Um Hillary Clinton who had a private server in her bathtub who quite possibly got hacked and is responsible for the death of an American agent in Iran isn't a security risk? Seriously BIASED peterlund needs to stop being so biased and acknowledge reality. One candidate hasn't been hacked and isn't a threat (Trump) and one had a server in a bathtub, got hacked, is responsible for multiple deaths (agent in Iran), Benghazi, etc, etc (Clinton). /Thread.

ND wrote "peterlund needs to stop being so biased"
You are funny! I probably think the same as 90% of the world population while you only agree with 10%. And you are calling me biased! :D

One worked in the government and the other is business partners with criminals.

Just vote third party if you aren't in a swing state and burn this shithole down.

"I probably think the same as 90% of the world population while you only agree with 10%. And you are calling me biased! :D"

If you'd get a buck for every time you use a completely bullshit argument for a reasonable standpoint..

This is genuine amazement. Somehow you can pick the right side in general but everything else you add is so.. ugh.

In case you didn't get it, saying you're not biased because 90% thinks the same should only be a valuable argument to people who are biased towards the general consensus rather than thinking for themselves.

Biased? He posted a factual article...

Facts don't have to favor both sides.

Wait, people with political opinions are biased?

@ND, Hannibal, isn't it possible that both Hillary AN Trump are threats to national security (albeit in different ways, perhaps)?

No of the 'oh but Hillary...' Arguements prove one iota about Trump not being shit in all the ways Peter's article may claim (i haven't read the article, because i could give two shits - but logically you seem fairly lacking)

Sure the system forces you to only consider two candidates - until you don't anymore... Look at Stein and Johnson. (How many states will they even be in the ballot?)

From what i've heard Chomsky saying, Hillary is like more Obama only maybe a bit more militaristic. Can't ruin the country too much...

@orothaic: I'm not sure I can trust anything Noam Chomsky says...according to him, Bernie Sanders isn't *liberal* enough...his judgements should be taken with a lot of salt. In any case, Trump's comments about not ruling out nuclear weapons against ISIS and his repeated demonstration of thin skin when criticized show that he doesn't have the termperant to be President of the United States of America.

Imagine the following scenario: Trump decides to use nuclear weapons against ISIS because they're, "desert rats". What kind of precedent does that set for nuclear powers like North Korea, let alone the possibility of massive collateral (which could conceivably include Russian personnel in Syria)...if anyone is a security risk because of his harebrained schemes, it's Trump, not Clinton.

@ora ... Johnson will be on the ballot in all 50 states and Stein will be in 47. It's a matter of publicizing them, though they're both awful candidates.

Steephie22 wrote "you use a completely bullshit argument for a reasonable standpoint"

First of all, I just posted a New York Times article and added their own headline. That in it self is not biased. The article tells us how senior members of Trump's own party have abandoned him which is highly unusual and well-worth taking notice about.

All articles I post are reflecting the "truth" as I see it. I would not post anything I find less credible. Maybe my selection of links I post reflects my political opinion and yes in that sense my selection could be biased.

But why should I post articles that ND is supposed to post? I trust him, and his think-alike, to do their job to counter whatever I say. Instead of finding anything useful to counter my postings with, he is whining that I post things are highly relevant to this presidential election.

Has ND nothing relevant to say any longer? Is that why he starts to whine instead?

@djakarta you said:"I'm not sure I can trust anything Noam Chomsky says...according to him, Bernie Sander isn't *liberal* enough"

I'm not sure what you would trust Chomsky to say. He is clearly voicing his own opinion. And would but much more positive of Sanders than of any other candidate (though i saw his criticism was that the energy of the Sanders campaign should have been used to build a grassroots campaign to elect politicians at other levels rather than being wasted on a single candidate who - it turns out didn't get to the national election...)

You can trust Chomsky to be the most extreme liberal commentator with any legitimacy... (ie not a crazed conspiracy theorist spouting crap on the internet...)

That doesn't mean you have to agree with him. Just as i can trust Vladamir Putin to be Russia's strongman without necessarily agreeing with him...

The "But Hillary!" response took less than half an hour. Nice work, chaps.

Neither Trump nor Hillary are actually running for themselves; they're just running against their opponent.

Hilary is a warmonger. She was one of the most vocal supporters in the Obama admistration of destroying the Ghaddafi regime, bombing Syrian army positions, and not mention her vote for the Iraq war.

I'm Lebanese. I tend to find shit like that genuinly frightening. Whose to say Lebanon wouldn't be next? If Hilary had had her way, Syria would be overrun Islamist terrorists and that would plunge the Middle East into an abyss that God himself wouldn't know how to fix.

Hillary had classified material on a private server for little reason beyond arrogance and it being easily accessible.

Trump make rash statements on important issues with little predetermined planning or tact.

Gary Johnson occasionally smoked pot.


Guys. I think the stoner wins.

And the biggest criminal knock on Bernie Sanders is that he was arrested in the 1960s - for protesting segregation. It's not a battle of the best candidates; it's a battle of two arbitrary choices, both of which are equally depressing and one only worse because he is simply more terrifying, that each have a long history of crime and corruption that will only be exacerbated as the most powerful person in the world.

@Bo, there is no option to 'withdraw from the Union' while they are in power...

@peterlund:

I wasn't referring to the article, I was referring to exactly what I quoted.

Saying "90% thinks what I think so I'm right" is a false argument. The majority opinion can often be wrong. Look at history and I'm sure you can think of a few examples yourself. Look at religious views over the years for example. The majority view has shifted often enough. Surely they can't all have been right throughout the years?

The majority opinion can be right, or wrong
Then if "90% agree" isn't necessarily a valid argument that what they agree upon is correct.
Then neither is historical accuracy or innacuracy of "majority opinion" a valid argument that a particular "majority opinion" is incorrect, or correct

That's as near as I can get to agreeing with Steephie ha ha

On a minor point on what's a valid argument

Well, yeah, that's the point. The amount of people agreeing or disagreeing is irrelevant. Peterlund was suggesting ND is biased because 90% agrees with peterlund. That makes no sense whatsoever.

18 U.S. Code § 879
a) Whoever knowingly and willfully threatens to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm upon—
(1) a former President or a member of the immediate family of a former President;
(2) a member of the immediate family of the President, the President-elect, the Vice President, or the Vice President-elect;
(3) a major candidate for the office of President or Vice President, or a member of the immediate family of such candidate; or
(4) a person protected by the Secret Service under section 3056(a)(6);
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

Yes that is true. A criminal like him should be imprisoned, not run for president!

Germany in the 1933 general election the Nazis only got 43.9 percent of the vote. But they overthrew the democratic state shortly after. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933

It has many similarities to what Erdogan is doing in Turkey now.

But the worst thing is that also the current president election in the USA make me think about the 1933 German election. Are we really sure that there will be more democratic presidential elections in USA, if you elect this dictator wannabee to your next president?

It depends upon how much Congress rubber stamps the president actions. I doubt a Trump presidency could gain the military's support like in Turkey. Although after 9/11 we saw how easily a terrorist event allowed the president to get what he wanted based on false evidence and fear.

Which Trump are we talking about?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSE-XoVKaXg

Perhaps the thing that is most worrying about Trump is what might follow him..a slicker, better disguised, Trump type of candidate... Trump loses his control, displays anger, rage too easily