Pidesco

I've posted the recording itself here, and it's not at all like you are portraying it. Hillary has enough flaws for people to complain about without misrepresenting something she said or did 30 years ago.

http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2016/10/06/are-you-a-foreigner-government-form/

That's the chance of winning according to 538's model for analyzing polls. But yes, Clinton is currently leading in most swing states according to polling so the chance of her losing the election right now is fairly low.

Does EA have an ice skating game? If not, that should be the title.

Do you give up different amounts of individuality depending on whether on most of the power is with state government or whether it is with federal government? In my experience you are just comparing one set of more or less corrupt politicians with another similar set. Whether those politicians sit 800 miles away from you or 3000 miles away doesn't affect all that much of your daily life. That idea of states rights vs the federal government is similar to the argument espoused in the UK regarding Brexit and it's completely spurious. The politicians in London don't represent the rights of people in Cardiff any better than the politicians in Brussels. Local power is a big part of the constitution in Portugal, and it didn't make a single bit of difference towards the lives of ordinary people, unless to those few ordinary people that somehow got into elected office. In that case the difference was corruption. What local power means is local, hard to curtail corruption. For evidence of this look at American small towns, football and rape, for example. Swedes are awesome man. By the way, one of my downstairs neighbors is from Bergen.

You are against free movement of people within EU as well? Free movement of people is implied by having open trade deals. But if one country wants to become the next Belarus, then let them, and it will fall by itself. Why are there only those two options and what do you base them on? Three options, you mean. To answer your question, a history of conflict and wars over the past 2000 years is what I base my prediction on.

The choice is between an eventually culturally united Europe, generalized strife and war, or the United Republic of Nestlé (replace corporation name to taste). I go with the first option.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/libertarian-vp-candidate-just-wants-to-stop-trump-presidency.html Weld to vote for Clinton? laff

I'm not sure why, but a certain epic thread about the likelihood of a very improbable event ever happening just showed up among my memories.

Palin was an exceptionally bad VP candidate, though. Pence and Kaine are, on their respective sides, safe, middle of the road guys.

It's not so much about who "won" but more about how the debate gets analyzed. From what I understand one of the reasons Pence "won" is that he was decidedly Untrumpian and even said things that are opposite to what Trump has said before. The main example I saw was the subject of Russia and Putin, where Pence had no problems criticizing Putin and the situation with Crimea. This would be taken to heart in a positive way by Trump if he was an intelligent human. Instead I'd wager that he'll feel like doubling down on his Trumpiness will be the response. Like that tweet seems to indicate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZOWItkanDs

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/04/how-well-do-you-know-the-vice-presidential-candidates-a-quiz/ This quiz encapsulates the excitement of tonight's debate.

The article is there for people to read. As I understand it he tried to veto just about everything and he privatized the state's prisons.

Johnson wasn't a very good governor, apparently.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html I'm sure someone will posit that him having losses 900 million in one year and still being around as a business is a sign of what a shrewd mind he has.

That's a pretty good video, with a clear, well reasoned explanation of who Trump is. Trump is only a troll in the sense of idiot forum posters who write something stupid and then, when challenged on it, turn to the "I'm totally just a troll" defense. In any case, why anyone would want a troll as president is beyond me.

Haha. Kind of like how truth has a well known liberal bias. The video is there for you to listen to.

No, just the one time in 1980-something where she laughed about the legal particulars of a rape case. http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

Yeah, 60-70% is way, way too optimistic. I mean which Libertarian principles would be the first out the door? Would you be okay with a libertarian party that kept the Fed and the IRS mostly as they are, for example?

US's electoral system is what it is. There are very good reasons to hate a two party system, but you are not getting a relevant third party unless the system is changed. The only way the libertarian party gets a place at the table is if one of the main parties chokes and dies so that the Libertarians take its place. But of course, if that happens, the libertarian party will be quickly morphed into a moderate, bastardized version of itself which I have to assume you'd hate. Lose first-past-the-post, gerrymandering and the electoral college and then, maybe, diverse points of views will be somewhat represented in the US's political system.

The insanity continues here.

Find out in this thread why a billionaire who made a career out of screwing over the little guy is now the only hope the little guy has of getting rid of the terrible establishment.

https://www.thenation.com/article/wisconsin-is-systematically-failing-to-provide-the-photo-ids-required-to-vote-in-november/ Ladies and gentlemen, here's the party of small government.

That kind of not giving a damn comes from being the leader of a place that's not a democracy where he can oppress and kill more or less anyone who bothers him. It's akin to admiring Pol Pot for his dogged determination.

Trudeau seems to have potential, maybe?