The little voice in America's head

Seriously, Humon. If Trump wins you are OBLIGATED to draw America's hair like Donald Trump's hair for the next four years!

@NorwaySwedenDenmark JAAAAA!!

@NorwaySwedenDenmark
Sounds like a capitol idea............
But what if Hillary wins??????????

@Bonnieblue Then they don't change. Brother America is the Republican while Sister America is the Democrat so if Hillary wins then if anyone of them were to change, it'd be Sister America.

@NorwaySwedenDenmark

Snakes only shed their skin, she'll never change. lol

@Bonnieblue Sister America wears pant suits.

@NorwaySwedenDenmark LET'S ALL UPVOTE THIS!!!

@NorwaySwedenDenmark Great, now I kind of want Trump to win.

@NorwaySwedenDenmark I /support/ Trump and I want this to happen.

@NorwaySwedenDenmark

Well, it happened.

@CorruptUser Isn't it great?!

@NorwaySwedenDenmark Ha,ha. No

Clinton is what is wrong with politics. Trump is what is wrong with humanity.

The problem here is that both candidates are actually terrible choices. One is a diplomatic nightmare, the other is almost guaranteed to implement changes that about half of the country finds to be fundamentally unacceptable. Both have been caught either deliberately antagonizing influential factions and other nations or outright lying about things we ought to be able to trust a candidate about.

No matter how much people tell me that one candidate is better than the other, there's too much evidence that tells me my life will be worse than before if EITHER gets into office.

@Arget
Fortunately, we have the other two branches of government to keep them from doing anything too damaging.

Obama has been facing non-stop obstructionism for his entire Presidency, but he had enough political allies to push stuff through. The current parties have made clear they aren't nearly as united behind their respective candidates as Obama and the Republican Speakers of the House had.

No matter who wins, they aren't going to get a free pass from their own party.

@Dan The powers of the other two branches is unfortunately overlooked by so many. And how they can rein in the President.

Regrettably, Congress has given the Presidential Office a pass on overly broad abilities to do things with trade agreements and tariffs.

It's going to be interesting to see if he's elected, President Trump tries a tariff under the powers... and if Congress will rein him in.

And any resulting tariff war...

@Dan
Except in those first two years when he crowed about a mandate of the people, and railroaded a health insurance law through both Democratic chambers.

What's worse. At least the presentation that I got was that the contents of the bill were secret pending approval. That's not how you run a democracy. "If you want to know what's in it, you have to pass it".

@SeanR You mean the mandate of the people that W kept going on about while pushing through his insane policies? Yeah, the Republican policy of Obamacare was bad and even that got diluted by the Republicans, especially the batshit crazy supreme court.
Looks like the presentation you got was bad, though.
(I'm actually still waiting for the evidence of Afganistan's involvement in 911...)

@blahblahblahblah

Well, if you ever get it, please share. Best information I know is we should have gone for regime change in Saudi, and maybe Egypt.

It was pretty much like getting sucker punched by the Japanese out in the Pacific, so deciding to send most of our fighting men to France.

And Obamacare was a Democrat invention.

...I'm a little lost on where you're calling the Supreme Court "batshit crazy", though. Their decision on Obamacare was..unique, but I've not seen behavior I'd identify as "batshit crazy".

The quote I posted was from the then Speaker of the House, ...digging... okay, her comment was probably taken out of context.
Politifact, and Factcheck both say it was cherry picked.

@SeanR You don't think it's batshit crazy to be of the opinion that it would have been perfectly okay and constitutional to abruptly kill and then forcibly reinstate Medicaid unilaterally with the provisions listed in the ACA with no interruptions in between using a single bill, but it was not okay to simply amend the program that way and make it compulsory for the states in that bill? Because there is absolutely no difference in those choices except for the actual words used in the bill and the latter having even less of a possibility for screw-ups and hassle. Yet, the supreme court decided the latter wasn't okay and told that the former would have been. Thus, the Medicaid gap.

And to think, that was one the better decisions they made since Republicans gaining the control. Heller, Hobby Lobby, Citizens United, Harris v. Quinn, voting rights act, Bush v. Gore, etc... All of those decisions are either incredibly bad or simply insane. Even when those decisions are just incredibly bad, it's insane for a supreme judicial body to be that bad -- they should be the brightest minds and yet a four-year-old could tear apart some of the rationalisations they come up with. They were inventing logic and facts that have no connection to the real world.

'@blahblahblahblah'
Afghanistan was invaded because Al-Qaeda was camped out there, hosted by the Taliban. Who refused to give them up.
Nothing about the Afghan war involved blaming the Afghan government on 9/11 directly. Reminder also that the Afghan government at the time was essentially literally the Taliban, so a sort of nationalist ISIS incarnate.
And there is no dispute on Al-Qaeda's main camp being there, with Osama and all.

@sagas The Taliban government offered to give them up, though.
I just remember our government being given secret evidence. I'd like to see it.

'@blahblahblahblah'
That offer was to turn him over to a neutral third party state, and only after being given evidence he was responsible.
These stipulations coming from the Taliban, not from a sane normal regime, not even a sane normal nasty regime. I don't blame even Bush for not accepting those. And I'm quite sure the "neutral third party" would have been handing Osama to the Pakistani ISI.

@Dan Bwahahaha! Trump doesn't have any real policies to speak of. He doesn't care about them. The GOP will unite behind him, if he becomes the president, because he does not care - he will rubber-stamp anything. Frankly, the bigger obstacle will be to get him to actually sign anything at all and making him do the other compulsory parts of the presidency - he's not going to care about the *contents* of legislation or any of his official actions.

@blahblahblahblah

The thing runs a multi-billion dollar business. (quick check, it's solvent this week, right? How about last week? Okay, good. Has it's FISA score recovered yet?)
I think it'll do more than glance at the cover of a bill and sign.
I'm not saying that's a GOOD thing.

@SeanR I disagree. He has a personal interest in when he's running his business, but unless he wants to become an actual dictator, what makes you think he'd care? He's a (supposed) m(/b)illionaire, Republican policies will deliver to him regardless.

@Arget And you know what? You're right.

@Arget Umm... Aside from the diplomatic nightmare, who is not merely *diplomatic* nightmare, the problem of the other implementing changes about half of the country finds to be fundamentally unacceptable is not the real problem. The problem is that that very about half of the country seems to generally favour things that are fundamentally unacceptable. That is what grants her the space to seek support from the economic and financial elites in the first place. The country (and the world) needs the GOP to return back to being the sane center-right party and become adults again. Having two sane choices would allow limiting and getting rid of corruption and collusion as well because then breaking partisanship would be less like playing russian roulette.

@Arget
i feel you.
but if you're looking for chocolate you may end up with a brown piece of roasted bread, which is bad and disappointing for sure, or you may end up with a pound of crap, which is way worse.

we always aim to go for the good, but in this case you have only to choose the lesser evil: let's try not to make a mess like britons did and keep tight for four years...

@Arget seriously BOTH is almost guaranteed to implement changes that about half of the country finds to be fundamentally unacceptable.

Previous elections:
Which candidate will help our country?
This election:
Which candidate will screw up our country less?

@Americanada

Apparently you weren't around in 2004 or even 2012...

@CorruptUser Ehh, I don't recall 2012 to be anything like this. Although you're right, I don't remember 2004.

No, it's... it's always been the 2nd one.

People need to stop with this false equivalency that Clinton is equally bad as Trump. It would be hilariously false, if the stakes weren't so high.

Agreed. Trump *says* stupid stuff, Hillary *does* stupid stuff. There really is no equivalence between the two.

@Dorsai I always figure that any candidate who wants to render me defenseless and dependent upon the government is NOT someone I want in office. After that, we can talk.

@QCass I honestly can't tell who you're saying is worse, are you saying Hillary is worse than Trump, but Trump is a worse choice for the White House?

I'm genuinely disappointed that people think Trump is a viable option. Hillary is by no means great, or even good, but Trump is an evil human being who has been documented to have gang ties, sexualised his daughter on national television, hates Mexico, will ruin the American economy (and probably the global economy) with protectionism, and is essentially the worst choice in the world for anyone. Not just literally all minorities, anyone. I'm genuinely worried about international politics and relations leading to another major international war.

@Stenson4t0r She's SO much better than she get's credit for.

One thing though, isn't it a bit hypocritical of King EU to judge America on building a border wall when European countries also use border fences?


Even Norway is planning on building a border fence between Russia and Norway so are we (Europeans) really one to talk?

@NorwaySwedenDenmark
well Ukraine and Estonia kind of have a good excuse,

@frost
1. America gives reasons for why they need the border fence/wall
2. Even if we look the other way on Ukraine and Estonia, there's still 14 other countries with border fences and more to come.

Whether you agree that border fences/walls are a good idea, it's still hypocritical to stand and judge America for being stupid or unethical for wanting a border fence/wall when European Countries, even EU members, have them and are planning on building them.

@NorwaySwedenDenmark

A fence is either a smart idea that won't work, or a stupid idea that will.
Even if you allow for right to travel, and ignore the socioeconomic reasons for wanting one, there is a fair amount of illicit trade across the border. Basically, a wall or fence would be more for blocking organized crime than the random swimmer who decides poverty in the US, hiding from the INS, beats poverty in Mexico, hiding from the drug gangs.
The problem is, of course, that those same gangs are equipped enough to get around any such fence. It'd be little more than a speed bump.

Mind you, the socioeconomic reasons are very likely the real reasons. Keeping "them" over "there" is probably higher in the priorities of most "yeah" voters than is putting an obstacle in the path of the current drug trade.
And it's at least partially self-serving hypocrisy. An oppressed population, such at one in fear of deportation, is easier to exploit for cheap labor.

@frost
Estonia does not have a fence, yet.
Estonia has plans for it for as soon as 2017. Or was it 2018.
It is like Latvia raising its NATO defense budget commitment from 1,0% to 2,0% by 0,1% annual increments - and that after what happened to Georgia and Ukraine.

@NorwaySwedenDenmark You're forgetting Europe's superpower: Double standards!

(To be fair, there's so many different things going on in European countries that you can always find *someone* doing/not doing what you want and using that as an example).

@Miramosa
Still, many of these countries are members of the European Union and therefore it's still really hypocritical.

@NorwaySwedenDenmark
Estonia is not criticising USA for building a wall.
In fact, most estonians welcome that.

@NorwaySwedenDenmark Oh come on. The Norway "border fence" will be a 200m fence around the main border crossing towards Russia, in order to make it easier for anyone passing legally to see where the border is and to be able to have control at that particular crossing. Walk 101 meters to the left from the crossing and there will be no fence.

@NorwaySwedenDenmark
The thing is boarder fences (although still great deal of waste really) are different from the boarder wall that Trump is proposing. the US - Mexico boarder already has a fence and there was a great deal of issues putting it in. What Trump is proposing is in addition to this fence and his proposal for funding it is just insane.

@NorwaySwedenDenmark Ummm... this, kinda.. sorta.. is NOT even remotely the same thing.

I don't think? Maybe it's somehow taboo to fence-off land or something in Europe, but it's just considered par for the course over here. You have land, you fence it off so the pigs don't wander off and root-up the neighbor's turnips, or something.

That's not what's getting folks in a tizzy over here. Trump's not asking for a fence (Maybe a wall, but a fence is good too) 90% of all of our borders in Americal Already have fences, ranging from tall chain-link 'keep the riff-raff out of the golf courses' fences to a single knee-high length of cable 'the border is right.. Here' fences.

Trump's not talking about setting-up fences, he's talking about setting up 'Maginot Line 2, Latin Bugalo'

@NorwaySwedenDenmark

Trump said that he will build a wall on the border AND that the Mexicans will pay for it (hisbown words), so even with this he managed to be ridiculous. Beside that, in Europe it is a bitbdifferent because immigrants have become a really big issue because of the huge number of people who arrive, it's an unmanageable situation

'@NorwaySwedenDenmark' I believe there is a fence, I've understood that Trump wants to build an actual wall like there is between Israel and Gaza strip.

Norway wants to build fence on the Russian border? Seriously? Sounds rather useless. Fence will be breached and when authorities arrive, refugees just say the magic word "asylum", fence won't stop them. And it most certainly won't stop Russians, if they want to come over.

Fences or walls are not the solution, just an obstacle.

@NorwaySwedenDenmark
You do know the difference between a wall and a fence? US already have border fences along much of the Mexican border.

@ICynic Yeah there's a difference. A wall is more costly and effective at keeping people out.

Okay, being an American myself, I cannot stress enough; THERE ARE PLENTY OF US WHO CAN HEAR ALL THIS SHIT AND YES WE ARE TERRIFIED. I have several friends who are planning to flee the country for Canada.

The annoying thing is; In media, the loud, horrible people are the ones who get all the press. Quite honestly, when I heard that Trump was putting in his candidacy for president, as a republican nominee, I laughed. My friends laughed. We thought it was funny, that it was a joke. We even jokingly said that hey yeah, he should totally be the nominee for the Rebublicans, because there was no way in hell he could actually become president.

And then it stopped being funny. We stopped laughing. The things he was saying were becoming more and more repulsive. I'm actually shocked he isn't in jail yet for inciting riots!! This man would make a HORRIBLE president!! He spews hatred, he makes our allies hate us even MORE... I don't want him to represent us to the world!! And what's even more terrifying, IS THAT HE HAS SUCH A LARGE, HATEFUL FOLLOWING!!! CAN'T PEOPLE SEE THAT NO MATTER WHO WAS RUNNING AGAINST HIM, HE IS THE WORST POSSIBLE CHOICE?!?!

I have a hard time sleeping at night sometimes, because I'm afraid. I don't want you guys to hate us even more. I know what it must look like, with what you guys see from us, but I swear to God, we're not all like that. America as a whole isn't so stupid and hateful. Ideally, we'd get rid of the two-party system. I'd love it if we just took two or three years of hearing from EVERY CANDIDATE, independant or otherwise, and go from there. I'd love it if all the hatred and racism and sexism would just die out with the next couple generations. But I know that even in one of the biggest hippie states of America, Oregon, there are still people who listen to the fear and hatred and....

I'm just sick of it. tldr, I don't want Trump to be president. I don't love the hell outta Hillary either, but I have less issues with her being our leader than Trump. For my safety, as well as the world's.

@OregonDragon I do know how you feel. I am less than thrilled about the leaders of my own country and the signals they are sending to the rest of the world. It is deeply frustrating when idiots is allowed all the spotlights and us that is trying to speek common sense is overheard. If you move I wish you good luck and I am series considering this myself.

@OregonDragon A two-party system is what a voting system like ours will always generate given enough time. Less popular parties will roll their support into larger parties that are somewhat close ideologically, until 2 ideologically-opposed parties remain. Smaller parties spring up from time to time, however they pull voters from the party that they are closest to, so they die out quickly if they even gained life in the first place.

@Attacker732 Sometimes, I secretly think that we shot ourselves in the foot my insisting we 'make' such a large country like this. If we were smaller, I think it would be easier to manage... But I've never taken a politics class so I don't really know what I'm talking about.

Like, really? Nothing about how Hillary said she wanted to drone strike another country to kill Julian Assange? Or how she let 4 marines die? Or stole funds meant for Haitians after the quakes?

Here's a little American Tax Law for all you non-Americans. Woodrow Wilson invented Net Operating Loss, the law under which Donald Trump avoided paying taxes in 1995. Just like over A MILLION OTHER BUSINESSES in the country. It's not a loophole if it's working exactly as intended, and the reason he could claim that as a tax deduction is because the law for NOL was amended.....by Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton has utilized this law ever since it was changed to avoid paying taxes as well. And by the way, the whole point of owning a business is to minimize operating costs and maximize profits for the business and its shareholders. So yeah, I agree, avoiding taxes isn't smart, it's just basic logic.

(Especially since the Guccifer leaks showed our tax money has been going to bail out banks who turned around and funded Democratic party elections.)

@Theomniadept
Another one of the few people with common sense! You sir, have earned another thumbs up!

@Theomniadept
[ And by the way, the whole point of owning a business is to minimize operating costs and maximize profits for the business and its shareholders. So yeah, I agree, avoiding taxes isn't smart, it's just basic logic. ]

In theory, corporations are not citizens.
In theory, corporations should not take part in elections.
Any tax law that favours corporations over citizens is a loophole, ESPECIALLY if it is intended and even more especially if it hasn't been tested on a referendum by the citizenry.

@ThorsomeTarmukas But....Net Operating Loss is 100% intended for businesses. It literally cannot be intended for households because households don't produce anything other than kids and the sale of those has been illegal...

Like it's called Net Operating Loss. I have no idea how it could apply to anything but businesses. And sure, while I would say the initial intent by Woody was *not* to allow losses to be tax deductible, that *was* the intent by Bill Clinton and to blame business owners for taking advantage of a basic law to maximize profit is like leaving bits of turkey and chicken in a food bowl and beating your cat for trying to eat it.

@Theomniadept
I am not familiar with the details.
My answer was a generalisation, so it may (not) apply in this case.

I wonder how people have been brainwashed by bogus campaigns. Hillary is actually one of the most competent candidates USA has ever had. She would make a very decent president. And Trump is by far the worst candidate USA has ever had.

You may now start throwing rabid squirrels at me. Bring it on, you little bastards, I know you want to. Do your worst, stick needles under my toenails, pour boiling diesel on my nipples, tie me naked to a chair with barbed wire, fry my face with blowtorch. It won't change the reality, there's no way Trump is in any way better than Hillary. :)

@real-cool-cat
Clinton is quite possibly slightly crooked, but look at how the mob is run for instance, it isnt run badly !

'@Mistwraith'

No matter how much I google what is wrong with Hillary, I can't find anything but name-calling "Liar" or "Crooked" etc. and only substantial issue is some cocking up accident with e-mails. But everything else is just some little things that are dug up with hard work from the past. "She said 20 years ago X but it was really Y", or some out of context -quotation, that she has jokingly said sometime, and most of these are about something that doesn't really have any meaning with the election.

Trump however is real liar and bigot. It's proven that over half of all his public claims are lies, only in one debate he lied over 20 times, and he has changed his opinion 124 times in a year, and counting. And he is chauvinist and narcissistic person, who never admits he's wrong. He speaks ill about his own people, not to mention other people in the world. His opinions are down right awful, building walls, stealing Iraqi oil, ban people by their religion... only listening to him for 5 minutes gives million reason not to vote for him. He has no idea how global politics works, no idea about international legislation and has shown will to break international laws and commitments, and thinks that global warming is Chinese conspiracy. He has very light attitude about using nuclear weapons. He has no credible plans for the economy or Syria or other global issues, his idea of foreign relations are dadaistic, and only one that could like is Vladimir Putin.

@real-cool-cat
Did you google Whitewater? That's usually the thread that gets pulled. Or, it was, before this email thing.

'@SeanR' Now I did. So they arranged loans with hard terms. Missing a loan payment would lead to repossession of real estate. If I understood correctly.

Funny though, this is also really old incident, and I somehow have feeling that Trump has made some really crooked real estate deals worth billions for living past decades. While making these flimflams among evading billions of taxes, he calls himself "smart" for doing it. Not crooked. :)

@real-cool-cat
Well, there are laws regulating banking, and they're accused of circumventing those laws to help a friend out. If they did bypass those laws, they are owed jail time, but, yeah, we basically dragged them over the coals over that because we wanted to impeach them, sorry, him, (then we got Bill on lying about something, having sex with someone who wasn't his wife, who she probably was well aware of and had nothing to do with real estate or banking, but perjury's perjury.)

@real-cool-cat

One way.
If your policies don't align with Clinton's goals, than Trump can be seen as less destructive.
I'm a gun owner, who wishes to keep my guns.
I, honestly, don't trust Trump with my guns, but I already know Hillary's position on guns. I, and many others over the age of 30, suspect she ghostwrote some of Bill's better work.
As the old joke goes, (that was being passed around back in 1995-96, "I"m not voting for Clinton. I didn't vote for HER the first time either."

That said. IF Clinton wins the white house, (or, frankly, even if she doesn't,) she should kick Bill out of the bedroom for good.
And be sworn in with her name as Hillary Rodham.
If she wins the white house, she should, at least, make Bill sleep in Blair house for the full term.

'@SeanR' Well I think America has problem with rather loose gun laws, but Hillary won't do much about them, just campaign speeches.

Gun laws in USA will not probably change anywhere near what they are in Europe, not to mention Japan, no matter who is president. And Hillary has mainly said that she doesn't want to give gun license to people that are considered too dangerous to fly in a plane. And that 32 000 annual gun deaths can not be seen as "normal".

Despite that real change is not going to happen in generations, it's good to think that "Do I really want myself/my kids/my relatives to live in country where mass shooting happen on daily basis and increasing?". I mean, Japan hasn't banned guns, just tight regulations, tests and checking. And USA has 10.54 firearm-related death rate per 100,000 people. In Japan, this number is 0.06

And it gives completely new perspective to concept of "lesser evil". Which is lesser evil, mass murders or tight gun laws? How much person can love a contraption, that has main function to generate a hole?

@real-cool-cat

Guns, private possession of which are guaranteed by our Second Amendment, are viewed as the backstop to all our other rights.
The question is not which is better, more murders or fewer guns, but which is better, fewer murders or not being toothless against a government we already hold in suspicion.

One of our founding fathers once said "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Also, real change has already happened. Some of us, in not wanting to vote for Hillary, remember the now defunct "'Assault Rifle' ban" which her husband passed, which largely targeted civilian firearms based on either appearance, or having too many useful features. Features such as a folding stock, detachable magazine, or, get this, a barrel shroud. (A barrel shroud is used because rifle barrels get warm when you use them. It provides a spot to hold the gun, around the barrel, without burning your hand.)
We've long lost some things.
A previous president managed to get firearms that were made too inexpensively taken away, which raises the barrier of entry for first time gun buyers.
A previous administration got suppressors declared controlled. You can still get one, but it's probably about like getting a gun in Europe. A large chunk of change for the permission, a lot of red tape, and you can't travel with it.
Short barreled rifles cost extra. With extra red tape.
Sawed off shotguns are illegal.
You have to be 21 to have a handgun.

There are parallels in history of the government taking away a people's right to possess the means to defend themselves. They tend to end...messy.

'@SeanR' I do understand that there are cultural differences and that America has lot of countryside and long distances between places, where gun may bring a sense of safety and that guns are popular hobby there overall by culture.

Still, it is rather amusing to hear how gun laws are too tight there, since they are not even near our own. Nobody here can own assault rifle or any automatic for that matter, first gun for person is basically always .22 caliber, hand gun license are very hard to get, owning a gun usually requires either a membership and lots of courses in sport shooting association or hunting association membership, tests, license cards etc. And still many people (and Swedes) say that our gun laws are ridiculously loose. :D

The liberty you referred to, is a double-barrel shotgun... I mean double-edged sword. And I can't help but noticing, that people who are proponents of these liberties to own and carry publicly a weapon that can kill a lot of people in seconds in the moment of insanity, are often eager to ban less harmfull liberties, like right to use cannabis or LSD or same-sex marriage and so on.

@real-cool-cat
Yeaahh..
That last one confuses me, too.
I'm not your keeper. You want to poison yourself, or engage in practices my religions leaders count as a sin, you go right ahead. That's none of my business.
You can drive without a seatbelt for all I care.

Also, forget "moment" of insanity. You don't get these types of massacres where people are likely to be armed and able to escape. Movie theaters and nightclubs (bars, with alcohol, so no guns,) are such good choices for these nuts because they're dark, full of unarmed people, who can't get away quickly enough.
Schools are a popular choice for a similar reason. They're what are known as "soft targets". Typically easy access with no one shooting back.
But forget "moment" of insanity. These people don't go shoot up a place in a "moment" of insanity. I doubt anyone has ever even dropped in on a school, stopped the car in the street, hit the parking brake, and shot up the place, in a "moment" of insanity.
These atrocities are planned.

'@SeanR' And better yet, unlike cannabis or LSD, that don't harm the body, no one has ever died overdosing them, and are not addictive per se, they are called poisoning. While the alcohol, tobacco and sugar&fatty foods that lead to obesity, that are addictive (sugar can be more addictive than cocaine) and them being the three leading cause of death are yet again, liberties and private choice.

And you are right, seeing how bad people feel mentally, the amount of antidepressants (which our school shooters were on at the time they committed their crimes before killing themselves) and the increasing amount ill behaviour and people isolating while hatching hateful thoughts and growing anger in their minds, not just in USA but in most of the world, I should forget about moment of insanity and call this a period of insanity in the human history.

That paradoxically makes me want to both ban guns and carry one with me.

@real-cool-cat I disagree that Trump is the worst candidate. Barry Goldwater takes that spot.
But Trump is a close second, he's just Diet Goldwater

@TheSYLOH Ed Clark was worse.

@TheSYLOH Goldwater and Diet Goldwater, that sounds like an amazing name for a soda if I ever heard one

@real-cool-cat Oh dear God, you are right. At least, on the Trump part. I'm not saying that Hilary isn't going to be a good president if she wins, I think she'd be way better then Trump, but I'm afraid of assassination. Therefore, I'd vote for the better Vice, seeing as there are psycho-crazy Trump fans that would try to kill Hillary, and (if God lets Trump win) people who hate Trump enough to kill him.

Also, I prefer insane rabid unicorns over squirrels ;D

@RwarICanSeeYou

So you prefer Gore...
..that horn is not just for decoration, you know.

@SeanR Don't get any attempted reference if there was one, sorry, and I just don't quite understand in general. Care to explain?

@RwarICanSeeYou
I don't know if I should explain the joke, but here goes.
Gore was Clinton's VP, back in the 90's. He also ran, and lost, in a later bid for the white house.
Gore is also something something with a horn, or horns, does to you. Rip you open with its horn.
It was a simple play on words, relying on previous political events.

@SeanR Aah~. I don't pay an extreme amount of attention to politics, so that would be why I didn't understand.

'@RwarICanSeeYou' I think secret service is doing a good job protecting the president these days. There are probably lot of people who want to kill any president.

Unicorns? Like that pervert pansexual Deadpool? How did you know I am sexually adventurous? You must be psychic. :XD:

@real-cool-cat Actually, I'm just a super swag person (that watches too much Criminal Minds).