• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]

Hands

I was saying Boo-urns
1,901
Posts
7
Years
    • Age 33
    • Seen today
    I dunno, Hands. The ugly truth about being a lawyer is that you're probably going to be hired to defend people you don't like. Murders? Kidnappers? Are you going to lose your job just because you don't like the case or the person, or are you going to do what you were hired to do in the first place? What she said wasn't pretty and I don't agree with it, but for christ's sake, she was a defense attourney, that's the kind of stuff you'd expect from a defense attourney.

    You said you're not critizing her for doing her job, but you criticize her for doing her job, anyway... ? Harsh rhetoric falls squarely within the norm of being a lawyer, I don't see what's unusual, there.

    They were two separate statements really. My statement about quitting if it was me was about lawyers on a whole, not specifically Clinton. Sorry for any confusion.

    There's nothing unusual about the horrible things she said in the trial, that's not my complaint. My complaint is she made the statement that all victims should be believed despite her destroying the words of a child she knew was telling the truth about being raped. Then, instead of standing up and explaining herself, apologizing for the whole mess, offering to do more to ensure no one else had to face what she put that poor kid through she just ran away from it in typical Clinton fashion and deleted the statement from her website. Clinton is incapable of taking any, any responsibility for her actions and words, whenever something comes up she can't explain away with her patented "I misspoke" line or a bizarre lie, she simply pretends it didn't happen or tries to delete it. These are not qualities of a world leader.
     

    Hands

    I was saying Boo-urns
    1,901
    Posts
    7
    Years
    • Age 33
    • Seen today
    I don't get it. Again, you said you aren't criticizing her for doing her job, but you go on and critize her for doing her job anyway as you said here:



    She was doing her job as a lawyer. It wasn't a pleasant job, but not everything about being a lawyer is full of roses and sunflowers. The harsh rhetoric in regards of Clinton claiming that the child was fantacizing was literally a part of her job to try and disprove the child's claims, being, y'know Taylor's defense attorney. Plus, if you read the link that I provided, you would find out:





    And that was that. Honestly, it makes me sick to my stomach to try and explain this, and I could only imagine how Clinton herself felt. Thinking that she's some heartless soul for doing what she was hired to do is not really the right way to go about with it, even if it was majorly disagreeable to the masses.

    I am criticizing her for making that statement after deliberately destroying the credibility of a legitimate rape claim of a twelve year old, I'm not criticizing her simply for doing her job. I'm not really sure how I could be any clearer. What this is like is if I went out fox hunting with my boss because he pressured me into it, then said "NO ONE SHOULD EVER HUNT FOR SPORT OR FUN, EVER" and then when someone inevitably says "Hands didn't you go fox hunting a while back?" and instead of me saying "well yeah, but I wasn't comfortable with it and I really regret doing it. I'm sorry" I just simply delete the post and pretend it never happened.
     

    CoffeeDrink

    GET WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD
    1,250
    Posts
    10
    Years
  • Like a wall.
    Not that I think that'd ever actually be allowed to happen, but it speaks volumes to his credibility.

    I would like a further explanation. Further more how, if possible, would the executive pass through checks and balances without anyone speaking up about it? Regardless, who ever said walls don't keep people out is lying. There really is no concrete proof that, hypothetically, if a wall was introduced that it would not have any affect on illegal immigration.

    Whoever said walls gone keep people out... I would have sincerely enjoyed watching them try to sneak past the Berlin Wall.

    A wall, to me, would be a long term investment. And it would be infinitely cheaper than the failed F-35 project (I nailed that thing right out the gate. Ultimately inferior to the F-22). It'd be cheaper than bailing out car companies anyway. To accurately state "a wall is useless" you need to look at actual border traffic from differing countries and lay down a plan. You don't just go build a wall. You look at how it will function, rules, laws, instances, scenarios and you tie these all together in a little bow.

    So, how would someone effectively go about reducing the amount of illegal aliens jumping a fence? Talk to Mexico? Have them change their laws? Our laws? What?

    Also, how does saying you want to build a wall worse than wanting to let anyone and everyone in, without the hassle of going "hey, how are you? Are you a felon?" Speak about credibility? Letting as many refugees into the country like that without a planned checking system is mental. Even Bono said himself, and he's supposed to be the help all be all guy. Not to mention we found out she had even more emails than was initially thought. So what about Clinton's credibility? In this race I thought credibility was halfway out the door and limited to what you could nail down. To me, a business a seat of power for your own gain than using your business to do so. You might think the opposite, but we come from different perspectives.
     

    Ivysaur

    Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
    21,082
    Posts
    17
    Years
  • I would like a further explanation. Further more how, if possible, would the executive pass through checks and balances without anyone speaking up about it? Regardless, who ever said walls don't keep people out is lying. There really is no concrete proof that, hypothetically, if a wall was introduced that it would not have any affect on illegal immigration.

    Whoever said walls gone keep people out... I would have sincerely enjoyed watching them try to sneak past the Berlin Wall.

    A wall, to me, would be a long term investment. And it would be infinitely cheaper than the failed F-35 project (I nailed that thing right out the gate. Ultimately inferior to the F-22). It'd be cheaper than bailing out car companies anyway. To accurately state "a wall is useless" you need to look at actual border traffic from differing countries and lay down a plan. You don't just go build a wall. You look at how it will function, rules, laws, instances, scenarios and you tie these all together in a little bow.

    So, how would someone effectively go about reducing the amount of illegal aliens jumping a fence? Talk to Mexico? Have them change their laws? Our laws? What?

    Also, how does saying you want to build a wall worse than wanting to let anyone and everyone in, without the hassle of going "hey, how are you? Are you a felon?" Speak about credibility? Letting as many refugees into the country like that without a planned checking system is mental. Even Bono said himself, and he's supposed to be the help all be all guy. Not to mention we found out she had even more emails than was initially thought. So what about Clinton's credibility? In this race I thought credibility was halfway out the door and limited to what you could nail down. To me, a business a seat of power for your own gain than using your business to do so. You might think the opposite, but we come from different perspectives.

    I know! I know the answer to that one! Building a wall would be mostly pointless (and certainly not value for money) because...

    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.
     

    FreakyLocz14

    Conservative Patriot
    3,498
    Posts
    14
    Years
    • Seen Aug 29, 2018
    I'm undecided between Gary Johnson and writing in a protest vote. I'm a libertarian Republican and as such feel Johnson and Weld are terrible libertarians.
     

    CoffeeDrink

    GET WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD
    1,250
    Posts
    10
    Years
  • You failed to mention that the DOJ itself is looking to appeal against the Obama administration's DAPA and DACA initiative, due to the majority of the states disagree with the DAPA/DACA, which negates legal or illegal status.

    Again, immigration is still an issue according to 26 states in the union. I also stated that a wall would potentially be cheaper than dumping billions into a worthless plane project, a project that the Obama administration wisely cancelled, after they determined the thing was a money sink. So frivolous purchases? I call waiting six years to cancel something frivolous. Besides, there are several things that need to be rewritten in regards to immigration laws.

    My question still remains unanswered. How does a wall not keep someone out? What other items besides a wall would be fielded? How will someone go beyond the checks and balances?

    People keep bringing up the wall and that's about it. Now, I'm not saying that the wall will be built, but I am saying immigration as a whole needs to be reworked and Clinton seems to be vehemently against such a thing.

    I still say throwing cash at failures a waste of money (not gonna bring up cars or banks again). And again, given the scenario, there isn't a like thing. So whether it would work or not is still up for debate. And again, a wall would be deemed as a long term project and investment. Results wouldn't show for at least a few years. I don't know why I should even have to argue that point...

    Despite what you may believe, a wall just doesn't 'happen' and it goes through many challenges to even be realised just like any other major project.

    It might not even happen anyway, so shouting about walls seems silly. I'm for immigration reform, wall or no. Clinton is not.
     

    Hands

    I was saying Boo-urns
    1,901
    Posts
    7
    Years
    • Age 33
    • Seen today
    Whoever said walls gone keep people out... I would have sincerely enjoyed watching them try to sneak past the Berlin Wall.

    There's a fairly big logistical difference between running a wall through one city and running a wall across an entire border with another country. On top of that, people often managed to "jump the wall" back into West Berlin. Walls do not really work.
     

    Nah

    15,949
    Posts
    10
    Years
    • Age 31
    • she/her, they/them
    • Seen today
    I think an issue with The Wall of Trump, regardless of its cost and/or effectiveness, is the message it sends to other countries. What would this make them think of the US? I doubt anything positive. Especially when the last time a wall was made to separate people/divide a place was the Berlin Wall and it's not like people were terribly fond of that one.
     

    CoffeeDrink

    GET WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD
    1,250
    Posts
    10
    Years
  • Not necessarily true. The Israeli people placed a wall recently. Walls are meant to divide, so by the very nature of the thing it's doing what it's supposed to. Not to mention all the prison constructs around the world to prevent from prisoners getting out and people getting in without direct means.

    I still argue for reform, but not necessarily in the form of a wall. Again, it may or may not happen despite fears and seems to be one of the biggest issues for some regardless whether or not such a thing will come to pass.

    Also, border barriers are not really a new thing. There are at least 20 walls in current use and more being built. The Indo-Bangladeshi wall is anti immigration in purpose and about as large as US' proposed wall. The China-Korea wall is under construction as I type this. We know that NK is pretty oppressive and refuses to let people go so what would be the purpose of that wall (they list it as anti-illegal immigration)? Walls aren't new and there are real world examples of walls just as long as what has been proposed, some are under construction and others have been proposed.
     
    25,540
    Posts
    12
    Years
  • Not necessarily true. The Israeli people placed a wall recently. Walls are meant to divide, so by the very nature of the thing it's doing what it's supposed to. Not to mention all the prison constructs around the world to prevent from prisoners getting out and people getting in without direct means.

    I still argue for reform, but not necessarily in the form of a wall. Again, it may or may not happen despite fears and seems to be one of the biggest issues for some regardless whether or not such a thing will come to pass.

    Also, border barriers are not really a new thing. There are at least 20 walls in current use and more being built. The Indo-Bangladeshi wall is anti immigration in purpose and about as large as US' proposed wall. The China-Korea wall is under construction as I type this. We know that NK is pretty oppressive and refuses to let people go so what would be the purpose of that wall (they list it as anti-illegal immigration)? Walls aren't new and there are real world examples of walls just as long as what has been proposed, some are under construction and others have been proposed.

    Ivysaur can probably provide a few better sources but a bit of quick googling gave me this. Whilst some of this evidence is certainly anecdotal, I don't think the US needs to make it any harder to get in if even half of it is true.

    https://www.quora.com/How-hard-is-it-to-legally-immigrate-into-the-USA
    http://www.investopedia.com/article...4/5-hardest-countries-getting-citizenship.asp
    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-10-24/legal-immigration-usa/50895150/1
    http://www.davidbreston.com/blog/2015/10/is-it-hard-to-immigrate-to-the-us/
    http://reason.com/assets/db/07cf533ddb1d06350cf1ddb5942ef5ad.jpg

    Aside from that, common sense says that if you want less illegal immigrants from Mexico then you need laxer immigration laws. The best way to stop anyone from jumping the border is to stop making it an enormous financial burden and time-consuming task. Then people will do the paperwork and come in legally instead of resorting to the extreme.

    You might notice that there's a lot of European countries with laxer immigration laws that also have lower crime rates too, so don't try that argument either. Especially with Canada next door.

    Personally, I agree that stringent immigration control is important. But I dislike how a lot of countries go about it.
     

    Somewhere_

    i don't know where
    4,494
    Posts
    8
    Years
  • I would like to add that many of the Alternative-Right and those advocating for a wall want the wall to not just to prevent illegal immigration. Like gimmiepie pointed out, if this was the case, then they would want it easier to become a US citizen.

    They want to prevent illegal immigration because of who is illegally immigrating. They dont want these people, legal or illegal, unless they will fully assimilate to the culture, language, and be productive with a job by adding to the economy. To Trump, the wall is a cultural barrier, not a political barrier (at least according to many of his supporters. If not the case, then the supporters advocate this, and regardless of the purpose, it achieves the same thing).

    In short, to them it is a cultural issue more than it is a safety issue (within the context of Mexico and South American immigration).
     
    322
    Posts
    12
    Years
    • Seen Jun 21, 2018
    It should also be noted that illegal immigration into the US is at it's lowest in years and only decreasing, so rhetoric about that should be taken only with that knowledge in mind.
    Also, while pence did win the debate it should be noted it was through unabashed lying and denial about things more than presenting coherent arguments- he came off looking more "electable" but at the expense of the truth. I would not call him more electable than Trump considering his own frightening history of awful anti-LGBT rhetoric and generally regressive behaviour towards any and all social progress. (I.e, supporting abhorrent "conversion therapy", singing anti-abortion laws that require burial or cremation (Basically a funeral) for aborted or miscarriaged fetuses, systematically defunded planned parenthood and caused an AIDS epidemic in his state due to it being the biggest supplier of testing and care for AIDS patients and publicly said he'd rather put money towards conversion therapy than to preventative measures for the AIDS epidemic he personally caused)

    A candidate who's own website said all rape victims have the right to be believed despite her calling the legitimate reported rape of Kathy Shelton (12 at the time of the attack) the fantasy of a young girl who "sought out" older men, A twelve year old girl.

    The discussion of this seems to be over, but it should be noted that this isn't at all true Clinton at no stage said this, it's a mishmash of things said by other people during the trial. Clinton did request a psychiatric evaluation of the victim on advice from a child psychologist who said part of that, but she didn't agree or say so herself.

    Source: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/
    (Snopes needs to be used a lot more around here for fact check purposes imo)
     
    Last edited:

    Ivysaur

    Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
    21,082
    Posts
    17
    Years
  • On the subject of presidential candidates who worked as attorneys defending criminals because it was their damn freaking job -and the 6th Amendment guarantees that any suspect has the right to have a defence attorney regardless of how bad the charges are-, Slate brings up this gem:

    When James Madison proposed a Bill of Rights to shore up the new Constitution's protection of individual rights, he included a right-to-counsel clause in his earliest drafts. The clause enjoyed nearly universal support at ratifying conventions, since the colonists had suffered under the old English rules barring many defendants from assistance of counsel. Indeed, a majority of colonies already guaranteed the right to an attorney before the Sixth Amendment was even ratified. Moreover, for much of American history, defending vilified clients was seen as an honorable, even noble calling. John Jay and Alexander Hamilton represented universally deplored defendants without apology. So did Abraham Lincoln, who defended several notorious murders. Lincoln, in fact, defended an accused murderer just a year before he was elected president. His client got acquitted.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...e_gop_is_done_defending_the_constitution.html
     
    10,769
    Posts
    14
    Years
  • I would like to add my personal experience with people who are immigrants to the US which is that they're generally very hard-working people. It takes a lot to move to another country. (Money, bravery, etc.) I see a big parallel to people who want to adopt children. They both have to go through a lot of extra effort and be subjected to a lot more scrutiny for something that other people take for granted.

    If anything, wanting immigrants to assimilate is in some small way asking them to take what they've worked hard for for granted.
     

    CoffeeDrink

    GET WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD
    1,250
    Posts
    10
    Years
  • Spoiler:

    What does everyone think about the US accusing Russia of tampering with the election? I think it's a tad... embarrassing.
     

    Somewhere_

    i don't know where
    4,494
    Posts
    8
    Years
  • http://www.u.arizona.edu/~jag/POL596A/Putnam-Immigration-Lecture.pdf

    Just going to leave this here. The above study demonstrates how immigration produces a decline in social trust. I do not know if social trust relates entirely to crime. However, I believe it is relevant to the discussion about the virtues of immigration.

    It also reveals that immigration has long term benefits, such as creativity leading to innovation and economic success. I would like to inject my own opinion here that this is not an argument for open borders, but more of an argument for select immigration.
     
    322
    Posts
    12
    Years
    • Seen Jun 21, 2018
    http://www.u.arizona.edu/~jag/POL596A/Putnam-Immigration-Lecture.pdf

    Just going to leave this here. The above study demonstrates how immigration produces a decline in social trust. I do not know if social trust relates entirely to crime. However, I believe it is relevant to the discussion about the virtues of immigration.

    Not really, what you've linked to is an article about how immigration can/does lead to different immigrated ethnic groups gathering together geographically and socially, for example a decrease in communal activity ect. Crime has nothing to do with it.

    From there, the study in question has a very low sample size for studying something with such a wide variety of issues/factors involved (30,000 people in the US, to be exact) filling in personal feelings as the information gathered. As with all social studies, it's very difficult to quantify those, especially in a context with a smaller sample size than what would be necessary to totally understand every faucet of the issue. (Not to mention the issues that would come with trying to get a sample population representative of enough to get accurate readings for those factors)

    It also reveals that immigration has long term benefits, such as creativity leading to innovation and economic success. I would like to inject my own opinion here that this is not an argument for open borders, but more of an argument for select immigration.

    It's not an argument for anything, it's an observation of data converted into speech. "Select Immigration" (At least, from what i can assume that is since it's not a real term i can define), however, would very much mute at least half of those benefits. Specified slots for immigrants will not lead to the melding of differing ideas and concepts that would increase creativity and innovation in the same way current forms of immigration does, and as far as i'm aware the increase economic success would likely not be as large with heavy limitations on immigration intrinsic to that sort of idea (And as such, I don't see any arguments for pure open borders either although it's definitely harder than it should be to emigrate to a lot of big power western countries like the US, UK or Australia)
     
    10,769
    Posts
    14
    Years
  • Wikileaks has leaked some Clinton speech transcripts. Unsurprisingly, they show what everyone pretty much already knew, which is that she's said a lot of flattering things about Wall Street to Wall Street.

    How I wish this could have come out during the primaries.

    And in other news, Trump is dealing with his latest, and perhaps worse, scandal involving some rather crude remark about women that I'm sure you can find for yourselves and I don't need to repeat here.
     

    Ivysaur

    Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
    21,082
    Posts
    17
    Years
  • Scores of Republicans telling Trump to resign without realising that Trump doesn't give a flying blep about the GOP or about "conservatism", and that the only human being he wants to see as president is himself. If outrageous comments were enough to make him quit, he would have never made it to Iowa in the first place. It's kinda sad.

    I'm surprised they -including Pence, looking at reports- did buy their own "I'm supporting him because there is a different Trump in private who is just a normal moderate mainstream conservative" crap and feel now betrayed to find out that there is only one Trump- the one we all knew for years. And if the reports of Wisconsin R voters being angry at Ryan for dumping Trump from his event today are true, it seems that the only ones who did buy into it were the Republican leaders, and no one else. Have fun explaining the 13 million primary voters that the same crap he's been spouting since day 1 is now somehow "unacceptable" and so Pence has to run in his stead.

    The debate is going to break 100 million watchers though. Count on it.
     

    Desert Stream~

    Holy Kipper!
    3,269
    Posts
    8
    Years
    • She/Her
    • Seen Aug 20, 2023
    Yep, trump is doing terrible after the recent events thankfully.
    Even his wife wasn't supporting him until he made that stupid apology!
     
    Back
    Top