• 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]

Somewhere_

i don't know where
  • 4,494
    Posts
    9
    Years
    I don't have statistics on hand, but pretty much every media outlet of any kind has said that Trump is pulling in people who beforehand didn't really get involved in politics and that's the kind of thing that people interviewed at Trump rallies say about themselves.

    Claiming you support Clinton because of an unproven "hidden agenda" is not the same thing as supporting Trump for what Trump has said in public. Nor is claiming that your hate group has given her money when you can't prove it. Furthermore, Clinton has apologized for the remarks she has made in the past regarding "super predators" - something that happened 20 years ago - which might still be bad, but it's not as bad as saying Mexicans are rapists just last year. And her support for BLM is not racist unless you think BLM is some kind of racist hate group and even if you believe that BLM is "secretly" a hate group their outward messages are nothing of the kind, compared to the outward messaging you get from actual hate groups.

    Re: violence, Trump has said things at his rallies like black protesters should be roughed up. He was most likely talking about the immediate protesters at the time, but even if that were all it's still pretty bad and the message it sends is that violence is okay. Compare this to the instance when John McCain was running against Obama and some nut at an event said to him that Obama was a Muslim and so on and McCain stopped her right there and said no, he's just a man I happen to disagree with.

    Do I really have to provide sources about the KKK, white supremacists, and neo-nazis being violent?

    And do I have to have statistics about sexism when there are people still supporting Trump after it's come out that he's assaulted multiple women? Everyone dropped Cosby like he was poison after the same thing was revealed about him, but somehow people are sticking with Trump anyway.

    Here's a thing about the hate groups supporting Trump. It includes many links throughout the article backing up the individual points.

    Trump was referencing that illegal immigrants rape, which some actually do. He did not call all Mexicans rapists. Unlike Hillary's comment, which encompassed more people.

    Link to Trump saying black protestors should be roughed up?

    The KKK, white supremacists, and neo-nazis are much smaller in number today, and either disorganized or organized in small areas. For example, there is an all-white town in Florida with a ton of KKK members, but they only reside there.

    The US government also regards these groups as dangerous and watches them. The FBI investigates cases with white supremacy involved.

    So sure, hate groups do support Trump. But will they be violent? Why would they be violent just because he lost an election and not now? They are racially motivated.

    And Trump has allegedly assaulted women. As far as I know, there isn't actually hard evidence. If you want to talk about sexism, what about the time Hillary laughed after she successfully defended a rapist that raped a little girl? And she knew he committed the crime. To be fair, its her job, but its not her job to laugh about it. She hasn't treated Bill's rape victims well either...
    https://www.wnd.com/2016/05/bills-sex-assault-victim-lashes-out-over-hillarys-terrorizing/
    https://www.dailywire.com/news/9585...n-threatened-smeared-or-amanda-prestigiacomo#
     
    Last edited:
  • 322
    Posts
    12
    Years
    • Seen Jun 21, 2018
    I'm not entirely sure Clinton has too many policies that won't suddenly change as soon as she gets in office, but that's just me.

    ....Why, though? Nothing suggests that, and there's no reason for her to do that at all? Unlike Trump, none of her proposed policies are economy destroying or even unfeasible to achieve and she has nothing to gain but the loss of a second term if she did that

    Trump was referencing that illegal immigrants rape, which some actually do. He did not call all Mexicans rapists. Unlike Hillary's comment, which encompassed more people.

    Uh? He said mexico was "sending" it's criminals and rapists, sure "some" are good people according to him but he implied the bulk of (il)legal immigrants are rapists and criminals that mexico is... exiling to the US? Hillary's super predator comments to refer to african american gangs isn't acceptable either but to pretend that Trump didn't mean what he said is a little weird

    Link to Trump saying black protestors should be roughed up?
    Here you go

    The KKK, white supremacists, and neo-nazis are much smaller in number today, and either disorganized or organized in small areas. For example, there is an all-white town in Florida with a ton of KKK members, but they only reside there.

    The US government also regards these groups as dangerous and watches them. The FBI investigates cases with white supremacy involved.

    Is this supposed to downplay their significance or threat? You should note that those three groups are pretty wide in scope and ideals to each other, connected only via racism. The FBI investigating criminal cases with white supremacy involved doesn't really mean there's not a lot of white supremacists, neo-nazis or KKK members (Although you're right that KKK membership is on a constant downward slant)

    So sure, hate groups do support Trump. But will they be violent? Why would they be violent just because he lost an election and not now? They are racially motivated.
    Trump fosters a culture of violence around his campaign, from saying he'd fight joe biden to saying that maybe protests should be assaulted for daring to come to his rallies he puts across an image of overbearing power. Not that it really reflects reality, but still he fosters a violent culture around himself and projects an image of a corrupt system that only he can fix, only he can fix your problems, if hillary gets in it'll be all your worst nightmares ect ect

    A violent uprising or whatever isn't likely, but he's pushing hard to discredit his almost inevitable loss ahead of time

    And Trump has allegedly assaulted women. As far as I know, there isn't actually hard evidence.
    That's... not a very good attitude towards victims of sexual assault, but there's also his current court case against a child who claims he sexually assaulted her at the party of one of Trump's friends, who is a notorious and convicted pedophile.

    If you want to talk about sexism, what about the time Hillary laughed after she successfully defended a rapist that raped a little girl? And she knew he committed the crime. To be fair, its her job, but its not her job to laugh about it.

    You mean that time that it never happened? I'm 99% sure i debunked this claim from you earlier, but it might've been Hands that said it last time
    https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

    It should also be noted that court documents state that the application for the psychiatric evaluation was denied by the courts, so i don't know why the woman is claiming that undergoing said evaluation was an awful event if it never occurred.


    There's not really a lot of actual evidence that Clinton ever personally met with any of the accusers to insult them, there's one who claimed that before she made a claim that Clinton threatened her by saying "Thank you for all the work you've done for bill" or something (Was it his secretary? Someone he worked with) but that's pretty suspect as a threat.

    I think overall if you think that a man bragging about sexual assault, who has a sexual assault court case currently against him from a child, and has several women accusing him of sexual assault has no real evidence against him, using the claim that Hillary might've insulted women that claim her husband sexually assaulted them (that legitimately doesn't have any hard evidence, despite being awful if true) isn't really fair
     

    Somewhere_

    i don't know where
  • 4,494
    Posts
    9
    Years
    Uh? He said mexico was "sending" it's criminals and rapists, sure "some" are good people according to him but he implied the bulk of (il)legal immigrants are rapists and criminals that mexico is... exiling to the US? Hillary's super predator comments to refer to african american gangs isn't acceptable either but to pretend that Trump didn't mean what he said is a little weird


    Here you go



    Is this supposed to downplay their significance or threat? You should note that those three groups are pretty wide in scope and ideals to each other, connected only via racism. The FBI investigating criminal cases with white supremacy involved doesn't really mean there's not a lot of white supremacists, neo-nazis or KKK members (Although you're right that KKK membership is on a constant downward slant)


    Trump fosters a culture of violence around his campaign, from saying he'd fight joe biden to saying that maybe protests should be assaulted for daring to come to his rallies he puts across an image of overbearing power. Not that it really reflects reality, but still he fosters a violent culture around himself and projects an image of a corrupt system that only he can fix, only he can fix your problems, if hillary gets in it'll be all your worst nightmares ect ect

    A violent uprising or whatever isn't likely, but he's pushing hard to discredit his almost inevitable loss ahead of time


    That's... not a very good attitude towards victims of sexual assault, but there's also his current court case against a child who claims he sexually assaulted her at the party of one of Trump's friends, who is a notorious and convicted pedophile.



    You mean that time that it never happened? I'm 99% sure i debunked this claim from you earlier, but it might've been Hands that said it last time
    https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

    It should also be noted that court documents state that the application for the psychiatric evaluation was denied by the courts, so i don't know why the woman is claiming that undergoing said evaluation was an awful event if it never occurred.



    There's not really a lot of actual evidence that Clinton ever personally met with any of the accusers to insult them, there's one who claimed that before she made a claim that Clinton threatened her by saying "Thank you for all the work you've done for bill" or something (Was it his secretary? Someone he worked with) but that's pretty suspect as a threat.

    I think overall if you think that a man bragging about sexual assault, who has a sexual assault court case currently against him from a child, and has several women accusing him of sexual assault has no real evidence against him, using the claim that Hillary might've insulted women that claim her husband sexually assaulted them (that legitimately doesn't have any hard evidence, despite being awful if true) isn't really fair

    Im not downplaying the KKK. Im saying their violent tendencies will not increase with Trump losing the election. Which I'm 100% sure he will.

    "That's... not a very good attitude towards victims of sexual assault, but there's also his current court case against a child who claims he sexually assaulted her at the party of one of Trump's friends, who is a notorious and convicted pedophile."

    I am changing my opinion. I previously believed Trump was not sexist (I believe I was wrong), but now I do believe he is sexist.

    I dont recall you or Hands debunking my point there, but I do have a tendency to open notifications with intentions to reply later, and forget.

    So i did some quick fact checking on Trump's statements on Mexicans:
    77% of women are raped leaving Mexico. Though much of these are probably by gangs, some by migrants.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...igrant-crime-san-francisco-shooting/30159479/
    Undocumented immigrants do not commit that much more crime than citizens. Though to be fair, Trump did not mention any numbers when he said that. I still think he was talking about illegal immigration and that the quote is not racist.


    "I think overall if you think that a man bragging about sexual assault, who has a sexual assault court case currently against him from a child, and has several women accusing him of sexual assault has no real evidence against him, using the claim that Hillary might've insulted women that claim her husband sexually assaulted them (that legitimately doesn't have any hard evidence, despite being awful if true) isn't really fair."

    Thank you for revealing my double standard. Again, I was wrong.
     
  • 1,136
    Posts
    7
    Years
    I think overall if you think that a man bragging about sexual assault, who has a sexual assault court case currently against him from a child, and has several women accusing him of sexual assault has no real evidence against him, using the claim that Hillary might've insulted women that claim her husband sexually assaulted them (that legitimately doesn't have any hard evidence, despite being awful if true) isn't really fair

    Disclaimer: if there is any issue moderation wise, or due to language for the term 'blowjob' please let me know, and I will edit it accordingly. I'd prefer not to get into trouble or lose an entire post because of this. If there is action needed to correct this, please notify me and I will fix the issue as soon as I am able. Due to the nature of the content, I believe that most of us can behave appropriately and not become vilified or attacked for quoting another person. If there is issue with this specific term, I will fix it, as I don't wish to create rifts between myself and this community. Thank you for your time.

    I had to grab this and see where it went. I believe both sides are equally moronic. Trump said this! Clinton said that! Everyone ignores the simple fact that both parties are under suspicion. Further more, I don't like the "All sexual assault victims should be believed" stance. Some of these women that have come out of the woodwork from years past. Isn't that just a tad suspicious? Just a tiny amount? It's not like it wouldn't have been news back then, right? He had his one reality series, so he was a valid target for them then I would think.

    Until any of this is fully substantiated, I see no reason to accept either side as true, no? There is sio much paper and mud slinging that I wouldn't be surprised if both were true or both were false. I mean, let's look at Bill. As soon as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" dropped, several women stepped up to the plate and said Clinton raped them. Of course, he's not in prison so whether or not he did it it shows that these claims were substantiated. To further nail my point is that both comments are ages old. I voted for Obama, and I regret that. It was years ago, but it's still a regret. I regret getting rid of my Gameboy Advance Micro.

    Trump had this to say about it:
    I've never said I'm a perfect person, nor pretended to be someone that I'm not. I've said and done things I regret, and the words released today on this more than a decade-old video are one of them ... I said it, it was wrong, and I apologize.

    Now, he went on to further state about how this isn't the issue we should be focusing on, and as much as I'd like to sit around and discuss it, he's right. Just like when people were up in arms about Bill having his dick sucked by Lewinsky and lying about it seems like a pretty poor issue to focus time to. I'd rather they had discussed any number of things, like Columbine maybe, or where the hell 10,000 pounds of cocaine came from.

    I can almost guarantee that internet memes have had several cases where "fuck her right in the pussy" has been said on live television, so saying that no one ever says anything like that is a falsity. What's more is that there have been candidates years past where they have been far worse in character. Certain presidents were even known to drink and beat their wives. Just because someone says something doesn't mean that's what they're all about.

    However, I still do not agree that trusting a group of people that think a cartoon frog is racist and say "I want to protect gays" and accept money from gay killing countries is a bright idea.

    Now, before someone goes off on me saying that I love Trump, read a few of my other posts on the subject. "Grab 'em by the Pussy" < Foreign Policy. It's been historically known that candidates plaster words a candidate has said in the past. This is not new, and some candidates previously had said some pretty heinous things. Further more, what's okay and what isn't?

    Is it okay for Madonna to go on stage and say that if you vote for Clinton that she'll "Give you a blowjob ... and I swallow"? I can't make sense of all the two faced talk. Why isn't what she said not a bad thing? Sure she can say whatever she wants but I think it's not okay to constantly go on and on about Trump supporters being violent when you have Clinton supporters behave this way, savvy?

    I can not find a single article from any mainstream media on this, but somehow calling all Trump supporters as racist for utilizing an internet meme. God forbid someone uses Mickey Mouse to... wait. You see, this is the issue I have when it boils down to both sides. I don't like either candidate really, but having one sided coverage on how Trump supporters are 'deplorable', racist, misogynistic, sexist, pigs etc. is not a fair argument. It also ignores the fact that Trump protesters actually violently attack Trump supporters, and I haven't seen it to a same level of degree the other way around. Calling either side as a whole one thing (the individuals) with a blanket term is irresponsible and damaging to journalism. Pepe the frog is not a journalistic subject. Its a frog picture. Just because people draw Micky Mouse or Pooh Bear or Barbie as Nazis, KKK members or otherwise does not constitute as hate symbols.

    Also, CNN is a joke. Reading? Illegal? Not to say that the other side isn't any better.

    In which land has any campaign or bout for the presidency been civilized? Did everyone seemingly forget about Obama's ads against McCain? Roosevelt? Jackson? Bush?

    I wish this race hadn't devolved into free blowjobs, the colour orange and a cartoon frog...


    Edit: Last thing. The behaviour of each candidates should not be a voting point, and they should not hold sway over each candidate themselves long-term.

    #Toast2016
     
    Last edited:
  • 322
    Posts
    12
    Years
    • Seen Jun 21, 2018
    I had to grab this and see where it went. I believe both sides are equally moronic. Trump said this! Clinton said that! Everyone ignores the simple fact that both parties are under suspicion.

    No, they're not. Trump is under actual criminal investigation and continually says abhorrent things directly related to his would-be role as president. Clinton has said things in the past which are pretty iffy but they're not her current behavior ect. There's no equitable stance between the two candidates on issues like this "Trump is literally racist, runs on racist policy" is not equitable to "Clinton said something racist she has since apologised for".

    "Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women" is not equal to "Clinton may or may not have been cold to women who claimed her husband sexually assaulted them". Your attempts at holding middle ground don't hold water when faced with Trump who has near nothing going for him to make him equal to clinton, and just about every way he's bad is far removed from any way clinton may similarly be bad.

    No one is denying neither is great but it is abundantly clear that the racist guy with no idea how to run a country and policies which are undeniably bad for the economy and country at large is the worse candidate and not at all equitable with clinton's failings

    Further more, I don't like the "All sexual assault victims should be believed" stance. Some of these women that have come out of the woodwork from years past. Isn't that just a tad suspicious? Just a tiny amount? It's not like it wouldn't have been news back then, right? He had his one reality series, so he was a valid target for them then I would think.

    A valid target? That's not at all a good way of thinking about sexual assault victims but alright.
    You don't see the problems someone who's been groped and assaulted by a rich, popular and powerful man might face with conciliating what's happened and revealing that information to authorities? Something that can be difficult under the most cut and dry circumstances muddied even further by the status, wealth and power of the perpetrator?

    Now how much does that decrease, or seem like it'd make it easier, if it was suddenly revealed that this man had bragged about doing the things he'd done to you? Claiming he'd done them to other women? And then other women start revealing their stories too... It's suspicious, i suppose, if you're not looking at it from the angle of what a victim of assault by a powerful person.

    Until any of this is fully substantiated, I see no reason to accept either side as true, no? There is sio much paper and mud slinging that I wouldn't be surprised if both were true or both were false.
    ...Both? Huh, both what? I don't really understand what you're referring to here

    I mean, let's look at Bill. As soon as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" dropped, several women stepped up to the plate and said Clinton raped them. Of course, he's not in prison so whether or not he did it it shows that these claims were substantiated.
    "Substantiating" claims of sexual assault after the fact are incredibly difficult considering the nature of the crime, physical evidence has a very short (24h?) timeframe in which it's collectable and considering the perceived stigma then and now of sexual assault often by the time it's reported it can be too late, and it becomes a he said, she said (Or he said, he said/she said she said) sort of deal that's very difficult to discover the truth in

    To further nail my point is that both comments are ages old. I voted for Obama, and I regret that. It was years ago, but it's still a regret. I regret getting rid of my Gameboy Advance Micro.

    I... don't really get what this has to do with anything, but i'm vaguely curious of why you regret voting for Obama when he's done a lot of great things for America, more so than i can see either of his two republican opponents having done and very little that can be legitimately held against him

    Now, he went on to further state about how this isn't the issue we should be focusing on, and as much as I'd like to sit around and discuss it, he's right.

    How is the man who wants to be president discussing that he likes to do sex crimes not something that should be discussed? What?! Man, I know Obama said he wanted to eradicate all avian lifeforms and is constantly shooting down birds but really we shouldn't discuss that i mean he's running for PRESIDENT , am i right? His own personal views, actions and opinions don't matter in this debate, yeah?

    Just like when people were up in arms about Bill having his dick sucked by Lewinsky and lying about it seems like a pretty poor issue to focus time to. I'd rather they had discussed any number of things, like Columbine maybe, or where the hell 10,000 pounds of cocaine came from.

    I can almost guarantee that internet memes have had several cases where "**** her right in the *****" has been said on live television, so saying that no one ever says anything like that is a falsity. What's more is that there have been candidates years past where they have been far worse in character. Certain presidents were even known to drink and beat their wives. Just because someone says something doesn't mean that's what they're all about.

    I am at a real loss to understand what this actually means, a (fake) internet meme where a man yells something obscene at a fake reporter... means that people often brag about sexual assault, and that means it's ok?
    Just because other presidents have beaten their wives that means it's ok because it's "better" than that?? Uh?

    However, I still do not agree that trusting a group of people that think a cartoon frog is racist and say "I want to protect gays" and accept money from gay killing countries is a bright idea.

    No one thinks Pepe is racist, just that it's been appropriated by a racist subculture which... is actually true, at least now, and formally acknowledged by the creator of the frog turned meme. The thing about accepting money from countries that persecute gay people is... weird at best. As if taking money to give to a charity from a country for something completely separate from equality activism for doing a job somehow means it's fine what they're doing? While they're still condemned for it?

    I'd wager trusting the person supported by said racists who appropriated a frog, has a horribly homophobic running mate who advocates equivalent torture for gay people and runs on a platform of repealing rights for said people all while lying near constantly and having poor policies and plans is the "less bright" decision


    Now, before someone goes off on me saying that I love Trump, read a few of my other posts on the subject. "Grab 'em by the *****" < Foreign Policy. It's been historically known that candidates plaster words a candidate has said in the past. This is not new, and some candidates previously had said some pretty heinous things. Further more, what's okay and what isn't?

    Is it okay for Madonna to go on stage and say that if you vote for Clinton that she'll "Give you a blowjob ... and I swallow"? I can't make sense of all the two faced talk. Why isn't what she said not a bad thing? Sure she can say whatever she wants but I think it's not okay to constantly go on and on about Trump supporters being violent when you have Clinton supporters behave this way, savvy?

    Ah yes.... an elderly man bragging about sexual assault is EXACTLY the same as a joke from a woman about her own sexuality completely seperate from the campaign of the person they support... sure... giant double standard there, you've got me good on this.

    and....????????????????? is all i have to say when you equate actual violence against erotic jokes, as if somehow they're "equally bad"

    I can not find a single article from any mainstream media on this, but somehow calling all Trump supporters as racist for utilizing an internet meme. God forbid someone uses Mickey Mouse to... wait. You see, this is the issue I have when it boils down to both sides. I don't like either candidate really, but having one sided coverage on how Trump supporters are 'deplorable', racist, misogynistic, sexist, pigs etc. is not a fair argument.

    No one is calling Trump's supporters racist for using a frog meme, they're pointing out that racist people who appropriated a frog meme support him. There is no one sided coverage when Trump has supporters who are all those things, and he himself are all those things, and he advocates for those things both in policy and in speeches.

    It also ignores the fact that Trump protesters actually violently attack Trump supporters, and I haven't seen it to a same level of degree the other way around.

    Can i have a source on this because i've seen nothing but the exact opposite
    https://fusion.net/story/346510/donald-trump-rally-protester-attacked/
    https://www.citizen-times.com/story...woman-punched-asheville-trump-rally/90301468/
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15545...s-attacking-protester-while-chanting-usa-usa/
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGRFEiLBZCE

    Calling either side as a whole one thing (the individuals) with a blanket term is irresponsible and damaging to journalism.
    I'm fairly sure no one is doing this but you, and you're confusing the fact that people are pointing out that said blanket groups unequivocally support trump, not that he is eniterly supported by blanket groups

    Pepe the frog is not a journalistic subject. Its a frog picture. Just because people draw Micky Mouse or Pooh Bear or Barbie as Nazis, KKK members or otherwise does not constitute as hate symbols.

    It does if it becomes widespread and a symbol of said things

    Also, CNN is a joke. Reading? Illegal? Not to say that the other side isn't any better.

    I have no idea what this is referring to at all

    In which land has any campaign or bout for the presidency been civilized? Did everyone seemingly forget about Obama's ads against McCain? Roosevelt? Jackson? Bush?

    So? "My opponent is a criminal and if i become president i will throw them in jail and overrule the decision that they weren't a criminal. Also if i don't become president it's because it's rigged"

    Has nothing historical to relate to because they're unprecedented attacks

    I wish this race hadn't devolved into free blowjobs, the colour orange and a cartoon frog...

    I mean it hasn't, those are things that were referenced but are not at all related to the campaigns at large


    Edit: Last thing. The behaviour of each candidates should not be a voting point, and they should not hold sway over each candidate themselves long-term.

    YES THEY SHOULD

    I have no idea how you think democracy should work but the behaviour of the people who're trying to become the leader of a country do matter, so much. I can't even comprehend how you could think that it shouldn't.

    Man that Obama sure does loudly proclaim he hates gay people and how when he becomes president he'll do everything in his power to kill them, and he DOES kill a live puppy on stage at each of his rallies, but that doesn't matter, neither does his policy apparently (Which is a thing you've said before for some reason) I guess i've just got to flip a coin to see who I vote for because knowing anything at all about the character, personality or prior behavior of my presidential candidates shouldn't sway my opinion at all!
     
  • 1,136
    Posts
    7
    Years
    Oh boy.
    Spoiler:


    I feel like John Williams should be here.

    Obama:

    Spoiler:


    This is the answer to your question. All of this. So pardon me for not being all warm and fuzzy with Clinton's shoulder rubbing buddy. I don't like Trump, but I certainly detest the previous few presidencies. Saying Clinton will change things for the better is a pipe dream. She's from the same exact cabinet as Obama. I may polarize some people here, but I think we can all agree that things are bad right now. Not 'going to be bad'.

    Due to my strong stance against shoddy politics, I am no longer willing to discuss this issue any further, as it won't end well for me, I'm sure. Clinton is bad enough already and supports a really bad Executive. Trump is just... bad. If either win, I lose. Like I've said from the very beginning. I know Hillary. I know Obama.

    Delving into potential 'what ifs' on Trump don't concern me. There are no 'what ifs' in the current administration. It's like playing a really bad game of Clue and you're trying to find out who dun' it using Monopoly money, the country cards from Risk, playing pieces for Sorry! and the gameboard as Operation and using Trouble for dice. Madness!

    Trying to untangle this mess is no job anyone can ever hope to complete within four years. No amount of racism rhetoric (both candidates are).

    I, personally, believe that Obama is far from being labeled as good president. I feel he has let us down financially and globally. He's made me feel a fool on more than one occasion and it bugs me.

    I made a mistake and more than a few errors in my previous post, if that changes your mind on your parting comments any. Regardless of any mistake or even if it wasn't a mistake, I do not believe it warrants such vehemence or insults to my intelligence, and I don't think I deserve it. The first section of the previous post is not directed at anyone, but more in line with a long rant. If you felt targeted in any way, I do apologize.

    #Toast2020
     
  • 322
    Posts
    12
    Years
    • Seen Jun 21, 2018
    Whoops. I actually dropped the ball on my end edit. Wow, one word means a huge difference, don't it? Supporters, "the behaviour of each candidate's supporters." Dang. It completely changes the entire context of the sentence and I seemingly missed that mark. Rereading it I see a few more typos that I missed. ugh.

    That's way better than i'd assumed, but still the actions/character of supports of a candidate, and the message they preach to reach said supporters are important, when Trump says things that the KKK like to hear there's a definite issue.

    The 'valid target' was in reference to his [Trump] popularity, and a popular and well known figure. Waiting to come forth due to sexual assault is not the best idea of all time. As you said, it is difficult to prove after the fact, however, victims of rape can have scarring that lasts far longer than just 24 hours. Defensive wounds and vaginal or anal tearing can be evident days or even weeks after the fact. Police constantly warn people that if they are victims of a crime, they must immediately seek medical and legal attention.

    Yes, but this doesn't at all equate to seeking either immediately due to social and perceived stigma, or personal trauma. I think claiming that Trump was a "valid target" for... coming out about sexual assaults that occurred at the time they occurred (?) works against you here considering if he was such a "valid target" asking "Isn't it suspicious they didn't do it then?" gives the opposite idea, that if it was such a prime time to make the allegations then and they didn't, why now is they're fabrications?

    The similarities between Bill and Trump is a valid example.

    Bill Clinton is not running for president

    Pending litigation and investigation means absolutely nothing in terms of concrete fact. Just because you suspect someone of wrong doing doesn't mean that this is true or fact. Wouldn't it upset you more if nobody investigated the claims of these women? That's the only other alternative. If someone has a serious claim such as statutory rape leveled against them, it would make perfect sense to open an investigation by asking more than a few questions, no? Police do not dismiss claims out of hand. Once the investigation concludes, that will be the end of it.

    I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean as a response to "Donald trump has been accused of sexual assault by numerous women, and is currently in a court case over sexual assault, AND has bragged openly about committing sexual assault" since it's just saying we should assume innocent until proven guilty

    Considering it works a lot more against your claims against Clinton that i address later rather than against Trump, who has a lot more against him evidence wise in this particular criminal endeavour.

    "My opponent is a criminal and if i become president i will throw them in jail and overrule the decision that they weren't a criminal. Also if i don't become president it's because it's rigged" is not a direct quote.
    You're right, it's two slightly reworded quotes paired into two sentances
    https://www.slate.com/blogs/the_sla...prosecute_hillary_clinton_over_her_email.html
    https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-accept-election-230098

    Supplying weapons to ISIL, receiving monetary donations from Islamic states that actively kill others, incompetence, lies, taking money from wall street, deceit, corruption. All under the banner of the American flag as an elected official to the American people.
    What. I'd like to retread to that whole "without evidence we shouldn't jump to conclusions" ideal you put forward about a legitimate court investigation tied to actual verbal comments and put them here along with the big "citation needed" next to all the claims but the one on taking money from "wall street" (By which i assume the speeches she made for banks that she was paid for? Which doesn't match up with any of the other claims you've made in either severity or... meaningful-ness?)

    I'm.. fairly sure none of those actually happened, and "incompetence" and "lies" are both very broad strokes that i'd wager aren't factually as you've imagined them either, but without proof or specific examples i can't take an actual look at those claims

    As an American, I do not want Clinton to represent me any more than I do Trump. Clinton's track record is a verified Grade F product. Trump has no product, I don't know what to do with that.

    Stop pretending Trump having no political experience means we don't know what he'll do. Stop pretending that his current policies, the vile hatred he spouts, the awful manner of undermining of democracy he's doing and the perpetual lies he spews are just whispers in the wind that shouldn't and don't mean anything for his political aspirations.

    Regardless, I'd say someone who's product isn't that great, but isn't awful is better than purchasing a product but actually receiving nothing as an orange grimace runs off with your money


    Impartiality in the news should be what every journalist strives for, and CNN discredited themselves by stating reading Clinton's leaked emails as an illegal act.
    That's... not bias? That's being wrong, if that's what they actually said



    As before, a few examples of isolated Trump Supporters means next to nothing when you have groups, as in established groups with names, actively organizing protests knowing full well that they can and often do devolve into violence. Throwing firebombs at cops is not a peaceful protest. Smashing car windows is not a peaceful protest. Clinton protesters, particularly the "Bill Clinton is a rapist" ones are beaten. Clinton protesters are not widely organized events as Trump protests. Simple deduction would place more violence with the larger crowds of protesters, no?[/SPOILER]

    No? Simple deduction wouldn't? Could you provide actual sources here because i've provided mine and you've more or less dismissed them all for varying levels of nonsense like "well we don't know who started it". I'm 99% sure none of what you've said there relates at all to anti-trump protests because firebombing police and smashing car windows doesn't sound like it even fits the setting of a political rally.

    "Simple deduction" would assume, as most of the violence is occuring at Trump rallies and the people who're more numerous are Trump supporters, not the trump protesters, that trump supporters would be the ones inciting it, under your mentality


    Obama:

    Spoiler:
    Spoiler:
    This was also something both done before and continued under Obama and something not even related to Obama or his administration, considering the specific law efnorcement things involved.

    But trump's proposed wall building plan and rhetoric is still worse, actually, considering all the problems it'll cause and lack of any actual substance or solution it'll provide


    This is the answer to your question. All of this. So pardon me for not being all warm and fuzzy with Clinton's shoulder rubbing buddy. I don't like Trump, but I certainly detest the previous few presidencies. Saying Clinton will change things for the better is a pipe dream. She's from the same exact cabinet as Obama. I may polarize some people here, but I think we can all agree that things are bad right now. Not 'going to be bad'.

    Why can't it be both? Ignoring that the US is less "bad right now" and "just kind of Ok, not great but not even really bad by any metric" and your options are "more of the same" and "destroy the economy, be racist and roll back social progress" it's a very clear answer


    Due to my strong stance against shoddy politics, I am no longer willing to discuss this issue any further, as it won't end well for me, I'm sure.
    You seem to have a pretty weak stance on Trump's politics for someone claiming to be against shoddy politics, but alright


    Clinton is bad enough already and supports a really bad Executive. Trump is just... bad. If either win, I lose. Like I've said from the very beginning. I know Hillary. I know Obama.

    Not really. If you claim you're "already losing" then it's between continuing to lose, and losing your country.


    Delving into potential 'what ifs' on Trump don't concern me. There are no 'what ifs' in the current administration. It's like playing a really bad game of Clue and you're trying to find out who dun' it using Monopoly money, the country cards from Risk, playing pieces for Sorry! and the gameboard as Operation and using Trouble for dice. Madness!
    I honestly don't get the analogy but the whole point of presidential hopefuls is looking at their merits on their what ifs. There's also very little "what ifs" being presented in this thread about Trump, it's all what he's currently saying and doing and what he says he'll say and do- not what if scenarios about it


    Trying to untangle this mess is no job anyone can ever hope to complete within four years. No amount of racism rhetoric (both candidates are).
    I think you cut yourself off here but yet again no, they are not equally racist that's unequivocally false


    I, personally, believe that Obama is far from being labeled as good president. I feel he has let us down financially and globally. He's made me feel a fool on more than one occasion and it bugs me.

    I'd say "that's not hard" but it'd be rude and unnecessary, you seem to lay the blame at Obama's feet for a collage of different things he doesn't have anything to do with, succeeded at more than you think, and tried to do but was stopped by forces outside his control.

    Not to say Obama hasn't done anything wrong ever, but from the eyes of an outsider and the research i've done it seems like Obama has been a good president and at the very least advanced social progress enough that he's going to be remembered fondly historically


    I made a mistake and more than a few errors in my previous post, if that changes your mind on your parting comments any. Regardless of any mistake or even if it wasn't a mistake, I do not believe it warrants such vehemence or insults to my intelligence, and I don't think I deserve it. The first section of the previous post is not directed at anyone, but more in line with a long rant. If you felt targeted in any way, I do apologize.

    #Toast2020

    I don't think i've insulted you before beyond being baffled or annoyed by things but if i have then I apologise.

    I don't really get the toast thing though
     

    User19sq

    Guest
  • 0
    Posts
    Ugh, I'm sick of hearing about Clinton's emails! All it ever is it's just a bunch of "conversations with someone with classified info", which we all knew from the get-go that these emails are just that!

    Unless one of these emails of hers tops Trump's new title of Surprise Gynecologist, then I don't wanna hear it. This is just news filler, at this point...
     

    Somewhere_

    i don't know where
  • 4,494
    Posts
    9
    Years
    Those emails are pretty damn important. What she did was illegal, and if not, displays a massive character flaw. They reveal how much she lies.

    And the FBI are investigating because, well she may have broken the law. This news story isn't filler.

    Even if there isn't anything and (probably not), this is very typical of Hillary. It reminds me of her having a public and private position, which she said in a speech to Wall Street. Sneaky stuff.
     

    User19sq

    Guest
  • 0
    Posts
    Those emails are pretty damn important. What she did was illegal, and if not, displays a massive character flaw. They reveal how much she lies.

    And the FBI are investigating because, well she may have broken the law. This news story isn't filler.

    Even if there isn't anything and (probably not), this is very typical of Hillary. It reminds me of her having a public and private position, which she said in a speech to Wall Street. Sneaky stuff.

    All people holding office should have a public and private position. Just because a president disagrees on a certain bill while most-if-not-all of the citizens support it, doesn't mean the president shouldn't sign it into law. That's what congress was set up for. Not always a good thing, but still relevant.

    I'm not defending Clinton on the use of a private server. If anything, multiple sources cite the idea that she didn't destroy her evidence well enough, because the data in them could still be retrieved by prying eyes. But ultimately, my point is: the authorities are handling it. If she's truly guilty, and gets incarcerated because of it, then I'll care. But until then, allow me to set up the forthcoming scenario on this:

    "This just in: a new batch of emails from Hilary Clinton's server were released by the FBI, this time showing that she had spoken/taken donations from/gotten into contact with someone that probably doesn't pose a threat to our national security. We'll be back next week to repeat this mantra."
     

    Somewhere_

    i don't know where
  • 4,494
    Posts
    9
    Years
    All people holding office should have a public and private position. Just because a president disagrees on a certain bill while most-if-not-all of the citizens support it, doesn't mean the president shouldn't sign it into law. That's what congress was set up for. Not always a good thing, but still relevant.

    There is a difference between respecting the will of the majority and having a public and private position. This was in a speech to Wall Street, which I dont believe I have to explain why the context of her quote makes it so bad. It means she may appease her donors and not her voters.
     

    User19sq

    Guest
  • 0
    Posts
    There is a difference between respecting the will of the majority and having a public and private position. This was in a speech to Wall Street, which I dont believe I have to explain why the context of her quote makes it so bad. It means she may appease her donors and not her voters.

    Keyword being "may". If she enters office, then what? Appease the people who've contributed to her campaign and not the issues brought up by everyone else?

    I don't trust her entirely either, as most of us don't, but looking at some of her plans, namely her economic plans, she seems to go against the haves; with experts in the field claiming that her plan would bring down the debt by a bit over ten years, compared to her competition's plans, which would sink our debt lower, according to those people. Correct me if I'm wrong, but reducing our debt is quite the interest of the voters, and not just special interests. Granted, it ain't perfect, but it'll work better than the other alternative.
     

    Somewhere_

    i don't know where
  • 4,494
    Posts
    9
    Years
    Keyword being "may". If she enters office, then what? Appease the people who've contributed to her campaign and not the issues brought up by everyone else?

    I don't trust her entirely either, as most of us don't, but looking at some of her plans, namely her economic plans, she seems to go against the haves; with experts in the field claiming that her plan would bring down the debt by a bit over ten years, compared to her competition's plans, which would sink our debt lower, according to those people. Correct me if I'm wrong, but reducing our debt is quite the interest of the voters, and not just special interests. Granted, it ain't perfect, but it'll work better than the other alternative.

    I dont think reducing the debt really matters much to the special interests because it doesnt impact them. And it doesnt hurt them.

    She is hiking taxes to reduce the debt, which will decrease long-term productivity and government revenue. So long term, it does not do much of a dent in the debt. And she isn't proposing any spending cuts as far as I am aware of.

    Although her plan for decreasing the national debt is FAR better than Trump's if that is the only thing you look at.

    I would argue deep-down voters dont care about the debt. They care about their pocket books.
     
  • 322
    Posts
    12
    Years
    • Seen Jun 21, 2018
    It should be noted that these new emails aren't from her private server and they're just determining if they had classified information in them or not, I'm pretty sure regardless of the classification they're not going to change what they recommend justice-wise
     
  • 27,761
    Posts
    14
    Years
    James Comey is just bluffing. It seems now that the tables are turning on him, especially since several sources are now accusing him of interfering with the presidential election, 11 days before the finale.
     

    Ivysaur

    Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
  • 21,082
    Posts
    17
    Years
    According to Newsweek, the whole issue is that one of her aides had a State Dept. account and a private email account on Clinton's server, and since the SD's mail was so bad, she'd forward SD emails to her private Clinton email to be able to print them.

    That's the whole "scandal". My bet? People who have already decided Clinton is worse than Satan will take this as just another nail in the coffin; people who support her and already decided that the email thing was a lot of ado about nothing will just grow angry at the FBI for appearing partisan by bringing this load of nothing exactly with 11 days to go. If there is a movement in polls, it'll probably be marginal.
     
  • 10,769
    Posts
    15
    Years
    It's bad either way. Some people will hear there's a new email thing and go "Okay, that does it. I can't vote for Clinton." Even though they don't know about the contents or context. And if they don't think that, a lot will think "Look how dysfunctional / corrupt / petty government is."
     

    Ivysaur

    Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
  • 21,082
    Posts
    17
    Years
    I'm at the point at which I have hit maximum saturation. I can't handle another week of this. I want it to be Tuesday. And I'm worried because talking about this kinda is my job. Help.
     
    Back
    Top