Comments on: Why Trump Might Still Win – If the Vote is not Rigged

By: Admin

Admin — Thu, 03 Nov 2016 22:14:15 +0000

In reply to dahoit. Stay on topic please

By: dahoit

dahoit — Thu, 03 Nov 2016 17:34:42 +0000

In reply to mog.

Trump is the best breath of fresh American air in decades,and all zionists hate him.
WTF does anyone need?If one can’t figure out by now they are our mortal enemy, one is that enemy,from Abramson to Viner to Cohen to the feminazi retards to Monbiot all scum.The day after Fukushima that crud touted nuclear energy.Drown him. Why do think the Graun and print media died?Zionism and its inherent lie factory of monster war enablers.
Ideologues back in your squirrel cage hamster wheels.

By: dahoit

dahoit — Thu, 03 Nov 2016 17:25:14 +0000

In reply to jaques. Ok children,if AGW is real,as you claim,wtf are you going to do about it?How about all your respective leaders?Moving fast,huh?The only thing that's going to happen is the people will pay taxes to cover the big business polluters ass. Now for reality;Vote Trump and avoid ww3,a much more pressing and real threat.

By: dahoit

dahoit — Thu, 03 Nov 2016 17:19:01 +0000

In reply to Kathleen Lowrey.

Stop.All this misogyny crap is HRC divide and conquer nonsense,as many many women are voting Trump,and the fact that women will vote for the worst candidate in American history because she is a woman reveals maybe misogynists are onto something.
And Trump is winning,was winning and will win,as all the MSM are serial lying scum,whose polls are only effective on the weak minded.
Trump 2016.

By: dahoit

dahoit — Thu, 03 Nov 2016 16:47:52 +0000

In reply to mog.

hillaryous.
I guess if you are a one world disorder type of person,the Hell Bitch appeals to you.
To American patriots she is the worst example of womanhood and political and human corruption in our history.
You are going to love Trump,believe me.:)

By: John

John — Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:26:11 +0000

In reply to Hugh Wax.

Alphabetical sequencing on the ballot paper?
C (linton) comes before T (rump).
Do the other two candidates surnames begin with letters between C and T?

By: Hugh Wax

Hugh Wax — Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:50:34 +0000

Scam in Mass pre-vote ballot, Trump was on point, slightly rigged.
Hillary first listed on ballot, two green party then Repubilcan candidate Trump, How?

By: jaques

jaques — Sun, 30 Oct 2016 03:05:39 +0000

In reply to peterkellow.

Actually it is you who are putting forward arguments without explanation. I believe you have been fooled by the misinformation campaigns of the Koch Brothers and Co. You suggest there is a vast conspiracy to falsify the results of climate science- involving scientists from every developed country on earth- all being coordinated- by whom exactly you cannot say… The Illuminati?
I think- you should have a read of David Ray Griffin’s recent book about the so called climate change conspiracy. If you can’t be bothered to read his counter arguments to your claims- then maybe just watch this short interview instead:

By: Andy Smith

Andy Smith — Sat, 29 Oct 2016 20:54:37 +0000

Interesting idea, but I have a large number of reservations. While I agree with the point about media vilification and poll results, the article nevertheless contains a large number assertions of fact, without any supporting evidence, which seriously undermines the credibility of the writer. On the whole it read like a series of allegations, on a variety of topics, without actually building an evidence-based case to support any of them, to any convincing degree.
A few specific examples:
” But Trump would have to be a fool to vow to accept the reported results unconditionally. ”
This is a very strongly worded statement, supporting Trump’s accusations that US democracy is fundamentally ‘rigged’. Personally I’m not sure how much I buy into that theory. It’s possible that there is a wider conversation to be had about the integrity of US elections – but the article contains no discussion/evidence.
“Earlier Hillary said all residents in the US, illegal or not, should be able to vote. This has not happened but it speaks to her methods”
What does that mean? Whether democracy should be extended to illegal residents is an interesting question (there is a potential argument that if you believe in democracy everyone should be involved in shaping it) – but the pros and cons are not discussed here. Just the statement that ‘it speaks to her methods’ which a) doesn’t make sense (what methods? how does this illustrate them?), and b) is unsupported by any evidence.
” It is a matter of record that Al Gore was cheated out of the presidency by George W. Bush in 2000 by irregular manoeuvring of the count. ”
Is it? I know there was a lot of speculation but I can’t imagine it was ever proven? Surely if so there would have been repercussions? It might be accepted among conspiracy theorists, but has there ever been any legal judgement?
” A week or so ago the headlines in the US and UK were filled with unproven claims that he had insulted women and put his hand up their skirts on planes. This nonsense offends people and degrades American democracy and American media reporting – and it makes people retreat into their own opinion, until voting day”
I’m not saying I believe all the allegations about sexual harassment unequivocally, but there are enough supporting statements/behaviours by Trump on record to strongly indicate that they are well within the bounds of plausibility. It’s one thing to remind readers that they are as yet unproven, but to dismiss them as ‘nonsense’ is both naive, and denies justice the chance to take its course. Compare this attitude with later statements confirming the criminality of both Clintons – equally unproven assertions – yet these allegations are reported as if hard fact, rather than ‘nonsense’. Blatant hypocrisy and bias.
” Trump will be the beneficiary of anti-politics sentiment. He comes from a business background and is decidedly a political outsider. His claim to able to run the American economy, because of his business success, rings true. ”
Personally, I think that coming from a position of extreme inherited wealth puts Trump in exactly the same ‘establishment’ category as other corporate/political insiders. I don’t consider him anti-establishment in any way at all. I’m also sceptical about his supposed ‘business success’. Although I don’t for a minute profess to be an expert I’ve heard sufficient rumours about bankcruptcy, bailouts and fraud to need to be convinced – rather than just taking an un-evidenced statement on face value. Even if I were to be convinced of his business success, it’s a huge leap of faith to think that it automatically qualifies him as President (Phillip Green anyone?).
“Hillary’s womanhood is a big disadvantage – and particularly as a female type she is hardly appealing. She evokes more than anything the Shakespearean characters of Lady Macbeth or the Shrew rather than more appealing examples of femininity.”
I notice another comment’s post already calling the author out for explicit misogyny. The words above are indefensible, and clear evidence of gender bias. If the author is genuinely unaware that these comments, (made by him – he is not quoting anyone here), are sexist then please treat this as a wake up call.