"Currants Bw..."

[Niall_Quinn]

It shouldn't take a genius to work out the hypocrisy. Here I am thinking you're concerned about loss of human lives and rights. Silly me.

So you're battering Hillary by saying she's a career criminal, mass murderer, etc, yet you're here suggesting Trump should support Vladimir Putin and Assad? Aren't they career criminals and just as bad... sorry.. worse than the Clinton? Where is the attack on your conscience since you couldn't bear to see Hilary voted in? You made the point of Trump only committing white collar crime and its 'a sign of hope' that the people of a America chose not to vote in Hilary, she supports Saudi Arabia an oppressive regime... Etc. So where is the progress if it moves to supporting Russia and Assad with their oppression? Trump having no record of committing war crimes has to be one of the laziest arguments of them all. It shouldn't take a genius to work out why either. Do I really need to explain why he hasn't? Letters made an attempt earlier but that flew right over your head, yet he's the 'thick' one. Regardless of the fact that a man with no political record is now President, he has declared his intention to 'bomb the shit out of ISIS and his supporters cheered. Encouraging. Very encouraging. They're learning.

Now, trying to spin who and what we're bombing...' we're bombing ISIS not Syria'. Oh dear. Didn't we have the same line trotted out about the 'war on terror' and Al Qaeda? Also, since ISIS aren't only based in Syria, doesn't that mean more bombs dropped in Iraq and elsewhere? But it's the 'War on ISIS/Terror'. Same difference.

I said from earlier it was pointless forming arguments based on who is the more moral candidate. Now look at this web of bullshit. Quick to explain the intricacies of why working with Russia and Assad is for the greater good. Lord help us.

Your latest alteration of the record designed to suit your own argument.

So you're battering Hillary by saying she's a career criminal, mass murderer, etc, yet you're here suggesting Trump should support Vladimir Putin and Assad?

Nowhere did I say Trump should support Putin and Assad. I said he should cooperate with Russia to destroy ISIS and I also said he should avoid conflict with Russia for what should be obvious reasons. You know, you are behaving a bit like the mainstream media and how they covered Trump during the election. Take a word, spin a sentence, write the story.

Then you progress with a whole moral piece based on the assertion you created. Then a wink and a condescending inversion, a desperate plea for allies to dive in presumably for safety in numbers, more smilies, then a (I assume serious) attempt to equate the ISIS situation with Blair and Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq which I'm guessing you borrowed from one of my own responses, suitably inverting the concept and taking it out of context.

But the last part seems to be both related to the debate and a fair reflection of what I have said. Thank you for that.

Yes. Correct. We should work with the government of Syria and work with the Russians to destroy ISIS. OR, my preference, negotiate with Russia for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Syria. It is imperative we stop funding and arming ISIS and equally imperative we stop attacking the one force on the ground that will ultimately finish ISIS off, assuming we don't want our own forces stuck in the region for decades. It is US intervention and subterfuge that has elevated ISIS beyond rabble status in the first place, the very reason why ISIS now has to be driven back and defeated. There are some indications the Obama regime has realised this over the last few months and may indeed have changed their strategy from attacking Assad, in some instances at least, to containing ISIS. Could this change have anything to do with the warmonger Clinton having left State to focus on higher office? Speculation but an interesting coincidence.

The aim I believe we should be pursuing is to avoid conflict with Russia. The aim currently being pursued, one you seem to support by implication, seems to have no purpose that is achievable. If we look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria it is obvious these grand plans for regime change have produced the reverse outcomes, assuming the original intent was not to create chaos and drag Russia into conflict. But that latter possibility, while seeming insane, may well be the true agenda of the crazies dictating US foreign policy. Perhaps they have equated the situation now with Afghanistan in the 80s where the likes of Brzezinski takes credit for creating and arming terror groups, calling them freedom fighters and setting them against the Russians. This, he feels, ultimately led to the break-up of the Soviet Union. He boasts about his achievements in his book, The Grand Chess Board. You can see the mentality of these lunatics just from the title of their confessions. Of course he'll never tell you that therein lay the seed for Al'Qaida. That part is conveniently glossed over.

So skipping over all your fluster and bluster and going straight to the one relevant point you did raise, you now have my answer. So can I ask, what is your view on possible solutions to the problem as it stands?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Clearly he can't deliver on many things, the wall etc. I would expect his supporters to be a bit miffed about that, but they'll just make excuses for him probably. I think even Trump has realised that he can't be the maverick he was during the campaign, his victory speech showed that. But I would be angry that I elected somebody from what they were saying only to find out that it was a pack of lies.

And that's why people are going to be very angry, for financial reasons the wall and the deportations won't happen

Stripping Obama care completely would take years upon years, and the majority of the country want healthcare coverage they just don't like the high premiums.

The pro free trade congress will make it hard for him to ditch NAFTA and TPP (which is a shame, as actually neither would be a bad thing).

Tax cuts, conservative Supreme Court appointments which may lead to the overturn of Roe v Wade

The biggest question mark is how he will use the NSA, Obama was wrong totally wrong not to dismantle the vast surveillance network and I'm sure it was far from used responsibly when he was president (because it's not possible to have such apparatus and use it responsibly). Lord knows what Trump will do with it.

[Niall_Quinn]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37953528

Trump wants to retain the legislation that states that insurance companies cannot deny people coverage on the basis of pre existing conditions.

Have to say, fair play to him if he means that.

His big challenge will be to find some mechanism that prevents the drug companies from continuing their cartel. If he can set them against each other and generate competition then he'll be able to instigate something other than straight robbery of the people. His ever bigger challenge is all of those congressman that love taking drug money to keep their sorry arses in office.

[Niall_Quinn]

And that's why people are going to be very angry, for financial reasons the wall and the deportations won't happen

Stripping Obama care completely would take years upon years, and the majority of the country want healthcare coverage they just don't like the high premiums.

The pro free trade congress will make it hard for him to ditch NAFTA and TPP (which is a shame, as actually neither would be a bad thing).

Tax cuts, conservative Supreme Court appointments which may lead to the overturn of Roe v Wade

The biggest question mark is how he will use the NSA, Obama was wrong totally wrong not to dismantle the vast surveillance network and I'm sure it was far from used responsibly when he was president (because it's not possible to have such apparatus and use it responsibly). Lord knows what Trump will do with it.

Considering there are levels of security clearance above the president's pay grade I'm fairly sure it won't be up to him what happens with the NSA, just as it wouldn't have been within Obama's remit to dictate to the security and intelligence services. There must be a ton of dirt on Trump.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

His big challenge will be to find some mechanism that prevents the drug companies from continuing their cartel. If he can set them against each other and generate competition then he'll be able to instigate something other than straight robbery of the people. His ever bigger challenge is all of those congressman that love taking drug money to keep their sorry arses in office.

Whilst I totally agree that would be a good thing, I'm not confident that such a thing would happen under Trump. On one hand he isn't beholden to lobbyists himself so there is nothing stopping him, but you'd have to factor in does he give a shit?

[Niall_Quinn]

Details of the 2016 vote rigging campaigns are now starting to emerge. Vote rigging is a very serious business in the US and rigging campaigns usually begin at least 2 years in advance of the election. This time it seems the Repubs might have won by a narrow margin. Palast has done his usual stand up job of tracking them over the 4 year period and estimates they probably managed to take around 1 million blacks off the register, with focus being on the key battleground states. The Bush operation, working in tandem with the Democrats this time around, seemed to achieve lower numbers with their main focus being getting some half a million dead voters onto the registers supplemented by the traditional bussing of repeat voters around the key states on election day. Pennsylvania was the key Deomocrat focus. Ohio and Michigan key for the Repubs.

From what I can gather a +400K win for the Repubs. Way to go guys, a great comeback from the trouncing you took last time around. Just goes to show that planning pays and if you keep your chin up in the darkest hour then any nefarious, underhanded bullshit is possible.

[Letters]

[Niall_Quinn]

Whilst I totally agree that would be a good thing, I'm not confident that such a thing would happen under Trump. On one hand he isn't beholden to lobbyists himself so there is nothing stopping him, but you'd have to factor in does he give a shit?

Trump's a narcissist. He'll want to be known as the greatest president of all time. That will be important to him. He's not a fool but I suspect he thinks he can bring his bull in a china shop style to the Whitehouse. If you watched him at Congress yesterday he looked small and insignificant. For all his carving up of Ryan on the campaign trail it was Ryan who looked the business as Trump sat there to one side. If Trump though the media was dirty then he's in for a very nasty shock when he gets some experience of the real pros. I don't think he'll get a chance to give a shit. He'll be embroiled in the politics before he knows it and the first year will be spent trying to find a solid footing on any issue. And I wouldn't assume he didn't have significant funding behind him during the campaign. There's a lot of talk about how much he personally brought to the table, some saying half of the 100 mill that seems to be the agreed figure. Others saying even less. Clever tactic though but it doesn't help us learn who was actually behind him. We'll know soon enough. Wasn't Soros, that's for sure LOL. That was nice, Soros getting a kick in the nuts.

[GP]

[Niall_Quinn]

Here's how the hopelessly biased BBC headlined Trump's plans to prevent a return to the drug companies barring citizens based on pre-existing conditions.



What a horrendous organisation the BBC is, and we are forced by government thugs to pay for this propaganda.