[DEBATE] Presidential Election - 2016 (closing Nov 22)

So HRC won't be getting indicted. She's the official candidate. I expect Bernie to endorse her soon.

So quiet on this thread lately, I wonder if Hillary's pick for VP is going to make or break her run against Trump.

I doubt it, Clinton and Trump have supporters who would love anyone their candidate spoke in favor of.

I think that is due to all the Brits that were so active on this thread before not feeling comfortable putting down Americans and our political system since brexit and all the absurd political goings on over there now. To all the Brits that so loved putting down the Americans before on this thread I have one thing to say, HA.

Back to topic. This whole Russians hacking the DNC to assist Trump for president is pretty freaky. There were some on this thread that liken Trump to Hitler. I'm starting to see that more and more. What if Trump has made deals with Putin to divvy up eastern Europe if he assists getting him elected. I would not be surprised if Trump would say, "I will let you have Estonia and Latvia if you assist me in getting the presidency." That very honestly would not surprise me. I really don't believe if that were to happen without the US that England or France would make a move to stop it. And I think Putin knows that too. He can not become president.

I haven't seen Mr. Trump calling for the expansion of United States interests in Europe. I have heard him say that America might reduce its role in NATO due to other member states not "fulfilling their obligations".

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-nato-we-have-to-walk

Did I miss something?

Based on how everything is going, Hillary is handing Trump the election on a silver platter.

I didn't mean that the US would take control of any I just meant Trump might allow Russia control in some of those countries for assistance winning the election. And as far as Trump's comments on other countries "not fulfilling their obligations", apparently the Russians like that idea. For anyone that studies history Trump could be using that language now to justify something in the future. When the Russian troops go into Estonia because Russia claims the government is mistreating some of the population of Russian descent and then Estonia asks for help from NATO countries. Then Trump can say we aren't going to help because Estonia didn't do something that might have been years ago or just made up by Trump. When in fact it is based on a deal he had with Putin now. And then England and France are left staring at each other wondering, 'what now?'. They do nothing and happy birthday Putin you now own Estonia. What else do you want Russia because the US with Trump now has an out on protecting their NATO allies. Absolutely, Trump has questioned us leaving NATO and Trump has said many things about how wonderful Putin is. Did you ever think that is why he suggests us leaving NATO? His love for Putin? And him wanting to support Russia's expansion?

Gotcha. When I saw the words "divvy up" along with Hitler the implication which came to my mind was the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact which was shortly thereafter followed by invasions from both nations. I just don't see America invading and subjugating portions of Europe regardless of who is president nor have I seen any indication that anyone is considering such.

Honestly I haven't thought about it. What I have heard for many years though is the United States spends far too much on its armed forces relative to other nations which could be applied somewhere else domestically. Now I hear some of the same people (Not necessarily you, GoG.) saying that we are being irresponsible by considering pulling back on some of our military obligations due to budgetary concerns.

The cognitive dissonance in this election season is dizzying.

We spend a sickening amount on the military. I believe as much as the rest of the world combined. But the freaky part of all this stuff between Trump and Putin is that Trump who seems to dislike everyone else outside the US appears to be in love with Putin. Putin who has invaded and occupies the independent countries of Georgia and Ukraine. This makes absolutely no sense. Trump wants to put himself out as tough but falls over backwards saying great things about Putin?Trump who made a statement that under certain circumstances he would allow Russia to take over other NATO countries. And now Russia trying to help him get elected. I just wonder what else is going on between those two we don't know about.

If you've seen some definitive evidence of a quid pro quo between Putin and Trump I'd sure love to have a look at it. It could be a game changer. I have read that the Trump campaign plans on attacking Hillary's connections to foreign governments via large overseas donations made to the Clinton Foundation.

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/31/the_cash_donations_hillary_simply_has_no_answer_for_partner/

I think Hillary Clinton should be president because what did the Mexicans ever do? Trump has no reason to ban them.

You are correct that there is no evidence out there now that Putin and Trump have had dialogue but we do know that Putin is attempting the change the course of the election to help Trump. That we know. We do know that Trump has said more glowing things about Putin than any other international leader. That we also know. And we do know that Trump said he would potentially let Russia expand into other countries. That we know. It's all very weird. You can say whatever you want about the Clinton Foundation but we sure know who Russia thinks would help advance their imperialist desires.

I agree that your hypothetical is quite disturbing. If there's a direct link which can be established it could completely neutralize a significant political angle the Trump campaign plans to use for its advantage. But until then it's just a hypothetical while there's a demonstrable trail of evidence of tit-for-tat dealings between former Secretary of State Clinton and foreign powers involving billions of dollars in weaponry, including chemical and biological agents. It's not a strong point of attack for her at this time.

I guess what I'm saying is that a "gut feel" of wrongdoing is probably not enough to sway large swaths of the voting public, especially when the possibility exists of both sides having engaged in said activities.

Trump is a good man, and he is very smart. He just says weird stuff, and it does not seem like he is appropriate enough to be a staff member. I mean, children see him. What kind of president will they see? He wants to get rid of Mexicans, even though they have the right to move here and find a better life. Hillary Clinton is very smart, and seems good enough to lead America. I mean, she doesn't curse, she is very nice and kind, and should would be the first women president and the first president to have his/her wife/husband back in the White House. Now, none of these reasons matter I just think Trump is running many corporations right now, and being president will just make things harder. I mean, "Small lone of a million dollars". Really? He had to pay his Dad back, but wouldn't he use the money?

Trump has had three wives, and five children in total. That just does to show you the other two wives (not Melina Trump or whatever her name is) broke up with him because they thought he was not a good man. He is smart, as I keep mentioning, but just does not seem good enough for the country. Now, Hillary should be president because she has different beliefs. She does not hate Mexicans for wanting a better life. Trump will talk about wars, and other stuff. He will not create wars, which I am pretty sure is a lie. How do you know this? Trump gets people to talk about fake stuff, and buff him to make him look better. Hillary Clinton created an add, with Trump saying stupid things, and put "Our children are watching. What kind of president will they see?". Well, the president they will see is a very retched president. I mean, he has his kids speak for him.. which is a little obscured. But, back to why I think Hillary should win. She will fight when wars happen, and she does not get people to speak for her. She speaks her own mind, and doesn't have anybody else do it. She will have the Mexicans move over, and find better lives. There is much more, but I am already turning this into a thread.

-R0

Actually, I'm talking about how the Russians tried to affect our election to get Trump elected.

I agree that some of the donations to the Clinton foundation could appear to be a conflict of interest and they should not have taken that money. I assure you I'm no fan of Hillary either. But as far as selling arms to other countries, that's what we do. We sell arms to other countries. I think it is absurd to say that because foreign countries donated to the Clinton Foundation we sold them arms. If for some reason we refuse to sell to another country there would certainly be several arms manufacturers that would be screaming to their congressional representatives about it.

So you say. Again, you don't have any proof. For people like me it's not enough. At this point I don't plan on voting for either of them.

It also wouldn't be the first time the subject of undue foreign influence has been brought up to ultimately no discernible end.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102803413.html

Going to have to stop you right there. Trump is, yes, undeniably smart - but he is not a good man. He's self-centred, bigoted, and an absolute manchild. Half the stuff he says doesn't make sense. He claims to have been greeted by proud leave voters when he landed in Scotland on the morning of the EU referendum, saying the people had taken back their country - the UK has been subjected to many wars for that same thing (Scotland doing that itself multiple times), and Scotland voted overwhelmingly to stay in the European Union and now wants to leave the UK possibly more than ever. He also has very little supporters anywhere in Europe - especially in Scotland, so why so many people would supposedly greet him is beyond me. He's about as well-liked as Erdogan, who has been subjected to so much hate here it's hilarious.

And on the 'Hillary should be President because she doesn't curse' note... who cares if she doesn't swear or not. Sure, it's not very respectable for a country's leader to swear all the time, but... who cares? This may just be me being smug Eurotrash but I couldn't care if they swear or not.

1. USA - About $600 billion.
2. China - About $150 billion.
3. Saudi Arabia - $80 billion.
4. Russia - $70 billion.
5. UK - $60 billion.
6. India - $50 billion.
7. France - $45 billion.
8. Germany - $35 billion. (They could go waaaay higher with this if they wanted to, but they won't because the people don't want it)
9. South Korea - $30 billion
10. Brazil - $25 billion

Not as much as the rest of the world, but way higher than the next nine highest military expenditures, and about as much as the top 6 (if you remove the US from that).

Also these numbers are rounded, but they're pretty close to the actual numbers.

You forgot the Ukrainian Civil War.

And also that the UK is ripping itself apart. Our opposition party has had its reputation tarnished, they're having a leadership election, we now have a woman who hates democracy as Prime Minister (a position she gained undemocratically) who thinks she can use the Brexit vote as a threat for better terms for staying in the EU. Racism and far right nationalism has also been legitimised (people who know my family background have told me to get out of the country multiple times, even though I'm a third generation immigrant and have English and Welsh on both sides anyway). You also forgot Ireland wanting Northern Ireland back again and Spain wanting ownership over Gibraltar. And also that a lot of people now regret voting to leave because they wanted to inspire change in the EU, not to leave it - they now form a majority but we likely won't get a second referendum (one is to be debated for in November, but the two biggest parties have ruled that out).

And now to add on the crisis over in Turkey.

The recent terrorist attacks aren't much of a problem. It shows that ISIS is losing its fight, and the number of attacks has been shrinking over the last few decades. Europe was more on edge from the 60s until the Good Friday Agreement was signed in 1998.

Proof that Russia tried to effect our election? Are you serious dude? They hacked into the DNC email system. Selected emails that were particularly embarrassing to democratic officials. And then released them to wikileaks on the eve of the democratic convention. Yes, they were trying to effect who was the next president of the United States. Don't have to be a genius to figure that out. Or maybe you want to blame it on Hillary like Trump tried to blame it on her when his wife plagiarized Michelle Obama's 2008 speech. Talk about absurdity. And Trump's wife is sure a class act. I don't want to use the word stupid, but was she so something that she thought she wouldn't get caught. Where do these people come from.

I honestly really do wonder how she thought she could get away with it. It was copied word-for-word, it's like she wasn't even trying to hide it. The speech was also promoting an America Trump's proposed policies are completely against. It saddens me people with so few brain cells are allowed to be a potential first lady.