Rayvin

Do you really think it'll come to that? The average US citizen is a bit less mundane than the average UK citizen, but they're a long fucking shout from overthrowing their government. They'd need a figurehead anyway, and if it looked even remotely like Trump was going to be that figurehead, they'd have him shot.

Possibly, but his failure to get in might just intensify the extremism. I thought the old adage was that you need to give these things a platform in order for them to look ridiculous, rather than suppress them and force them down. If we give Trump a platform, the right is going to look plenty fucking stupid.

I kind of want to see how in hell he'd build that freaking wall, while at the same time getting Mexico to pay for it... Would it be The Great Wall of America?

I see what you're saying, but in a perverse sense, he's actually claiming in the highlighted bit to be the same as people like Clinton, Obama and Bush. They did all those things.

The election? I agree tbh. Although if Trump wins, it might restore the pound a bit.

The global stock markets are going to take a battering if Trump wins I maintain that I'd prefer Hillary to be in power generally, but my ideal scenario would be for Trump to win for just that first day alone to see the whole world lose its collective shit, and then for someone to come forward and say that there was a miscount and that actually Hillary won.

True, and it certainly could play a part. Comey is screwed if it does though. In fact he's probably screwed either way now.

Yeah Trump's statements are on a similar level to the right wing press in this country and their ramblings about high court judges blocking brexit. Except arguably worse because Trump supporters have guns. On the plus side, all the polls seem to suggest that Hillary has this sewn up, and while I won't relish seeing her take power, it'll be a relief compared to Trump. The US will at least be in a holding pattern for a few years.

Wasn't aimed at you, more the general sentiment in response to the FBI debacle.

Ok, but then at best we can say is that he's a total idiot. I genuinely think that if this is some manner of vote rigging scenario by the FBI then they're a bunch of total amateurs. The only scenario to my mind here where people as allegedly smart as the FBI let themselves get into this position, is that the new emails came to light and they realised that they had to gamble. If they sat on it and Trump won, they were stuffed. If they released it and Hillary won, they were stuffed (assuming it contained nothing of substance). I could see that scenario forcing them into this position. But to suggest that this was an attempt to control voting and that they didn't foresee the 'pressure to resolve asap' coming as soon as they went public is a bit of a stretch IMO. Unless they actually aren't all that smart or professional, I guess.

Surely he'd have kept it running until after the election if he wanted to maximise the damage? What does Comey gain from settling this now, if he's rigging the election? Also, the evidence seemed to be that this new information about emails didn't affect voting much and only entrenched people's pre existing biases. She's still gonna win ffs, settle down.

That is a good stat...! Hard to imagine anyone beating him for the foreseeable as the league's all time top scorer. Rooney certainly won't...

I've always been staggered by that. The ads they get with people who've lost limbs, who would evidently benefit from a more socialist healthcare system, talking about how they'd resist it with their last breath. Staggering stupidity, but I guess the extent to the cold war era propaganda goes very deep in the US psyche.

Moyes dropped rodwell for today so the Iad still hasn't won a game

It wasn't an argument. I can't refute what you're saying, largely because I can't be bothered, but also because I thought this through to conclusion. Based on the debates we have on here, myself, Parky or HF would provide links from sources that come from non-MSM outlets which would support what he's saying, and you would claim that these sources aren't credible. As the MSM are frequently part of the problem, as that Pilger article sets out, it is of course very unlikely that we would find information within the 'established' sources that would support our viewpoints. That would be an attack by the MSM on itself, in this case. Occasionally we provide a source from the MSM but these seem to be ignored in my view. So the reality is, there is no way we can properly make this argument because you don't want to hear it. You'd probably say the same about me, and you might well be right, although I feel as though I've demonstrated a willingness in the past to consider different perspectives and to take them on board. All I would say to that, is that pre-Brexit, pre Corbyn, I was firmly in your camp. The developments that happened in the last couple of years caused me to have to re-evaluate how I looked at everything, as my 'logical conclusions' weren't making sense in the landscape we were living within. I'm surprised that yours still are. Although you're right about the post-factual nature of the world. The Economist had an article on this a while ago, and it does very much seem that we can claim anything is true these days, if enough people are saying it. In light of that, I read as broad a range of newspapers as possible (Guardian, Telegraph, Mail, BBC, Economist) in order to inform my views. I also take into consideration what you guys say on here, and have certainly shifted my position based on some of the arguments made. I'm not prepared to accept any source as gospel though, and also not prepared to think within 'safe' frameworks anymore. It doesn't actually matter what I think, or you think, anyway. I'll know if I was right or not within the next 15-20 years, depending on the direction that politics moves in. If I'm wrong, that's a good thing. If I'm still posting on here, I'll hold my hands up. And will probably apologise

Unless you can get the MSM providing the evidence, I don't think you're going to be able to persuade anyone. A ridiculous position to find ourselves in, but certainly the reality. Thanks for the vids though, I'll give them a look.

Fair enough, you win. The system is as it seems to be.

It seems to be a summary/editorial piece to me, with facts and evidence likely having been established elsewhere in many of his other articles. That said, I don't know for sure save to say that he has quite a large following. The question I have is, should he have evidence for all of those claims, would you believe them anyway? I doubt it. So there's not much point in arguing it is there?

Cheers, I'll give it a look.

What was that again? The name of the programme?

Fair enough I guess. Think I said 3-0 so I'm now going to hope it's 2-1 to see the fallout of the results being voided.

FYP.