As soon as the election is over and the media manipulators have been paid their final invoices, all of this rhetoric will stop . . .

. . . and, for the next eight years, "not one damned thing will happen," other than a perpetuation of the [downward] path that has been carved-out before. These women will disappear into the gloom once reserved for Monica Lewensky.

If you want "the same old same old thing," then you have two choices, and the single corporation that brought you these two easy-to-digest brands, really don't care which brand you pick. As you see, they will do anything and say anything, meaning absolutely none of it, merely to polarize the country against itself, merely to gain maintain control. If you are "Blue," then just stay asleep and blame it all on "Red," and if you are "Red," vice-versa. "Easy, peasy." (Or, better yet, just throw up your hands and don't "bother" to vote at all . . .)

Yes, yes, yes ... it's all out of your hands ... you might not like it but there's really nothing you can do about it ... this is the way it must be ... you are getting sleepy ... very sleepy ... ...

Just remember, though: these people, who are cunning masters of crowd psychology, basically gained and kept control because the majority of the (non-)voting populace wasn't paying attention. "When the cat's away, the mice will play," and a group of about 750 people have for that reason alone been playing roughshod with the lives of over 300 million. And they will continue to do it until those people realize the peaceful(!) powers that they have always had(!), and finally begin to exercise those powers.

The real message of the "Parable of the Prodigal Son" is that people will drive themselves ever downward, freely and by their own hand, until they are confronted by a much smarter animal: a pig.

If "None of the above" were a ballot option, probably that option would win the election. Then what? No government?

Hmmm. . . not a bad idea!

I don't know about absolutely NO government, don't really want to live in chaos - there is already enough of that right now per world events. I just want a government that isn't bought by corporations - lobbying is illegal, and is honest and actually looks out for it's citizens.... Probably too much to ask for though.

I would think that lobbying would be a fundamental right in a democracy.

When lobbying involves money - how is it a democracy , and how is not not just a euphemism for legalised bribery?

A group of citizens "lobbying" for a specific government action is one thing. In the US, most of the "lobbying" is done by large corporations who hire other businesses whose only business is "lobbying" and these corporations spend enormous amounts of money hiring these other companies to solicit favors from people in the Congress and government which they almost always get. Most people refer to this as "bribery", except the politicians.

If Trump wins, you will never hear from these women again and nothing will be done even if absolute unequivocal proof were available. The media are cowards, there is no "fourth estate" in this country. They sell themselves to the highest bidder which would be the corporations that pay their salaries and whoever happens to be in power.

If Clinton wins, they will also disappear as they will have served their purpose. Even if everything they say about Trump is true and there is unequivocal proof, they served their purpose so no one will care.

The Constitution enumerates two "high crimes": Treason, and Bribery.

I think that it's rather telling that they chose to list these two crimes specifically, because they are so related to one another. In both cases, someone in a position of trust and power is abusing that trust in order to deliver the Nation into the hands of its enemies.

But His Imperial Majesty, King John Roberts the First, exercising the "Divine Right of Kings" that the Court one day simply appointed unto itself ... (the Constitution does not contain the word, "unconstitutional") ... rewrote the Constitution by means of his Imperial proclamation.

At the same time, King John declared that "corporations" were "citizens" and that they had "Constitutional rights," specifically including (heh, heh ...) "freedom of $pee¢h."

A very(!) Wise Man once said that, "By their fruits shall ye know them." I don't know how much money King John and his black-robed cronies took for rendering that decision. But its fruit is that it simply "legalized Bribery," even though the Constitution itself forbids it.

Thus far, "hundreds of millions of citizens" are not yet angry enough to force this bit of quasi-judiciary nonsense to be reversed, nor to do other obvious things such as term-limits and popularly elected Justices. (The Constitution says almost nothing-at-all about the Judicial branch.)

How about randomly selecting candidates? Ordinary citizens serving instead of life-long politicians. The selection process would work similar to jury selection, but with no judge or lawyer review. 2 or 3 candidates per office, publicized with their views on various issues, and the election held, all within a few weeks every 4 years. The random selection system would have to be open source so as to be readily auditable.

Well its an idea. Somewhat reminds me of France, and I know I have posted about France on some other post on LQ General. They have it right at least. Candidates from each party are allotted a fixed sum, no more no less; and ANYONE can be a candidate - you do not need some rich asshole for support - which means you are not tied down to anybody's whim, save for the public if you truly intend to serve and not some rich asshole.

You will never see a system like that here in the States - because there will be no bri-*cough* I mean lobbying of any kind - money will have less influence. Its not the Murrican way.


Vive la France!

This only echos what I have been saying, and what everyone should know or already knows all along....

The wife of a President is refer to as First Lady as their title.

If Mrs. Clinton wins this election, I'm curios to know what will the title be for the husband?

The First Lady-cuck

"The FBI has learned of more emails involving Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she headed the State Department, FBI Director James Comey told several members of Congress, telling them he is reopening the investigation"

https://www.rt.com/usa/364586-comey-...investigation/

Amusing

Perhaps First Gigolo or First Skirt Chaser

The latter most likely


I don't like either candidate, but at the same time those Shillery supporters who claim Drumpf is a sexual predator, remind me again about her own husbands affairs again? The idiocy is just astounding. Nevermind also the corruption, and the $300m the 'Clinton Foundation' "raised".

I'll just leave this here: