Rigging the Election|DNC incited violence at Trump rallies

Post Reply New Topic

Contrary to past and present, if he's a loser then what does it make you or I?

The election is rigged by the illegal cooperation going on by the Hillary campaign, her SuperPACs, the media, and corporate and foreign special interests which have poured millions into this election. There is most definitely voter fraud on the ground, it can effect things and Democrats actively try to find ways to cheat this system such as by getting illegal aliens registered to vote. If this vote was going on in another country, the democracy would not be credible. Hillary Clinton believes in democracy like Robert Mugabe believes in it. She would say/do/give/take anything to become president with no regard to the rule of law or ethics, she is an evil evil person.

Hillary = Mugabe. If you really believe that, then maybe when I look up there will be Flying Monkeys in the sky; extremist statements do sound consistent with flying monkey talk, though maybe your energy is low today, given how much you have expended for months now.

Before making ludicrous claims check who Mugabe endorsed.

But nevermind, some people would rather 'downvote' reality.

Point to Mootoo. Own goal.

Point is that Hillary really does not like democracy all that much, she will do anything to be elected even if it means rigging the election.

Three claims you are making there:

Hillary doesn't really like democracy
Hillary will do anything
Hillary is an election rigger

Ok, I hear you, though I think those claims are typical examples of flying monkey assertions. You think they are true statements. Disconnect.

That means absolutely nothing to me, is that some saying New Zealand or something? You're not presenting an argument, you just don't like what I have to say about Hillary which I might add I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about beyond Trump catching your attention and scaring you. Your media reports the lies reported in our media, it's even more biased overseas so it's not surprising for there to be so much ignorance of who Hillary actually is. This is how I've felt about her my whole life, she has been Satan since the first time I heard her name and I grew up with these scandals. I think I might have a better memory than most, I remember actually remember Hillary as a candidate in 2008 and even as First Lady and I don't think most people do or else they'd never believe a single word she says. Media corruption is a huge problem, this is the type of thing we condemn other countries for. They lied us into Iraq, they will lie Hillary into the White House if need be.

You think Hillary is Satanic. Well, I think it is true that you would have to look far to find any agreement with that here.
If you assume that only USA citizens like yourself, for Trumpers, can understand what is going on in this election, then I think that is really unsupportable and for a number of reasons.

You really don't have to go that far, there's a whole basket of deplorables that agree with that assertion. Google results show hundreds of thousands of hits!

People are misinformed thru the media and if that is your only outlet into this election then you probably won't understand it, it won't have any context to you. Simple as that. Of course you can't understand the issues with immigration to America or our borders, of course you are going to have differing opinions on trade agreements that affect your country differently than ours, you don't know what biases our media has, and most of all you don't know Hillary Clinton because the media doesn't ask questions nor do they report the extent of her corruption.

Yes, giving back Hong Kong was a strategic mistake by the Brits, they lost their main point of control in South East Asia, that being said they had to because as the empire decayed so did the economic viability of Hong Kong to the British. Hong Kong was fine, so long as they controlled the entire sea route from Hong Kong to India to South Africa to West Africa, then to Britain. Once they lost the Boer War and thus South Africa, and then India, Hong Kong became economically unviable so they were forced to unload it, political strategy be damned. Also remember, the agreement to hand over Hong Kong was done a century before it actually happened-- hence the reason the Boer War and problems in India being pertinent to the deal.

As for the Panama Canal, we financed it, we didn't really build it. There were some Americans there but the majority of workers were Panamanians and Costa Ricans, and the engineering was done by the French. We treated those laborers like s**t, but that's beside the point. Relinquishing the Panama Canal was what I would call neutral-- our ships still get basically free port fees (American vessels are only charged cost), and we don't have the headache of overseeing a large infrastructure far away from the States. That said, we did relinquish control which loosened our grip on the entirety of South America-- and that could have repercussions in the future. It's also another chip we could have used for trade leverage with other countries that we just don't have now. So yeah neutral, leaning slightly bad.

That said, Ukraine is not that place. Ukraine is vital to western Europe's buffer. The Polish are some of our strongest allies in Europe, and if Ukraine falls they're next. I already mentioned the food importance and the trade importance there so I'm not going to rehash that, but yes, Ukraine is a vitally important region-- it always has been, it's been theorized that grain from the Ukraine region was what actually started the Trojan War all the way back ~1000 B.C.

As for Syria, I'm all for that going the way of the dodo. If Russia wants it so bad, they can have it-- assuming they move from the Ukraine. If not, then yes, we need to be there-- again, for a chip on the table to negotiate what we really want.

That said, just giving Russia things to appease them-- that's ridiculous.

Jacoby, my intense and informed interest in USA politics began on this date:

22nd November 1963.

I have acquired much learning during the many decades since, (and not just from newspapers here, that assumption is false). I read very widely, actually. You can learn a lot in 53 years.

Let me see if I understand the plan. The US and Russia divide up the world again like the old colonial powers?

Well, that's the way things are going. Best to have the upper hand before it gets to that apex-- that's my point.

There is a difference between giving things to Russia and taking things, I think the idea that Russia would put Poland at risk of anything is pretty silly given the anti-Russian sentiment there and western Ukraine is similar in that sentiment probably in an even more extremist way as the Ukrainians were Nazi collaborators and still idolize their Nazi era leaders so they're still there as a buffer. What makes the most sense is Poland take back Galicia and the east to Russia, the linguistic and political divisions make this divorce very easy. Russia was not going to allow itself to be kicked out of the Black Sea, to pretend like that was ever a possibility I think is not very realistic. The Ukrainian Navy suffered mass defection after the coup in Kiev, their own high command and soldiers were more loyal to Yanukovych and Russia than they were the anti-Russian coupists.

Perhaps a better example would be the Baltic countries which actually have significant Russian minorities, one deal they can make that might really help relations is to allow Russia access to Kaliningrad instead of isolating and threatening to blockade it.

Jacoby, have you spared a thought for the people of that region who want a multi-party democracy?

What region are you talking about?