"Currants Bw..."

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Wikileaks outed that degenerate Obama as being up to his neck in this.

It's interesting that you believe Wikileaks actually as a credible/reliable source of information.

A man hiding from answering questions about allegations of sexual assault, because he claims if he was extradited to Sweden it would fast track his extradition to the United States (it wouldn't of course, but there we go).

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

All you are saying here is the perception has slipped. But behind the perception has always (almost always) been criminal scum of the worst order. Trump isn't part of that highly polished clan so he doesn't have the vocab down yet. He's learning quick enough though. And he's been dancing since day one - don't you see him hopping from state to state doing the presidential thing? He's not orchestrating that off his own back. I think the complacent and arrogant Europhile/ Remainers here in the UK and their yawn/ puke inducing counterparts in the USA have fallen into a trap of believing the average guy on the street is 100% stupid. They have mistaken uniformed for stupid. Yes, almost 100% uninformed, but people can still smell the bullshit even if they can't see the source. Candidates like Farage and Trump are designed to appeal, calm and ultimately hand the pissed off, growing constituency back into the programme. We haven't nearly reached the stage yet where we have candidates that could influence anything.

So because Trump a man of 69 talks like an actual imbecile it shows his integrity as someone not yet tarnished by political double speak

Well first off, his simpleton rhetoric is an act because actually even though not especially smart, watch any interview with him in the 1980s and he is far more coherent and articulate.

You can push the anti statist envelope as much as you like, and claim that no president has any real power. But the guy is unhinged enough to be dangerous with any kind of political power, I don't think even Farage would be lacking in conscience enough to stir up his followers into committing acts of violence against other people, and in that sense Trump is dangerous even if he doesn't win.

Clinton is a total establishment shill and it's only her money and influence over the DNC that made her the nominee, but and you and I are never going to see eye to eye on this there are far worse things to be.

[Niall_Quinn]

It's interesting that you believe Wikileaks actually as a credible/reliable source of information.

A man hiding from answering questions about allegations of sexual assault, because he claims if he was extradited to Sweden it would fast track his extradition to the United States (it wouldn't of course, but there we go).

???

Wikileaks is a conduit for whistleblowers. The sources you are doubting are the personal documents and emails of companies and individuals - they aren't media pieces or pundit opinions or other such mainstream or Internet bullshit. What is it you don't "believe" about the documents presented? And what on earth does Assange's personal life have to do with it?

[Niall_Quinn]

So because Trump a man of 69 talks like an actual imbecile it shows his integrity as someone not yet tarnished by political double speak

Well first off, his simpleton rhetoric is an act because actually even though not especially smart, watch any interview with him in the 1980s and he is far more coherent and articulate.

You can push the anti statist envelope as much as you like, and claim that no president has any real power. But the guy is unhinged enough to be dangerous with any kind of political power, I don't think even Farage would be lacking in conscience enough to stir up his followers into committing acts of violence against other people, and in that sense Trump is dangerous even if he doesn't win.

Clinton is a total establishment shill and it's only her money and influence over the DNC that made her the nominee, but and you and I are never going to see eye to eye on this there are far worse things to be.

???

Holy hell, where did I say Trump has integrity? What's up with you?

And I didn't say anything about presence or absence of the state either. I said the antics of the establishment have been noted by a growing number of voters and particularly those who are inclined to protest about it, or at least disengage from it. John and Jane, the educated ignoramuses from the cuddly status quo are not in the massive majority any longer. So of course the political landscape will be adjusted to reflect this. Hence the likes of Boris Johnson and Donald Trump.

As for Trump's prospective power should he win, why will his situation be different from that of any president before him? It will be up to the Congress and their paymasters as to what gets enacted and what gets blocked. At best Trump could issue a string of vetoes but he'll do what every presidents has done, trade for a legacy. Is this not how you think the system works? Do you think the president sits there and dishes out orders and everyone jumps to it?

[GP]

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

???

Wikileaks is a conduit for whistleblowers. The sources you are doubting are the personal documents and emails of companies and individuals - they aren't media pieces or pundit opinions or other such mainstream or Internet bullshit. What is it you don't "believe" about the documents presented? And what on earth does Assange's personal life have to do with it?

It's about the selective nature of what information is released and who some of the information is released to, it's not all just posted on the wiki leaks site. A lot of it is cherry picked and used to promote an agenda, both for Assange and for those he gives information to.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

???

Holy hell, where did I say Trump has integrity? What's up with you?

And I didn't say anything about presence or absence of the state either. I said the antics of the establishment have been noted by a growing number of voters and particularly those who are inclined to protest about it, or at least disengage from it. John and Jane, the educated ignoramuses from the cuddly status quo are not in the massive majority any longer. So of course the political landscape will be adjusted to reflect this. Hence the likes of Boris Johnson and Donald Trump.

As for Trump's prospective power should he win, why will his situation be different from that of any president before him? It will be up to the Congress and their paymasters as to what gets enacted and what gets blocked. At best Trump could issue a string of vetoes but he'll do what every presidents has done, trade for a legacy. Is this not how you think the system works? Do you think the president sits there and dishes out orders and everyone jumps to it?

1) if Trump wins than almost certainly congress will almost certainly be Republican held (the coat tail effect) so on many instances they will go along with a lot of his program. In fact a lot of GOP congressmen and senators have said they are worried about more actively denouncing Trump because they are in states where his supporters have been so wound up they could turn violent.

2) Actually it is the president that has ultimate authority with certain actions, if he takes the country to war he has to go through congress but one off military strikes, even nuclear he can invoke executive action. He can impose martial law and crackdown on civil liberties without having to produce a bill to sign it into law, he can just justify himself by saying the situation warrants it.

[adzzzbatch]

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

cleaner who i used to speak to whilst outside smoking has been diagnosed with terminal lung cancer, that's a bit sobering.

[Letters]

Sorry to hear that.

They really should put warnings on the packs or something.