different parties. Some who cannot bring themselves to vote for Mr Trump but do not care for Mrs Clinton either will opt for that choice. Yet the loss of Congress would increase the chances of a Republican Party reformation that both the party and the United States need.

Hence our vote goes to both Mrs Clinton and her party. Partly because she is not Mr Trump, but also in the hope she can show that ordinary politics works for ordinary people—the sort of renewal that American democracy requires.

 

[Solomon2]

The Economist: "a prosaic style combined with gradualism and hard work could make for a more successful presidency than her critics allow."
​

"A Potemkin process is better than nothing."
- Hillary Clinton​

Around 80% of Trump supporters say that, for people like them, America is worse than it was 50 years ago. That is false: half a century ago 6m households lacked a flushing lavatory.

So this magazine plainly assumes Trump supporters are descendants of poor folks whose grandparents used outhouses; i.e., they aren't members or supporters of the civilized elite. A very British and very un-American attitude, yes?

 

[T-72]

I have read Trump's book way back in the 1980s when I was in high school. I'm sorry, but negotiating a real estate deeal is vastly different excercise than negotiation with other countries. The stakes are so much higher and not always about dollars and cents.

in the end, it's always about dollars and cents.

Even if we give Trump the advantage of doubt, what kind of deal will he be seeking from Russia and Putin?

something that is beneficial to the US ?

What interests will Trump sacrifice to reach such a deal?

(hopefully) US backed Syrian "rebels" for one ?

And why is so Putin so enamored with Trump that he's willing to help him win by hacking Democracts?

oh please, as if hacking and espionage is something new for these 2 rivals. As citizens of the US, it would serve you better if you guys were to actually look into the content of those hacked e-mails because they expose the criminality and corruption of the Clinton machine, DNC or foundation, take your pick.

and what makes you think Putin is 'enamoured' with Trump ? Let's hear directly from him on it:

And what about the rumors about Trump and his advisors being in bed with Russian moneymen?

like the Trump organization's secret server and ties to the Russian oligarchy and some banks ?

super weak sauce, even the Trump hating mainstream press is calling them out for it:

Bloomberg: Clinton Plugs Another Weak Story About Trump’s Ties to Putin

I may not trust Clinton, but when it comes to Russia, I trust Trump even less.

fair enough, everyone has their pov but apart from the rumors, what exactly about Trump is it that bothers you when it comes to Russia ?

Clinton is on record and doubles down on her 'no fly zone' idea every time when asked/speaking about it, I fear that might lead to greater conflict between the world's 2 biggest nuclear armed states. She's a fucking neocon warhawk proxy jihadist loving saudi money grabbing corrupt two faced bitch, a danger to the planet.

bu-but Trump says mean things ?

give me a break.