The Many Faces of US Politics...

[muppet]

Here is a real person who stole real classified information, for the purpose of spying, and delivered it to a foreign Government. He took National Defence related documents, including info about nuclear weapons, the F-15 Fighter and the Patriot Missile.

He was fined $50,000. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/nyregion/30kadish.html

[muppet]

Trump is a fvckin buffoon

The fact that he's within 20 points shows how fvckin bad Hillary is

I think he actually may win this

He will win because of the double standards that apply to Hillary and not to Trump.

You, Stew and everyone else are holding the door open for him.

[J70]

Trump is a fvckin buffoon

The fact that he's within 20 points shows how fvckin bad Hillary is

I think he actually may win this

Do you really think Trump is NOT as corrupt as she is alleged to be?

This is a man who has openly boasted of (and campaigned upon) buying political favours and strong-arming politicians left right and center.

There are all kinds of allegations against him involving mafia connections, misuse of charity funds, rape/sexual abuse/harassment, dodgy financial connections to Russia, fraudulent university etc.

Which leaves us with two extremely personally flawed candidates.

So we're left with their actually policy proposals.

Trump's are pie in the sky, conspiracy-based, populist bullshit. To borrow a few examples from the Simpson's, he's like Homer running for Sanitation Commissioner or the Monorail guy.

Hillary's, while no doubt inflated and over-optimistic like those of all candidates, are based in actual reality.

[whitey]

It would be impossible to be in real estate in NYC for 40 years and not be in bed with some unsavory Characters.

Regarding bankruptcies and lawsuits.....that's par for the course with real estate. I have immediate family members in that line of business and everyone is always suing everyone else, and bankruptcies are quite normal when we have market downturns or collapses.

He's unfit for office, but she's equally unfit.

With all the shit that has come out about her, and future shit that may come out of a he 650000 times mails there is a very y good possibility that she and/or Bill will get indicted. Credible news sources are already reporting that the Clinton Foundation will come under FBI investigation

[muppet]

It would be impossible to be in real estate in NYC for 40 years and not be in bed with some unsavory Characters.

Regarding bankruptcies and lawsuits.....that's par for the course with real estate. I have immediate family members in that line of business and everyone is always suing everyone else, and bankruptcies are quite normal when we have market downturns or collapses.

He's unfit for office, but she's equally unfit.

With all the shit that has come out about her, and future shit that may come out of a he 650000 times mails there is a very y good possibility that she and/or Bill will get indicted. Credible news sources are already reporting that the Clinton Foundation will come under FBI investigation

What shit has come out about her?

Other than innuendo, there isn't even a specific charge against her, except of course your guilty when I say so verdicts.

[J70]

It would be impossible to be in real estate in NYC for 40 years and not be in bed with some unsavory Characters.

Regarding bankruptcies and lawsuits.....that's par for the course with real estate. I have immediate family members in that line of business and everyone is always suing everyone else, and bankruptcies are quite normal when we have market downturns or collapses.

He's unfit for office, but she's equally unfit.

With all the shit that has come out about her, and future shit that may come out of a he 650000 times mails there is a very y good possibility that she and/or Bill will get indicted. Credible news sources are already reporting that the Clinton Foundation will come under FBI investigation

I didn't mention the bankruptcies. Or the stiffing of contractors as a matter of business practice.

Of course, they should be considered in the overall Trump package as he is basing his candidacy on his supposed business know-how and prowess.

But, I don't know that they could be included under corruption.

On the mafia, most of the NYC real estate giants cooperated with the feds back in the 80s in their investigations. A big exception was Trump.

Regardless, my point is that if you have a choice between two (to use your own words) unfit-for-office candidates, then the realism and basis of the campaign promises should come into it, no?

And on that basis, Hillary wins, hands down.

Which doesn't mean she's ideal or even moderately desirable. Just likely to be a hell of a lot more competent and better for the country than a man who has Steve Bannon and Alex Jones whispering in his ear.

And with the way the GOP senate is making noise about also adopting scorched-earth politics, a damage-control presidency, using the veto pen, is maybe the best we can hope for anyway.

[muppet]

http://uk.businessinsider.com/paul-manafort-russia-connections-fbi-donald-trump-2016-10?r=US&IR=T

The FBI is reportedly looking into potential ties Donald Trump's former campaign manager may have had with Russia.

The inquiry apparently stems from alleged foreign business connections Paul Manafort may have had with Russian entities, according to a report published by NBC News on Monday evening.

Manafort, who served as Trump's campaign manager for several months before parting ways with the Republican presidential nominee in August, denied he had any business relationship with the Kremlin, telling NBC that "none of it is true."

"There's no investigation going on by the FBI that I'm aware of," he said.

Current Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, asked about the report on MSNBC Monday night, referred to Manafort's comments.

The New York Times reported in August that a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine advised by Manafort designated $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments for him between 2007-12. It is unclear what exactly the series of 22 payments designated for Manafort were for.

The FBI's inquiry raises questions about the possibility that Russia may be attempting to influence the US presidential election. Those concerns have been amplified by Trump's foreign policy rhetoric that some observers say is curiously favorable to Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin. The US intelligence community has accused the Russian government of being behind hacks of Democratic Party organizations this year.

The FBI's inquiry has not yet developed into a full-fledged criminal investigation, NBC News said, and it was unclear whether or not that would happen.

[seafoid]

370 economists, including 8 Nobel Prize winners, weigh in on Trump's bullshit:

(Word like "conspiracy theory", "mislead", "misrepresent", "deep ignorance", "fake" and "magical thinking" feature prominently.)

We, the undersigned economists, represent a broad variety of areas of expertise and are united in our opposition to Donald Trump. We recommend that voters choose a different candidate on the following grounds:

 He degrades trust in vital public institutions that collect and disseminate information about the economy, such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics, by spreading disinformation about the integrity of their work.

 He has misled voters in states like Ohio and Michigan by asserting that the renegotiation of NAFTA or the imposition of tariffs on China would substantially increase employment in manufacturing. In fact, manufacturing's share of employment has been declining since the 1970s and is mostly related to automation, not trade.

 He claims to champion former manufacturing workers, but has no plan to assist their transition to well-compensated service sector positions. Instead, he has diverted the policy discussion to options that ignore both the reality of technological progress and the benefits of international trade.

 He has misled the public by asserting that U.S. manufacturing has declined. The location and product composition of manufacturing has changed, but the level of output has more than doubled in the U.S. since the 1980s.

 He has falsely suggested that trade is zero-sum and that the "toughness" of negotiators primarily drives trade deficits.

 He has misled the public with false statements about trade agreements eroding national income and wealth. Although the gains have not been equally distributed—and this is an important discussion in itself—both mean income and mean wealth have risen substantially in the U.S. since the 1980s.

 He has lowered the seriousness of the national dialogue by suggesting that the elimination of the Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of Education would significantly reduce the fiscal deficit. A credible solution will require an increase in tax revenue and/or a reduction in spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or Defense.

 He claims he will eliminate the fiscal deficit, but has proposed a plan that would decrease tax revenue by $2.6 to $5.9 trillion over the next decade according to the non-partisan Tax Foundation.

 He claims that he will reduce the trade deficit, but has proposed a reduction in public saving that is likely to increase it.

 He uses immigration as a red herring to mislead voters about issues of economic importance, such as the stagnation of wages for households with low levels of education. Several forces are responsible for this, but immigration appears to play only a modest role. Focusing the dialogue on this channel, rather than more substantive channels, such as automation, diverts the public debate to unproductive policy options.

 He has misled the electorate by asserting that the U.S. is one of the most heavily taxed countries. While the U.S. has a high top statutory corporate tax rate, the average effective rate is much lower, and taxes on income and consumption are relatively low. Overall, the U.S. has one of the lowest ratios of tax revenue to GDP in the OECD.

 His statements reveal a deep ignorance of economics and an inability to listen to credible experts. He repeats fake and misleading economic statistics, and pushes fallacies about the VAT and trade competitiveness.

 He promotes magical thinking and conspiracy theories over sober assessments of feasible economic policy options.

Donald Trump is a dangerous, destructive choice for the country. He misinforms the electorate, degrades trust in public institutions with conspiracy theories, and promotes willful delusion over engagement with reality. If elected, he poses a unique danger to the functioning of democratic and economic institutions, and to the prosperity of the country. For these reasons, we strongly recommend that you do not vote for Donald Trump.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/EconomistLetter11012016.pdf

"He misinforms the electorate, degrades trust in public institutions , and promotes willful delusion over engagement with reality"

So do economists. So does Hillary
the system is broken.
The Fed is taking the piss

[J70]

370 economists, including 8 Nobel Prize winners, weigh in on Trump's bullshit:

(Word like "conspiracy theory", "mislead", "misrepresent", "deep ignorance", "fake" and "magical thinking" feature prominently.)

We, the undersigned economists, represent a broad variety of areas of expertise and are united in our opposition to Donald Trump. We recommend that voters choose a different candidate on the following grounds:

 He degrades trust in vital public institutions that collect and disseminate information about the economy, such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics, by spreading disinformation about the integrity of their work.

 He has misled voters in states like Ohio and Michigan by asserting that the renegotiation of NAFTA or the imposition of tariffs on China would substantially increase employment in manufacturing. In fact, manufacturing's share of employment has been declining since the 1970s and is mostly related to automation, not trade.

 He claims to champion former manufacturing workers, but has no plan to assist their transition to well-compensated service sector positions. Instead, he has diverted the policy discussion to options that ignore both the reality of technological progress and the benefits of international trade.

 He has misled the public by asserting that U.S. manufacturing has declined. The location and product composition of manufacturing has changed, but the level of output has more than doubled in the U.S. since the 1980s.

 He has falsely suggested that trade is zero-sum and that the "toughness" of negotiators primarily drives trade deficits.

 He has misled the public with false statements about trade agreements eroding national income and wealth. Although the gains have not been equally distributed—and this is an important discussion in itself—both mean income and mean wealth have risen substantially in the U.S. since the 1980s.

 He has lowered the seriousness of the national dialogue by suggesting that the elimination of the Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of Education would significantly reduce the fiscal deficit. A credible solution will require an increase in tax revenue and/or a reduction in spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or Defense.

 He claims he will eliminate the fiscal deficit, but has proposed a plan that would decrease tax revenue by $2.6 to $5.9 trillion over the next decade according to the non-partisan Tax Foundation.

 He claims that he will reduce the trade deficit, but has proposed a reduction in public saving that is likely to increase it.

 He uses immigration as a red herring to mislead voters about issues of economic importance, such as the stagnation of wages for households with low levels of education. Several forces are responsible for this, but immigration appears to play only a modest role. Focusing the dialogue on this channel, rather than more substantive channels, such as automation, diverts the public debate to unproductive policy options.

 He has misled the electorate by asserting that the U.S. is one of the most heavily taxed countries. While the U.S. has a high top statutory corporate tax rate, the average effective rate is much lower, and taxes on income and consumption are relatively low. Overall, the U.S. has one of the lowest ratios of tax revenue to GDP in the OECD.

 His statements reveal a deep ignorance of economics and an inability to listen to credible experts. He repeats fake and misleading economic statistics, and pushes fallacies about the VAT and trade competitiveness.

 He promotes magical thinking and conspiracy theories over sober assessments of feasible economic policy options.

Donald Trump is a dangerous, destructive choice for the country. He misinforms the electorate, degrades trust in public institutions with conspiracy theories, and promotes willful delusion over engagement with reality. If elected, he poses a unique danger to the functioning of democratic and economic institutions, and to the prosperity of the country. For these reasons, we strongly recommend that you do not vote for Donald Trump.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/EconomistLetter11012016.pdf

"He misinforms the electorate, degrades trust in public institutions , and promotes willful delusion over engagement with reality"

So do economists. So does Hillary
the system is broken.
The Fed is taking the piss

Sorry, but there's no equivalency here.

[muppet]

Trump is openly praising Putin and talking about the US not giving guaranteed support to NATO countries. Paul Manafort worked for Pro-Russians in the Ukraine.

Brexit is happening.

The EU has sanctions against Russia.

Germanys were told to stockpile food and water for 'Civil Defense'

Lithuania Prepares For Russian Invasion As NATO Sends Troops To Eastern European States
Lithuania issues manual on what to do if Russia invades


If is very easy to see how war could come about in Eastern Europe, within the boundaries of the EU. The isolationism of both Trump and Brexit could open the door to this.

[whitey]

Hillary is going down.....remember, you heard it here first

[muppet]

Hillary is going down.....remember, you heard it here first

For what?

If you answer that, it really would be a first.

[Declan]

These kinda sum up my thoughts on the election looking at it from the outside







But this photo by Nate Gowdy, of a Trump rally in Loveland, CO, on Oct. 3rd, 2016 is stunning -  Without a single letter of copy, it tells an entire story

[Hardy]

At a Trump rally the average age and the average BMI are roughly equivalent. I'd say if you were to measure average IQ it'd be a hat trick.

[whitey]

These kinda sum up my thoughts on the election looking at it from the outside







But this photo by Nate Gowdy, of a Trump rally in Loveland, CO, on Oct. 3rd, 2016 is stunning -  Without a single letter of copy, it tells an entire story

All that and $2 will get you a cup of coffee at Dunkin Donuts.

She's finished