November 9 2016

[Fool_Hardy]

Yeah this.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+george+carlin+on+voting&view=detail&mid=1C21D36D8336FFF052CC1C21D36D8336FFF052CC&FORM=VIRE

Captain my Captain.

[Vaerick]

HRC is in real trouble if wikileaks keeps up the train. This election is really unbelievable. Now this has been circulating (see below), from a rather interesting guy, regardless of what you think about his opinions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Pieczenik      Dude has a lot of US government and Educational credentials to be throwing down the gauntlet like this, so it lends legitimacy, but then I hear he's on Alex Jones and it throws it out the window for me again. That said, almost anything is plausible in this 2016 election.

 

[Pali]

Quote

 

On May 3, 2011, radio host Alex Jones aired an interview in which Pieczenik claimed that Osama bin Laden had died of Marfan syndrome in 2001 shortly after the September 11 attacks, and that the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 were part of a false flag operation by entities within the American government, the Israeli leadership and Mossad.

On October 20, 2011 in an interview with Alex Jones, Pieczenik claimed that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was alive, and said, "There’s no way they killed Muammar Gaddafi, that’s not our operating mode and I've been involved in 30 years with the takeouts and regime changes." He also criticized President Barack Obama, calling him an "obsessional pathological liar".

On November 1, 2016, Pieczenik announced on his YouTube channel that Hillary and Bill Clinton "effected a silent civilian coup through corruption and co-option. However, people in the intelligence community formally initiated a counter-coup through supplying information to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks in order to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming the next president of the United States, while also convicting and indicting Barack Obama, Loretta Lynch, and all others who were complicit in the cover-up of the massive corruption that occurred under the Clinton Foundation." 

 

So right here we have a guy who is obviously completely comfortable throwing out conspiracy theories, throwing out another conspiracy theory with no evidence, no sources, no names, while claiming to speak on behalf of an intelligence community that he has not been a part of for decades.  He also writes military and spy fiction.

 

What some guy says is meaningless.  What can be demonstrated is what matters.

[Vaerick]

He's an interesting guy. He's also been in many government positions. As for what he's saying, you could certainly interpret the series of events in his story, but you could also craft that story to fit the events. They're pretty wild claims to be sure, but if he's telling the truth or not will be completely visible before long so I can't help but wonder why he'd waste an entire career for like a week in the spotlight to a relatively small audience.

As for the evidence. Man, Science, Engineering, etc I'm right there with you, BUT anytime you're talking politics, intelligence, and just government in general, if you wait for double sourced documentation for every single detail you'll be severely under informed. The government and it's operations are designed to work in secrecy as are the people who are involved. Your best bet is to look at events, and known facts, weighed against who benefits the most, and who is harmed the most. 

EDIT: Politics itself, and the tools involved have become more sophisticated as history has progressed, but the tools themselves are inherently the same, even those that are not "acceptable" anymore. Just because we are "civilized" doesn't rule out political tools, that while unsavory, are tried and tested. We must remember, politics is the brokerage of power, and when you are talking about the most powerful entity in the world, you must accept that these people aren't going to just let go of said power because they weren't willing to use dirtier tactics.

 On the side of the citizens it is most often seen in the shape of propaganda, riots and/or other acts of sedition, and on the government side it includes a wide list from propaganda to coup de etats to political assassination. I promise you they don't advertise what they are doing.

 

[Pali]

I'm not disputing that he served usefully.  However, that is all decades in the past - the last govt. post he held was in 1979.  He gives no reason to think he's got access to any current intelligence information.

 

This video has, in the last 3 days, gathered 2.5 million views.  This is about 1000 times more views than his average.  He effectively just made himself a legend in the conspiracy community, and that isn't going to go away regardless of what truth comes to light in the next few weeks.  Alex Jones has been full of shit for decades, but that doesn't stop him from having tons of followers.

 

I'm not asking for double-sourced documentation.  I'm asking for anything that supports his claims beyond his own word, which I find of little value.  Consider how much skepticism you would apply to anything Hillary Clinton says, and apply that same level of skepticism to anything this guy says, and see how convincing you find it then.

[Vaerick]

Oh I am giving him plenty of scrutiny, and that's why I'm not rushing off to buy weapons lol. Just because I post a video doesn't mean I believe it's gospel truth. I do believe it is a good exercise in thinking, however, to consider situations outside the realm of how we normally view them. Especially with government, as our population has dumbed down to the point where they forget these things are even possible. Regardless of what he, or anyone else says, barring some dramatic unforseen circumstances I will be simply watching this play out as I would any other election. I am willing to consider outlying possibilities whilst I do so though, especially given just how much of an oddity this election really is.

On it's surface value , regardless of the merits of that mans claims, the notion of a coup of some sort, even in the United States should never be looked upon as something impossible. Our country exists with the mindset that we and our institutions are somehow unique, but that's not really the truth is it? Historically, Republics are very vulnerable forms of government, and can only exist in a true form under some very special circumstances combined with the proper amount of resources. Rome was a monarchy, then a republic, then an empire. America was part of a monarchy, then a republic, and right now, given the vast wealth gap, growing government powers of surveillance and enforcement, highly factionous government, and just general lack of trust in the governing body, it really isn't inconceivable that it could make the final leap to empire, under a political leader more fortunate or capable than the rest (to paraphrase Washington).

Each generation of politicians for the most part has done shadier and shadier dealings, except in periods of correction which are rare. Building on top of the previous generations actions thinking, well it's not that much worse, they take steps, over time that eventually lead to grevious examples of corruption and injustice. As the bar gets lowered, they get away with more bs, but at the same time, trust in the institutions themselves begin to fail, and after awhile you will reach a breaking point. That's the life cycle of any government, as none has lasted forever. The only question is, can we course correct to extend the timeframe or not? How close are we really to the breaking point?

[Pali]

I don't know that I agree that historically republics are particularly vulnerable.  I wouldn't agree that Rome turned into an empire because of some natural historical cycle - it was a combination of events stretching back a century that led to Julius Caesar marching on Rome, and changing any of a hundred factors could've prevented it from happening (just remove the Marian reforms and Caesar's legions would've likely remained more loyal to Rome than to him, and they went through before Caesar was born).  Athenian city-states in Greece only stopped being republics after being conquered by Philip of Macedon.  One of the oldest governments in the world is actually a republic, San Marino.  

 

A lot of people tend to think that history follows patterns in a manner similar to destiny playing out.  I am not one of them.  Paint with a broad enough brush and you can find similarities between anything, but every government that falls does so for its own particular reasons and circumstances.

[Vaerick]

I will be honest, I really want to be able to root for Hillary. Ask anyone I know, from the very beginning, I have condemned Trump. I saw him for what he was, a two bit con man selling snake oil to an angry and ignorant population. When Bernie spoke, and I saw his record, I knew who I wanted to win, but I also knew it was unlikely. That said I gave money and voted in a primary, two things which I've never done before. When Hillary won, it wasn't surprising. I mean, it's not like Truth, Justice, and the American Way really wins. But I thought, so be it. I believed then, prior to the wikileaks revelations about the truth of the matter, that the dnc and the hrc campaign had played favorites. And let's be honest, why wouldn't they? They put Bernie in for the illusion of choice, and I expect from the very beginning were working together under the assumption the old socialst wouldn't get any traction. After they realized they botched that, they stepped it up harder and colluded more and eventually, whether through outright fraud or just raw influence she won the primary. Honestly, I can even forgive all of this. As much as it makes me sick and angry and betrayed, I can forgive it because let's be real- why would the dnc play fair with someone who's never really been a democrat vs a woman who's been a democrat most of her life and was married to their most favorite past president? That's simple logic, and I won't condemn her for that. I was enraged that when DWS was finally forced to step down HRC had the audacity to hire her back, but that's politics. That said, if she really wanted Bernie's people she would have severed ties until after the election. Then she didn't even have the decency to replace her with someone respectable. She replaced DWS with Brazille whom the owner of CNN called disgusting for such a terrible breach of ethics.

Then came her stances. Most of it was palitable, basically a centralized version of Bernie's plans for the most part- socially. But. Then came her posturing with Russia. Even before the leaks started, she had already taken the stance that she wanted to impose a no fly zone in Syria. Well, let's be real. There was a time when that was a possibility. Back when Obama drew his "red line" and more importantly, before Russia became involved directly. Syria is a vassal state to Russia much as Israel is to the US. Now with them there, it won't be Assad's planes we have to shoot, but Russian planes and Russian anti-air positions. One engagement could spiral out of control before we even knew what happened. It's not like back in the day when it took time to get your pieces in order. One plane gets shot, they retaliate with missiles against ships and positions, we do the same against their ground, and send in reinforcements, they do the same and other areas of conflict explode at the same time, and before we can even blink we're in WWIII. That's if we're lucky and they stick to conventional weapons.

I listened to Putin give a speech about the state of affairs, even before it had spiraled this far. He was talking about defense systems, and how we were basically putting them everywhere and saying hey man it's cool, it's for defense against x,y,z. But that's not how it works, and this is true- defense and offense are tied together. So, for example, if we continue to build up anti-missile capabilities around Russia, we will eventually make it to where we can hit them but they can't hit us due to the defense positions. Well, that's not really defensive because in that scenario we would automatically win any conflict. It'd be like a gun vs a knife at 20 yards. As "liberal" as the right calls Obama, he has been very hawkish in his foreign policy, and very antagonistic toward Russia. With HRC's position on a no fly zone, it blows that into bigger proportions. Now double that with all this talk of Russia hacking the dnc and Putin helping Trump because he's some kind of Russian agent sounds awfully similiar to pre-war propaganda. And let's be real. If you were to take a position that Putin was trying to screw you out of being president, are you going to , in any way, be willing to work together with the dude? Doubtful. Hillary has been described by her own secret service team as worse than petty. I could go on but her position on Russia and the Clinton foundation are two very sketchy things in my book. And again, I think Trump is a monster, and a total shame on the country that he's even got this far, so I'm not in any way suggesting anyone should support him.

I will say this though. I really wonder if spouses shouldn't be counted in the whole term limits thing because lets be real. Nearly every first lady played a pivotal role in either getting her husband elected, keeping him sane, pushing agendas, making them look good, etc or some combination there of. Billary was a partnership the first time every bit as much as it will be this time. You show me a first lady and I'll show you a pivotal part of a president's team. See Jackie O or Eleanor Roosevelt as examples.



Best/worst

Trump

best: a national embarassment who is blocked everytime he does anything shitty by an already overly suspicious population. He will push for anything that will help him, tax cuts, etc, and largely make loud noises, but will be hemmed in by the establishment that he derides so much. Unlikely to get much done. However, hopefully the shame of his presidency will make it a 1 termer, and will lead to a greater push in 2020 leading to a more progressive leadership. Because I hate to say this, but let's be real. The far end of Trumps people, the really bad ones (not the mainstreamers), such as the kkk,  neo nazis, etc- they've been bottled up for 8 years under their worst case nightmare. A democrat president who was also black and had a foreign middle name. The one positive of Trumps (hopefully short) presidency, if nothing else, is that this anger will be released, and they will be shown again for a final time to be just as much of a sham as their candidate. They will crawl back to the corners of society from whence they came and will remain there until their breed dies out.
EDIT If Hillary wins, this sentiment bottles further, and grows more toxic and next election it will be a more potent and volatile force.

worst: goes full orange hitler mode, ignites civil/wwiii

Clinton

best: More of the same gridlock. Republicans hate the clintons, to them they're the crooks who got past the state line, and will block at all opportunity. Possibly some positive steps forward, but not much for the common man, maybe a tribute for some civil rights, but too little too late. Banksters and Oil will thrive, and corruption and pay for play will increase. It is likely Hillary can accomplish more than Trump as she knows the way the establishment machinery works. 

worst: machinery is co-opted to support clinton initiatives. War is started over the Syrian Powder keg, and emergency powers are made which are later formalized to the first American Empire (ceaser style- I think she would be much smarter and smoother about this than Trump, which is why I am more wary about her- she has the game to a T). I kinda see her as a King Echbert character for you vikings watchers.

[Vaerick]

25 minutes ago, Pali said:

I don't know that I agree that historically republics are particularly vulnerable.  I wouldn't agree that Rome turned into an empire because of some natural historical cycle - it was a combination of events stretching back a century that led to Julius Caesar marching on Rome, and changing any of a hundred factors could've prevented it from happening (just remove the Marian reforms and Caesar's legions would've likely remained more loyal to Rome than to him, and they went through before Caesar was born).  Athenian city-states in Greece only stopped being republics after being conquered by Philip of Macedon.  One of the oldest governments in the world is actually a republic, San Marino.  

 

A lot of people tend to think that history follows patterns in a manner similar to destiny playing out.  I am not one of them.  Paint with a broad enough brush and you can find similarities between anything, but every government that falls does so for its own particular reasons and circumstances.

A powerful republic and a small out of the way republic are two very different republics. As for rome, you are right in that there are a lot of factors, but the point remains that if the people had more faith in the established leadership they would have resisted after Ceaser crossed the Rubicon.

Edit: That is to say, even is coronation would have been a messy event. His assassination came from within the established political elite, but the masses were largely fans of Ceaser himself, and went to war backing his faction after Julius's death. Ultimately cementing the Empire under Agustus.

[Pali]

1 hour ago, Vaerick said:

A powerful republic and a small out of the way republic are two very different republics. As for rome, you are right in that there are a lot of factors, but the point remains that if the people had more faith in the established leadership they would have resisted after Ceaser crossed the Rubicon.

Edit: That is to say, even is coronation would have been a messy event. His assassination came from within the established political elite, but the masses were largely fans of Ceaser himself, and went to war backing his faction after Julius's death. Ultimately cementing the Empire under Agustus.

I agree that the Athenian city-states and Rome were different circumstances - that was my point, that every govt. that falls does so for a unique set of reasons.

 

I also agree that greater faith in the Senate would've made it harder for Caesar to seize power, but so would've better moves on the parts of Pompey and the Senate at the moments of crisis, or Caesar's legions not being financially bound to him.  My only point is that there are more factors involved.  Does a lack of faith in the leadership make a republic vulnerable?  You bet - but then, I'd argue it does the same to every other form of govt. as well, and perhaps to a more significant degree.

[Vaerick]

I agree there. Specifically to Republics what makes them vulnerable is short term vs long term. Frequent transitions breaks goals, and often the incoming president reaps the rewards of the pasts presidents actions, and in turn won't reap his own, leaving no goal really finished in the end, and in turn leading to a series of half assed measures that accomplish little at best. All governments in this age must adhere to some degree to an educated population. That said, anytime you have a transition of power there's always the chance that shit goes wrong. One thing that is unique about America is we have a near spotless record of peaceful transitions. Unfortunately it's nearly impossible to have a long term vision as it stands today. Closest we came was FDR and he did pretty damn well (minus a few sketchy things he tried to pull). Ultimately, any form of government can potentially work if it is legitimized by the population (not to say a population can't be whipped into submission over time, but the human spirit is remarkably resilient), as most people don't even care about politics so long as they feel relatively content and that their kids have a shot at bettering their status in whichever way makes them happy. Anywho, past my bedtime. 

[f0xx]

Pali has stated that the main reason he is going to vote for HRC is her stance towards global warming, climate and pollution, because he perceives them as more immediate danger than anything else.

 

To be honest, HRC's foreign politics seems to me is a much more immediate danger to the world, than Trump's stupidity. Any candidate who builds his campaign on hate towards another country is not deserving of my vote. The main aggressors in the world currently are USA and NATO (which is USA again). USA alone is currently bombing 7 countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and Libiya).

 

By the way, here are the 2015 results for ending the cuba embargo:

(the two countries are USA and Israel)

 

Here is the 2016 vote:

 

 

 

 

[Vaerick]

Yeah her position on Russia is something right out of the Cold War and it scares me because that's not the world I grew up with. I was born in 1989 and I never was afraid of the Russian or soviets or whatever. So it's funny cause trump is accused of wanting to turn back the clock  of progress and while that is true it's also true for hillary too. 

[f0xx]

 

[Pali]

Assange doesn't have his facts quite straight.  In 2010, the US approved a $60 (not $80) billion 20-year contract with Saudi Arabia to sell older aircraft to them (F-15s and helicopters, primarily).  Saudi contributions to the Clinton Foundation did not continue while she was Secretary of State, as this video very strongly implies, though contributions from some other countries did; as the Washington Post reported, "Some foreign governments that had been supporting the foundation before Clinton was appointed, such as Saudi Arabia, did not give while she was in office and have since resumed donating."

 

7 hours ago, f0xx said:

Any candidate who builds his campaign on hate towards another country is not deserving of my vote.

This really makes me wonder how much attention you've paid to this campaign.  Clinton is in no way running on hatred of Russia.  Trump IS running on hatred for Mexican immigrants (he started his campaign by telling us that Mexico is sending rapists into the US) and Muslims.  Clinton may be advocating a no fly zone in Syria (she's sometimes put this in the context of doing so under an agreement with Russia, which I consider a fantasy notion and leads me to think she's taking the position for largely political purposes so that she'll seem tough) but even with the risk of escalation involved in such an action that's in no way a campaign built on hatred of another country.

 

The Obama administration has been fairly open-minded towards Cuba from the start, and has gone further in re-establishing relations than any other Presidential administration in recent history - but only Congress can end the embargo.  I agree that it should, but this isn't really something that can be blamed on any specific administration.  Let's not pretend that zero progress is being made here.

[Manual Labour]

As far as I know Trump never said he hated Mexican immigrants, he said he was sick of ILLEGAL immigrants pouring into the country and getting amnesty. They then steal jobs from Americans who are actual citizens and desperately need work. Trump also claims that Mexico sends a lot of their worst criminals (aka rapists and drug dealers) into the USA to let America deal with them. I do not know how much of that is true but I think it is unfair to say Trump hates Mexicans and immigrants in general. As for his stance on Muslims, with all crap going on in Europe I would sure as hell be careful with Muslim immigrants too until I know I had a way to vet them before accepting them, it is not a secret that terrorist groups are using immigration as a means to send their people to western countries.

You also cannot deny that Trump has more of the ethnic vote than any republican in recent history, so there must be a reason for that. If what he says is true about how he wants to help blacks for instance then I think his plans in that regard are actually quite sound. Seems to me, at least based on what he says, that he wants to actually improve the quality of life for blacks rather than use them as a weapon and perpetuate racism for votes.

[f0xx]

1 hour ago, Pali said:

This really makes me wonder how much attention you've paid to this campaign.  Clinton is in no way running on hatred of Russia. 

 

You say I am not paying attention campaign and then say Clinton is in no way running on hatred for Russia?

Right.... 

I guess you want evidence from me to support my claim?

Hillary Clinton BLAMES Russia and Vladimir Putin for US CYBER ATTACKS / HACKING

Hillary Destroys Syria, Blames Russia

Hillary Clinton Campaign Blames Russia For Leaked Wall Street Speeches

Keep calm & blame Russia: Will Clinton ever get tired of summoning Kremlin boogeyman?

Democrat Congressman Tim Ryan Blames Russia for FBI Re-Opening Clinton Investigation

Putin criticises Hillary Clinton for anti-Russian rhetoric in the US election campaign

[Pali]

Quote

When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they’re killing us economically.

The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems.

Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

Emphasis added.  There was not a word distinguishing legal or illegal immigrants here, Mexico itself is named as not our friend, and the implication is that Mexico is intentionally sending criminals here - which is not at all true, particularly given that legal or not, immigrants have lower crime rates than Americans do.

 

25 minutes ago, Manual Labour said:

As for his stance on Muslims, with all crap going on in Europe I would sure as hell be careful with Muslim immigrants too until I know I had a way to vet them before accepting them

Refugees are already substantially vetted - it takes between 18-24 months to get through the process.  Further, refugee terrorism in the US is an incredibly rare thing: "The United States has resettled 784,000 refugees since September 11, 2001. In those 14 years, exactly three resettled refugees have been arrested for planning terrorist activities."  Many European countries don't have the luxury of vetting as we do, simply because of geography - people just show up on their shores, and then they're there and need to be dealt with.  We've got an ocean between us and them, so we get to choose who we take.

 

@f0xx: The US Intelligence community has officially blamed Russia for hacking the DNC and releasing information from it with the intent to influence the election.  That Clinton echoes the position of the US Intelligence services isn't running a campaign of hate by my measure.  If it is by yours, okay, I guess we're disagreeing pretty significantly on terminology here.

[Manual Labour]

Your quote of what trump said about mexico doesn't support your point at all. He is talking about one country losing to another in various ways. Where in there does it say he hates Mexicans? A person can talk about a country objectively without implying hate for the people.

And since when is "we have criminals and rapists already" a defence for allowing more in. People saying that bugs me. And nobody is saying all Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers but obviously some are and some of those are coming into America.

[f0xx]

21 minutes ago, Pali said:

The US Intelligence community has officially blamed Russia for hacking the DNC and releasing information from it with the intent to influence the election.  That Clinton echoes the position of the US Intelligence services isn't running a campaign of hate by my measure.

The US intelligence serves the US government. The US government is currently represented by Barrack Obama, who is a member of the Democratic Party. Hilary Clinton is also a member of the Democratic Party that happens to be openly support by the current president Barrack Obama.

So basically, what you just said is that "The US Intelligence (Democratic National) community has officially blamed Russia for hacking the Democratic National Committee."

In this scenario, the DNC (HRC) is the (perceived) victim, the judge and the prosecutor.

 

Now you can call this "conspiracy theory", but that's how the world works. That's how even FL works. The enemy of my friend is my enemy.

[Pali]

To be clear, I don't think Trump himself hates Mexicans.  What I think he has done is fairly effectively run a campaign based in no small part around inspiring and harnessing hatred of Mexican immigrants to win him votes.  Claiming that Mexico is not our friend, that Mexico is laughing at us, that Mexico is sending us criminals, all work to that effect - particularly as none of it is actually true. edit: Nor are they beating us economically by any meaningful measure... they've got about 6% our GDP and half our growth rate.

 

39 minutes ago, Manual Labour said:

And since when is "we have criminals and rapists already" a defence for allowing more in.

I think you're misunderstanding the history of the argument.  Anti-immigrant groups have long justified anti-immigrant policies by claiming that immigrants are more likely to be violent criminals.  The point of bringing up relative crime rates is to show the falsity of this argument, nothing more.

 

I fully agree that one can objectively criticize a country without implying hatred for the people.  This is actually my exact take on Clinton's position regarding Russia.  The difference is that Trump is willing to blatantly lie and spread misinformation about a country and its people, while Clinton is simply echoing conclusions of our intelligence agencies and private security firms.

 

F0xx, even if I were willing to grant that level of conspiracy theorizing regarding the govt. (which I don't), multiple privately owned security firms (CrowdStrike, Mandiant and Fidelis) reached the same conclusions long before the DHS and ONI statement was released.  I'm curious: why are you so certain they're lying?

[f0xx]

4 minutes ago, Pali said:

I'm curious: why are you so certain they're lying?

You are missing the whole point here. Once again, just like Putin said, this whole "blame Russia" thing is made to completely divert the attention from the actual problem. It is quite astonishing that noone actually bothers to reject the information the e-mails contain. Their main efforts are directed towards Russia.

What does it matter who even leaked them? Their content should be subject of discussion.

The sole fact that she destroyed so many e-mails hints toward her having to hide something. The latest batches of e-mails even reveal her being advised by Podesta to destroy them, which not only means she didn't simply "mishandle" them (and lied to the FBI in the meantime), but she intentionally destroyed them, which means criminal intent.

But whatever, it's Russia's fault.

[Pali]

The Podesta email was to Cheryl Mills, not HRC.  What emails he was referring to, whether any action was taken based on his recommendation, we do not know.

 

I'm not denying that there is corruption within the DNC, or with HRC herself.  But as much as you think discussing Russia's involvement is a distraction away from Clinton's flaws, I tend to think the emails are largely a distraction away from Trump's flaws.

[f0xx]

This I agree with.

When talking about flaws though, I don't think Clinton has any. She is perfect for the job she is chosen - serve the Elite.

Trump on the other hand has flaws. And quite a few.

Which one will serve your nation better though, and inflict less damage to the world? I would go with Trump. Perhaps it's because I am not American, but in my view, if Trump causes any damage, it will be more internal than external, and it will be short term. Hillary on the other hand has the power to completely change the game, drag the world into a WW3, and from there, who knows.

 

Hillary Clinton: U.S. will treat cyberattacks ‘just like any other attack’

 

[Pali]

Yeah, can't agree with that assessment.  We'll just have to wait and see.  4 more days and then IT'S OVER!!!!