you're letting big finance cloud your judgement. you don't think trump is influenced by 'big finance'? how about the real estate? Russia? republican 1%ers?
The real difference is that Trump doesn't owe big finance any favors - Trump is fueled by his own (relatively petty) business interests. On the other hand, Hillary gets her fuel from by Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Citygroup, Morgan Stanley... Hillary owes these people favours and she knows how to slowly change things in their favor without anyone noticing - If this election has taught us anything it's that Hillary partially owns the media. If Trump tries to pull anything, the media won't let him get away with it.
Ideally, I would have picked Bernie Sanders, but the elites wouldn't allow it.
1.) you're assuming voting for hillary is automatic war with Russia. and would vote based on that single fallacy. (very doubtful you're american anyways)
2.) You, being "single issue" voter, ignore that trump is a psychopathic, women-hating, racist, tax-dodging, russia-affiliated antichrist who will bring shame and destruction to America.
3.) You are so afraid of Russia (they're failing economically, politically, and technically) that you would vote a madman into the US office. You are the type of people that would vote in Hitler.
> 1.) you're assuming voting for hillary is automatic war with Russia. and would vote based on that single fallacy.
No, I'm assuming that hillary would be very similar to obama and bush. You're the one making the wrong assumption.
> 2.) You, being "single issue" voter, ignore that trump is a psychopathic, women-hating, racist, tax-dodging, russia-affiliated antichrist who will bring shame and destruction to America.
Like I said above, I don't ignore any of the things you mentioned, as I've been following the subject extremely closely. In all likelihood I'm better informed about how flawed Trump is than you are.
> 3.) You are so afraid of Russia (they're failing economically, politically, and technically) that you would vote a madman into the US office (doubtful you're american anyways)
I'm not afraid of Russia, I'm afraid of war. War isn't "we win they lose". More likely, we both lose. In any case, you're mistaken in saying that they're failing in any of the categories you mentioned. Russia was failing in the 90s. I guess you haven't been keeping with the world outside of your bubble since then.
> You are the type of people that would vote in Hitler.
> No, I'm assuming that hillary would be very similar to obama and bush.
It's worse than that. If Hillary was going to be similar to Obama, I'd be ok (not happy, but ok) with electing her.
Based on the available evidence though, Hillary is actually far more hawkish than Obama. She was the one pushing for intervention in Libya, Biden was entirely against it - and IIRC Obama has mentioned that as possibly the biggest mistake of his administration. She's also been repeatedly posturing for more intervention in Syria, as if that place isn't enough of a clusterfuck already.
She appears to lack any kind of introspection whatsoever about use of force (look up her comments on the aftermath of Libya...), and worse, appears to view it as some kind of a dick measuring contest (remember the whole "under sniper fire" thing? She clearly has a need to be seen as appearing tough...).
Frankly, I don't know which of Hillary or Trump is more scary. As flawed as Obama has been, I would vote for him in a heartbeat over either of them. Or Romney, for that matter (and I was a Bernie supporter, so that should tell you something).
>And what bold advances has Russia made?
> They neutralised Georgia after Georgia attacked and killed several of their soldiers.
> They seized Crimea after the new western-imposed government threatened to end the perpetual lease of the Sevastopol naval base
wow, what universe do you live in where conquering a whole nation is justified by a few lifes lost or stopping a commercial agreement? disgusting
A twice elected democratic government of Ukraine was overthrown in a violent coup, orchestrated from abroad, that used neonazis to do the dirty work.
When this happened, the people of [what was then called] the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" voted in favor of leaving what was left of Ukraine and rejoining the Russian Federation - which they were originally part of for longer than the US has existed.
Ukraine as a country has only existed for 20 some years. Before that is was a loose territory of different regions. The East was mostly ethnic Russians, the West was mostly other groups. And Crimea was always Russian.
The majority of the force used in Crimea composed of Russian solders that stood outside the gates of Ukrainian military bases, blocking them from leaving, to carry out orders to stop the referendum... Which turned out to be over 95% in favor of rejoining Russia.
Ignoring all the bs in your post would you recognize the right of any of the Russian regions to vote for their independence? (as far as how things unrolled you just have to watch interviews with Igor Strelkov who hardly can be accused of pro western bias).
BS is BS.
Orange revolution rigged election and re-election during this time the president and parliament remained the same so no clue what you are talking about. 2012 rigged parliamentary election but people let it slide. The removal of Yanukovich from power constitutional majority of parliament (same members as under Yanukovich) voted to remove him. Your russian TV narrative is great but disconnected from reality.
USSR/Russian overthrows/subversions so many it's not even funny. From which year do you want to count?
1917
1920
1964
1991
1993
1996
2012
> A twice elected democratic government of Ukraine was overthrown in a violent coup, orchestrated from abroad, that used neonazis to do the dirty work.
Perfect example of russian propaganda.
> leaving what was left of Ukraine and rejoining the Russian Federation - which they were originally part of for longer than the US has existed.
Crimea was part of Russian Federation _for longer than the US has existed_???
Huh? I said otherwise smart people are losing their minds over this election, not that everyone is stupid. Your list underscores my overarching point though: there is incredible motivation from many parties and many parties with resources to see Trump fail, at every stage from the primaries to the GOP nomination to the eventual election in a month, that if there was real dirt on Trump that could make him dance like a puppet (or otherwise be manipulated, or tarnished so terribly), it's incredibly unlikely that such dirt would only be known to Putin.
This just proves to me it's the crooked Establishment and Elites vs Trump and the Middle Class, even if half of us will have to be dragged kicking and screaming 'racist!' and 'literally Hitler!' into our new Trump-built promised land.
Why do newspapers even have to endorse candidates at all? Isn't the idea of newspapers telling people how to think - and how to vote - somewhat Orwellian?
I'd much rather that people vote for Clinton because they made up their own mind and decided she was the better candidate, not because "well everybody told me to so I guess I better do what they say". That's scary.
Expressing an opinion is "Orwellian"? When you use words in such a manner they start to lose meaning. Maybe that already happened and led to your post.
No, I do not think it is a problem for any person or editorial body to share an opinion. I do not see it as a form of mind control to be exposed to other people's worldview. And Trump is exactly as hideous a human being as everyone has pointed out, besides being a deeply flawed candidate who is in over his head and has no capability to deliver on even a fraction of (what little) he has promised.
I started replying, but much of what I would have said is covered better by the USA Today post regarding their endorsement breaching their editorial ethics of neutrality:
"Endorsements might taint the objective reporting we were trying to do in the rest of the newspaper. Moreover, [USA Today founder Al Neuharth] felt it was elitist to assume we know better than everyone else when it comes to voting."
1.) Paul Manafort, Trump's previous manager, received a cash payment of more than $12 million from Pro-Russia party in Ukraine
2) Donald Trump's campaign's ONLY intervention in the entire GOP platform was to remove anti-Putin language from the platform re: Ukraine.
3) Not only that, but just days before the RNC, Carter Paige, one of Trump's foreign policy advisers traveled to Russia and gave a speech attacking America's policies towards Russia, calling America's focus on democratization and fighting inequality "hypocritical."
4) The Intelligence community has confirmed that Russian Intelligence is responsible for the hacking of the DNC, which is an obvious attempt to harm Hillary Clinton's campaign.
5) Furthermore, Donald Trump called on Russia to release/hack any emails they could get their hands on.
6) Trump's campaign manager has ties to pro-Putin oligarchs who were propped up by the Kremlin. This isn't new information. As long ago as 2005, there were calls to McCain's people to try and do something about Manafort because he was working against American interests in the region.
7) Trump has praised Putin numerous times, calling him a far better leader than Obama.
I love how this comment has been down voted, even though it's much more truthful than the parent comment (which misses many other points as described above.)
We can play this game all day. Both US major federal political parties are neck deep in Kremlin corruption and ties to each other. Trump has also never taken an 'anti-NATO' stance, he wants to shake down NATO countries for cash to pay for protection, and so did Dubya, who threatened my country into joining the Afghan military adventure with that whole 'you are with us or our enemy' speech.
The question is, is Russia trying to get Trump elected which is hard to believe since they enjoy a pretty good relationship with the Clintons, but who really knows I will concede. I'm also not buying the secret IOCs that "verify" state sanctioned involvement, they verify similar attackers, that use a Russian VPS.
You didn't even bother to refute the GP's points; rather, you go on some strange invective against both US political parties. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader of what this implies. (hint: it smells a lot like cheap vodka and balalaika on a polar bear)
so a psychopathic, women-hating, racist, tax-dodging, russian affiliated candiate is less evil than hillary? do tell. is emailing on a seperate server really that important in the whole grand scheme of things? I am guessing you're not American anyways. You just want to see America fall.
> so a psychopathic, women-hating, racist, tax-dodging, russian affiliated candiate is less evil than hillary? do tell.
I don't believe Trump is any of those things. Quite the contrary I'm convinced he's an altogether good human being.
Sure his manner of speech isn't the most political correct, but I'd much rather have rough talk from an honest person then snakeoil from a proven liar.
> is emailing on a seperate server really that important in the whole grand scheme of things?
If the server was set up specifically to allow sidestepping of FOIA then yes it's important. If non-State business was conducted on it in tandem with State business then yes it's important. If it was used to conduct State business and any records were deleted then yes it's important.
> I am guessing you're not American anyways. You just want to see America fall.
I can't speak for the GP, but I'm American and I want nothing but the best for this country.
So a guy who tweets fake crime statistics to make it seem like most white murders are done by black people and a guy who publicly shames women for their body is not a racist or sexist? In what reality do you live?
it seems every month we get an submitted article about how 'inclusive' and 'integrated' wechat is. nobody ever remembers that wechat is a result of government/state relationship, (unfair) shutting out of all foreign competition, tech monopoly, and lack of credit card use. Nevermind the downsides of having one app
1.) lack of choices
2.) pricing gouging
3.) monitoring
4.) lack of product innovation
5.) censorship
naturally the big US tech companies would love if the user only used their one single app. but thank god there are choices in the western world.
It seems the main threat from a Saudi collapse is a takeover from Iran-Russian-Syria coalition. That's a tough one because both Saudi and Russia are hostile to US. But it's doubtful Russia can launch a full-scaled invasion into a soverign country.
