2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]

[Ivysaur]

You need to realise though, that despite "being for the people" and other things, the platform Donald Trump is officially running on includes passages like:

- Forcing kids to read the Bible at school as an "historical document".
- Banning all kinds of porn, even the one performed by consenting adults in their own free time.
- Forcing transgender people to go to the bathroom that matches their genitals, not their gender.
- Undoing marriage equality.
- Endorsing "gay conversion therapy".
- Supporting coal (the most polluting energy source ever) as "abundant, clean, affordable, reliable".
- Declaring food stamps as unconstitutional.
- Passing a constitutional amendment that would ban the Government from forcing parents to vaccinate or school their kids.

This is the official Republican Party platform. This is what Donald Trump is running on. If you still believe that all of this is okay because "Trump is running for the people", or that Clinton supporting a $15 minimum wage and a progressive reform of healthcare to extend Medicare down to 55 year-olds and keep cutting out-of-pocket costs for the rest is "bad" because "she is stablishment", then I beg you to please stop looking at politicians' faces and start looking at what they are promising to do. Donald Trump might look similar to Sanders in image, but have you even tried to look at the substance of his platform? Because there is quite literally nobody as opposted to Sanders's goals than Trump right now.

If you supported Sanders and now are considering Trump, I'm pretty sorry to tell you that you aren't a social-democrat and you didn't honestly give a crap about Sanders's policies- all you wanted was "someone who isn't establishment", regardless of whether their platform was left-wing or right-wing. If you do really care about equality and progress, voting Republican should be off the cards from day -1.

 

[Esper]

I hate that it's come to this, but I'm going to be voting for Clinton. It's hard when you had someone who much more closely represented what you wanted and who now can't be in the final round, but third party candidates just can't win so as much as Jill Stein is the closest to what I'd like to see in the remaining candidates I'm not going to risk a Trump win. I'm in a "safe" blue state so I could probably vote for Stein without it affecting the overall outcome, but I don't want to have a situation where Trump wins the most votes even if he loses in the Electoral College (much as I'd like to see it abolished and replaced) because then you'd probably see an even more polarized country.

 

[Genegerbread]

I'm definitely on the Trump train. Before anything, my father was born in Mississippi, as was I (and my mother was born in Florida), and on top of that, my father is a thirty year army veteran, so we consider ourselves to be at least moderate conservatives.

Let's just break this down. If she were to choose, Hillary would obviously give amnesty to illegals who entered the United States... illegally, while Trump completely respects the veterans. A veteran who is in an economic crisis would deserve amnesty much more than an illegal immigrant, obviously. The wall will happen if he's elected, folks. Our borders do not help, as we see people climbing over them every single day. We need a wall guarded with some sort of higher security to keep the illegal immigrants out.

Can you really trust a woman who was confirmed to have used her personal e-mail to store classified information? If that isn't enough, the Director of the FBI had even confirmed that a Russian hacker had gotten a hold of this e-mail. There's obviously a ton of corruption in this system, especially since the director is a Republican and is letting this happen. There was obviously something that happened when Bill Clinton hopped on to Loretta Lynch's private jet and 'talked about golf', which they obviously had not done. Also, she is in favor of super delegates, which is just not how our democracy should work, as it is just unfair for delegates to choose who they want, not representing the people. Also, she likes Super PACS. Like... no.

I also don't understand how a system that isn't capitalist can really run. When Obama came in, he totally destroyed the economy, and our national debt is about to reach twenty-trillion dollars. Sure, you can't really have a good President without some debt, but when you see how unconstitutional the Obama administration has truly been, it's just sad. We need the economy to run itself. Some of the greatest and most popular Presidents were Republican, like Ronald Reagan, Theodore Roosevelt, and George Washington was actually more conservative (despite the fact that Great Britain was actually sort of conservative in that scenario as well).

Cutting all of these programs would be great. I don't understand what's so great about Common Core, as it just doesn't help! I'm in three honors classes, and they're ignoring what we need in order to learn by throwing random questions at us that don't even help us understand the book. Suprisingly, if we cut this education, our taxes would have a drastic cut, and local governments could do what's best for their students.

You hear people say that Trump is against the LGBT community, but this is simply not true. His first appearance after Orlando's mass shooting was him recognizing the LGBT community as part of America and part of our culture. On The Today Show, Trump said that he wouldn't care if Caitlyn Jenner used the women's bathroom in Trump tower. It wasn't bothered before, so he's saying why bother it now. I think the big thing that confuses people is when Trump is saying what Obama did is unconstitutional. Even though he is in support of the LGBT community, anything like this should have been up to the states, not up to the Federal Government.

The Constitution is something we must use in order to run our country. We can't let people illegally obtain weapons while some people who mean no harm aren't permitted to get a gun because of gun control. You see that gun control laws have been strengthened, and because of this Orlando happened. We might need some control, but all of these shootings are happening because people are obtaining firearms illegally. If I was permitted to shoot, I'd take advantage of it even if I were younger, because I want to stay safe, no matter what it takes.

That's my rant. If you have any arguments, please share them with me c;.

 

[Ivysaur]

Let's just break this down. If she were to choose, Hillary would obviously give amnesty to illegals who entered the United States... illegally, while Trump completely respects the veterans. A veteran who is in an economic crisis would deserve amnesty much more than an illegal immigrant, obviously. The wall will happen if he's elected, folks. Our borders do not help, as we see people climbing over them every single day. We need a wall guarded with some sort of higher security to keep the illegal immigrants out.

Why do you mix immigrants and veterans in the same sentence? Why do veterans need "amnesty"? Amnesty from what? Also, let me ask you a thing: you do know that to give any "amnesty", you need to pass a law for that through Congress first. Do you believe the Republicans in Congress will pass that law if she wins? Because, if they don't, then she can't give amnesty to anybody and your fear goes away just like that.

Second, the wall with Mexico is going to do little to help. Not least because the number of illegal immigrants from Mexico has dropped by 8% since 2010 (they are leaving back to their country!) and, consequently, the arrivals from Mexico have fallen by a whooping 80%. No, the problem is that more than half of the illegal immigrants come to the US legally, crossing the border through the official checkpoints with valid visas... and then simply stay once they run out. So having a 100-km tall border wall wouldn't change a single thing to the majority of illegal immigrants who never needed to climb over it to get in in the first place. That's a good waste of billions of dollars! Source.

Can you really trust a woman who was confirmed to have used her personal e-mail to store classified information? If that isn't enough, the Director of the FBI had even confirmed that a Russian hacker had gotten a hold of this e-mail. There's obviously a ton of corruption in this system, especially since the director is a Republican and is letting this happen. There was obviously something that happened when Bill Clinton hopped on to Loretta Lynch's private jet and 'talked about golf', which they obviously had not done.

Interestingly, the FBI and the General Attorney are different institutions with no direct connection. The fact that it was a Republican who decided that not charges should be raised because she didn't break any law may also be understood as further evidence that she did nothing illegal... like most other similar cases suggested.

Also, she is in favor of super delegates, which is just not how our democracy should work, as it is just unfair for delegates to choose who they want, not representing the people.

Super delegates have a reason to exist. I do not think they should be allowed to vote against the primary winner, or overrule the results (something that never happened), but they have a reason to exist, and that is ensuring that whoever won the primary can win the convention ballot without a contest. The Republicans get around this by having a completely unfair system that gives hundreds of free bonus delegates to the winner, to artificially inflate their majority and get them over the line. The Democratic system is purely proportional- you get 52% of the votes, you get 52% of the delegates (caucuses and low-delegate primaries slightly distort the exact count but not by much). In that case, if an O'Malley manages to take 10, 12% of the delegates, it'd be possible that the winning candidate would end with just under 50% of the vote... and then without a majority despite having won more or less convincingly. Superdelegates are there to sway the first ballot in favour of the winner. Should the amount of superdelegates be cut to, say, 5%, so they can't really swing the result? Possibly. Is it a bad, manipulative idea by default? It's no more unfair that deciding that whoever wins Florida by a single vote takes 99 delegates and the others take 0, even if they lost by a single vote.

I also don't understand how a system that isn't capitalist can really run.

The key is, there are many flavours of "capitalism". You can have a system that is capitalist but where the state controls 50% of the economy and still be immensely prosperous and rich- it's called Sweden or Norway. You can have extremely unequal and horrendously run capitalist systems, and beautifully run systems which are only half capitalist- that's what social-democracy is all about.

Again, look at Sweden. The Government takes just over 50% of the GDP and spends it on public services. How is that communist hellhole holding up, according to the OECD?

And the US?

Well, I'll be! Though I'll concede that in the "income" section, the US has a whooping 100%, compared to Sweden's 51%. But if I had to choose? I think I can spare some cash in hand in exchange for everything else.

When Obama came in, he totally destroyed the economy

ACTUALLY.... have you heard about the Lehman Brothers collapse, triggered by the Bush administration, that caused a world crisis and -yes- ruined the US economy just a few months before Obama took charge? A collapse caused by a massive bubble in mortgage debt that grew during Bush's terms, incidentally. Also, Bush inherited a budget surplus from the previous Democratic administration and turned it into a deficit thanks to the Iraq war and tax cuts to the wealthy that, amazingly, didn't "pay themselves off"... just redistributed more money to the 1%. And yes, the massive 2009 deficit wasn't just because Obama decided to splurge like a madman because he's just that chaotically evil- he did it to plug the hole Bush had caused. He could have not done that and cut spending massively instead, but then the US would have ended back in recession- just look at the EU, who didn't spend and latched onto austerity instead. We are growing at less than 1% annually!

Cutting all of these programs would be great. I don't understand what's so great about Common Core, as it just doesn't help! I'm in three honors classes, and they're ignoring what we need in order to learn by throwing random questions at us that don't even help us understand the book. Suprisingly, if we cut this education, our taxes would have a drastic cut, and local governments could do what's best for their students.

Wait what? If you cut spending on education, what would happen? Tax cuts? What would people do with their extra money that is more important than schooling children? And common core is not actually anything that costs money- it's just a way to unify the topics taught all across the country! It's just a way to ensure that kids from Colorado and Virginia are learning the same at school, so you don't end finding out what you are going to learn in school through a postcode lottery.

You hear people say that Trump is against the LGBT community, but this is simply not true. His first appearance after Orlando's mass shooting was him recognizing the LGBT community as part of America and part of our culture. On The Today Show, Trump said that he wouldn't care if Caitlyn Jenner used the women's bathroom in Trump tower. It wasn't bothered before, so he's saying why bother it now. I think the big thing that confuses people is when Trump is saying what Obama did is unconstitutional. Even though he is in support of the LGBT community, anything like this should have been up to the states, not up to the Federal Government.

Well, the problem is that the Official Republican Party Platform, aka what Trump is running on, supports:

- Overturning the Supreme Court (no relation to the Federal Government) ruling, thereby re-banning same-sex marriage in several states.
- Endorsing "gay conversion therapies", implying that LGTB people are somehow ill and need therapy to become straight.
- Endorsing "natural families composed of a man and a woman", which is clearly not a shot against LGTB families.
- Forcing transgender people to use the bathroom that matches their genitals instead of their gender, which is just an ideological "fuck you" as it serves no other purpose than to make their lives harder for no reason.
- And last, but not least, passing discrimination laws that allow business to deny their services to people by reason of their sexual preferences.

Incidentally, nobody did anything unconstitutional- the Supreme Court interprets the Consitution, and it decided that same-sex marriage is constitutional and protected by the Constitution. That's all. And the platform Trump is running on wants to overturn that ruling. Do you see why LGBT people may not be happy with Trump's party?

The Constitution is something we must use in order to run our country. We can't let people illegally obtain weapons while some people who mean no harm aren't permitted to get a gun because of gun control. You see that gun control laws have been strengthened, and because of this Orlando happened. We might need some control, but all of these shootings are happening because people are obtaining firearms illegally. If I was permitted to shoot, I'd take advantage of it even if I were younger, because I want to stay safe, no matter what it takes.

Actually, nobody strenghtened any gun laws at any point, because the Republicans vetoed any attempts. So I don't know what you are talking about?

 

[Genegerbread]

Why do you mix immigrants and veterans in the same sentence? Why do veterans need "amnesty"? Amnesty from what? Also, let me ask you a thing: you do know that to give any "amnesty", you need to pass a law for that through Congress first. Do you believe the Republicans in Congress will pass that law if she wins? Because, if they don't, then she can't give amnesty to anybody and your fear goes away just like that.

Second, the wall with Mexico is going to do little to help. Not least because the number of illegal immigrants from Mexico has dropped by 8% since 2010 (they are leaving back to their country!) and, consequently, the arrivals from Mexico have fallen by a whooping 80%. No, the problem is that more than half of the illegal immigrants come to the US legally, crossing the border through the official checkpoints with valid visas... and then simply stay once they run out. So having a 100-km tall border wall wouldn't change a single thing to the majority of illegal immigrants who never needed to climb over it to get in in the first place. That's a good waste of billions of dollars! Source.



Interestingly, the FBI and the General Attorney are different institutions with no direct connection. The fact that it was a Republican who decided that not charges should be raised because she didn't break any law may also be understood as further evidence that she did nothing illegal... like most other similar cases suggested.



Super delegates have a reason to exist. I do not think they should be allowed to vote against the primary winner, or overrule the results (something that never happened), but they have a reason to exist, and that is ensuring that whoever won the primary can win the convention ballot without a contest. The Republicans get around this by having a completely unfair system that gives hundreds of free bonus delegates to the winner, to artificially inflate their majority and get them over the line. The Democratic system is purely proportional- you get 52% of the votes, you get 52% of the delegates (caucuses and low-delegate primaries slightly distort the exact count but not by much). In that case, if an O'Malley manages to take 10, 12% of the delegates, it'd be possible that the winning candidate would end with just under 50% of the vote... and then without a majority despite having won more or less convincingly. Superdelegates are there to sway the first ballot in favour of the winner. Should the amount of superdelegates be cut to, say, 5%, so they can't really swing the result? Possibly. Is it a bad, manipulative idea by default? It's no more unfair that deciding that whoever wins Florida by a single vote takes 99 delegates and the others take 0, even if they lost by a single vote.



The key is, there are many flavours of "capitalism". You can have a system that is capitalist but where the state controls 50% of the economy and still be immensely prosperous and rich- it's called Sweden or Norway. You can have extremely unequal and horrendously run capitalist systems, and beautifully run systems which are only half capitalist- that's what social-democracy is all about.

Again, look at Sweden. The Government takes just over 50% of the GDP and spends it on public services. How is that communist hellhole holding up, according to the OECD?

And the US?

Well, I'll be! Though I'll concede that in the "income" section, the US has a whooping 100%, compared to Sweden's 51%. But if I had to choose? I think I can spare some cash in hand in exchange for everything else.



ACTUALLY.... have you heard about the Lehman Brothers collapse, triggered by the Bush administration, that caused a world crisis and -yes- ruined the US economy just a few months before Obama took charge? A collapse caused by a massive bubble in mortgage debt that grew during Bush's terms, incidentally. Also, Bush inherited a budget surplus from the previous Democratic administration and turned it into a deficit thanks to the Iraq war and tax cuts to the wealthy that, amazingly, didn't "pay themselves off"... just redistributed more money to the 1%. And yes, the massive 2009 deficit wasn't just because Obama decided to splurge like a madman because he's just that chaotically evil- he did it to plug the hole Bush had caused. He could have not done that and cut spending massively instead, but then the US would have ended back in recession- just look at the EU, who didn't spend and latched onto austerity instead. We are growing at less than 1% annually!



Wait what? If you cut spending on education, what would happen? Tax cuts? What would people do with their extra money that is more important than schooling children? And common core is not actually anything that costs money- it's just a way to unify the topics taught all across the country! It's just a way to ensure that kids from Colorado and Virginia are learning the same at school, so you don't end finding out what you are going to learn in school through a postcode lottery.



Well, the problem is that the Official Republican Party Platform, aka what Trump is running on, supports:

- Overturning the Supreme Court (no relation to the Federal Government) ruling, thereby re-banning same-sex marriage in several states.
- Endorsing "gay conversion therapies", implying that LGTB people are somehow ill and need therapy to become straight.
- Endorsing "natural families composed of a man and a woman", which is clearly not a shot against LGTB families.
- Forcing transgender people to use the bathroom that matches their genitals instead of their gender, which is just an ideological "**** you" as it serves no other purpose than to make their lives harder for no reason.
- And last, but not least, passing discrimination laws that allow business to deny their services to people by reason of their sexual preferences.

Incidentally, nobody did anything unconstitutional- the Supreme Court interprets the Consitution, and it decided that same-sex marriage is constitutional and protected by the Constitution. That's all. And the platform Trump is running on wants to overturn that ruling. Do you see why LGBT people may not be happy with Trump's party?



Actually, nobody strenghtened any gun laws at any point, because the Republicans vetoed any attempts. So I don't know what you are talking about?

I'll be fair here and admit that your statistics are indeed correct. True, Republicans outweigh Democrats in Congress at the moment, but I'm just saying that'd I'd rather have a President who doesn't store classified information on her personal e-mail so it can easily be hacked. Bill Clinton talked to Loretta Lynch, though. I might have gotten mixed up, though. There is so much corruption in the Clinton Campaign, and we know something was up in that jet.

Trump is someone who is a moderate conservative. He's an outsider, and he's not truly running on the platform that the Republican party has laid out. Every candidate will have their different solutions, and a Republican can't always be assumed to be against the LGBT community. About the unconstitutional part, Trump is in favor of LGBT rights, but how it was decided on was not up to the states, when things like this usually were up to the states. That's really all I meant. (I'm in favor of LGBT rights, just to clear things up).

There's been an argument during this election which is actually not that significant. It has been noticed that there has been a change in immigration. Sure, quite a few people are returning back and the amount of people coming in has dropped slightly, but there are still a lot of things happening. There are a ton of veterans that are homeless. Amnesty has been given to illegals before, but what Trump is saying is that if he were to give amnesty (which he probably wouldn't), he'd give it to the homeless veterans who truly need help rather than illegals who aren't earning their way into our country.

Also, how to illegal immigrants come in legally? They're called illegal immigrants for a reason. Either way, if that is the case, then there'll be much better national security to help in the process.

As for things that are all economic and program-like. First, I've had a firsthand experience with Common Core, and barely any of it is beneficial. My parents have shown me what real stuff is. In fact, my mother was a teacher for ten years, so she knows more than anyone in my household. Cutting Common Core would give Americans more money. We're supposed to have the freedom of earning money for our own luxuries, and that's what they'd do with it. One thing I don't like is that Trump denies global warming, but I'm sure there'll be conservation groups that keep all of that up and running, and he might even come to realization. Cutting some of these programs like state education would help Americans earn money to do things that they want to do, not just need to do. Having higher taxes to pay for those who are poor and to pay for unnecessary programs like Common Core is ridiculous. A lot of these people who are on Welfare need to get up and find some work, because they can do it, but they just don't want to. We must stop giving money to people who really don't need it, and can just earn money themselves. What happened to responsibility? We need that again. Responsibility is what kept America flourishing.

Also, I do like the statistics there, but if this is part of Obama's governing, then when Trump is President, things'll be different, especially him being a part of the Republican party. I'm also pretty sure that Trump being a moderate would lead to him making new programs to maybe even help with these things. We have a huge benefit, as we have over 300 million citizens. We don't have to drain our taxes as much for these possible programs, and as a businessman, Trump is smart enough to understand that.

 

[gimmepie]

I'll be fair here and admit that your statistics are indeed correct. True, Republicans outweigh Democrats in Congress at the moment, but I'm just saying that'd I'd rather have a President who doesn't store classified information on her personal e-mail so it can easily be hacked. Bill Clinton talked to Loretta Lynch, though. I might have gotten mixed up, though. There is so much corruption in the Clinton Campaign, and we know something was up in that jet.

Storing information somewhere stupid is not corrupt, it's idiotic but corruption has nothing to do with it. Sure Clinton does pander to the corporations, but it's hard not to in American politics when the rich 1% basically own the government. Hillary isn't at fault there, the political system is and Trump is in no way going to change that because he's a part of that 1%.

Trump is someone who is a moderate conservative. He's an outsider, and he's not truly running on the platform that the Republican party has laid out. Every candidate will have their different solutions, and a Republican can't always be assumed to be against the LGBT community. About the unconstitutional part, Trump is in favor of LGBT rights, but how it was decided on was not up to the states, when things like this usually were up to the states. That's really all I meant. (I'm in favor of LGBT rights, just to clear things up).

Trumps statements about LGBT issues are very clearly a poor attempt to conceal his own biases in an effort to prop up votes. But regardless of what he believes, in the end he needs the support of the Republicans to do anything so he'll follow with their ridiculous policies.

There's been an argument during this election which is actually not that significant. It has been noticed that there has been a change in immigration. Sure, quite a few people are returning back and the amount of people coming in has dropped slightly, but there are still a lot of things happening. There are a ton of veterans that are homeless. Amnesty has been given to illegals before, but what Trump is saying is that if he were to give amnesty (which he probably wouldn't), he'd give it to the homeless veterans who truly need help rather than illegals who aren't earning their way into our country.

Firstly, if Trump said that it just proves he's an idiot because amnesty is about pardoning crimes or political offences. Neither being a veteran or homeless is either of those things. He's comparing two completely unrelated issues that both need seperate looking into.

Secondly, an eighty percent drop is a hell of a lot more than slight. It also makes it pretty damn clear that people stopped buying into the delusion that America is the land of freedom and opportunity a long time ago.

Also, how to illegal immigrants come in legally? They're called illegal immigrants for a reason. Either way, if that is the case, then there'll be much better national security to help in the process.

They come in legally on travel or work visas and don't leave when they expire. There's exactly nothing that tighter border security or Trump's ridiculous money-wasting wall will do to stop that. The only way to eradicate that problem is to flat out not allow anyone new to enter the country for a holiday or for work ever and that's ridiculous.

As for things that are all economic and program-like. First, I've had a firsthand experience with Common Core, and barely any of it is beneficial. My parents have shown me what real stuff is. In fact, my mother was a teacher for ten years, so she knows more than anyone in my household. Cutting Common Core would give Americans more money. We're supposed to have the freedom of earning money for our own luxuries, and that's what they'd do with it.

I won't comment here because I don't know very much about Common Core. However, from what I do know about the Republican party and Donald Trump they clearly know very little about education and have no idea how to improve education. As someone who is studying education and has grown up surrounded by people working in that industry, I do feel confident in saying that if Common Core is not providing useful knowledge, then it is not the methodology that needs to be looked at first it's the content. We have a problem in Australia where the methodology of our curriculum is fantastic but the content is terrible and this sounds like a similar issue.

One thing I don't like is that Trump denies global warming, but I'm sure there'll be conservation groups that keep all of that up and running, and he might even come to realization.

Trump is a stubborn old fool who thinks he knows a lot more than he does. He's not going to accept the reality of Global Warming until his skin starts catching fire and by then it will already be too late. In the meantime he and the other morons in his party will continue to impede any kind of environmental reform.

Cutting some of these programs like state education would help Americans earn money to do things that they want to do, not just need to do. Having higher taxes to pay for those who are poor and to pay for unnecessary programs like Common Core is ridiculous.

Education is always the last thing a government should cut funding to, aside from perhaps healthcare/welfare. It is imperative that education is invested in and improved upon and cutting funding to it because tax payers are getting greedy is not going to do anything for the state of your country, which quite frankly is a mess right now.

A lot of these people who are on Welfare need to get up and find some work, because they can do it, but they just don't want to. We must stop giving money to people who really don't need it, and can just earn money themselves. What happened to responsibility? We need that again. Responsibility is what kept America flourishing.

I won't pretend that nobody on welfare is playing the system, but this belief that people have that the majority of people on welfare are lazy and just want to avoid work is ridiculous. Firstly, it's damn near impossible to find work (let alone adequately paying work) in the US right now because of the Republicans' constant refusal to up minimum wage or improve on workers rights. Not to mention your average Joe struggles to get qualified to do better paying work because the overly-capitalist nature of American economic practices has made seeking tertiary education far more difficult than it should be.

On top of that, there's also a great deal of US citizens who are suffering from physical or mental disabilities or long-term illnesses that simply cannot work. Including such people as the veterans you so like to go on about. Even further still, because of the ridiculous wage companies are paying it's occasionally more profitable and therefore more intelligent to be on welfare than working minimum wage if you're trying to get an education, achieve independence or raise a family. The US doesn't need less money invested in Welfare, it needs to improve access to education, increase the minimum wage, create jobs and improve the outdated welfare system it's running on.

Also, I do like the statistics there, but if this is part of Obama's governing, then when Trump is President, things'll be different, especially him being a part of the Republican party. I'm also pretty sure that Trump being a moderate would lead to him making new programs to maybe even help with these things. We have a huge benefit, as we have over 300 million citizens. We don't have to drain our taxes as much for these possible programs, and as a businessman, Trump is smart enough to understand that.

Yes, if Trump wins things will be very different to the Obama-administration. They'll be much, much worse. He'll take further steps to encroach on people's rights, all significant steps towards improving gun control will come to a standstill, he'll overturn one of the most important civil rights laws passed in US history, education will get even worse and the US will fall even further from grace. Obama was the best President you had in a long time and spent a lot of time trying to clean up Bush's screw-ups and improve the US in areas that it needs improving in and all that progress will be gone if Trump gets the presidency. Now, Clinton isn't amazing and I don't think the US will see any great changes under her leadership either - but at least things shouldn't change too much for the worse either.

As for Trump being a smart businessman... not only has he bankrupted a great deal of the companies he's started and ruined his father's investments, he's also intending to waste tax payer money on an extremely ineffective means of controlling an all but non-existent immigration problem, thinks the Bible is an accurate and unbiased source of information, denies global warming/climate change even exists and doesn't even know what the word amnesty means apparently. If Trump hadn't been born with a silver spoon up his ass then not only would he be neither rich nor famous but he wouldn't be in a position where his misguided worldview could potentially destroy an entire nation. He's not even remotely intelligent and isn't even a good businessman or politician. Trump is a disgrace not only to your country but to humanity as a whole and if he wins the election the voters of the US have failed.

 

[Shamol]

^You forgot his genius plans of using torture even if it doesn't work, bombing the families of terrorists, and citing the Geneva Conventions as a problem.

Yes, Hillary's track record in foreign policy has been anything but good, and she seems to want to continue down the same path. Some recent reports suggest her Middle East foreign policy to be to the right of- wait for it- George W. Bush. On the other hand, in at least some speeches, Donald Trump showed something of an "isolationist" tendency.

But let me tell you why all that may be immaterial. I think the strongest reason for not voting Trump is not because we know his plans, but precisely because we don't know any of them. He has flip-flopped on virtually each of his positions multiple times throughout his campaign. We have no clue what sort of president he would make. He may become the poster boy for 'moderate' republicanism- veering a bit to the left from the more traditionalist social values- and become an acquiescent little ***** of the establishment. He may also become a full-on totalitarian warmonger who drops missiles the moment someone insults the size of his hands. It's easy to see why we wouldn't want those hands on the nuke launch codes.

 

[Genegerbread]

Storing information somewhere stupid is not corrupt, it's idiotic but corruption has nothing to do with it. Sure Clinton does pander to the corporations, but it's hard not to in American politics when the rich 1% basically own the government. Hillary isn't at fault there, the political system is and Trump is in no way going to change that because he's a part of that 1%.



Trumps statements about LGBT issues are very clearly a poor attempt to conceal his own biases in an effort to prop up votes. But regardless of what he believes, in the end he needs the support of the Republicans to do anything so he'll follow with their ridiculous policies.



Firstly, if Trump said that it just proves he's an idiot because amnesty is about pardoning crimes or political offences. Neither being a veteran or homeless is either of those things. He's comparing two completely unrelated issues that both need seperate looking into.

Secondly, an eighty percent drop is a hell of a lot more than slight. It also makes it pretty damn clear that people stopped buying into the delusion that America is the land of freedom and opportunity a long time ago.



They come in legally on travel or work visas and don't leave when they expire. There's exactly nothing that tighter border security or Trump's ridiculous money-wasting wall will do to stop that. The only way to eradicate that problem is to flat out not allow anyone new to enter the country for a holiday or for work ever and that's ridiculous.



I won't comment here because I don't know very much about Common Core. However, from what I do know about the Republican party and Donald Trump they clearly know very little about education and have no idea how to improve education. As someone who is studying education and has grown up surrounded by people working in that industry, I do feel confident in saying that if Common Core is not providing useful knowledge, then it is not the methodology that needs to be looked at first it's the content. We have a problem in Australia where the methodology of our curriculum is fantastic but the content is terrible and this sounds like a similar issue.



Trump is a stubborn old fool who thinks he knows a lot more than he does. He's not going to accept the reality of Global Warming until his skin starts catching fire and by then it will already be too late. In the meantime he and the other morons in his party will continue to impede any kind of environmental reform.



Education is always the last thing a government should cut funding to, aside from perhaps healthcare/welfare. It is imperative that education is invested in and improved upon and cutting funding to it because tax payers are getting greedy is not going to do anything for the state of your country, which quite frankly is a mess right now.



I won't pretend that nobody on welfare is playing the system, but this belief that people have that the majority of people on welfare are lazy and just want to avoid work is ridiculous. Firstly, it's damn near impossible to find work (let alone adequately paying work) in the US right now because of the Republicans' constant refusal to up minimum wage or improve on workers rights. Not to mention your average Joe struggles to get qualified to do better paying work because the overly-capitalist nature of American economic practices has made seeking tertiary education far more difficult than it should be.

On top of that, there's also a great deal of US citizens who are suffering from physical or mental disabilities or long-term illnesses that simply cannot work. Including such people as the veterans you so like to go on about. Even further still, because of the ridiculous wage companies are paying it's occasionally more profitable and therefore more intelligent to be on welfare than working minimum wage if you're trying to get an education, achieve independence or raise a family. The US doesn't need less money invested in Welfare, it needs to improve access to education, increase the minimum wage, create jobs and improve the outdated welfare system it's running on.



Yes, if Trump wins things will be very different to the Obama-administration. They'll be much, much worse. He'll take further steps to encroach on people's rights, all significant steps towards improving gun control will come to a standstill, he'll overturn one of the most important civil rights laws passed in US history, education will get even worse and the US will fall even further from grace. Obama was the best President you had in a long time and spent a lot of time trying to clean up Bush's screw-ups and improve the US in areas that it needs improving in and all that progress will be gone if Trump gets the presidency. Now, Clinton isn't amazing and I don't think the US will see any great changes under her leadership either - but at least things shouldn't change too much for the worse either.

As for Trump being a smart businessman... not only has he bankrupted a great deal of the companies he's started and ruined his father's investments, he's also intending to waste tax payer money on an extremely ineffective means of controlling an all but non-existent immigration problem, thinks the Bible is an accurate and unbiased source of information, denies global warming/climate change even exists and doesn't even know what the word amnesty means apparently. If Trump hadn't been born with a silver spoon up his ass then not only would he be neither rich nor famous but he wouldn't be in a position where his misguided worldview could potentially destroy an entire nation. He's not even remotely intelligent and isn't even a good businessman or politician. Trump is a disgrace not only to your country but to humanity as a whole and if he wins the election the voters of the US have failed.

I'm sorry. I may have confused the entire point once more. Let me restate what I meant to say before (in response to your answer) in a clearer way.

(1). The Clinton campaign is very corrupt, but not compared to the sense that she used her personal e-mail for classified information alone. The fact that she lied about it, but it was stated by the Director of the FBI that she had indeed used her personal server to store classified information is very stupid, but when you lie about it, that's something that's corrupt. I understand how the wealthy usually control the government, but throughout the campaign, I couldn't have been the only one to notice how diverse he is from the rest of the field. Trump has held his consistent argument for years that he's tired of seeing what's happening to the country. He really didn't want to run in the first place, and he would be so much happier if he didn't have to run. Seeing the destruction that has been placed upon our country is what caused him to initiate his campaign.

(2). As I said in (1), Trump has held a consistent argument for years, and it's very unlikely that he'd change this argument so abruptly in 2016. Sure, there must be some things you have to say in order to get some votes. You can't really have a chance without saying something to get some votes, but Trump wouldn't say something about the LGBT community, something that was purely implemented into our culture as something important, and something that he took time to carefully explain that the concept of the LGBT community is part of America, and it's part of who we are. Watch this video, and skip to 2:04 for his comment:



You can obviously tell he was being sincere. Sure, it doesn't completely prove he's completely open to the LGBT community, but I'm pretty sure this is pretty damn good, especially for a Republican.

(3). I'm sorry that I used amnesty in the context of helping homeless veterans. It's been a while, and I'm a bit rusty on some terms, so please excuse me there. I should've looked into that before I actually made that statement. Either way, we shouldn't be giving political pardon to those who are just entering our country illegally. The system of immigration was made for one reason, and that's so citizens from other countries can enter this country legally in order to become a citizen of the United States. Again, I apologize for my misunderstanding of that term.

(4). I understand how that part of illegal immigration works, but we're always seeing illegal immigrants jumping the fences. The arrivals from Mexico have dropped eighty percent, but the amount of illegal immigration has only dropped eight percent. Trump is going to have to work something out with the Mexican government, of course. The former President of Mexico was on Bill O'Reilly, and he spoke about how the Mexican government and Trump should make some type of deal. Sure, he isn't in power anymore, but this is just going to show that Trump is a very intimidating man, and the Mexican people are seeing how he totally destroyed the race to become the Republican nominee. The Mexican people don't want an embargo, which Trump could very well threaten to do if they don't compromise with him.

(5). The Republican Party believes that education should be up to the local government. It's ridiculous to judge a whole state and give that entire state the same stuff. Sure, there must be standards, as you can't run an educational system without some sort of state or federal standards, but with my firsthand experience of Common Core, what it is is a waste of money. Nobody is learning from this, and more than one of my teachers have admitted that it's a useless program. Local governments should govern education, not state governments (primarily). If local governments govern education, then they can specify the material that needs to be made in order for students to learn what they must. It's so much simpler and easier, it's more effective, and it's not as much money.

(6). The Republican Party constantly denies global warming, which I too dislike very much so. I do have hope that Trump will accept it and do something about it. Him being a moderate, he could very well see the situation. He also listens, believe it or not. He listens to the people who are in support of him. If he becomes President, I'm sure there'll be more than one request stating that there should be something done about global warming, because it's getting to the point where it's unhealthy and dangerous for our country, as well as our world.

(7). As I said before, we'll definitely need some sort of educational basis nationwide or statewide, but the local government should be the ones tweaking their own districts to where they think it's best for their students.

(8). I agree with you that more often than not people are simply unable to work. I'm just saying that there still are about 300 million people in the United States, and a lot of people out of this huge population will play the system. The minimum wage is here for a reason. Maybe tweak it just a little bit, but to make the minimum wage like a full-paying job is absolutely ridiculous. I'm not sure how we'll do it, because there was the Bush administration and the Obama administration that totally destroyed our country in so many ways. We need to think of a way where those who are unable to work get what they need, but at the same time the minimum wage was created so small businesses could pay workers for primarily choosable shifts. Increasing this could easily make small businesses bankrupt. Businesses need relatively very little taken away from them in order to start trouble. I'm hoping some like Trump, a businessman, can find a solution. I think he can, becaus he's a businessman, and his success rate is in the high 90s.

(9). Trump does not want to enroach on people's rights. In fact, a conservative government usually leaves the citizens to themselves. A liberalized government sort of controls you in a way. Living in a time with a conservative government would be very ideal, as you wouldn't have the government always looking over you, and you'd have the freedom to take your responsibilities into your own hands. We don't need gun control, either. Sure, there must be some sort of basis to control how people obtain firearms, but people with bad intentions who murder others usually obtain their firearms illegally. Successful crime would decrease because without such heavy gun control, more people who have good intentions would be able to obtain firearms and protect themselves from crime. Sure, Obama tried to clean up Bush's screw-ups, but he did it in the worst way possible. Trump has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy four times, and that's such a small amount compared to the amount of businesses he actually owns, as I stated in (8). His opinion about the Bible is definitely not going to sway him to make decisions for our country based on it, knowing how diverse religion is in our nation. Either way, Trump isn't a politician, and hates to be called one. He's a businessman, and even if he becomes the President, he still won't consider himself a politician.

I'm enjoying this argument. No harsh feelings, right? c:

 

[Shamol]

If I understand you correctly, Genegerbread, I noticed the following trend in your reasoning:

- For the issues where republicans have had (what you think is) a bad record (e.g. LGBT issues, global warming)- Trump wouldn't follow their footsteps because after all, he's a moderate.

- For the issues where republicans have had (what you think is) a good record (e.g. limited government spending on education, strong border control)- Trump would follow their footsteps because after all, he's a conservative.

And this is where Trump apologetics gets ad hoc. I don't blame you, this trend is supported by the campaign he's run. Trump has adopted so many different policies in each and every issue that it's very difficult to tell what his actual beliefs are. One moment he talks about bombing the families of terrorists, the other he seems to talk in favor of isolationism (a point on which Hillary has attacked him). One moment he talks about the harms of Obamacare, the next he seems to weigh in in favor of universal healthcare (see this link- an analysis of an answer given during a debate). One moment he says women who abort should be punished, the next he speaks in favor of transgender rights. Because of this, it's easy to just associate him with whatever position one favors. If you listen to his debate answer on healthcare, it's just about ambiguous and confusing enough to appease everybody- regardless of whether you're an economic conservative or liberal.

And this is the whole problem. We don't know who Trump is. We don't know his real positions. He's using a party platform, but as you pointed out, it's virtually impossible to predict how closely his policies would match that of his party's. He's a moderate, but seeing how quickly he changes his positions, it's hard to know how much of a break his policies would be from the background. We simply don't know what he's gonna do or what to expect from him. People who celebrate him can map their own political and social policy ideas on to him, but at the end of the day, none of us are the wiser.

One other thing- Trump's campaign is all about encroaching on people's rights. Your argument against this was based on the conservative limited government idea, but Trump doesn't subscribe to that. He has threatened to bring back the Libel laws against media, and the list of people he wanted to sue include the owner of Amazon and Washington Post, Supreme court justice Ruth Bader because she criticized him, and- get this- The Onion for satirizing him. The first amendment isn't a thing that exists under his potential presidency. So let's not use the conservative ideas to defend Trump where he has most explicitly deviated therefrom.

 

[Hikamaru]

Think I'd mention this since it's getting to that stage of the campaign, but Trump has nominated Mike Pence as his vice-presidential running mate. Not a bad choice, but since I'm not a fan of Trump I'd be more looking forward to who Clinton picks for her vice-president.

 

[Genegerbread]

If I understand you correctly, Genegerbread, I noticed the following trend in your reasoning:

- For the issues where republicans have had (what you think is) a bad record (e.g. LGBT issues, global warming)- Trump wouldn't follow their footsteps because after all, he's a moderate.

- For the issues where republicans have had (what you think is) a good record (e.g. limited government spending on education, strong border control)- Trump would follow their footsteps because after all, he's a conservative.

And this is where Trump apologetics gets ad hoc. I don't blame you, this trend is supported by the campaign he's run. Trump has adopted so many different policies in each and every issue that it's very difficult to tell what his actual beliefs are. One moment he talks about bombing the families of terrorists, the other he seems to talk in favor of isolationism (a point on which Hillary has attacked him). One moment he talks about the harms of Obamacare, the next he seems to weigh in in favor of universal healthcare (see this link- an analysis of an answer given during a debate). One moment he says women who abort should be punished, the next he speaks in favor of transgender rights. Because of this, it's easy to just associate him with whatever position one favors. If you listen to his debate answer on healthcare, it's just about ambiguous and confusing enough to appease everybody- regardless of whether you're an economic conservative or liberal.

And this is the whole problem. We don't know who Trump is. We don't know his real positions. He's using a party platform, but as you pointed out, it's virtually impossible to predict how closely his policies would match that of his party's. He's a moderate, but seeing how quickly he changes his positions, it's hard to know how much of a break his policies would be from the background. We simply don't know what he's gonna do or what to expect from him. People who celebrate him can map their own political and social policy ideas on to him, but at the end of the day, none of us are the wiser.

One other thing- Trump's campaign is all about encroaching on people's rights. Your argument against this was based on the conservative limited government idea, but Trump doesn't subscribe to that. He has threatened to bring back the Libel laws against media, and the list of people he wanted to sue include the owner of Amazon and Washington Post, Supreme court justice Ruth Bader because she criticized him, and- get this- The Onion for satirizing him. The first amendment isn't a thing that exists under his potential presidency. So let's not use the conservative ideas to defend Trump where he has most explicitly deviated therefrom.

I really appreciate you seeing part of the point here. In my opinion, I feel that Trump is in the middle of this. He's definitely switching around, but seeing how he's running his campaign really got to me. He's always concluded his positions on things, and what he truly stands for is on his website. He's definitely pro-life, as he doesn't want living creatures to be killed, but any conservative (besides for the super-conservative Ted Cruz) would probably say that it shouldn't be aborted unless the mother or baby are in harm's way, or if it were a case of incest, rape, or things that revolve around that subject. He's a very interesting candidate, and he's certainly not perfect. To be honest, though, we should give him just some slack. He's a businessman who didn't make his career politics, and he's already doing better than Hillary in so many ways. I have faith in the guy, and I think he's just a big teddy bear, but his actions are taken because he doesn't know how elections work too much when you're a presumptive nominee, let alone a candidate. Once he becomes the nominee, he'll get things rocketing off. People like him because he's not a part of the whole political thing, and you don't really see him involved in corruption except for the biased media reporting falsely accused information about something he did, yet it's probably extremely exaggerated. I like how you think. c;

 

[Entermaid]

While Pence is more or less a safe choice for Trump, he doesn't really offer anything new to the table (as far as I know) other than being your generic, conservative Republican. But maybe a bit of normal is what Trump might be going for, after all. Certainly a very interesting move.

I think that was his goal. He wants the middle-class/upper-middle-class/upper-class conservative voters who have or are contemplating going over to the Clinton camp. Clinton is a neoliberal-elite, whereas Trump's political campaign is a working-class right-wing populist movement. Populism scares traditional neoconservatives more than a candidates who is slightly left of center, yet maintains an elitist mindset.

These voters fear a tyranny of the majority happening under a Trump regime because it harms their own interests (though I think it harms many non-conservatives' interests, mine included). As a progressive who values the balancing of tension between socialism and libertarianism, it makes Trump marginally better as a candidate selecting an "establishment" candidate -- don't get me wrong, I still think he is the most dangerous candidate for the presidential office ever, but there is something to be said for those on the fringe (5%), especially in battleground states where Clinton is losing ground rapidly if he is able to get those mainline neoconservatives voting for a slightly tempered populist movement.

 

[Shamol]

I'm no fan of Trump (as my previous posts in this thread demonstrate), but Hillary's new attack ad may just be her most ineffectual one yet. Listen to Kyle Kulinski's breakdown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfPlEta-VF0

 

[Netto Azure]

This has been a fun day, Colbert's little stunt


....and the last gasp of the anti Trump forces in the Republican Party xD

 

[gimmepie]

Boop

Sorry for the delay, finally getting back to you now xD

(1). The Clinton campaign is very corrupt, but not compared to the sense that she used her personal e-mail for classified information alone. The fact that she lied about it, but it was stated by the Director of the FBI that she had indeed used her personal server to store classified information is very stupid, but when you lie about it, that's something that's corrupt. I understand how the wealthy usually control the government, but throughout the campaign, I couldn't have been the only one to notice how diverse he is from the rest of the field. Trump has held his consistent argument for years that he's tired of seeing what's happening to the country. He really didn't want to run in the first place, and he would be so much happier if he didn't have to run. Seeing the destruction that has been placed upon our country is what caused him to initiate his campaign.

You could, at a stretch, call Hillary lying about what she did corruption. It was dishonest and it was aimed at personal gain. Of course, a more accurate description would be "good politics". The information getting out would hurt her campaign and give a very dangerous opponent more ground to stand on, so it makes perfect sense to try and keep it covered up.

Trump doesn't flip-flop to please the wealth because he is the wealthy. He already shares a lot of their narrow-minded conservative beliefs and can afford to fund his own campaign anyway if he wants to say something they don't like. It has nothing to do with integrity.

Yes, Trump has maintained the same argument for years but it's still a terrible argument. Maintaining a bad argument for years might make you consistent but it does not make you a better leader than someone who can adapt and compromise.

Trump is an egotist with a bad attitude this "I didn't want to run, I had to" is part of his campaign. It's a narrative that he's spinning to help his campaign, not the truth. There is no way a narcissist like Trump, the kind of person who thinks only they can "fix" their country, would do something they didn't think would benefit them personally or that they didn't want to do. He's lying to further his presidential campaign... wait hang on... what's that word that means being dishonest for your own gain that we're all throwing around?

(2). As I said in (1), Trump has held a consistent argument for years, and it's very unlikely that he'd change this argument so abruptly in 2016. Sure, there must be some things you have to say in order to get some votes. You can't really have a chance without saying something to get some votes, but Trump wouldn't say something about the LGBT community, something that was purely implemented into our culture as something important, and something that he took time to carefully explain that the concept of the LGBT community is part of America, and it's part of who we are. Watch this video, and skip to 2:04 for his comment:



You can obviously tell he was being sincere. Sure, it doesn't completely prove he's completely open to the LGBT community, but I'm pretty sure this is pretty damn good, especially for a Republican.

I repeat, being consistent doesn't make you a good leader. But on that note, Trump has flip-flopped several times over the course of his campaign which is something that was heavily criticised by Hillary (as someone mentioned earlier). Not to mention that this talk of "the states should have decided" is clearly a poorly concealed attempt to stay true to the Republican platform without alienating as many liberals as he would if he was honest about the intention.

(3). I'm sorry that I used amnesty in the context of helping homeless veterans. It's been a while, and I'm a bit rusty on some terms, so please excuse me there. I should've looked into that before I actually made that statement. Either way, we shouldn't be giving political pardon to those who are just entering our country illegally. The system of immigration was made for one reason, and that's so citizens from other countries can enter this country legally in order to become a citizen of the United States. Again, I apologize for my misunderstanding of that term.

It's not always easy to just up and move to another country. Excluding the hoops people have to jump through and institutionalised racism in the republican party/US in general, their own counties can be huge issues. Lack of income, war and/or internal political problems are huge issues that can prevent people from immigrating legally - that's why people immigrate illegally in the first place. People who are fleeing hell for your country shouldn't be persecuted like criminals. They should definitely be granted amnesty.

I'm all for strict immigration laws/rules. Temporarily segregate people coming in illegally by all means. Use that time to run background checks, teach English and provide education/training. Then integrate into society. That's strict but not unreasonable so long as said immigrants are made comfortable. But what people like Trump suggest is cruel and ridiculous.

(4). I understand how that part of illegal immigration works, but we're always seeing illegal immigrants jumping the fences. The arrivals from Mexico have dropped eighty percent, but the amount of illegal immigration has only dropped eight percent. Trump is going to have to work something out with the Mexican government, of course. The former President of Mexico was on Bill O'Reilly, and he spoke about how the Mexican government and Trump should make some type of deal. Sure, he isn't in power anymore, but this is just going to show that Trump is a very intimidating man, and the Mexican people are seeing how he totally destroyed the race to become the Republican nominee. The Mexican people don't want an embargo, which Trump could very well threaten to do if they don't compromise with him.

There's a lot of illegal immigration because the world is full of war, corruption and discrimination and adding fuel to that fire is not going to change that. It's just going to make another messed up country.

Trump isn't intimidating, he's dangerous. He's like Hitler but not a good politician. Seriously, the way Trump talks about Islam and immigration is really similar to the way Hitler started out in politics... minus the good economic policy and charisma.

(5). The Republican Party believes that education should be up to the local government. It's ridiculous to judge a whole state and give that entire state the same stuff. Sure, there must be standards, as you can't run an educational system without some sort of state or federal standards, but with my firsthand experience of Common Core, what it is is a waste of money. Nobody is learning from this, and more than one of my teachers have admitted that it's a useless program. Local governments should govern education, not state governments (primarily). If local governments govern education, then they can specify the material that needs to be made in order for students to learn what they must. It's so much simpler and easier, it's more effective, and it's not as much money.

Fracturing the education system is one of the shittiest ideas in a long and sad history of shitty ideas. We had a fractured system here which lead to massive gaps in education whenever someone moved to another state which caused them to struggle which limited options for employment or future study. Teachers had to work their asses off to get those kids up to speed. This was just by state. You're suggesting that we split that further, giving that power to local governments? As in, cities and towns. Do you know how often people move to new cities/towns in the US? That is a surefire way to ruin education in your country. I thought republicans wanted to create more jobs not systematically destroy things until nobody at all is left capable of any job requiring a well-rounded education.

As for common core, I'll say it again. The problem is obviously with the content, not the implementation.

(6). The Republican Party constantly denies global warming, which I too dislike very much so. I do have hope that Trump will accept it and do something about it. Him being a moderate, he could very well see the situation. He also listens, believe it or not. He listens to the people who are in support of him. If he becomes President, I'm sure there'll be more than one request stating that there should be something done about global warming, because it's getting to the point where it's unhealthy and dangerous for our country, as well as our world.

Trump is moderate when he suits him and conservative the rest of the time. Hoping he'll see sense is like hoping to win the lottery... without entering. Assuming Trump will listen to the advice and warnings of more educated people just to please voters is equally foolish, when at all has Trump indicated he would listen to anyone smarter/more knowledgable/more experienced? After all, he has quite a "good brain"... if you believe him (I don't).

(7). As I said before, we'll definitely need some sort of educational basis nationwide or statewide, but the local government should be the ones tweaking their own districts to where they think it's best for their students.

Already explained why this is a terrible idea. For once my area of study has proved helpful here xD

(8). I agree with you that more often than not people are simply unable to work. I'm just saying that there still are about 300 million people in the United States, and a lot of people out of this huge population will play the system. The minimum wage is here for a reason. Maybe tweak it just a little bit, but to make the minimum wage like a full-paying job is absolutely ridiculous. I'm not sure how we'll do it, because there was the Bush administration and the Obama administration that totally destroyed our country in so many ways. We need to think of a way where those who are unable to work get what they need, but at the same time the minimum wage was created so small businesses could pay workers for primarily choosable shifts. Increasing this could easily make small businesses bankrupt. Businesses need relatively very little taken away from them in order to start trouble. I'm hoping some like Trump, a businessman, can find a solution. I think he can, becaus he's a businessman, and his success rate is in the high 90s.

The minimum wage should be able to cover basic independent living costs for an adult. If it doesn't cover that, it's not fulfilling its function. Minimum wage should be about ensuring citizens can afford to live, not about pleasing businesses.

Trump is an awful businessman, so I wouldn't hold your breath. He's bankrupted more ventures than I can count, knows nothing about the working class or below and has actually lost a huge chunk of the money he was left. He was born into the world of the rich businessmen, he didn't have to learn sense because the good life was provided to him on a silver spoon. Trump's business models are more likely to drive the US' economy even deeper into the ground than to fix any problems. Becoming even more capitalist is the way to make things worse, not to improve things.

(9). Trump does not want to enroach on people's rights. In fact, a conservative government usually leaves the citizens to themselves. A liberalized government sort of controls you in a way. Living in a time with a conservative government would be very ideal, as you wouldn't have the government always looking over you, and you'd have the freedom to take your responsibilities into your own hands. We don't need gun control, either. Sure, there must be some sort of basis to control how people obtain firearms, but people with bad intentions who murder others usually obtain their firearms illegally. Successful crime would decrease because without such heavy gun control, more people who have good intentions would be able to obtain firearms and protect themselves from crime. Sure, Obama tried to clean up Bush's screw-ups, but he did it in the worst way possible. Trump has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy four times, and that's such a small amount compared to the amount of businesses he actually owns, as I stated in

Trump would very much like to shit on the 1st amendment by creating mass media censorship and ignoring the constitution's statements about freedom of religion. He also wants to further increase surveillance a la the Patriot Act (but worse). Not to mention he's openly racist and sexist. Tell me again how he isn't encroaching on peoples' rights.

God I hate anti-gun control rhetoric. More people with guns won't reduce crime it will make them easier to commit. It's not hardened criminals who go nuts and shoot up a school it's people who are tired of being bullied and see no other option, who have had one too many bad days at work or who decide to make a Trump-esque political statement with bullets instead of words. Tell me, if a child in a schoolyard hits another with a stick, do you take away the stick or give sticks to all the kids and hope that they won't start hitting people willy-nilly too? If you're even remotely invested in safety, you take away the stick.

His opinion about the Bible is definitely not going to sway him to make decisions for our country based on it, knowing how diverse religion is in our nation. Either way, Trump isn't a politician, and hates to be called one. He's a businessman, and even if he becomes the President, he still won't consider himself a politician.

Yes, Trump is clearly very open minded when it comes to religion... vilifying and targeting an entire religion is a huge part of his campaign. He does not care much for diversity, religiously or racially, and will continue to act against that diversity as long as he is able. Not to mention his own religious views clearly will effect his politics since he insists the bible be treated as a 100% factual historical document over other religious texts. He wants it taught as such in schools. The man is an idiot.

I don't much care what he considers himself, he's a politician and he became one the minute he started playing politics. In fact, the fact he refuses to call himself a politician pretty much proves he doesn't understand how politics works and does not speak in favour of him at all.

I'm enjoying this argument. No harsh feelings, right? c:

Of course not, there's no point in people getting butthurt over a perfectly civil debate.

 

[Kanzler]

Melania Trump plagarizes Michelle Obama's 2008 speech:

https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-bo...one-in-a-trillion-chance-melania-trump-speech

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/us/politics/melania-trump-speech.html

Here are the relavant passages:

Ms. Trump, Monday night:

From a young age, my parents impressed on me the [S-HIGHLIGHT]values that you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise, that you treat people with respect.[/S-HIGHLIGHT] They taught and showed me values and morals in their daily lives. That is a lesson that I continue to pass along to our son. And we need to [S-HIGHLIGHT]pass those lessons on[/S-HIGHLIGHT] to the many[S-HIGHLIGHT] generations [/S-HIGHLIGHT]to follow. [S-HIGHLIGHT]Because we want our children in this nation to know that the only limit to your achievements is the strength of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.[/S-HIGHLIGHT]

Mrs. Obama, in her 2008 speech:

"Barack and I were raised with so many of the same [S-HIGHLIGHT]values: that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you're going to do; that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don't know them, and even if you don't agree with them.[/S-HIGHLIGHT] And Barack and I set out to build lives guided by these values, and [S-HIGHLIGHT]pass them on to the next generation.[/S-HIGHLIGHT] [S-HIGHLIGHT]Because we want our children — and all children in this nation — to know that the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work for them."
[/S-HIGHLIGHT]
Ms. Trump:

"I was born in Slovenia, a small, beautiful and then-Communist country in Central Europe. My sister, Ines, who is an incredible woman and a friend, and I were raised by my wonderful parents. My elegant and hard-working mother, Amalija, introduced me to fashion and beauty. My father, Viktor, instilled in me a passion for business and travel. [S-HIGHLIGHT]Their integrity, compassion and intelligence reflects to this day on me and for my love of family and America."[/S-HIGHLIGHT]

Mrs. Obama, in 2008:

"And I come here as a daughter — raised on the South Side of Chicago by a father who was a blue-collar city worker and a mother who stayed at home with my brother and me. My mother's love has always been a sustaining force for our family, and one of my greatest joys is seeing [S-HIGHLIGHT]her integrity, her compassion and her intelligence reflected in my own daughters."[/S-HIGHLIGHT]

Interestingly enough, no one has so far been fired. This implies that the one who wrote the speech is unfirable, and reflects badly on those close to Trump.

 

[Shamol]

Secular Talk's Kyle Kulinski covers the Melania Trump story beautifully. Link.

In summary: an instance of plagiarism is the last thing we should be talking about when it comes to the RNC, not with all the Benghazi exaggerations and fear-mongering and Trump worship that's going on.

[Sorry I keep linking to episodes of Secular Talk, but he covers virtually all noteworthy stories in the election season, and his analyses of politics are usually spot on]

 

[Aeroblast]

at the risk of sounding like a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist, I think the little bit of plagiarism was intentionally put there by the writer to put her speech at the media spotlight.

after all, it's not exactly unheard of the trump camp to generate controversy for attention.

 

[Shamol]

Intentional or not, that's everything the sensationalist media is talking about now. No discussion on policy substance.

Thing is, this sort of media sensationalism is bad for everyone. It obviously bothers detractors like myself because the true negatives of the RNC aren't being covered. It's also bad for honest conservatives or republicans, who think their policy discussions should be given a place on the table. With all of this focus on non-issues, no side of the argument gets appropriate hearing.

Jon Stewart said it best- the mainstream news media* doesn't have a liberal or a conservative bias, their bias is towards laziness and sensationalism.

*Fox news is not mainstream media.

 

[Ivysaur]

The thing is, Trump is not running a political campaign, he's running a reality TV campaign. He doesn't have any policy proposals other than building a wall with Mexico and speaking really vaguely about everything so people understand he's saying whatever they believe in already. As Genegerbread exemplified, by being vague you can get people to think "well, of course he's going to do (thing I agree with)" and "well, of course he is not going to do (thing I disagree with)", even when he's talked about both things in equally uncertain terms.

The last thing Trump wants is for the media to focus on his non-existent plans for the future and his weird mix of conservative/populist/centrist views- and the media is obliging. Seriously, between the outlets that were eager to say "Trump is now a normal candidate" and the ones who couldn't wait to splash "Trump is still a clown", nobody is talking policy- just as he likes it.