It's not just Comey, the general sentiment within the FBI is extremely anti-Clinton (and pro-Trump).
Who is going to win this election in November?
- Thread starter fonzob1
- Start date
- Status
A
Amaris
Guest
If true, then I have no doubt as to why. Someone like Trump would have no problems letting the FBI do whatever the hell they want in the name of national security.
Come on, Hillary. Just win by one electoral vote and I'll be satisfied. Not happy since the only way the Trumpwits will be taught anything even remotely resembling a lesson will be if Herr Cheetofuhrer is trounced in an unexpected landslide, but if my home state is what puts you over the top and makes you our next President at least I can go to sleep that night feeling pretty good.
If that were true then wouldn't this be just him running a personal agenda?
It could well be.
This is Washington during an election cycle, after all. We've seen more crass and obnoxious over the years.
This is Washington during an election cycle, after all. We've seen more crass and obnoxious over the years.
I think that crassness began when Obama won his first term. People just hated the thought of him in the oval office for whatever reason. Politics in the USA seems to have become very personal and dirty.
They keep playing the person and not the issues..
It started even earlier. After Bill Clinton won in 1992 the floodgates opened on conspiracy theories and investigations into alleged illegal behavior and by the time the 1994 midterms rolled around Clinton was so hobbled by the previous two years of brutal treatment by Congressional Republicans and talk radio that Democrats lost 52 seats in the House and eight in the Senate, losing control of both. Things didn't get much better even though Clinton rallied back to win a near-electoral landslide and a second term in 1996 and we all know what happened once people learned about a college-age intern named Monica Lewinsky. At least two more years of prying and witch hunting followed that left Clinton tainted enough by scandal and poor personal reputation to convince Vice President Al Gore to steer clear of his boss while running for President in 2000.
Oh, we all know what the reason is.
His major changes seem to be on changing tax and trade policies, renegotiating or withdrawing from many trade agreements. A few specific proposals on both those policies are on his website.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/tax-plan
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/trade/
I suspect that, with a lot of people disliking both candidates, the overall turnout and also that of particular subgroups may be lower. But Trump should have alienated enough members of enough groups, including particularly decreasing Republican turnout.
The thing about (re)negotating trade agreements is aside from the fact it can take years, is that you have to be willing to compromise with the other signatories to the agreement(s). It's not a one way street where side A gets to dictate terms to the other sides. As for not having a trade agreement WTO rules come into force which could mean the end consumer ends up paying more.
Trump doesn't seem like the kind of person who can compromise..... Too much ego
I'm not sure how much media coverage you Americans get from around the globe, but are you aware how stressed many people in other countries are about this election?
As a Canadian, I grew up watching US television. Probably 70% of our current TV channels are from the states. We'll often catch news broadcasts from local US stations--KTLA is surreal--but I'm not sure if you can easily view news from other countries like we can. From meeting many Americans both in and out of your country, I get the impression that media centralization is pretty severe.
As a Canadian, I grew up watching US television. Probably 70% of our current TV channels are from the states. We'll often catch news broadcasts from local US stations--KTLA is surreal--but I'm not sure if you can easily view news from other countries like we can. From meeting many Americans both in and out of your country, I get the impression that media centralization is pretty severe.
I don't know about news coverage. Over here not much is being made of the elections. But financial markets seem to be seesawing a bit over this election.
Yes, some of us are aware.
Can't speak to the media centralization part, because I don't watch television, except for occasional events like the conventions and debates on C-SPAN, which come entirely commentary-free. I get all my news online from The New York Times, the Baltimore Sun (local), The Hill, the Washington Post, and sometimes a few others.
It basically means that all the news/media someone living in the US(or any other country)has access to is produced by and for the US only. There is little or no access to news or opinions produced by anyone outside that country.
In this day and age, most people have access to news from around the world via the internet, so those who care about global perspective can have it. Living in Canada all my life, it's been commonplace to watch news from the US, the UK, Europe and Australia regularly and with ease.
I (fearlessly) predict Hillary will win comfortably but the media will try to make it look close and will draw it out as long as possible for ratings.
They're hoping for an Electoral tie, Representative vote, and Supreme Court case.
I see that "Media Centralization" exemplifies how humans in power inevitably behave selfishly. Self-preservation and that of advantages for your progeny is perhaps the strongest anthropological influence.
I see that "Media Centralization" exemplifies how humans in power inevitably behave selfishly. Self-preservation and that of advantages for your progeny is perhaps the strongest anthropological influence.
Last edited:
Absolutely. They are hoping for another Gore/Bush shitstorm.
- Status
Similar threads
