I'm sorry but both you guys (jones and burnsy) seem so, so far off base to me. The way the US is perceived from the outside  (negatively) is deserved, but Hillary Clinton is really not any worse than all of your fake-left politicians. We just have more guns.

You also misunderstand the machinations of our government, which runs on handshakes and corruption and cults of personality rather than some grand imperial conspiracy. These people are idiots. Hillary a polished persona? Give me a break. They're all a joke.

Afghanistan is worse off? No shit. Is Jill Stein going to make anything any better? Nope. Still harping on with unimaginative cookie-cutter "progressivism" that calls for great things while offering no way to achieve it. It's all so bland that a fuckwit like Trump is a genuine contender and intelligent people are justifying him, making excuses for him, acting like somehow he wouldn't be any worse than establishment Hillary...

Well you're mighty wrong. Simple as. I think, really, that folks want to see the US collapse domestically. I don't think that would benefit anyone, long or short term. People here will lash out like we've seen time and again, and you'll find electoral support for violence and war won't be hard to come by in a climate of accelerated hatred and fear. The situation now might be bad, terrible even, but it definitely could be worse. Maybe it will be no matter who wins, but to shrug and say 'oh well' isn't particularly productive.

Afghanistan worse off? Hillary a polished persona? These are the same contextless kinds of arguments used by the GOP. It's just not relevant stuff.

Oh and, technically, the President absolutely can start unilateral military whenever he or she wants. They can and they have. Trump must lose. It's as simple as that. He'll destroy lives, at a faster rate than Hillary, I'm certain of it. The perceived American imperialist conspiracy is just that, perceived. It's not as organized as that, and cult of personality, backroom deals, and corruption rule the day in the end.

Policy and education are the only way forward, nothing else will do much of anything at all. Not technology, not revolution, not economic collapse. If we don't get those crucial policies passed, if education is denied, the US is doomed.

I'll be honest, I think that those who constantly attack Hillary and, more often than not, let Trump off the hook, actually want to see the US crumble. That's not going to be good for anybody, long or short term, and it's certainly not going to be good for me or anyone I know or love.

It's not about the principle of the thing. That's just a way of backing ideology over the actuality on the ground. You've gotta cut your losses, compromise. That's part of life, not a "trap". The trap is the two-party system, not voting against Donald Trump...that's just common sense.

Coombs wrote:

Oh and, technically, the President absolutely can start unilateral military whenever he or she wants. They can and they have.

I've already acknowledged that's technically the case, and explained my belief that recent major military conflicts involving the US have not been initiated in this way. This "Trump can't have the nuke buttons" stuff is FUD, let's be honest. Trump, someone who's worked very cosily within the legal and commercial systems of the US for decades, is being presented without much evidence as a kind of deranged Emperor Nero. The reality would be more boring and more sinister, but would not involve him simply firing off transcontinental missiles.

Coombs wrote:

He'll destroy lives, at a faster rate than Hillary, I'm certain of it. The perceived American imperialist conspiracy is just that, perceived. It's not as organized as that, and cult of personality, backroom deals, and corruption rule the day in the end.

It's the backroom deals that led to Iraq—this was my point. And they are relatively highly organised and coordinated compared to other kinds of political action—that is to say, they often represent the culmination of a plan that has drawn in supporting interests and activity for many, many years.

The only reasonable point of view, to me, given the degree of speculation, is that Clinton's election would mean continuity in existing foreign policy (which she's been a part of for a very long time), whereas Trump's election would mean some kind of break.

I hope by now I've clearly stated that I would vote for Clinton over Trump in a heartbeat, but I certainly wouldn't allow the notions that US nationhood must be preserved or that US imperialism isn't coordinated.

Nation states are headed for a historical low point—perhaps stable, probably unstable—until such time as our populations learn to take back power from global interests, a process that will probably involve creating state-like structures across borders. There's no need to call for "revolution" (the days of "storming" things are over, for a start) or for collapse, but acknowledging empirically proven dynamics like rising inequality, the unpriced negative externalities of our instruments of exchange, and the legislative capture of our democracies is important.

Trump doubleheader of the day.

  1. Donald J. Trump ‏

    [size=small]Heroin overdoses are taking over our children and others in the MIDWEST. Coming in from our southern border. We need strong border & WALL![/size]

  2. Donald J. Trump ‏

    [size=small]Dwayne Wade's cousin was just shot and killed walking her baby in Chicago. Just what I have been saying. African-Americans will VOTE TRUMP![/size]

8 days later

Haven't had a poll update from MDG lately.

Couple of articles from the Indy: firstly, Nazis and white nationalists on Twitter are growing very fast as a cohort and spend their entire time babbling about Trump's candidacy.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/white-nationalist-movement-twitter-faster-growth-isis-islamic-state-study-a7223671.html

Second, this article says Trump's pulled ahead in the polls:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-donald-trump-ahead-hillary-clinton-new-polls-latest-a7225971.html

But I have no idea how reliable it is.

That was painful to watch.

then this

at least gary johnson would get us weed to deal with the pain.

mike pence laughing at the donald at the 47 second mark. second time this on air. lol.

That's gonna win him votes though, right? First off he's getting massive coverage over it, extending his profile equal to ad money he hasn't got. Secondly, I think lots of Americans don't know what Aleppo is, and will find the outrage towards Johnson provocative and typical of the mainstream media. 

I think there's enough out there now between her medical history and recent events to seriously discuss whether Hillary is healthy enough to take office.

Does anyone know what would happen if she dropped out due to medical issues? Would Kaine move up to become the main candidate for the democrats, or is it too late to register for the election?

Apparently it's too late in quite a few states. I assume that an exception would be made if she did drop out though.

In an ideal world, US presidents should not be over the age of 60 in my view. It's a taxing job and very intense/high pressure-you clearly need a lot of energy for it, especially in this day and age. When Obama got elected back in 2008 he was at the perfect age. Can't believe Trump is 70!

Sicario wrote:

When Obama got elected back in 2008 he was at the perfect age.

He was the 4th or 5th youngest president in his country's history.

"overheated" "medical episode" genius wording. 😆

I was shocked when I seen this yesterday. I had completely dismissed talk of her health being dodgy as conspiracy bullshit but that is not something you see too often. I'm not sure if its really enough to impact her ability to perform the day to day duties of the President. W Bush apparently took it pretty easy when he was president, although Hillary seems a lot more hands on.