POTUS Election thread

[Greyblades]

This is what you sound like:

"HE'S A GOOD BOY! HE CAN FIGURE OUT ANYTHING!"

You sound like a father trying to get his NEET son to work at the IT department at his work because "he's good with computers". Trump is a business opportunist. The presidency is nothing more than a business opportunity. He will say anything to the tune of "making things work" to get an election. He has not presented a single comprehensive policy before or during this election cycle that can even be discredited due to the fact that it is retarded, much like everything that came out of Dr. Ben Carson's mouth.

If this is what you believe I am saying I think you need to turn off the internet and take a break.

[Hooahguy]

I do not think there are that many men who both can do the job and would say yes to trump pressing the button.

It seems like the only people who Trump keeps around for any length of time who arent yes-men are his kids. Look at the huge turnover in staff in his campaign, that should give you a pretty clear indication how he would run his cabinet.

It wasnt multiple times it was thrice in the same hour long breifing, which doesnt tell us anything beyond an idea that it had/would take at least an hour of conversation for nuclear strategy to sink into Trump's head.

More than once = multiple times. Even if it was in the same conversation. If anything this is worse because because it means he didnt comprehend the answer the first two times in such a short time span. Makes sense though, his mind does seem to wander considering how often he goes off message in his speeches.

[Greyblades]

He's not going for a long war with ground troops, true. The problem is that he's going to make America look like his definition of strong, aka a bully (see how he treats NATO or people) and make the army look strong again. That means that he has to win a war. In a way that doesn't creates a new Libya or Iraq. In a way that's threatening to other countries (you don't do a trade deal that threatens your economy, unless the other option is worse).

Nukes solves all those problems (not really, but some... and gives a ton of other problems). Buddy up with Russia and you won't start WWIII (probably, maybe).

The Secretary of Defense is chosen by the president. The senate can reject or accept the choice. The Republic senate isn't that healthy right now and would be the majority if Trump wins.

And the Republican party hates him and thus will not give him a bunch of yes man who wont stop him nuking, in both circumstances of republican and democrat majority senates Donald trump he will be incapable of using nukes outside of approved circumstances.

As for a conventional war, it seems inevitable for both but Trump's is the most optimistic; he wants to win the war so he wont attack china and he likes russia so that rules out triggering a potential world ending nuclear war. He's going to go after whichever tin pot tyrant who looks at him funny, he's going to kick him in the teeth with the US Army Boot and then leave. If we are lucky it will be a falkands or desert storm.

With Clinton however she's stuck in the bush/obama mindset where she wants to go into the middle east again and do Iraq right this time. There the best you can hope for is a Lybia.

When the choice appears to be between Donald's quick war and Hillary's quagmire the choice seems one sided.

Is the Hillary being really, really bad thing a feeling or do you have anything tangible that makes her so much worse than a normal politician?

A tip, if someone has been hiding their Skeletor face for 40 years, with 20 of those with the opposition throwing every dirt they got on that one, without any big result for it, you're probably picking up the dirt throwing, rather than the person behind it.

She knows the political consequences of using one and has no reason using them. Her hawkishness is very much in the form of intended benign intervention (success rate is another matter).

He's starting to loose his mind by the looks of it. That's some massive incoherent ranting.

Which makes it all the sadder that the american left failed to nominate a better person.

Mrs Clinton is worse for several reasons; firstly she is a liar, not only major lies in the email scandal or in the benghazi matter, but also minor lies such as the landing under fire in bosnia or being named after Sir Edmund Hillary, lies with no benefit that was easily disproven and at a rate far beyond the pale of a normal politician and giving the impression of compulsion. Hillary's numerous lies exhibited here:



Do I need to tell you how having a bad liar both in application and believability as head of state is a detriment? This feeds into my general dislike of her character, a dislike based on stories such as this where she assassinated a twelve year old girl's character, stating she was "emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing" and had "made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body" without actually stating who had told her that. Along with exploiting the reputation of an expert to intimidate the prosecution into abandoning a piece of physical evidence, all to help a paedophile she knew was guilty reduce his sentence to a year in prison.

Transcript of that trial here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/229667084...iliate&irgwc=1

Now I would admit that there is an argument that a competent evil is preferable to an incompetent good (let alone the dubious buffon that is trump) but she isnt competent; her previous job was stained with incompetence.

Russia and Ukraine, Lybia and Syria all notches under the sub par reaction tab but the highlights of incompetence is that which couldnt be blamed on uncontrollable circumstances, namely that she implicitly allowed the first US ambassador in thirty years to be killed overseas after denying 600 requests for security upgrades, even after the neighbouring british ambassador had evacuated:


Oh and she put classified information in the secrity equivalent of a sock under the bed:


Here's the thing, I dont think Trump is a good idea but I see him as the best choice america is left with. You have a decision between a blustering angry idiot and a lying evil screwup. The "skeletor face" has been hovering in the american vision for a good 8 years and saying otherwise is just denial.

She's deplorable, a liar with dubious morals and worst of all bad at her job and the sad thing is that so many wont see it because of the grand spectre of Trump.

[Greyblades]

It seems like the only people who Trump keeps around for any length of time who arent yes-men are his kids. Look at the huge turnover in staff in his campaign, that should give you a pretty clear indication how he would run his cabinet.

When his options are limited by both qualification and senate approval I think that turnover rate with drop sharply.

More than once = multiple times. Even if it was in the same conversation. If anything this is worse because because it means he didnt comprehend the answer the first two times in such a short time span. Makes sense though, his mind does seem to wander considering how often he goes off message in his speeches.

In my country 1 in 5 of our politicians think giving up nuclear weapons while everyone else keeps thiers is a good idea. I talked to a fellow recently who had come to the conclusion that, because the 2000 test detonations in remote locations over 65 years since 1945 hadnt made the world less habitable, all out nuclear war couldnt actually do more long term damage than a conventional war.

It does not surprise me that trying to explain the multitude of complex reasons the United States of America generally doesn't nuke people who cannot fire back, in under an hour, resulted in trump repeating the question three times in confusion. I will become suitably worried if this such conversations become a habit.

[Hooahguy]

When his options are limited by both qualification and senate approval I think that turnover rate with drop sharply.

So you are placing all your faith in the Senate then? That's gutsy.

In my country 1 in 5 of our politicians think giving up nuclear weapons while everyone else keeps thiers is a good idea. I talked to a fellow recently who had come to the conclusion that, because the 2000 test detonations in remote locations over 65 years since 1945 hadnt made the world less habitable, all out nuclear war couldnt actually do more long term damage than a conventional war.

That fellow sounds quite daft.

It does not surprise me that trying to explain the multitude of complex reasons the United States of America generally doesn't nuke people who cannot fire back, in under an hour, resulted in trump repeating the question three times in confusion. I will become suitably worried if this such conversations become a habit.

What? He is not a child nor does he have a learning disability that we know of. I've had classes in university which went three times as long where I had to comprehend just as difficult material as this and my classmates and I were fine. This shouldn't be an issue for a normal person. Plus a president needs to learn and comprehend information quickly so he can made effective and rational decisions about a situation. Its part of the job and he might not even have an hour. Carson had this same issue and it torpedoed him.

[Pannonian]

Earlier, I referred Greyblades to the documentary The Wilderness Years, with the recommendation that it's extremely highly rated. My guess is he's not taken time to watch it, and looking at Idaho's comment, Idaho certainly hasn't taken time to watch it, as anyone who's done so would know exactly why it's highly rated (it's a collection of primary sources from the people closest to the subject). Contrast with the video Beskar posted just a few posts back, which is an opinion, not even an open opinion at that, but from a comedian in character. While the former, classically respected historical source is dismissed by Corbyn supporters, the latter, which would hardly rate as a source by historiographical standards, is used by the same to support their man.

FYI, one of the sources in The Wilderness Years is Jeremy Corbyn, who explains what he and others did at council level to support his mentor, Tony Benn, who's another of the sources. Just about every significant Labour figure in the 1979-95 period, with the exception of John Smith (dead), gets to explain their actions and reasoning. As well as lesser figures like Corbyn.

Here's the first episode. Note the list of participants: 6 Labour leaders including 3 PMs, and a dozen other cabinet and shadow cabinet ministers.

Not a good sign when you need videos to make your point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSZtlT6Xsqk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV6q9LOubfc

[Pannonian]

So you are placing all your faith in the Senate then? That's gutsy.

Not so much gutsy, as an instinctive turn to anti-establishment politics without any need for evidence-based argument.

Post-truth politics is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy and by the repeated assertion of talking points, to which factual rebuttals are ignored. While post-truth political techniques have long played a role in campaigns worldwide, the term itself was coined in 2010,[1][2] and became widespread during campaigning for the 2016 US presidential election and the UK EU membership referendum.[3][4] Political commentators have identified post-truth politics as ascendant in American, Australian, British and Indian politics, as well as in other areas of debate, driven by a combination of the 24-hour news cycle, false balance in news reporting, and the increasing ubiquity of social media.
...
An early use of the phrase in British politics was in March 2012 by Scottish Labour MSP Iain Gray in criticizing the difference between Scottish National Party's claims and official statistics.[27] Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy also described an undercurrent of post-truth politics in which people "cheerfully shot the messenger" when presented with facts that didn't support their viewpoint, seeing it among pro-independence campaigners in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, Jeremy Corbyn supporters in the 2015 Labour leadership election, and Leave campaigners in the then-upcoming EU membership referendum

2016 US presidential election, UK EU membership referendum, UK Labour leadership contest, Greyblades has the whole 2016 set.

[Montmorency]

A Trump or Hillary presidency would precisely continue the trend towards the decline of the power of the American chief executive to 19th-century levels. The US executive moves increasingly towards the style of 1980s Chinese party-consensus politics. Except with less consensus and more confusion.

It might even be working out, too, if the legislature and the parties themselves hadn't in turn become so palsied.

[CrossLOPER]

If this is what you believe I am saying I think you need to turn off the internet and take a break.

You're right, it's much worse. You are using the tired logic that "Hillary is worse" and "everything will work out" if Trump is elected. Everything regarding Trump with you is an endless string of ifs. None of them will come to pass because the man involved is incapable of accepting criticism, or even disagreement, of any kind.

[HopAlongBunny]

This pretty much sums up my take on Trump ie: I wish I had done this:

[Beskar]

[Hooahguy]

Former CIA director Michael Morell endorsed Clinton with a rather scathing op-ed (for Trump anyways).

Some highlights:

Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important colleagues on the National Security Council. During the early debates about how we should respond to the Syrian civil war, she was a strong proponent of a more aggressive approach, one that might have prevented the Islamic State from gaining a foothold in Syria.


I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, “Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner.”

In sharp contrast to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump has no experience on national security. Even more important, the character traits he has exhibited during the primary season suggest he would be a poor, even dangerous, commander in chief.


These traits include his obvious need for self-aggrandizement, his overreaction to perceived slights, his tendency to make decisions based on intuition, his refusal to change his views based on new information, his routine carelessness with the facts, his unwillingness to listen to others and his lack of respect for the rule of law.

Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States.


In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.

[Fragony]

I kinda wonder, violence is my trade I have to so be like that sometimes. It's not a real consideration but I hurt people for a living, I work
as a entrance-demon and that can suck

[Sarmatian]

^
What is interesting about this is that he finds US soldiers in Pakistan a positive thing while Russian soldiers in Ukraine are negative.

It is this dissonance with reality that makes all US presidents dangerous.

[Greyblades]

You're right, it's much worse. You are using the tired logic that "Hillary is worse" and "everything will work out" if Trump is elected. Everything regarding Trump with you is an endless string of ifs. None of them will come to pass because the man involved is incapable of accepting criticism, or even disagreement, of any kind.

So you cant call it bad logic, just tired? Everything regarding Hillary is it'self underlined by the grand if: "If hillary turns out to not actually be the Ceasare Borgia, without talent, the last 20 years showed her to be"

Worst case scenario is that trump is exactly as unpleasant as his outward appearance is making himself out to be and because he will never have the support in the rest of government he physically cannot become a Bush level disaster. With Hillary that is the best case scenario, because if the democrats win she will have the support, and signs point to being worse than Bush.

"Make your point". I made my argument on this forum and used the videos to put weight behind each point I made, you kept referring to a video, apparantly thinking it would magically change people's minds, but wouldnt even link to it. Your behavior gave the appearance that you lacked of confidence in your ability to make the argument and wanted us to see the same thing that made you think that way, while simultaniously not having the confidence in the video to link it.

See whenever I see say lizardo putting videos without even giving context I dont expect good things, when you make allusions to a video you couldnt be bothered to link to I expect even less.

So you are placing all your faith in the Senate then? That's gutsy.

Not exactly, see the way I see it I'm putting my faith in eery politician on capitol hill mistrusting trump enough to never risk putting the red button in his hands, that is a sure bet. With hillary I'd have to put my faith in the senate not switching democrat and becoming hillary's lapdog, kinda more risky

That fellow sounds quite daft.

No that fellow had been given bad/simple information.

He had gotten into his head that nukes were like global warming, "the more nukes we set off the worse the world gets and after a point it becomes uninhabitable, forever" Whereas the truth was "the simultanious explosions of thousands of nuclear devices over America, Europe and Russia would put so much dust and debris into the atmosphere as to blot out sunlight over a majority of the world's surface for a long period of time that combined with the radiation that would poison farmland means that anyone who survived the initial detonations and subsesquent widespread radiation poisoning would likely starve as clean food production becomes nigh impossible. The World's ecosystem might recover but it would take far, far longer than humanity could reasonably be expected to last with agriculture being practically impossible."

What? He is not a child nor does he have a learning disability that we know of. I've had classes in university which went three times as long where I had to comprehend just as difficult material as this and my classmates and I were fine. This shouldn't be an issue for a normal person. Plus a president needs to learn and comprehend information quickly so he can made effective and rational decisions about a situation. Its part of the job and he might not even have an hour. Carson had this same issue and it torpedoed him.

This is the issue of not having an actual record of the conversation, was he having problems comprehending or was he, say, going through a list of scenarios.
eg:
"Allright it is clear I have some misconceptions on nuclear strategy, Let's start with you explaining why we cant use nukes on china or russia."
"Because China and Russia's capacity to fire back makes that too risky, calling the bluff."
"Ok so I do have that right, now explain cant we use nukes on one of thier puppets like north korea."
"Because It's so close to China that they might take issue with us using nukes right next to it and intervene"
"Ok making sense, now explain why cant we use nukes on a non nuclear state with no nuclear protector like argentina"
Etc

Obviously Trump wouldnt be so polite/coherent.

Now if you wanna talk about what a mess of his campaign he's been making making over the last week, I'll gladly join in. Dude needs that intervention desperately.

[CrossLOPER]

So you cant call it bad logic, just tired? Everything regarding Hillary is it'self underlined by the grand if: "If hillary turns out to not actually be the Ceasare Borgia, without talent, the last 20 years showed her to be"

Worst case scenario is that trump is exactly as unpleasant as his outward appearance is making himself out to be and because he will never have the support in the rest of government he physically cannot become a Bush level disaster. With Hillary that is the best case scenario, because if the democrats win she will have the support, and signs point to being worse than Bush.

"It's not bad logic if I think that way."

[Strike For The South]

More and more, it seems like I was right when I said Trump was a HRC plant.

Bill Clinton is "The first black president" only in the sense that he has high blood pressure. Workfare and NAFTA bludgeoned a working class that had (and has) a disproportionate amount of minorities in it. Clinton expanded the war on drugs and the militarization of the police. Let us also not forget the whole thinly veiled dog whistle known as "super predators".

The Clintons got the black vote because black voters vote democrat. The Clintons got a high turnout of the black vote because they courted a black upper class. It was a very smart move. They are very smart people. Good for them.

Bill Clinton is a probable rapist who uses legal obfuscation and intimidation to silence his literal legion of accusers. It also wont surprise to finally find some of the bodies in about 20 years.

The Clintons were incubated in a cold war driven world where all the power brokers were driven by foreign policy concerns. So they cherry picked a few liberal causes from the 60s and started on their path to power. From healthcare in the 80s and 90s to TTP now, the Clintons have only used these causes to further themselves up the ladder.

We see this divide clearly when she tries to connect with these post cold war millennials who aren't from the same head space. Her entire internet campaign is astroturfing, paid shills, and Hooahguy. Sanders is a crotchety old man from Vermont who gets elected by tinfoil hat free soilers every cycle and it took an inordinate amount of time to defeat him. She has this disconnect with the youth.

Truth be told, I don't really care about the rapes and the killings. Plenty of presidents have raped and killed. The chief executive of the USA does not need to be a paragon of morality. It just rubs me the wrong way when they claim the care.

[Greyblades]

Not so much gutsy, as an instinctive turn to anti-establishment politics without any need for evidence-based argument.

2016 US presidential election, UK EU membership referendum, UK Labour leadership contest, Greyblades has the whole 2016 set.

You replied to a post where I used video evidence and court records to make my points... and 10 minutes later you're accusing me of not using evidence in this thread?

[Hooahguy]

Her entire internet campaign is astroturfing, paid shills, and Hooahguy.

Aww, thanks for the shout out buddy! Though Im still waiting for my payment from CTR for all the shilling I do.

[Xiahou]

They're both terrible candidates- really. No matter who wins, America loses. Between the two, I honestly can't decide which would be worse. The only thing I'm sure of is that I won't be voting for either one.

Hillary is a pathological liar- anyone who thinks otherwise is divorced from reality.

[AE Bravo]

Largely agree.
It can have a significant effect though in dividing the vote.
Progressives who cannot stomach Hillary may well expend their votes for Stein; effectively helping Trump.
Johnson may draw protest votes from Trump and Hillary camps; Hillary would be the net loser I think; Trump base is largely a personality cult phenom.
Just my musings; I'm sure the number crunchers have examined the possible effects, who knows, maybe Trump is financing Stein.

It turns out this widespread theory is wrong now that the numbers have been crunched. If she loses it's entirely on her and her campaign.

[Greyblades]

They're both terrible candidates- really. No matter who wins, America loses. Between the two, I honestly can't decide which would be worse. The only thing I'm sure of is that I won't be voting for either one.

Hillary is a pathological liar- anyone who thinks otherwise is divorced from reality.

This is why I think the democrats should be wanting hillary disqualified; with Trump in a death spiral they have the wiggle room to escape this better of two evils scenario and put someone less toxic in the whitehouse like Biden.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Watch his congressional testimony.

Why? Could you watch the video I linked where he just detailed the official findings of the investigation?

Bernie Sanders didn't even speak in favor of it until 2009. Obama didn't come out for it until around the same time as Clinton. It's almost like progressive causes become more acceptable as time progresses!

It's almost like those 4 years make a big difference to the millions of gays and lesbians who needed political support against the Mormon's and Evangelicals trying to shove Constitutional Amendments across the country to deny gay marriage!

Where was Hillary and Obama when we needed to fight Prop 8 here in California?

The story of Gay Marriage is the story of courts following the Constitution while politicians tried to join the bandwagon at the eleventh hour to celebrate the inevitable SCOTUS ruling.

Large swathes of the public changed their mind on gay marriage over the last few decades, to where a majority are now in favor of it. Politicians took the same journey that their constituents did. Aren't politicians elected to represent their constituency, or am I missing something?

Politicians are duty obligated to uphold the Constitution. I don't care if there are still rural Southerns that want to segregate schools and ban gays from public life, their representative should know better than to spend their time in Congress simply parroting their voice.

The crime bill was passed with full support of the congressional black caucus. But you already know that.

Political reality of a Republican controlled Congress equipped with the next generation of PR tactics. Either join, or look weak by Frank Lutz.

"Mass imprisonment" wasn't a social issue to black communities at the time. Ridiculously high crime rates was.

No, drugs were the issue and I highly doubt the answer blacks were looking for was more cops on their streets given the Rodney King Riots showed how little they already trusted the system...

Being a rich white woman also doesn't prevent her from listening intently to the concerns of black communities. Her race, gender, and financial situation are irrelevant.

Actual people of color would disagree with that. There is no escaping privilege.

That watered down bill insured tens of millions of Americans, including myself. Is this the "all or nothing" mentality from Bernie bros? That never achieves anything. Obama's big crime is that he got something but not everything. Wow, welcome to politics.

No, it's the reform mentality that says you got those people insured not from improving the system but by making it illegal to not enter it.

Obama has used less executive orders than almost every previous president.

And? That's a talking point that doesn't refute my issue. It's not the number, it's why he is making them and what he is using them for...

Try again please.

[Viking]

^
What is interesting about this is that he finds US soldiers in Pakistan a positive thing while Russian soldiers in Ukraine are negative.

It is this dissonance with reality that makes all US presidents dangerous.

Which US soldiers exactly; which equivalent situations?

Politicians are duty obligated to uphold the Constitution.

What does the US constitution say on (gay) marriage?

Edit: after doing some digging, it appears that marriage is not mentioned in the US constitution at all.

The Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage. It is not mentioned [...]

http://www.jurist.org/forum/2014/10/...x-marriage.php

[Hooahguy]

Not exactly, see the way I see it I'm putting my faith in eery politician on capitol hill mistrusting trump enough to never risk putting the red button in his hands, that is a sure bet. With hillary I'd have to put my faith in the senate not switching democrat and becoming hillary's lapdog, kinda more risky

Politicians in Washington couldnt even pass a clean emergency bill to combat the Zika virus. They managed to get the clean bill through the Senate but the House Republicans torpedoed it and presented their own bill that had poison pills attached to it. And now Zika has been found in Florida so my faith in Congress doing anything for the benefit of the country is pretty much shot.

This is the issue of not having an actual record of the conversation, was he having problems comprehending or was he, say, going through a list of scenarios.

This is true, but Trump doesnt exactly have a great track record of using facts and new information to inform or change his opinions.

Now if you wanna talk about what a mess of his campaign he's been making making over the last week, I'll gladly join in. Dude needs that intervention desperately.

Considering pretty much all of the current polling has Hillary ahead and some polls have her even 15 points ahead, I would have to agree with you. Its like a slow moving trainwreck. Part of me thinks that someone in the GOP will rise up and toss Trump on his butt before the election. A pipe dream probably but we can hope.

[Sarmatian]

Which US soldiers exactly; which equivalent situations?

In this case, those that crossed the border to off Bin Laden.

Yes, I understand that a small strike team crossing a border to eliminate one of the most dangerous criminals in the world is not the same as actively supporting an armed insurrection - it wasn't supposed to be taken literally. US soldiers go over into Pakistan illegally on a daily basis. Drone strikes (confirmed) number in the hundreds, with around 200 children being killed.

And that's just Pakistan.

The entire system in America sees nothing wrong with that. The exceptionalism has reached unbelievable levels, and the politicians, the entire political system is encouraging that. Biden almost lost it on that podium during DNC "we're 'murica, we're second to none, we're the best, smartest..." and so on.

The people buy into that surprisingly easy. Yes, we're best. Of course we are. But, wait if the results don't show that, it certainly isn't our fault. It must be those Muslims or Mexicans or the rest of the world holding us back, which leads to even worse behaviour both domestic and abroad.

Incidentally, that's what creates Trumps. Luckily for America and the rest of the world, Trump is a narcissistic buffoon who can't tie his own shoelaces. Even Hillary should be able to beat him.

But, next one might be a little more charismatic, and little smarter and much more dangerous.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Which US soldiers exactly; which equivalent situations?



What does the US constitution say on (gay) marriage?

Edit: after doing some digging, it appears that marriage is not mentioned in the US constitution at all.



http://www.jurist.org/forum/2014/10/...x-marriage.php

Just because you contol+F the word "marriage" and it doesn't appear, doesn't mean it isn't in there.

Guess there is no right to privacy either...


EDIT: Also your column is from 2014, pick something from the past year, you know....after SCOTUS ruled on gay marriage so you actually get to read on why it is in there.

[Viking]

In this case, those that crossed the border to off Bin Laden.

Yes, I understand that a small strike team crossing a border to eliminate one of the most dangerous criminals in the world is not the same as actively supporting an armed insurrection - it wasn't supposed to be taken literally. US soldiers go over into Pakistan illegally on a daily basis. Drone strikes (confirmed) number in the hundreds, with around 200 children being killed.

And that's just Pakistan.

If Russia had been bombing or raiding groups holing up in Ukraine that were launching terrorist attacks in Russia or elsewhere, I expect that the language from the US government apparatus would be significantly different.

Just because you contol+F the word "marriage" and it doesn't appear, doesn't mean it isn't in there.

Guess there is no right to privacy either...

What do you mean, exactly?

EDIT: Also your column is from 2014, pick something from the past year, you know....after SCOTUS ruled on gay marriage so you actually get to read on why it is in there.

If it was all along an obvious interpretation of the constitution, a few self-written sentences should presumably suffice - and be easy to write. It's not a requirement for US politicians to be experts in law.

At any rate, legal conclusions tend to involve a lot of interpretation; and I doubt it would be much harder to argue against the relevant supreme court decision than for.

[Legs]

Some people compare the long drawn out US election cycle as a circus, but why is the only act in the performance a bunch of clowns?

[HopAlongBunny]

In part, it may be that they have nothing they really wish to offer.

Millennial poverty? Perhaps free uni or college might help. But perhaps the jobs that will pay better than subsistence don't exist. As for outpacing your parents generation...choose different goalposts?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...y-re-poor.html

Who to chose?
The perception (warranted or not) seems to call both choices a "fail"
It may be a lack of knowledge about the candidates; it could as easily be "no difference expected therefore no reason to choose":

http://www.motherjones.com/environme...climate-energy