I don't really like talking politics cause I'll usually rant for days, but I would like to say I full on expected this to happen (more like expect to this happen since he hasn't won or lost yet). I actually joke that if he loses he's going to buy some random uninhabited island and leave the U.S. to form his own country, and now this is happening.Don't worry guys, we might get our first runaway ex-president.
Good! We hate you anyway, Trump. Really would be nice to see.Don't worry guys, we might get our first runaway ex-president.
Plus, as President he has surely had access to very sensitive information that we prrrrrobably don't want him blabbing to Putin (assuming he hasn't already been giving that stuff away during their secret phone calls, that is).
Mr. Trump, who has mounted a yearslong attack on the intelligence agencies, is particularly difficult to brief on critical national security matters, according to interviews with 10 current and former intelligence officials familiar with his intelligence briefings.
The president veers off on tangents and getting him back on topic is difficult, they said. He has a short attention span and rarely, if ever, reads intelligence reports, relying instead on conservative media and his friends for information. He is unashamed to interrupt intelligence officers and riff based on tips or gossip he hears from the former casino magnate Steve Wynn, the retired golfer Gary Player or Christopher Ruddy, the conservative media executive.
Mr. Trump rarely absorbs information that he disagrees with or that runs counter to his worldview, the officials said. Briefing him has been so great a challenge compared with his predecessors that the intelligence agencies have hired outside consultants to study how better to present information to him.
Personally, I'd say ads are never enough to have a solid opinion on a presidential candidate. While there's some elections where you can see a candidate's behavior/policy and think "Wow, yeah, I don't want that guy with any kind of political power" (especially now, of all times), that should come from at least a reputable news source if not seeing it firsthand rather than from a political attack ad, which would personally benefit from it.I'm a bit confused about something. There have been ads promoting politicians and attacks ads showing their opponents in a negative light, which is nothing new. But this time, they've been one sided. There was an ad for a politician but I've only seen an attack on them once. Another candidate has only gotten attacked.
In short, some candidates have little to no support ads, while others have little to no attack ads. I'd like more information before casting my vote in a couple of weeks.
As someone who still thinks Bush and Cheney should be tried at The Hague, I wouldn't hold my breath.While that might seem comforting that he'd be out of the nation, I really, really, really want him to be jailed. The man is so vile. He deserves to be held accountable for his sins.
They have confirmed that candidates will have their mics muted so the other can speak. "Candidates will have their microphones muted for portions of the final debate, according to Commission on Presidential Debates" https://twitter.com/i/events/1318356079261044737?s=09The next debate is gonna be a real shit show. Trump just seems to be getting worse and worse in desperation as the election nears. I dont think I'll be tuning in for that,but Im sure he'll really make a fool of himself.
I think you might need to get your facts straight on what a "conspiracy" is. Just because what you watch refuses to cover it, does not make something a 'conspiracy'. Lmao.
So how about you get your facts straight about what Rudy was trying to do before you start accusing others of not reading stuff. Here's a good twitter thread that explains Rudy's crappy conspiracy and how it blew up in his face:The Post, a sister company of Fox News, published the unverified emails in a Wednesday exposé, which drew widespread blowback for its dubious sourcing. The Times earlier reported that most of The Post article had been written by a staff reporter who refused to allow the tabloid to attach his name to the byline over doubts about the article's credibility.
A number of Post staffers questioned the vetting process for the article and expressed concerns about the sources and the timing as the election nears, The Times reported. Upon publication, other journalists pointed out major errors and holes in article, and the FBI has since opened an investigation into the story as part of a possible Russian disinformation operation, according to multiple reports.
The Times also reported that one of the article's two bylined authors had first learned that her name was on the report after publication; the other writer never previously had a byline at the paper. Both writers formerly worked at Fox News.
Personally, I'd say ads are never enough to have a solid opinion on a presidential candidate. While there's some elections where you can see a candidate's behavior/policy and think "Wow, yeah, I don't want that guy with any kind of political power" (especially now, of all times), that should come from at least a reputable news source if not seeing it firsthand rather than from a political attack ad
I know. That wasn't what confused me. The one sided thing means there's not enough information for me to make a smart decision.