jackt, from what we see down under you are sadly lacking in any real choice for your President. I agree there are so many unanswered questions about the Clintons and they do seem to be embedded in the system. Obama is undeniably a far better option but the system prevented anything getting done. We have our own problems with parties not working together in the interest of the country but they truly pale by comparison. And as for Trump, really, President, apart from Détente and Putin, it would be hard to find someone less suitable.
sorry jackt but anyone who believes there is a liberal bias and refers to Corporate Media as the MSM hasn't been paying attention. The reason politifact has a 10 -1 liberal bias is because the Right Wing lies more than the Left because they have to. They have no accomplishments to run on so the survive through lies and obstruction. I agree with Phil, both candidates are flawed. But seriously you want to elect a guy who praises Vladimir Putin? You can't see that there is something really wrong with Trump? You don't remember Italian President Berlusconi?
Oh and jackt your comment about the MSM redirecting the political narrative.... Where are your complaints when they ignored the first 3 months of Sanders campaign and give Trump a pass on all the crazy crap he spouts on a daily basis? Why aren't they questioning him on his donation to the Florida AG? Why aren't they asking about his ties to Russian Banks? Why aren't they asking Melania if she was ever in this country illegally? Why aren't they asking if Trump is a Manchurian Candidate or born in Kenya? Why aren't they asking Trump if he did Cocaine when he was hanging out in Studio 54 in the 80s? Don't you remember all the garbage that was in the so called MSM about Obama that turned out to be just that.... Garbage?? The Washington Times is a political tool, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Unification Church. It well known that they publish right wing propaganda. It is also one of the most quoted sources on the Rush Limbaugh Show. And believe it or not Rush IS part of the so called MSM.
This is what really confuses me. The same people who believed in the Red Menace and were Cold Warriors now praise Putin and love Communist China. Can't their followers see that either the Cold War was a farce or their leaders new found respect for Communist countries and their leaders is due to their desire to be autocrats like them?
Only I can make America Great Again! Ein Menschen, Ein Vaterland, Ein Fuhrer!
Clinton Foundation - 4-star rating (out of 4) by Charity Navigator. That group must be another slanted group. https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?ba\ny=search.summary&orgid=16680.
I am unabashedly a Hillary fan. But I also understand those who may dislike her. What I don't get is how any sane person could consider voting for Trump after listening to his insane comments, lack of decorum, insults, lies, bribes, and failure to release his tax returns.
I think the saddest commentary on the current political climate in the USA, is that I find myself wondering if I can really believe in the validity of the upcoming election results...whatever they may be.
"...consider voting for Trump..." he's not a political whore, that makes him the ONLY qualified candidate in the past 6 presidential elections. When you got for a pol who has sold YOUR VOTE before they get into office, sorry, that is the action of a completely unaware adult. Until YOU hold pol's responsible for NOT SELLING you out for money of the special interest, you're sort of part of the reason the system is broken.
'vote for'...[got was Siri]
Judy, once you stop believing, will you ever believe again?
I disagree. I am not into the victim approach to life...life is about 'choice'...you get to choose...over and over and over again...quitting is a choice.
lk911, how can you disagree with a question? No, it was not rhetorical.
As I said, "sane person . . ."
I would submit that Donald Trump is the biggest political whore to ever come down the pike. He may not have held elected office before but he plays the whore very well. He panders, he lies, he flip flops, he bribes, he promises stuff he knows he can never deliver.
There are two things that should disqualify him from anyone who listens to him. 1: Refers to himself in the 3rd person. 2: Posits as fact by saying "Many people are saying this" Number 2 is the most disturbing. It allows him to say stuff and not be held accountable. Number 1 is also disturbing but in a purely psychological sense.
Only qualified candidate in the last 6 elections....??? Poppy Bush, career politician, ex-Head of the CIA, Ronald Reagan ex head of SAG union, switches to Republican party Governor of CA. Are you equating that Donald Trump is as qualified as them? If so then you are admitting that HRC is more qualified than Donald Trump because her resume includes SoS and Senator from NYS.
I took you to mean only qualified candidate in last 6 elections to mean that Poppy Bush and RR were qualified candidates.
Mitt Romney, John McCain, G W Bush, Bob Dole, G H W Bush. Republican candidates in last 6 elections. None of them qualified?
If not then we have to believe that the Republican voter is not to be trusted. They nominate unqualified candidates.
At least three times in American history we have elected a president who lost the national popular vote but won the electoral college. The most recent occasion was in 2000. It is possible that the same thing will happen again this year. Is there something wrong with this picture?
There is a possibility though slim that neither candidate receieves 270 electoral votes. Then guess who gets to choose the President.
HRC still holds a 69.5% to 30.5% chance of getting 270 over DJT at http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-elec\ntion-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
So yes it could happen again this year. DJT would be able to claim that the system used since the inception of our Democratic Republic is rigged and delegitimize Clinton if she were to win that way. But of course if he turns out to lose the popular vote and win 270 electors then the system will have worked as intended by the founders.
While in Brazil it was pointed out to me on a couple different occasions that Brazil was more democratic than the U.S. because they have direct elections ("1 man 1 vote" ) and no Electoral College. I have no opinion either way on this. It is they way it has been done for 200 years. The voters and candidates know this. The system is not rigged.
The three times we can be sure that we elected a president who lost the national popular vote but won the electoral college were in 1876, 1888 and 2000. The national popular vote for 1824 is not accurately known because in six states the Electors were chosen not by popular vote but by the state legislatures. The states were Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, New York, South Carolina and Vermont.
Okay not to disagree but why would the naming of electors in those states by legislators keep the popular vote from being known?
Wikipedia on that link below has this about 1824
1824: John Quincy Adams
In the 1824 presidential election John Quincy Adams was elected President on February 9, 1825. The election was decided by the House of Representatives under the provisions of Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution after no candidate secured a majority of the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson had received the most electoral votes, but he did not become President. This became a source of great bitterness for Jackson and his supporters, who proclaimed the election of Adams a corrupt bargain.
Oh! TallMike. I understand now. Those states did not allow a popular vote at that time.
So if you understand it that way you could also say that the winner of the most popular votes allowed at that time and the most Electoral votes did not win the Presidency, right?
DING. Some big line crosshatches and a nice loner. Not a snap. 18.
Hey, I can't see the right edge of the Chatterbox anymore.
you have to scroll over. Not sure how that happened.
tuco, the people of the six states I listed could not vote in the presidential election of 1824. In the other states, the people could vote, and the totals of the votes they cast were therefore not a national popular vote. Perhaps we could accurately call them a regional popular vote, but that doesn't seem relevant to the issue as to whether or not the right of the entire populace to choose their president was subverted. We will never know for sure whether it happened then, but we do know that it happened in 1876, 1888 and 2000, and it could easily happen again. Personally I do not understand why we continue to risk undermining people's trust in the electoral system by one or more repeats of the election fiasco of 2000.