As an Australian without any vested interest in U.S. politics, I would say Hillary is your worst case scenario and you don't really have a lot of choice.

Double post but.....worth saying twice!

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

As an Australian without any vested interest in U.S. politics, I would say Hillary is your worst case scenario and you don't really have a lot of choice.

The Libertarian Govs for Pres/VP, Johnson/Weld, are on the ballot in 50 states... that IS a choice.

We can only vote for what we believe in and the person we believe...
(or be told what to believe and who to vote for by the authoritarian right or the authoritarian left).
Luckily there is an honest choice.

@ clyde

A bomb would not be an act of terrorism if, for instance, a number of them were used to demolish a building so that new construction could take place.

MK...

Repeating... If a person plants a bomb to advance a Religious, Secular or Personal Agenda. Why isn't it Terrorism?

As to the BTWs: Bobby, Clyde is saying he doesn't respect your contributions here. I wish he did.

Sarge...

bobby just engages, as has been described by other posters in these Threads and PM's, in Circular Logic.

I must agree with them.

I've communicated with Bobby 9-10 years. While he doesn't engage in sarcasm (or, not in the way I do) nor flat out wild posts as I have done (which has, on occasion, elicited another person to say something in a way that I begin to understand them and therefore change the dynamic). But, his presentation, I believe, is very similar to mine. Another similar poster in terms of presentation is OzzFan. (I don't know if he'd acknowledge that, as he and I have also communicated 9-10 years and, in the early days, it was not kindly. I believe both of us lacked sufficient information to get around what we were battling over at the time.)

Inasmuch as one can be friends with someone they have never met but only communicate with online, I consider Bobby a friend.

Given that we are among the ones not in support of Trump, isn't it possible to find some common ground?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

As an Australian without any vested interest in U.S. politics, I would say Hillary is your worst case scenario and you don't really have a lot of choice.

The Libertarian Govs for Pres/VP, Johnson/Weld, are on the ballot in 50 states... that IS a choice.

We can only vote for what we believe in and the person we believe...
(or be told what to believe and who to vote for by the authoritarian right or the authoritarian left).
Luckily there is an honest choice.

Discuss Johnson's economic plan (preferably in the thread about his candidacy). Is it in keeping with the LP Platform? What are the chances it will be enacted with little to none of his party in either house of Congress? Is he a civil libertarian while an econmic ideologue/authoritarian?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

@ clyde

A bomb would not be an act of terrorism if, for instance, a number of them were used to demolish a building so that new construction could take place.

MK...

Repeating... If a person plants a bomb to advance a Religious, Secular or Personal Agenda. Why isn't it Terrorism?

So you know who planted a bomb and why. So how soon is your FBI interview?

---

Reports that he is going to sue the New York Times, Donald Trump threatens to sue New York Times over 'irresponsible intent' shortly after this story was published.
A Trump Empire Built on Inside Connections and $885 Million in Tax Breaks, All property developers do it, but Trump takes it to extremes.

He's also said the New York explosion was the work of terrorists, before there was any official news.

Bombs are not the act of a Terrorist? In what Universe?

WK...

If a person plants a bomb to advance a Religious, Secular or Personal Agenda. Why isn't it Terrorism?

I deliberately said explosion because at that time that is all it could be explained as. Having been within hearing range to several explosive incidents, electricity sub-station early 60's, no-break electrical system in late 70's and a gas leak which destroyed 3 houses and damaged others in 2012, I am well aware there other things that cause explosions, besides bombs.

---

Do you think it credible that within 30 minutes of the explosion, Drumpf would have been briefed about a bomb in NYC?

bobby,

As I said, for two different reasons that I mentioned, I DO consider it within the realm of possibility that he was notified it was an intentional action, therefore it was a bomb, within 30 minutes of the explosion.

Remember, Trump (spit) IS both a prominent businessman and commercial property owner in NYC whose properties are possibly targets, AND Trump (spit) IS a candidate for President of the United States receiving national security briefings....

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Do you think it credible that within 30 minutes of the explosion, Drumpf would have been briefed about a bomb in NYC?

bobby,

As I said, for two different reasons that I mentioned, I DO consider it within the realm of possibility that he was notified it was an intentional action, therefore it was a bomb, within 30 minutes of the explosion.

Remember, Trump (spit) IS both a prominent businessman and commercial property owner in NYC whose properties are possibly targets, AND Trump (spit) IS a candidate for President of the United States receiving national security briefings....

I doubt they had the time to look up his phone number.

However the secret service detail with him might have been briefed from their HQ.

---

Trump takes credit for 'bomb' call: 'I should be a newscaster

So there you have it, he didn't get told it was a bomb, he made the story up. And got lucky.

---

Trump takes credit for 'bomb' call: 'I should be a newscaster

So there you have it, he didn't get told it was a bomb, he made the story up. And got lucky.

Clinton, however, did the same thing, all the while attacking her opponent for his untimely assessment. Speaking to reporters aboard her campaign plane Saturday evening, Clinton said that she had been briefed “about the bombings in New York and New Jersey and the attack in Minnesota.”

Despite using a similar term as Trump, though, the former secretary of state dinged her rival just moments later.

“I think it's important to know the facts about any incident like this,” she said. “I think it's always wiser to wait until you have information before making conclusions because we are just in the beginning stages of trying to determine what happened.” So there YOU have it, from your cited source.....

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

]“I think it's important to know the facts about any incident like this,” she said. “I think it's always wiser to wait until you have information before making conclusions because we are just in the beginning stages of trying to determine what happened.” So there YOU have it, from your cited source.....

...so "bombings" is different to "bomb"?

There you have it folks, what a choice America faces on 11/8 :-(

My gut feeling is he's going to help you blokes. He might even be able to help you with your current NHS problem.

Yeah, to load his own pockets a la healthcare - American Style.

Don't you understand what TTIP is?

None of that is going to matter if Trump wins.

Because you, the citizens of the US are going to have a very big immigration explosion soon.
Why, because Trump says he's going to create 25 million jobs in the US.

And the question is going to be who fills them, because there is less that 8 million in the US unemployed and looking for work. The only answer import 17+ Million workers.

Solves our problem. Thanks.

---

ROFLMAO

None of that is going to matter if Trump wins.

Because you, the citizens of the US are going to have a very big immigration explosion soon.
Why, because Trump says he's going to create 25 million jobs in the US.

And the question is going to be who fills them, because there is less that 8 million in the US unemployed and looking for work. The only answer import 17+ Million workers.

Solves our problem. Thanks.

While the U-3 is about 8 million, the U-6 is about double that.

U-1, persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force;

U-2, job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force;

U-3, total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (this is the definition used for the official unemployment rate);

U-4, total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers;

U-5, total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers; and

U-6, total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.

Definitions for the economic characteristics underlying the three broader measures of labor underutilization are worth mentioning here. Discouraged workers (U-4, U-5, and U-6 measures) are persons who are not in the labor force, want and are available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They are not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the prior 4 weeks, for the specific reason that they believed no jobs were available for them. The marginally attached (U-5 and U-6 measures) are a group that includes discouraged workers. The criteria for the marginally attached are the same as for discouraged workers, with the exception that any reason could have been cited for the lack of job search in the prior 4 weeks. Persons employed part time for economic reasons (U-6 measure) are those working less than 35 hours per week who want to work full time, are available to do so, and gave an economic reason (their hours had been cut back or they were unable to find a full-time job) for working part time. These individuals are sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers.

Also note that 'discouraged workers' only includes those that HAVE looked for work during the last 12 months. Those that have been discouraged for longer fall totally off the charts.

United States:
U-1 = 2.1%
U-2 = 2.4%
U-3 = 5.0%
U-4 = 5.4%
U-5 = 6.1%
U-6 = 9.9%

http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm

The number of unemployed persons was essentially unchanged at 7.8 million in August, and the unemployment rate was 4.9 percent for the third month in a row.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Point is: There are a LOT more citizens available for work than your figure of a bit less than 8 million. It IS possible that there would be enough citizens available to fill all of Trump's '25 million new jobs' without having to import (all that many) immigrants.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

And once again, Major Kong interjects reason and fact to dispel WAGs.

Thanks again good sir for the clarity.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Trump takes credit for 'bomb' call: 'I should be a newscaster

So there you have it, he didn't get told it was a bomb, he made the story up. And got lucky.

Clinton, however, did the same thing, all the while attacking her opponent for his untimely assessment. Speaking to reporters aboard her campaign plane Saturday evening, Clinton said that she had been briefed “about the bombings in New York and New Jersey and the attack in Minnesota.”

Despite using a similar term as Trump, though, the former secretary of state dinged her rival just moments later.

“I think it's important to know the facts about any incident like this,” she said. “I think it's always wiser to wait until you have information before making conclusions because we are just in the beginning stages of trying to determine what happened.” So there YOU have it, from your cited source.....

So there you have what? Clinton said she's been briefed "about the bombings", and that may have been the term that was used in her briefing, Drumpf effectively states that "he called it". If Clinton's briefing did not refer to the explosions as "bombings" then yes, she's just as guilty as Drumpf in making an over hasty conclusion. Does the source state this was the case?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Trump takes credit for 'bomb' call: 'I should be a newscaster

So there you have it, he didn't get told it was a bomb, he made the story up. And got lucky.

Clinton, however, did the same thing, all the while attacking her opponent for his untimely assessment. Speaking to reporters aboard her campaign plane Saturday evening, Clinton said that she had been briefed “about the bombings in New York and New Jersey and the attack in Minnesota.”

Despite using a similar term as Trump, though, the former secretary of state dinged her rival just moments later.

“I think it's important to know the facts about any incident like this,” she said. “I think it's always wiser to wait until you have information before making conclusions because we are just in the beginning stages of trying to determine what happened.” So there YOU have it, from your cited source.....

So there you have what? Clinton said she's been briefed "about the bombings", and that may have been the term that was used in her briefing, Drumpf effectively states that "he called it". If Clinton's briefing did not refer to the explosions as "bombings" then yes, she's just as guilty as Drumpf in making an over hasty conclusion. Does the source state this was the case?

Bobby, if you read it again, the source is Trump.

---