"Currants Bw..."

[Letters]

A lot of people in the USA will not have got past the fact that they can keep guns, and abolish abortions. That will be a bit reason why many voted for Trump/Pence.

They could have kept guns under Clinton, Trump isn't going to abolish abortions. Like with Brexit there's going to be a lot of disappointed people once they realise he's not going to do half the things he kept going on about.

[GP]

Trump's motorcade arrives in Washington

http://i.imgur.com/JPMxMvI.gifv

[Ollie the Optimist]

That mindset is not unique to the left.

Far too many people refuse to step outside the comfort of their echo chamber.

I agree it is not unique to the left but in the last three elections, those mainly of the left remained in their echo chambers while those that won engaged with the voters and managed to convince them to support their cause. Thats why right has won recently.

[Letters]

Trump's motorcade arrives in Washington

http://i.imgur.com/JPMxMvI.gifv

Similarly

http://newsthump.com/2016/11/09/wash...xterior-paint/

[Goonermerree]

They could have kept guns under Clinton, Trump isn't going to abolish abortions. Like with Brexit there's going to be a lot of disappointed people once they realise he's not going to do half the things he kept going on about.

My point is that these are very big issues for many Americans and will have swayed their decision. Whether he does what he says or can do remains to be seen. Democrats are always trying to change gun laws.

[Niall_Quinn]

I'm sure you'll find Wally one day.

I thought I had.

[GP]

I thought I had.

You'd think so, but if you looks closely, those aren't actually red stripes, but orange.

[Power n Glory]

And there we go again. I tell you what Trump actually said, in direct contradiction to what you implied, so that's done, shift goalposts and go again.

Assad, like any of the authoritarians in a region continuously destabilised by the world powers, is ruthless towards his opponents. But does he bomb his own people? Well yes he does now, following the US starting a civil war in his country and sending ISIS against him. That's what happens in a civil war. Did the Americans bomb and burn the shit out of civilians during their own civil war? Yes they did.

But was Assad a crazed tyrant happily bombing his people before the US intervened? Of course not and any fool can figure out what that bullshit is all about. First it was Saddam, then Gadaffi, now it is Assad and tomorrow it will be whoever we want it to be. Dictators don't bomb people to hold power because they wouldn't hold it for very long. Instead they arrest people, violate their human rights, lock them up as political prisoners, assassinate them. Just the same as the US does. In fact one Barak Obama is infamous for such behaviour.

However, now that the US has started this war and created ISIS, now that there's a chance to do something about it, yes, I think it would be a good idea to bomb the shit out of ISIS. And if we could avoid conflict with the Russians then that would be a great idea.

How is that shifting goal posts? I thought a vote for Trump meant less Syrians would die? I'm not the one here shifting goal posts. I mean, come on! Now bombing is a good idea?

Again, there's a huge difference between some guy sounding off to get elected and a woman that is directly responsible for slaughtering hundreds of thousands of human beings. There just is. And if Trump carries on where Obama/ Clinton left off then sure, he joins the ranks of the war criminals and serial killers than we've seen stream through our hallowed parliaments over the decades. But right now there's simply no comparison. Why it even has to be explained that it's a good thing people rejected that woman is tough to understand. Reasoning seems to be, well maybe Trump is Hitler, therefore let's stick with the Hilter we know. So maybe Trump won't be Hitler. At least it's possible for that to happen, whereas with Clinton it's not. She's already joined that club and it can't be un-joined.

And don't speculate on how the Syrian war started. From what I recall, Assad had backing and placed in power by the US. He started to bomb the people for days when they wanted him out. Nobody intervened whilst he bombed and then the US finally got involved when they heard about chemical weapons being used and gave out weapons instead of direct intervention. How accurate that all is, I don't know. We don't really need a history lesson on it. But it's clear your shifting goal posts and it doesn't matter why or how the US got involved.

It's ok to bomb as long as we bomb with Russia. Am I shifting the goal posts?

[LDG]

They could have kept guns under Clinton, Trump isn't going to abolish abortions. Like with Brexit there's going to be a lot of disappointed people once they realise he's not going to do half the things he kept going on about.

Like a great man once said:

You do know that the President is just a front man for the machine that works behind him/her?

He's an actor saying or doing whatever will get his party in office.

What's more worrying are the people who are in agreement with what he's saying. That's the real problem. Just like the UK. A flock of sheep being herded here and there, deflecting from the real problems that nobody wants to address.

Having either if them in office amounts to the same thing. A different bunch of power hungry cunts, ensuring the rich people they are in bed with stay rich. There is no politics here, it's just which side gets to the trough this time round.

The very fact that people (even here) are obsessed with the personality of the two people going for office, shows how much we are obsessed with the shite the media spew out. It's like X-Factor for presidents. Soon people will phone vote it all.

Whoever ends up in office isn't going to be dangerous (depending on which way you view it), as the puppet will revert to type as soon as their feet are under the desk. The stats quo will remain....unless Trump can't keep his mouth shut, in which case I'm sure he term will be terminated quickly in some way shape or form.

[Letters]

My point is that these are very big issues for many Americans and will have swayed their decision. Whether he does what he says or can do remains to be seen. Democrats are always trying to change gun laws.

Sure. But this is where I despair about the level of the debate. Trump came out with all this guff about how Clinton wants to take everyone's guns away and everyone boos, no-one thinks "Hang on, does she? Is that what she said?"
And of course no, no it isn't. She just wanted to improve background checks and who could sensibly argue with that? Absolutely no suggestion from Clinton that she's going to repeal the 2nd amendment.
Clinton is more pro-choice than Trump, that much is true, but I seriously can't see him outlawing abortion.