Unofficial Apolyton Predicts

[Elok]

I think the candidates are differently terrible, but it comes to more or less a wash in terms of danger. Hillary wants to continue provoking Russia, which is the single easiest way to start a nuclear war, whereas Trump is fine with letting Putin do whatever. However, Trump would almost certainly do a half-dozen less hazardous but still crazy and reckless things in his first week alone, and over the weeks it would add up to much the same. I doubt he'd have the aptitude or attention span to command major military operations of any sort, and if he tried he'd likely provoke mutiny on all levels of the military. Possibly nuclear war with Russia or (mystery grab bag of terrible and needless crises), take your pick. Yuck.

Like everyone says: Hillary, because we know pretty well how much feces she will put on our sandwich. Trump is mainly attractive to down-and-out whites, the whipped-dog theocons, and others who really don't have a whole lot to lose. His **** sandwich could potentially be one of those six-foot-party subs, but some demographics might luck out and merely get poo on Ritz crackers.

[Giancarlo]

Oh my gosh dude. They all suckers.



Thanks for restating yourself for the millionth time.

[Aeson]

I think Hillary has the understanding to avoid going over any uncrossable lines. Trump doesn't. He's already advocated doing things that would start a war with Russia. When he's saying "invade Syria" and "be friends with Russia" and accepting that we should have Congress declare war, invoke article 5 to have NATO invade Syria ... it just displays an absurd lack of understanding about the geopolitical situation. Russia doesn't want the US and Turkey invading Syria. There's no way the battle of the 5+ armies (NATO, Syria, Russia, ISIS, Kurds, other rebel groups) can turn into anything but a major ****storm. It's already bad enough without a full-scale invasion by NATO.

Then ... we're stuck with a precedent that having a terror attack on your soil is enough to invoke article 5 to invade a foreign country even if they're fighting against the terrorists ... and we end up either having to disband NATO or fight in goddamn ****ing everywhere for the rest of time.

[Elok]

I have my doubts about Hillary because conflict with Russia doesn't appear to make any sense in the first place. At their present rate of expansion, Putin will be dead of old age before they've gotten anywhere near any country we have cause to care about. Iran doesn't much impress me as a threat either; they're one of the saner countries in the region, all things considered, and as we have no prayer of dislodging them we might as well learn to work with them. I'm sure they'd be willing to sell oil and buy missiles, same as the Saudis are doing now. We might lose the Saudis as friends, but hell, it's not like they can afford to be our enemies.

I also very much doubt whether Trump would keep any campaign promises that involve sustained effort or problem solving. I have no idea what he would do, except for copious use of social media and a custom-made firehose for misappropriated funds.

[Elok]

Remember: the linchpin of his campaign is building an impossible wall to accomplish a nonsensical goal. He has never, to my knowledge, provided any details for any policy or goal he has announced, and based on descriptions these goals appear to be mostly made up on the spot because they sounded good at the time. A Trump presidency would be a disgrace and accomplish nothing good for the country--except in a negative and unintentional way. Congress would necessarily gain power, as Trump plainly lacks the skills necessary either to finesse them or to control the country in spite of them. The EU would be left to stand against Russia more or less alone, while Russia itself would happily stomp around intermittently gobbling minor provinces every eight months or so, ignoring Europe entirely because Putin is not a complete idiot. The Middle East would continue to go to hell, but in a more independent way, and we'd probably end up selling guns to more or less everyone instead of just the people we ostensibly like.

Trump's cabinet would be staffed by the most washed-up Reaganite stooges imaginable, with perhaps a theocrat or two, because nobody else wants to deal with him. A handful of dignified and dutiful people would try to serve "for the good of the country," then quit within a few months when they realized nothing could be accomplished. A handful might go the Colin Powell route instead. Either way, the cabinet would essentially run the executive branch unaided while Trump made Colombian snow angels in the Oval Office, intermittently giving him ostentatious presents and monuments to reassure him that he was a serious classy man. Trump's actual time would be spent mostly attending functions, trying and failing to negotiate with big important people, and siphoning money out of every crack or cranny he found unattended. It would be, all in all, the most corrupt and incompetent administration in a century or more. The country would go totally to pot. But I don't think we'd start any new wars, not when there's so much to loot right here.

[Aeson]

Well Syria is a ****storm. Russia wants a Mediterranean base. Assad needs Russian support. Obama/Clinton want Assad gone and obviously were hoping to have Syria (with a new government) in our wheelhouse. So the US and Russia are at odds even while fighting ISIS together.

Also the election factors in, with Putin apparently favouring Trump. That's something that Hillary can capitalise on, as is the possibility that the hacking of emails and voting systems is being done by the Russians. So talk up how Putin is a bad guy, link Putin to Trump. After the elections that should become a non-factor.

So it does make sense from the perspectives of those involved. WWIII nuclear holocaust makes no sense to anyone, which is why as long as we're dealing with rational and informed actors (which Putin and Hillary are) it's not going to happen. Trump is ... not a rational or informed actor.

[Ben Kenobi]

please post where she said she wanted to abolish the Church.

The whole notion of a Catholic Spring? It's been done. It didn't work out that great.

[-Jrabbit]

Now you're just being pathetic.

You are working unbelievably hard at seeming oppressed. Are you really that needy?

Let it go, Paranoia Boy.

[Giancarlo]

The whole notion of a Catholic Spring? It's been done. It didn't work out that great.

Um that's nice dear, but where did she say she wanted to abolish the Catholic church? Saying the church needs radical reform is a personal opinion she and many others hold. You can keep lying.

I saw an awesome article this morning..

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyle/a6493819/trans-teen-lily-madigan-sued-school-over-dress-code-and-bathrooms/

Love it! She won against a Catholic school!

[giblets]

Well Syria is a ****storm. Russia wants a Mediterranean base.

That's cool. We already have plenty of Mediterranean bases of our own. Who cares if Russia wants to pretend it has an empire?

[Giancarlo]

With Russia's collapsing economy, can they even afford a base?

[giblets]

low oil prices may crush Putin's dreams

[Giancarlo]

Texas is now a swing state.

Two consecutive polls have shown Trump with only a 4% and 3% lead.

http://www.uh.edu/class/hobby/texas2016/

Trump in this poll has a 3% lead. 41-38%. The issue here is many independent voters are not sure. Strange at this stage... But they aren't flocking to Trump. It appears Hillary could pull off an upset.

More on this poll:

http://www.thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/301585-texas-poll-trumps-lead-narrows-to-3#

Oh and Hillary has a 47-40% lead in swing state Nevada according to Monmouth.

Plus there is a bunch of other bad polling data for Trump today from other key states. The only state Trump is still doing well in is Iowa and tied in Ohio. Beyond that... Nothing.

[pchang]

Hillary in the White House will only be a Pyrrhic victory unless the Democrats can also win the Senate. That is now up to 74% http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...=2016-forecast

[Giancarlo]

Hillary in the White House will only be a Pyrrhic victory unless the Democrats can also win the Senate. That is now up to 74% http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...=2016-forecast

Yeah she is flush with campaign money and much of that is now filtering down to Senate and House races. Republicans are seeing unusually strong democrats even in districts they were supposed to be safe in.

There is even talk Democrats could win the House, but I won't get that optimistic.

There are few Republicans escaping from Trumps meltdown... I think Rob Portman is one. The Democrat there hasn't done much.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/18/fox-news-poll-clinton-tops-trump-by-6-points.html

Hillary is gaining more male voters according to this poll. Trump still leads 44-37% amongst male voters, but this represents a narrowing.

Overall, Hillary is up 6%/7% in this Fox News poll lol. Steady.