When Hillary wipes the floor with the bloated orange douche bag on November 8, he will turn into the biggest sore loser the world has ever seen.

"Donald Trump has continued to float the possibility of challenging the results of the presidential election if there is a "questionable result," while promising to embrace the outcome "if I win"." Douchebaggery

He's a pathetic, whiny child.

and by 'questionable result' he presumably means any result that doesn't involve him winning  ;D

He's a spoilt brat.

mothra wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 10:11am:

He's a spoilt brat.

A privileged spoilt brat.

I just can't get over the irony - the entitlement, the privilege, the abuse of power - he literally oozes everything his support base is so angry about.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 10:16am:

he literally oozes everything his support base is so angry about.

and therein lies the attraction ...

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 10:02am:

When Hillary wipes the floor with the bloated orange douche bag on November 8....... He's a pathetic, whiny child.

The Americans voted Bush in twice so underestimate Trump at your own peril little pecca.

;)

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 10:53am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 10:02am: When Hillary wipes the floor with the bloated orange douche bag on November 8....... He's a pathetic, whiny child. The Americans voted Bush in twice so underestimate Trump at your own peril little pecca. ;)

I can guarantee you that Trump will not be POTUS.

I am so confident of this, that I have said I will leave this forum forever if he wins.

Do you have the guts to do the same if Hillary wins?

Nah, I didn't think so.

http://www.picgifs.com/graphics/c/chickens/graphics-chickens-001486.gif

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 11:00am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 10:53am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 10:02am: When Hillary wipes the floor with the bloated orange douche bag on November 8....... He's a pathetic, whiny child. The Americans voted Bush in twice so underestimate Trump at your own peril little pecca. ;) I can guarantee you that Trump will not be POTUS. I am so confident of this, that I have said I will leave this forum forever if he wins. Do you have the guts to do the same if Hillary wins? Nah, I didn't think so. http://www.picgifs.com/graphics/c/chickens/graphics-chickens-001486.gif

I'm not dissapointed that Trump will not win, but I am dissapointed that such an unworthy candidate as Hillary has been gifted such a clear run. Which of course is entirely Trump's fault - he deserves nothing less than the humiliation he is about to face. But what a shame the repugs couldn't muster up even a half-credible candidate that might really have taken Hillary to task on the serious question marks over her head: the emails, Libya, her war-mongering and her cozy relationship with the big end of town, her foundation's dodgy dealings in Afghanistan etc etc... She doesn't have to worry about any of that - and she should have. Instead all we're talking about is Trump's endless bafoonry. And no, its not because of some grand conspiracy against Trump - its because Trump is Trump - a bafoon, and bafoon's will be exposed as bafoons. And in this case, it caused a candidate with considerable baggage and a mountain of questions to be answered - to not have to face any of that music. None at all.

I agree gandalf. Just because you're anti-Trump doesnt mean you're pro-Clinton, it just means you're anti-Trump and therefore by lieu, Clinton will have to win the election.


Sure shes a bad choice for president, but Trump is a worse choice.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 11:44am:

I agree gandalf. Just because you're anti-Trump doesnt mean you're pro-Clinton, it just means you're anti-Trump and therefore by lieu, Clinton will have to win the election. Sure shes a bad choice for president, but Trump is a worse choice.

Agreed, and agreed.

I've never been a Clinton fan.

America have been cheated.

Let's hope she doesn't do too much damage.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 11:00am:

Do you have the guts to do the same if Hillary wins?

The sum-total of your 'guts' haemorrhoid is leaving this forum, my god that's a definite Victoria Cross for such courage, you'd wipe the floor with them thar Islamic Jihadi Terrorists wouldn't you.

Wanker!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Its not over till the fat lady sings.

“No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.” H L Mencken.

Fuzzball wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 1:03pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 11:00am: Do you have the guts to do the same if Hillary wins? The sum-total of your 'guts' haemorrhoid is leaving this forum, my god that's a definite Victoria Cross for such courage, you'd wipe the floor with them thar Islamic Jihadi Terrorists wouldn't you.

I notice you aren't up for the challenge.

Coward.

(and what's with the "terrorist" bullshit? Jesus, you must spend every minute of the day hiding under your bed)

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 1:20pm:

Fuzzball wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 1:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 11:00am: Do you have the guts to do the same if Hillary wins? The sum-total of your 'guts' haemorrhoid is leaving this forum, my god that's a definite Victoria Cross for such courage, you'd wipe the floor with them thar Islamic Jihadi Terrorists wouldn't you. I notice you aren't up for the challenge. Coward. (and what's with the "terrorist" bullshit? Jesus, you must spend every minute of the day hiding under your bed)

"Challenge".........

Hero.   ;D ;D ;D ;D

Look at the leftards on here. "I don't like Clinton but Trump is worse???". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Even Gandalf is sugar coating his Clinton post even though  she has Muslim blood all over her dirty little claws. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 1:32pm:

Look at the leftards on here. "I don't like Clinton but Trump is worse???".

Yes.

Your point?

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 1:33pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 1:32pm: Look at the leftards on here. "I don't like Clinton but Trump is worse???". Yes. Your point?

Clinton is a warmonger!!! What's worse than that?? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 1:34pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 1:33pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 1:32pm: Look at the leftards on here. "I don't like Clinton but Trump is worse???". Yes. Your point? Clinton is a warmonger!!! What's worse than that?? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Trump.

You know, the guy accused of raping at least one child and sexually assaulting countless women.

Would you leave your kids alone with him?

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 1:37pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 1:34pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 1:33pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 1:32pm: Look at the leftards on here. "I don't like Clinton but Trump is worse???". Yes. Your point? Clinton is a warmonger!!! What's worse than that?? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Trump. You know, the guy accused of raping at least one child and sexually assaulting countless women. Would you leave your kids alone with him?

A man with sexual assault "allegations" is worse than a warmonger??? That makes Bill Shorten worse than a warmonger.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 10:16am:

mothra wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 10:11am: He's a spoilt brat. A privileged spoilt brat. I just can't get over the irony - the entitlement, the privilege, the abuse of power - he literally oozes everything his support base is so angry about.

Very well put. Trump would be a disaster for his support base, but they don't actually know what Trump plans to do. Amerikan Trump supporters - and I've met a few - say Trump "will shake things up". They acknowledge it's a risky strategy, but they believe this is what Amerika needs right now.

I disagree. Vehemently. In politics and leadership, you need a well known and agreed plan. We live in democracies. We're free to follow leaders or not. They - and their policies - are subject to our willingness to keep them in their jobs. Nations can't possibly implement policies and political visions without getting the public and stakeholders engaged first. Look at the small examples of Rudd's mining tax, or JuLiar's carbon tax.

Presidents can't "shake things up". All they can do is appoint people for government jobs and propose policies to congress and the senate. Shaking things up does not go down well in government.

Trump can shake things up in speeches and Twitter posts, but that's about it. What Trump supporters seem to want is an entertainer, not a president. They would, of course, be hugely disappointed with the performance of such a president. Who would they blame then?

They were warned about Bush and Iraq, but they didn't listen. Now, they want to ignore their own support for Iraq and blame Hillary. Even Trump's support for this war - his statements on radio - are ignored. Sure, Trump and his fans here changed their minds about Iraq, but by then it was too late.

They're now planning on walking straight into a Trump presidency and an invasion of Syria. And when you point this out, they throw their hands up in the air and say, but we need to do something.

Yes, you need to support those with a little more restraint and foresight. Trump has been exposed as having none of this. His history of walking up to women and tongue kissing them says a lot. His willingness to brag about this on camera is even more telling. Trump supporters see such "honesty" as refreshing. Today, even Trump says he regrets saying it.

But obviously, not doing it.

What we now know of Trump is enough to prove he would be a massive failure as a president. What his fans should know is that he plans policies that go completely against their interests. Yes, Trump is not a career politician, but this is hardly a virtue. His lack of knowledge about government and constitutional processes means that many of his planned policies are not in his power to implement.

And this is a good thing.

Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 1:34pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 1:33pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 1:32pm: Look at the leftards on here. "I don't like Clinton but Trump is worse???". Yes. Your point? Clinton is a warmonger!!! What's worse than that?? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Because she voted for a war you yourself supported?

But, Homo, what does that make you?

Karnal wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 1:50pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 1:34pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 1:33pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 1:32pm: Look at the leftards on here. "I don't like Clinton but Trump is worse???". Yes. Your point? Clinton is a warmonger!!! What's worse than that?? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Because she voted for a war you yourself supported? But, Homo, what does that make you?

I don't make big world decisions dear. I'm an ordinary man who is at the mercy of a tide created by more powerful man. The TV is something I laugh at  because it makes me sick. I laugh at their wars. I laugh at their rubbish. I laugh at you rabid leftards. Don't heap stupid wars devised by powerful men on my shoulders.

Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 1:55pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 1:50pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 1:34pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 1:33pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 1:32pm: Look at the leftards on here. "I don't like Clinton but Trump is worse???". Yes. Your point? Clinton is a warmonger!!! What's worse than that?? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Because she voted for a war you yourself supported? But, Homo, what does that make you? I don't make big world decisions dear. I'm an ordinary man who is at the mercy of a tide created by more powerful man. The TV is something I laugh at  because it makes me sick. I laugh at their wars.

You certainly didn't laugh when you were warned of the consequences of the Iraqi invasion in 2003. You were most angry. If I remember rightly, you blamed Muslims and their apologists. l

Have you changed your mind?

Karnal wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 2:07pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 1:55pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 1:50pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 1:34pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 1:33pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 1:32pm: Look at the leftards on here. "I don't like Clinton but Trump is worse???". Yes. Your point? Clinton is a warmonger!!! What's worse than that?? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Because she voted for a war you yourself supported? But, Homo, what does that make you? I don't make big world decisions dear. I'm an ordinary man who is at the mercy of a tide created by more powerful man. The TV is something I laugh at  because it makes me sick. I laugh at their wars. You certainly didn't laugh when you were warned of the consequences of the Iraqi invasion in 2003. You were most angry. If I remember rightly, you blamed Muslims and their apologists. l Have you changed your mind?

Why do you like warmongers like Hillary?

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 11:00am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 10:53am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 10:02am: When Hillary wipes the floor with the bloated orange douche bag on November 8....... He's a pathetic, whiny child. The Americans voted Bush in twice so underestimate Trump at your own peril little pecca. ;) I can guarantee you that Trump will not be POTUS. I am so confident of this, that I have said I will leave this forum forever if he wins.

We will be saying good riddance little pecca.  ;D :D ;D :D :)

Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 2:09pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 2:07pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 1:55pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 1:50pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 1:34pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 1:33pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 1:32pm: Look at the leftards on here. "I don't like Clinton but Trump is worse???". Yes. Your point? Clinton is a warmonger!!! What's worse than that?? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Because she voted for a war you yourself supported? But, Homo, what does that make you? I don't make big world decisions dear. I'm an ordinary man who is at the mercy of a tide created by more powerful man. The TV is something I laugh at  because it makes me sick. I laugh at their wars. You certainly didn't laugh when you were warned of the consequences of the Iraqi invasion in 2003. You were most angry. If I remember rightly, you blamed Muslims and their apologists. l Have you changed your mind? Why do you like warmongers like Hillary?

Homo, you agreed with her vote. You supported the invasion of Iraq.

If you can't accept this, no worries.

Everybody else can.

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 2:33pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 11:00am: Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 10:53am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 10:02am: When Hillary wipes the floor with the bloated orange douche bag on November 8....... He's a pathetic, whiny child. The Americans voted Bush in twice so underestimate Trump at your own peril little pecca. ;) I can guarantee you that Trump will not be POTUS. I am so confident of this, that I have said I will leave this forum forever if he wins. We will be saying good riddance little pecca.

Care to make it interesting?

Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 2:09pm:

Why do you like warmongers like Hillary?

Who said they liked Hillary?

I'm kind of bored with this campaign. I'll be glad when its over. Just how the Republicans fall back and regroup will be interesting. That is, if they can. Immigration will soar, illegal aliens will receive amnesty, by which the Democrats will do anything to increase their base. It is quite possible the Republican Party will be unable get the numbers again, and the USA as the first world power will go into steep decline.

The problem with the Republicans today, is that they think the George Bush years can be extended indefinitely. Not one of their failed candidates was brave enough to take national problems head on. It almost looked like Trump would, but pretty early on it became apparent that all he had was a few crumby slogans. He was not prepared to present detailed perspectives that could be the basis of policy. Did any of his opponents catch on, and fill the gap? No, they were too busy playing it safe.

issuevoter wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 4:47pm:

I'm kind of bored with this campaign. I'll be glad when its over. Just how the Republicans fall back and regroup will be interesting. That is, if they can. Immigration will soar, illegal aliens will receive amnesty, by which the Democrats will do anything to increase their base. It is quite possible the Republican Party will be unable get the numbers again, and the USA as the first world power will go into steep decline. The problem with the Republicans today, is that they think the George Bush years can be extended indefinitely. Not one of their failed candidates was brave enough to take national problems head on. It almost looked like Trump would, but pretty early on it became apparent that all he had was a few crumby slogans. He was not prepared to present detailed perspectives that could be the basis of policy. Did any of his opponents catch on, and fill the gap? No, they were too busy playing it safe.

The problem with the Republicans today is their members' campaign funding. While this is a problem on both sides, it's a virus in the Republicans. Republican politicians get up by being told how to vote by their backers - big pharma, insurance companies, arms manufacturers, security and building contractors.

Because of this, they have no real purpose other than standing up for their donors' interests. It's because of this that they were blackmailed by the Tea Party movement - which was also funded by big money (and a handful of billionaires who live in Trump Tower, many of them friends with you-know-who.)

It's because of this movement that they've veered away even further away from what they've traditionally stood for. They've become a party of loons. Apart from doing their donors' bidding, their only cause these days is to obstruct the Democrats at all costs.

Of course they're Donald Trump's natural choice of party. They stand for nothing.

And this is what the Republicans need to work on: a reason for being.

issuevoter wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 4:47pm:

I'm kind of bored with this campaign. I'll be glad when its over. Just how the Republicans fall back and regroup will be interesting. That is, if they can. Immigration will soar, illegal aliens will receive amnesty, by which the Democrats will do anything to increase their base.

The only amnesty for illegal aliens in the US was issued by George W Bush in 2001. This was the policy he campaigned on in the election - a policy designed to get the Hispanic vote. Bush was perfectly up-front with this - he announced it in the primaries. Back in Texas, he won office with the support of the Hispanics and Bible Belt. It was this strategy that got him over the line as president in 2000 - or just. It was the closest election in the modern era.

If it wasn't for his brother denying votes in Florida, Bush would most probably not have become president, but he did. And he was.

The Republicans are the traditional party of choice for Hispanics, many of whom, like Cubans, are loyal to the party who stands hardest on Castro. However, the Republicans have been the most loyal to illegal immigrants in particular. By illegal immigrants, we're talking about Hispanics. For some reason, Canadians are excluded. I guess they're legal. 

The Democrats have traditionally stood against illegal immigration to protect union jobs. With only a handful of anti-immigration Republican politicians in border states like Arizona and New Mexico, the Republican Party turns a blind eye to illegal immigration. Their friends in business demand cheap labour. This is no secret in the US, which is what Trump means by the "status quo".

Trump is referring to the immigration policies of both parties. The US is built on immigration. Immigration provides the US with constant economic growth. You will find very few Republicans speaking out against immigration - you'll actually find a few more conservative Democrats speaking out. But this is the status quo.

Immigration in the US is bi-partisan, just as it used to be in Australia before John Howard changed things in response to Pauline Hanson.

But without a doubt, the Republicans are the party of choice for illegal immigrants, and the Bush amnesty in 2001, issuing millions of Green Cards to illegal immigrants, is only one small reason why.

Open borders, and all that entails (including causing a flood of illegal immigrants) is a core plank of neo-liberal conservativism. It is a key part of their war against the labor movement and their struggle for fair wages and rights for workers. As you said, its traditionally been the left parties who oppose open borders.

The problem for centre right parties who drive this neo-liberal agenda (think Reaganism and thatcherism) is that their ranks will inevitably attract a significant segment of the traditional, social conservatives who oppose such mass immigration on social cohesion/family values grounds. That is the basis of the great schism we are seeing in just about all centre-right parties in the west today - but probably most dramatically in the US. Its the so called 'establishment' that is doggedly holding on to neo-liberal agenda, but they are being yanked to the far right by a significant section of their rank and file. Commentators routinely make the mistake of distinguishing between the "extremists" and the "moderates" - but in reality there is nothing moderate about the neo-liberal economic agenda. And of course, a key dynamic in the split is the so called "extremists's" rejection of the neo-liberal agenda.

Thus the rise of the far right across the western world is both a nationalist/racist movement, but more importantly, its a revolt against the economic agenda that is created for and by big business. This is the genesis of Brexit, the rise of One Nation, and of course the nomination of Trump.

Whats interesting about the American case is that it has the most pronounced 2-party system in the western world. Only about 10% of voters vote for someone other than the two major parties. No other country comes close. Therefore, rather than splintering off into another party like we see with say One Nation and UKIP in the UK, the far right just snipes at Republicans from within the Republican party. Until now they have generally coped with this - the establishment plays lip service to the far right - an outrageous racist statement here, a symbolic conservative gesture there, which generally keeps the plebs satisfied while they go full steam ahead the neo-liberal agenda. Useful idiots like fox news and Bill OReilly play their part by distracting them with confected outrage against the "liberals". All that changed in this election because Trump didn't play the establishment game - he didn't say "lets be outraged - but express that outrage through the republican party". Instead he said "lets be outraged against the republican party". Thus he awakened the simmering conservative resentment against the establishment, and very much ran his campaign as an anti-Republican Republlican (while interestingly enough Bernie Sanders did exactly the same on the left). The nomination of Trump was the announcement of the official revolt of the far-right within the Republican party - and the reality is that Trump's candidacy is every bit an anti-Republican candidacy as Clinton is. Hence it is little wonder that the republican establishment is coming out in droves to attack and disendorse Trump. And it will be interesting to see what happens to the Repugs after Trump's defeat - will the splinter be permanent, or will the neo-liberals once again be able to hoodwink the far right in their party?

All true, G, but the difference between Amerika and the rest of the world is the primaries. In many US states, I can go out and vote for the major parties' candidate, whether I'm a party member or not.

Trump got through on his celebrity status - not his political track record. He showed how the primary system leaves the main political parties wide open to this kind of trojan horse.

Both Trump and Sanders have toyed with other parties and causes. Sanders was elected to office as an independent. Both only joined their parties to stand for president.

Trump has shown just how dangerous this system is for the parties. With a bit of money and fame, anyone can be their candidate for president. No checks or screening - Trump's past has been left to come out in the campaign.

The Republicans will need to regroup and clear this mess up. They don't want a Trump - no one does.

Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 1:34pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 1:33pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 1:32pm: Look at the leftards on here. "I don't like Clinton but Trump is worse???". Yes. Your point? Clinton is a warmonger!!! What's worse than that?? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Name a President of the last, say, 80 years who could not be described as a warmonger?

(Hint... There is really only one... And look what Americans thought of him!)

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 11:28am:

I'm not dissapointed that Trump will not win, but I am dissapointed that such an unworthy candidate as Hillary has been gifted such a clear run. Which of course is entirely Trump's fault - he deserves nothing less than the humiliation he is about to face. But what a shame the repugs couldn't muster up even a half-credible candidate that might really have taken Hillary to task on the serious question marks over her head: the emails, Libya, her war-mongering and her cozy relationship with the big end of town, her foundation's dodgy dealings in Afghanistan etc etc... She doesn't have to worry about any of that - and she should have. Instead all we're talking about is Trump's endless bafoonry. And no, its not because of some grand conspiracy against Trump - its because Trump is Trump - a bafoon, and bafoon's will be exposed as bafoons. And in this case, it caused a candidate with considerable baggage and a mountain of questions to be answered - to not have to face any of that music. None at all.

All American Presidents (at least since WW2) have been involved in military actions which were considered to be wrong or illegal (bar one).

Cozying up to the 'big end' of town? Are there ex-Presidents who haven't or wouldn't try that?

The emails??? Honestly, how much does that really keep you up at night?

Dodgy dealings in where? Afghanistan? The whole country is a dodgy deal!

We are all psychologically trapped in anti-Clinton memes which, if we thought about it rationally, we don't really believe or care about.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2016 at 9:34am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 11:28am: I'm not dissapointed that Trump will not win, but I am dissapointed that such an unworthy candidate as Hillary has been gifted such a clear run. Which of course is entirely Trump's fault - he deserves nothing less than the humiliation he is about to face. But what a shame the repugs couldn't muster up even a half-credible candidate that might really have taken Hillary to task on the serious question marks over her head: the emails, Libya, her war-mongering and her cozy relationship with the big end of town, her foundation's dodgy dealings in Afghanistan etc etc... She doesn't have to worry about any of that - and she should have. Instead all we're talking about is Trump's endless bafoonry. And no, its not because of some grand conspiracy against Trump - its because Trump is Trump - a bafoon, and bafoon's will be exposed as bafoons. And in this case, it caused a candidate with considerable baggage and a mountain of questions to be answered - to not have to face any of that music. None at all. All American Presidents (at least since WW2) have been involved in military actions which were considered to be wrong or illegal (bar one). Cozying up to the 'big end' of town? Are there ex-Presidents who haven't or wouldn't try that? The emails??? Honestly, how much does that really keep you up at night? Dodgy dealings in where? Afghanistan? The whole country is a dodgy deal! We are all psychologically trapped in anti-Clinton memes which, if we thought about it rationally, we don't really believe or care about.

I think you slightly misunderstand my angle here.

The fact that Clinton is a regular run-of-the-mill establishment candidate with regular run-of-the-mill establishment shenanigans is the whole issue here. Simply dismissing it by saying 'oh but she's no different to all the others' misses the point.

The point is that for once this election put establishment 'business as usual' politics in the spotlight. For once establishment candidates on both sides were attacked because of their establishment links. Unfortunately, Trump's bafoonry thwarted a golden opportunity to put real pressure on the establishment and declare to them 'enough is enough' and force real change. Instead we became so fixated with Trump's bafoonry that in the end the establishment has actually positioned itself as the solution, the saviour from the prospect of a Trump disaster  - when they were supposed to be the target, not Trump.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2016 at 12:00pm:

I think you slightly misunderstand my angle here. The fact that Clinton is a regular run-of-the-mill establishment candidate with regular run-of-the-mill establishment shenanigans is the whole issue here. Simply dismissing it by saying 'oh but she's no different to all the others' misses the point. The point is that for once this election put establishment 'business as usual' politics in the spotlight. For once establishment candidates on both sides were attacked because of their establishment links. Unfortunately, Trump's bafoonry thwarted a golden opportunity to put real pressure on the establishment and declare to them 'enough is enough' and force real change. Instead we became so fixated with Trump's bafoonry that in the end the establishment has actually positioned itself as the solution, the saviour from the prospect of a Trump disaster  - when they were supposed to be the target, not Trump.

I take your point, but (at the risk of sounding cynical), I believe sudden radical change is a con, sold and consumed mainly to and by the young.

Its also dangerous in that, 'Those who stop believing in something, they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything...

Hence Trump... And what happened with Trump? For a while many didn't just believe in him, they believed anything he said even when he contradicted himself and blatantly lied at an unprecedented rate even for a politician (let alone a wannabe politician).

Sudden and rapid change is as almost impossible with society as it is with personal psychological change... Just try writing with your non usual hand... Hell, try to just not smoke!

We are naturally inclined to want to believe sudden change is possible (which is why many spend millions to hear the ramblings of latter-day shamans and psychological faith healers), but life experience soon teaches us it ain't.

We should remember the Arab Spring in Egypt as a cautionary tale of what happens when people believe sudden change is possible by believing in anything... In their case - Just overthrow the old regime which by that they believed (without any further thought) would bring on some kind of Arab 'Age of Aquarius'...