US Presidential Candidates

PeterZ wrote:No one argues against this. The argument is that the alternative is worse than a flim-flam. So, for thos in the US who like to prospect of an institutionalized corrupt corporate capitalism, by all means support Clinton. I understand that foreign interests prefer her because she is clearly open to monetary persuasion via her family's foundation and has gained the tacit support of our federal LE agencies in her corrupt endeavors.

Trump is trying to organize a more US centric cabal of moneyed interests. His flim-flam would have us believe that our ills can be cured at the expense of foreign interests. It cannot. Fixing our social and economic ills will be painful and that pain cannot be shuffled off to foreigners. Fixing our problems won't be painless even if he adopts to the optimal solutions. I doubt the solutions will be optimal by a long shot.

Sheity options indeed! I'll go for the option that is least likely to result in an institutionalized corrupt corporate capitalism in the service of globalism at the expense of the American people and its sovereignty.

dscott8 wrote:"HB of CJ Shietheads? No argument there. Once again as a voter in every election since the age of 22, I again am faced with the lessor of two evils.

But .... in this case while both candidates are shietty choices, one is much less shietty than the other. I don't like it, but will be voting for Drumpf.

I mean I really don't like it, but the other choice does not even enter the discussion. Ever wonder WHY we are given shietty choices for President?"

I have spent the last 13 years working in vehicle dealerships and Trump has all the characteristics of a used car salesman. He over promises and will no doubt under-deliver. He is constantly mind gaming his "customers", and adjusts his message to whatever he thinks will get him the sale (election) because he has no firm principles of his own. Look at the man, not the message, because the message is marketing flim-flam.

They told friends that they had seen way too much.

Annachie wrote:Corrupt politician with a complicit press corp sounds a lot like Trump to me.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:You crazy.

Hillary is the one who received the worst press coverage by a long way.
The Donald was merely the worst treated of the GOP.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

PeterZ wrote:Btw, did you follow Douglas's link and read that article? If ANYONE besides a Clinton had been tied to that litany of coincidence, the press would have researched enough to prove either innocence or guilt. They have turned a blind eye. And you think her coverage is bad given all the corruption she has been involved in? Its a whitewash.

The E wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Btw, did you follow Douglas's link and read that article? If ANYONE besides a Clinton had been tied to that litany of coincidence, the press would have researched enough to prove either innocence or guilt. They have turned a blind eye. And you think her coverage is bad given all the corruption she has been involved in? Its a whitewash.

I did. Then I read this one. As with all right-wing conspiracy theories (Obama is a muslim! The UN wants to take our guns away!), I can not take the Clinton Assassination Theory entirely seriously.

PeterZ wrote:I am not sure I do either. My point was that the press wouldn't have cared whether or not there was any validity to the accusations if it was a Republican. The Dem mantra in the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings was..."the evidence is less important than the severity of the charge." The press went along with it.

The E wrote:

PeterZ wrote:I am not sure I do either. My point was that the press wouldn't have cared whether or not there was any validity to the accusations if it was a Republican. The Dem mantra in the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings was..."the evidence is less important than the severity of the charge." The press went along with it.

Yeah, they really jumped on the equivalent George W Bush Assassination list with real gusto, why, even now there are regular articles in the liberal media talking about it.

The conspiracy theory that the media are utterly under the thumb of liberals is also one that's really quite laughable. It wasn't the liberals that forced outlets like Fox to be clearinghouses for bad journalism and ideology-driven reporting.

PeterZ wrote:Dude. They cover him in the least flattering way possible. Had the electorate as a whole been more open establishment voters, that coverage would have sunk him. As it is the press coverage convinced many that he wasn't part of the political establishment and made whatever he was selling seem better that the alternatives.

Bernie would have beat Trump with the coverage he is getting now. Hillary is just too unlikeable and truly is worse in all the ways Trump is bad to the eyes of many Dems and most non-Dems.