The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Deep Discussion (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=39)
-   -   2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins] (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=362353)

GhostTrainer November 2nd, 2016 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9472833)
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.

I have the same feeling as you do, I'm so damn tired of the presidential election and I just can't wait for Tuesday to roll around so we can find out who we're stuck with for the next 4 years. I know I should care more about this election, and I realize it's great importance, but I just can't stomach any of this anymore.

0 November 2nd, 2016 7:40 PM

Not really ^. You'll come to find that the election really didn't matter much, or at least that's what I've found.

gimmepie November 2nd, 2016 9:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9473532)
Not really ^. You'll come to find that the election really didn't matter much, or at least that's what I've found.

All elections are important and considering this an election that has the potential to legitimize xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny and the oppression of the lower classes I'd say that makes it more important than most.

0 November 2nd, 2016 9:26 PM

"All elections are important and considering this an election that has the potential to legitimize xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny and the oppression of the lower classes I'd say that makes it more important than most."

Literally every election in history has had this potential. This one is not special, and people need to stop pretending it is. It is not. Both candidates are awful, and I take a vote of "No confidence" myself. No confidence in either of these politicians to do what is right. Neither are special, and in 5 days, we, in the USA, are stuck.

Sigh.

Aliencommander1245 November 2nd, 2016 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9473626)
Literally every election in history has had this potential. This one is not special, and people need to stop pretending it is. It is not. Both candidates are awful, and I take a vote of "No confidence" myself. No confidence in either of these politicians to do what is right. Neither are special, and in 5 days, we, in the USA, are stuck.

Sigh.

Wholeheartedly disagree, i've seen this "both are equally bad" stuff enough when they're clearly not, voting Trump is near universally the worse option by a huge margin due to his genuinely destructive and horribly poorly thought out policies and plans, unabashedly racist, xenophobic and homophobic platform with declarations to roll back important metrics of social progress and genuinely do a poor job of the position he wants to get into.

This election is special because there's been so many firsts in it, so many unheard of occurrences and unprecedented attacks, claims and undermining of basic democratic principals by Trump.

Say what you want about Clinton being shady, she is to an extent, and she'd probably lose against anyone "mild" but she's got political experience, solid plans and policies in place and... isn't a whiny racist, xenophobic, homophobic elderly man telling the country that if he loses then the system is corrupt, but if he wins it isn't all the while constantly lying and spewing misinformation to his followers.

Nah November 3rd, 2016 5:06 AM

I too wish it'd be election day already. There's not much reason to wait any longer and so we might as well get it started.

And then after the 8th can it just magically be the 18th cuz literally all I've been waiting for for like a month is election day and Sun/Moon's release lol

0 November 3rd, 2016 6:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9473703)
Wholeheartedly disagree, i've seen this "both are equally bad" stuff enough when they're clearly not, voting Trump is near universally the worse option by a huge margin due to his genuinely destructive and horribly poorly thought out policies and plans, unabashedly racist, xenophobic and homophobic platform with declarations to roll back important metrics of social progress and genuinely do a poor job of the position he wants to get into.

This election is special because there's been so many firsts in it, so many unheard of occurrences and unprecedented attacks, claims and undermining of basic democratic principals by Trump.

Say what you want about Clinton being shady, she is to an extent, and she'd probably lose against anyone "mild" but she's got political experience, solid plans and policies in place and... isn't a whiny racist, xenophobic, homophobic elderly man telling the country that if he loses then the system is corrupt, but if he wins it isn't all the while constantly lying and spewing misinformation to his followers.

-1


You literally did not read my post. I never said anything good in either of them, and yet you say I did.


Do you live in the USA? If you don't, then you don't really get what i am saying. Assume they put an option in the voting process of "No confidence". A landslide would vote for this. Everyone I've seen who votes for either of these candidates is just kidding themselves. You think Clinton has plans? Sure, but not for you. This trump has nothing? Sure he does, but again, not for you.


these people are awful choices. I've had a vote of no confidence for a while, and with good reason. I have not seen anyone who cares for this country, or that would act with compassion, or even care about his people. No confidence at all.

Kanzler November 3rd, 2016 7:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9473626)
"All elections are important and considering this an election that has the potential to legitimize xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny and the oppression of the lower classes I'd say that makes it more important than most."

Literally every election in history has had this potential. This one is not special, and people need to stop pretending it is. It is not. Both candidates are awful, and I take a vote of "No confidence" myself. No confidence in either of these politicians to do what is right. Neither are special, and in 5 days, we, in the USA, are stuck.

Sigh.

If you had to rate the previous two elections (Obama vs. McCain and Obama vs. Romney) as well as this current election on a scale of zero to ten about their potential to "legitimize xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny and the oppression of the lower classes", where zero is no further oppression than we already have and ten is people openly wearing white robes in the streets, what would you rate them?

0 November 3rd, 2016 7:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9474063)
If you had to rate the previous two elections (Obama vs. McCain and Obama vs. Romney) as well as this current election on a scale of zero to ten about their potential to "legitimize xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny and the oppression of the lower classes", where zero is no further oppression than we already have and ten is people openly wearing white robes in the streets, what would you rate them?

What do you mean wearing white robes? Purity or something?


Listen, I think it can be worse, but your question isn't valid to me. That is to say, I don't really care what someone's beliefs are if they can get shit done in an ethical way.


Member of the KKK and you treat everyone fairly, while not openly hating on blacks? That is to say, economically or otherwise. Fine.


Putting food on the table is what matters to me regardless of someone's beliefs, as long as they behave ethically. That's why I have no confidence in Trump, because while he might get food on the table, I believe he would try to push his beliefs on me. But Hillary is no better. I don't believe she would do anything good for the system regardless of how pure one perceives her beliefs.

Kanzler November 3rd, 2016 7:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9474102)
Listen, I think it can be worse, but your question isn't valid to me. That is to say, I don't really care what someone's beliefs are if they can get **** done in an ethical way.

That doesn't invalidate my question. It's not asking about whether or not you care about someone's beliefs or whether a candidate could get something done, it's about the extent to which each of the past three elections fanned the flames of xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny, and other forms of hate and contempt. You said that literally every election in history had this potential. I'm asking whether you can distinguish varying degrees or it's literally all the same to you.

White robes = jab at the KKK.

Primarina November 3rd, 2016 8:26 AM

Here's my slightly ranting plug:

This election is definitely a "higher-stakes" for many, especially those who have one or more identities that fall out of line with straight white male. Though, for those who may fit that category, the results of a Trump election may have grave consequences for there lot as well. The reason being, populism and authoritarianism are on the rise internationally.

Trump's style of governance presents us with a black/white vision of morality, whereas Clinton provides a dark grey/light grey vision of morality. That is, Clinton does what she thinks is more correct (50.1%+) She may faulter, in reprehensible ways when it comes to her record on human rights, LGBT rights, black rights, and even women's rights, but she has more or less been a driving force toward a somewhat better quality of life for all. Though, I think she will also be more free to express more slightly progressive stances (as she has lately) with the support behind the socialist-capitalist vision of bernie sanders. As a conservative-progressive, I prefer when we do progress and adopt massive policy changes that we be clear of how this change will impact our political ecosystem.

Clinton has used corruption as the ONLY way to go from middle-class woman in a misogynistic society, to one of the most powerful women by utilizing masculinized strategies. Whereas, Trump had been given his wealth. Literally he just could have let the money ride on the catch-all stock market investment and still make more money than he has now. So, no, he did not earn his wealth, he literally did not even use it to his fullest potential or even middle-ground potential. Clinton's corruption are nothing new or extraordinary to the realm of the political. Certainly, I would have preferred Sanders, but in many ways Clinton could be considered more timely when populism is on the rise, and we need a strong and intelligent leader to help corral the uprising of populist separatists from global collectivism.

Certainly economic globalism has its flaws, but I like to think that pokemon for instance is a sign of sharing culture through the globalist economy in a manner we would have otherwise not had. Eventually, YES, I want to see progressive changes to make the game of economics more fair, and adopt and incorporate more and more libertarian-socialist changes. Libertarian-socialism is basically allowing individuals to the right to form associations freely, and as such, establish collectivist policy in which individuals agree to limit their individual freedoms on their own terms to then establish collective freedoms. Of course, this process is gradual, and is happening within certain microcosms of cosmopolitan cities. However, populist movements like Brexit are squandering the interactivity and sharing of culture in cosmopolitan settings. If you look at the voting results of Brexit, Londoners decisively voted it down because it takes away their livelihood of living in a place where diversity in and of itself defines their personal culture.

In fact, the culture of diversity itself is far superior to neoconservatism because we cultivate trust, shared humanist identity, and those two things make us SECURE. Soft-power is the long-run strategy for sercurity and peace. Hard-power is the short-run strategy that makes us feel secure, but leaves us far more vulnerable. Clinton represents someone who can effectively negotiate soft-power; it is a more delicate process of persuation. Trump goes in all-or-nothing and has proven to double-down on what he things is "best" without a game-theoretical understanding of security. He will push a nationalist/populist movement in the US (arguably he already has, and influenced Brexit voters -- remember, the entire world is watching this debate). Trump will 100% make us LESS secure in the long-run provided his goal is to make immigration more difficult, suppress minority expression into the dominant culture, discourage a diversity of travelers to coming to the US, encourage the religious right to dominate those of us who want to live free from oppression (aka, LGBTQ+, women), he will make colorblind policy that will retrograde race relationships and maintain white supremacy, invest in defense rather than the economy/social stimulus, and arguably the short-run, we will be less secure as well.

Clinton is corrupt and not really that inspiring. Okay, we get it. But the choice is not even remotely close. Voting for Trump is a vote against the globalism, freedom, diversity, our country, your family, and yourself. Don't be an idiot. This is not a Romney, McCain, Obama, or a Clinton regime where the stakes are slightly lighter or darker gray. Choosing Trump is dangerously-delusional idealism. If you plan to vote Trump either abstain or vote clinton for your own sake if anything -- I'd like to think voters actually care about minorities and pluralism, but clearly, many do not. Disregarding people domestically or abroad make you as an individual less connected and less secure in within a black/white paradigm of identity and morality. Basically, war-like attitudes are cultivated when we see others as the "enemy" and others see us as the "enemy". Clearly I would rather our interests either be aligned or blurred rather than decisively oppositional - Trumpsters just do not get that they may be ordering up WW3 on a platter to countries that may want more international influence and challenge American hegemony.

Don't vote with your gut. Vote with your mind, be fucking reasonable. Rant over.

0 November 3rd, 2016 9:09 AM

What is this I'm reading from the above posts? Do you people really think gender non-binary crap is real? This is what I was talking about with pushing ideas on others. No, I don't want a candidate who caters to every special snowflake in this country and frankly I think it's getting out of hand. And people who advocate for candidates who push the snowflake agenda really make me laugh. It takes a lot to get me inflamed, but this one really bothers me a lot. Trump pushes racisms and whatever other isms you can name off the top? Then what about Hillary pushing a special snowflake agenda?


Man, am I really annoyed by this.


I am also tired of this same rehashing of arguments, saying how great I think Trump is. I DO NOT ADVOCATE FOR TRUMP, please stop replying to me as if I do. I vote for No confidence, so try disputing that, not things that you imply.


No confidence means I advocate for neither candidate. I have seen both of their flaws, I have compared what they both have had to say, and I vote for neither. But again, if you don't live in this country, this is all just speculation and stuff. You don't have to live with the choice for 4-8 years Kanzler, Ivysaur and any other people outside of the USA, Canada, and Mexico. I know the USA is huge, and everyone is effected, but you guys might have 1/100th of what people living in the country will get.

I've also noticed that the people who primarily vote for Trump or no one are from the USA while those who are on the Hillary side are from countries where this will not have nearly as much impact on you as on us.


Rant over.


Now, to answer your question Kanzler, the presidency doesn't have nearly as much impact as others think. Meaning that even if trump is elected, he cannot suddenly be racist and put people where he may or may not want them to be. The president doesn't have that much power. You'd need to be a dictator like Hitler, and to do so, you'd bed unanimous support of the people. Trump nor Hillary have it.

So, I'd give your scale a 3/10.

Primarina:
Spoiler:

[QUOTE=Primarina;9474128]Here's my slightly ranting plug:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Primarina (Post 9474128)
This election is definitely a "higher-stakes" for many, especially those who have one or more identities that fall out of line with straight white male.

Lol, wut?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Primarina (Post 9474128)
Though, for those who may fit that category, the results of a Trump election may have grave consequences for there lot as well. The reason being, populism and authoritarianism are on the rise internationally.

Wut?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Primarina (Post 9474128)
Trump's style of governance presents us with a black/white vision of morality, whereas Clinton provides a dark grey/light grey vision of morality.

Clinton is a shady snake. Trump is more open, but he is similar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Primarina (Post 9474128)
That is, Clinton does what she thinks is more correct (50.1%+)

Oh, that's great, glad she does what she likes. What is this number?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Primarina (Post 9474128)
She may faulter, in reprehensible ways when it comes to her record on human rights, LGBT rights, black rights, and even women's rights, but she has more or less been a driving force toward a somewhat better quality of life for all.

Clinton. Driving force. Better quality of life. Maximum kek.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Primarina (Post 9474128)
Though, I think she will also be more free to express more slightly progressive stances (as she has lately) with the support behind the socialist-capitalist vision of bernie sanders.

I don't even get this one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Primarina (Post 9474128)
As a conservative-progressive, I prefer when we do progress and adopt massive policy changes that we be clear of how this change will impact our political ecosystem.

I just see big words here. What massive policy changes? What is this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Primarina (Post 9474128)
Clinton has used corruption as the ONLY way to go from middle-class woman in a misogynistic society, to one of the most powerful women by utilizing masculinized strategies.

Lol, wut? "Corruption is ok, as long as you do it like a man and you are a woman." is what I read from this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Primarina (Post 9474128)
Whereas, Trump had been given his wealth. Literally he just could have let the money ride on the catch-all stock market investment and still make more money than he has now.

Ah, this rehashing of people who don't know the stock market. What do you want him to do about this, give up his money and start from scratch? I really don't get this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Primarina (Post 9474128)
So, no, he did not earn his wealth, he literally did not even use it to his fullest potential or even middle-ground potential.

Hmmmm, I though increasing capital from a starting seed and making it grow, by not placing it in the stock market, is actually earning money. What about tech startups? They start with say 100k and make it grow. Would you say they didn't earn it? Again, incoherent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Primarina (Post 9474128)
Clinton's corruption are nothing new or extraordinary to the realm of the political. Certainly, I would have preferred Sanders, but in many ways Clinton could be considered more timely when populism is on the rise, and we need a strong and intelligent leader to help corral the uprising of populist separatists from global collectivism.

Glad Clintons corruption is ok, but Trumps racism is not. I'm sorry, what is this populism? This is just a bunch of big words to me. Sounds heavy and smart, but really looks like ramblings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Primarina (Post 9474128)
Certainly economic globalism has its flaws, but I like to think that pokemon for instance is a sign of sharing culture through the globalist economy in a manner we would have otherwise not had. Eventually, YES, I want to see progressive changes to make the game of economics more fair, and adopt and incorporate more and more libertarian-socialist changes.

Big words and pokemon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Primarina (Post 9474128)
Libertarian-socialism is basically allowing individuals to the right to form associations freely, and as such, establish collectivist policy in which individuals agree to limit their individual freedoms on their own terms to then establish collective freedoms.

Words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Primarina (Post 9474128)
Of course, this process is gradual, and is happening within certain microcosms of cosmopolitan cities. However, populist movements like Brexit are squandering the interactivity and sharing of culture in cosmopolitan settings. If you look at the voting results of Brexit, Londoners decisively voted it down because it takes away their livelihood of living in a place where diversity in and of itself defines their personal culture.

What? They voted FOR brexit...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Primarina (Post 9474128)
In fact, the culture of diversity itself is far superior to neoconservatism because we cultivate trust, shared humanist identity, and those two things make us SECURE.

Just no.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Primarina (Post 9474128)
Trump will 100% make us LESS secure in the long-run provided his goal is to make immigration more difficult, suppress minority expression into the dominant culture, discourage a diversity of travelers to coming to the US, encourage the religious right to dominate those of us who want to live free from oppression (aka, LGBTQ+, women), he will make colorblind policy that will retrograde race relationships and maintain white supremacy, invest in defense rather than the economy/social stimulus, and arguably the short-run, we will be less secure as well.

It is a countries choice to allow people in or not. Not doing so is not racism. More words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Primarina (Post 9474128)
Clinton is corrupt and not really that inspiring. Okay, we get it. But the choice is not even remotely close. Voting for Trump is a vote against the globalism, freedom, diversity, our country, your family, and yourself. Don't be an idiot. This is not a Romney, McCain, Obama, or a Clinton regime where the stakes are slightly lighter or darker gray. Choosing Trump is dangerously-delusional idealism. If you plan to vote Trump either abstain or vote clinton for your own sake if anything -- I'd like to think voters actually care about minorities and pluralism, but clearly, many do not. Disregarding people domestically or abroad make you as an individual less connected and less secure in within a black/white paradigm of identity and morality. Basically, war-like attitudes are cultivated when we see others as the "enemy" and others see us as the "enemy". Clearly I would rather our interests either be aligned or blurred rather than decisively oppositional - Trumpsters just do not get that they may be ordering up WW3 on a platter to countries that may want more international influence and challenge American hegemony.

Don't vote with your gut. Vote with your mind, be fucking reasonable. Rant over.

"Trump is bad. Vote Hillary or go home." Also, Clintons corruption is again A OK, but Trumps personal beliefs are not? Whew lad, I now know where you stand.

Primarina November 3rd, 2016 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9474173)
What is this I'm reading from the above posts? Do you people really think gender non-binary crap is real? This is what I was talking about with pushing ideas on others. No, I don't want a candidate who caters to every special snowflake in this country and frankly I think it's getting out of hand. And people who advocate for candidates who push the snowflake agenda really make me laugh. It takes a lot to get me inflamed, but this one really bothers me a lot. Trump pushes racisms and whatever other isms you can name off the top? Then what about Hillary pushing a special snowflake agenda?


Man, am I really annoyed by this.


I am also tired of this same rehashing of arguments, saying how great I think Trump is. I DO NOT ADVOCATE FOR TRUMP, please stop replying to me as if I do. I vote for No confidence, so try disputing that, not things that you imply.


No confidence means I advocate for neither candidate. I have seen both of their flaws, I have compared what they both have had to say, and I vote for neither. But again, if you don't live in this country, this is all just speculation and stuff. You don't have to live with the choice for 4-8 years Kanzler, Ivysaur and any other people outside of the USA, Canada, and Mexico. I know the USA is huge, and everyone is effected, but you guys might have 1/100th of what people living in the country will get.

I've also noticed that the people who primarily vote for Trump or no one are from the USA while those who are on the Hillary side are from countries where this will not have nearly as much impact on you as on us.


Rant over.


Now, to answer your question Kanzler, the presidency doesn't have nearly as much impact as others think. Meaning that even if trump is elected, he cannot suddenly be racist and put people where he may or may not want them to be. The president doesn't have that much power. You'd need to be a dictator like Hitler, and to do so, you'd bed unanimous support of the people. Trump nor Hillary have it.

So, I'd give your scale a 3/10.
[/SPOILER]

You seem to only value your own worldviews. Provide an argument as to why non-binary identities are, as you put it, "crap" --only then can we have a discussion. This is an anti-intellectual post since it provides zero claims or reasons that are falsifiable/debatable based upon substance (my 'pinion is this). To argue something is "crap" you ought to provide evidence -- without evidence it is an uninformed opinion. When many people come together without informed opinions, we get populism. There is evidence that supports suicide, depression, anxiety, workplace discrimination, among other things that affect non-binary people, you might want to, you know, understand why someone would choose to put themselves through that misery. If you want to swing the whole "mental illness" route, provide evidence. Otherwise, your "opinion" is really not your own. It's rather just affirming the position that you know without actually making an informed choice yourself. Maybe you do not want to be a special snowflake, and would rather reside your faith in others, rather than making your own perspective based upon a plurality of views?

Also, Londoners as a sub-population overwhelmingly voted to remain -not including the UK as a whole, including rural areas disconnected from multiculturalism. I think you assumed since Brexit passed that all constituencies equally voted for it. The whole is not equal to the sum of its part. You might want to work on reading comprehension, since black/white thinking blinds people to nuanced understanding and instead leads them to make false claims.

As for the other claims, they seem to fall under the category of "that's crap", "uh-uh", "no way", "big words", "too confused" or some other anti-intellectual appeal. So, I do not want to put too much work in to going over all the other unsupported and inarticulate claims you have made until you have something of substance for me to respond to.

Also, over 50%, 50.1+%, implies a preponderance of evidence. This is the underlying logic of the majority voting system. When we replicate these voting scenarios we slowly progress, whereas voting in terms of complete overhaul which may impact myself and others very lives implies a choice to change ought to require a greater degree of support to elicit severe change. Thus, why the entire logic of preponderance is geared toward stability rather than radical swings that put our security at risk.

Overall, you are making yourself out to be uninformed and arrogant -- in other words, delusional and reckless, much like Trump.

Esper November 3rd, 2016 11:11 AM

I mean, I get wanting to hold out for something better, but the election happens whether you're involved or not. A vote of no confidence is a vote to let other people make your choices for you. If you live in a heavily red or blue state it may make no difference to the electoral college, but the race is looking close and the popular vote totals could matter.

Trump or Clinton is going to be president and there are differences in their potential presidencies. Let me put it another way. If you're a fan of Bernie Sanders (don't know if you are, just using this as an example) which potential president do you think is going to be more likely to listen to anything he proposes or will be willing to work with him in any capacity? If Bernie isn't your guy, then just ask that question with a different senator or representative or governor or whoever you want. If you care about a certain issue or set of issues, which candidate do you think will be better for those issues, will work with the people supporting the issues you care about? It may be that you don't think either candidate particularly cares for a certain issue, but think about how they would respond if their party or congress pushed for it. That's another area of potential differences.

There's a lot of things you can consider about the two candidates. I'd suggest that there are many more differences than similarities. If you think that there is no difference at all when it comes to all the things you care about then I suggest you dig more into politics, economics, science, diplomacy, and so on because there is a host of things that are affected by who becomes president.

Kanzler November 3rd, 2016 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9474173)
Now, to answer your question Kanzler, the presidency doesn't have nearly as much impact as others think. Meaning that even if trump is elected, he cannot suddenly be racist and put people where he may or may not want them to be. The president doesn't have that much power. You'd need to be a dictator like Hitler, and to do so, you'd bed unanimous support of the people. Trump nor Hillary have it.

So, I'd give your scale a 3/10.

Well, I asked you to rate the past three elections on a scale of 1-10, not to rate my own scale (how meta), but I won't push it further.

Nah November 3rd, 2016 12:27 PM

feel free to make a separate thread for gender things y'all

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9474173)
I am also tired of this same rehashing of arguments, saying how great I think Trump is. I DO NOT ADVOCATE FOR TRUMP, please stop replying to me as if I do. I vote for No confidence, so try disputing that, not things that you imply.

What people are saying is that it's obvious that both candidates are not equally bad. It's not an invalid claim to say both are bad, but one is worse than the other, regardless of what someone thinks of Trump and Hillary.


Quote:

You don't have to live with the choice for 4-8 years Kanzler, Ivysaur and any other people outside of the USA, Canada, and Mexico.

I've also noticed that the people who primarily vote for Trump or no one are from the USA while those who are on the Hillary side are from countries where this will not have nearly as much impact on you as on us.
fun facts: Kanzler is Canadian and I'm an American who's voting for Hillary Clinton this Tuesday.

Kanzler November 3rd, 2016 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nah (Post 9474378)
fun facts: Kanzler is Canadian and I'm an American who's voting for Hillary Clinton this Tuesday.

As exciting as a Trump presidency would be, I'm very concerned about the economy and if the American economy tanks, I might be out of decent job opportunities because I'd be paid by the government and they need good tax dollars from a robust economy. So sorry Trump, my economic well-being is much more important than the excitement and seismic shift in history that President Trump would represent.

Somewhere_ November 3rd, 2016 1:27 PM

If we want to talk about self-interest...

According to the Tax Policy Center and Tax Foundation, a Trump presidency would raise my wages. Although he would significantly increase the national debt. But Ill have to pay off social security and that in the future anyways, so its still in my self-interest to have a Trump presidency.

But I can't even vote, so it doesnt even matter.

0 November 3rd, 2016 2:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9474287)
I mean, I get wanting to hold out for something better, but the election happens whether you're involved or not. A vote of no confidence is a vote to let other people make your choices for you. If you live in a heavily red or blue state it may make no difference to the electoral college, but the race is looking close and the popular vote totals could matter.

Trump or Clinton is going to be president and there are differences in their potential presidencies. Let me put it another way. If you're a fan of Bernie Sanders (don't know if you are, just using this as an example) which potential president do you think is going to be more likely to listen to anything he proposes or will be willing to work with him in any capacity? If Bernie isn't your guy, then just ask that question with a different senator or representative or governor or whoever you want. If you care about a certain issue or set of issues, which candidate do you think will be better for those issues, will work with the people supporting the issues you care about? It may be that you don't think either candidate particularly cares for a certain issue, but think about how they would respond if their party or congress pushed for it. That's another area of potential differences.

There's a lot of things you can consider about the two candidates. I'd suggest that there are many more differences than similarities. If you think that there is no difference at all when it comes to all the things you care about then I suggest you dig more into politics, economics, science, diplomacy, and so on because there is a host of things that are affected by who becomes president.

This was an actual intellectual response, and I appreciate it.

So, to answer, I rethought about the issue. A lot of people say that no vote = a vote for trump/hillary, which never made sense. But you have a point about not voting. However, the reason why I abstain from voting is because I feel the system itself is rotten. View it like a plank of wood, and there is a lot of rot (corruption) in the wood. There is so much so that, while you could sand it this way or that, the wood itself is what's rotten, and you can't really fix that. You'd need new would. That's how I view the two party system, and it's also how I view these candidates. You either have to vote left or right, and there is very little middle ground.

To me, each candidate might have good points and positions and thoughts, but 3 good points out of a few hundred negative ones doesn't sit well with me. Voting for a third party doesn't work, because not enough people will vote. I'm a somewhat private person, and I feel that it's not worth the effort to get registered just to fail. I know, people will say if you never try you won't succeed, but that's how it is.

Unfortunately, there are too many people in the country, and the actual voting process is decided by a few hundred people out of 300+ million. So, it's easy to see why I am taking a stance of no confidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadSheep (Post 9474453)
If we want to talk about self-interest...

According to the Tax Policy Center and Tax Foundation, a Trump presidency would raise my wages. Although he would significantly increase the national debt. But Ill have to pay off social security and that in the future anyways, so its still in my self-interest to have a Trump presidency.

But I can't even vote, so it doesnt even matter.

That's very interesting. Again, I try to stay out of it, but I could really use high wages. What I have is not enough. But to raise the above point again, he has too many negatives that I can't see putting in the effort to register my information and vore. I'd rather just get a better job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9474323)
Well, I asked you to rate the past three elections on a scale of 1-10, not to rate my own scale (how meta), but I won't push it further.

5, 2, 3, 6
Bush, Mccain, Romney, Trump.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nah (Post 9474378)
What people are saying is that it's obvious that both candidates are not equally bad. It's not an invalid claim to say both are bad, but one is worse than the other, regardless of what someone thinks of Trump and Hillary.

fun facts: Kanzler is Canadian and I'm an American who's voting for Hillary Clinton this Tuesday.

Good point to the first part, but even if one is slightly better, it's still not enough. I personally lean more toward Trump, but I don't think he's fit to run the country. But who knows, maybe he is.

I knew that Kanzler was Canadian. I was going to leave it to USA only, but I remembered NATO, and how a presidency could effect it. I know Ivysaur is from Madrid, so it won't effect him nearly as much as you and me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9474408)
As exciting as a Trump presidency would be, I'm very concerned about the economy and if the American economy tanks, I might be out of decent job opportunities because I'd be paid by the government and they need good tax dollars from a robust economy. So sorry Trump, my economic well-being is much more important than the excitement and seismic shift in history that President Trump would represent.

Economy rises and falls. Presidency doesn't have even a 1/10th stake in that.

Though that was part of the reason why I first thought Trump would be an interesting candidate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Primarina (Post 9474231)
Response

I don't really have much to say to this. EDIT: Yes I did :)

To me, non binary roles, genders, or whatever the hell it is is just made up stuff. Don't get me wrong, traditional roles are made up as well, but they worked and have worked for 5000+ years because they are functional and have a purpose. They have worked, and still work, whereas non binary roles seem to me to be useless. They seem to be almost a cry for help, or a product of a society that has lost any form of identity.

I guess the question that I have is: What function do non binary roles provide? Why do you feel the need to make up your own identity/gender? What makes you take them on?

I would also like to make the point that it is extremely difficult to near impossible to provide evidence that can be categorized on the human consciousness, so to ask for evidence as to why non binary roles are an issue is simply not possible. I can't quantify it or write a research paper, hence why I asked the above questions.

As for the rest of it, yes, I was passionate about my points. I could be seen as arrogant, but I am tired of the Hillary camp ignoring things like corruption, of which you described not less then three times, because Trump "hurts my feelings". I personally don't care if he is racist or misogynistic. Those are personal beliefs, and you seem to think that 100+ years of equal rights can suddenly be undone.

Again, he is not Hitler, he doesn't have the populace not the power to make a single law forbidding blacks or women from doing anything. Equal rights has it's leaders, but it's a cultural change, and would need to have a vast majority of the population to reverse, and that is simply not going to happen.

However, corruption on the other hand can and does sway how people live. Think about GMO labeling laws for a second. A few corrupt companies get a few puppets into office and all of a sudden, they are able to block your knowledge of what you eat. I don't know if a tomato has GMO's or not, because it is not a requirement, and labeling is actually stopped. That is what Clinton represents, more corruption and behind doors deals, which do have a impact on my life.

That is again, why I lean more toward Trump, because however racist he might be, he is not a corrupt as Hillary.

Somewhere_ November 3rd, 2016 3:09 PM

According to those same sources, Trump will increase the employment rate. So if you want a non-government job in the US, and believe the projections, vote Trump.

Thats only if its the only issue you care about though. You just have to weigh the positive and negatives, and weigh if you think your personal gain is better than the benefit of everyone.

0 November 3rd, 2016 3:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadSheep (Post 9474587)
According to those same sources, Trump will increase the employment rate. So if you want a non-government job in the US, and believe the projections, vote Trump.

Thats only if its the only issue you care about though. You just have to weigh the positive and negatives, and weigh if you think your personal gain is better than the benefit of everyone.

Exactly. It's not enough for him to just raise wages, certainly not enough to vote for him. But it is a good point.

gimmepie November 3rd, 2016 3:38 PM

I just want to jump in with a couple of quick points.

1. I don't think most of us are saying that Trump is going to be able to turn the US into Fascist Germany single handed, free of any opposition or w/e if he manages to get elected. That's not the problem. The problems here are that

a. He will get some stuff through, because even though the Republicans as a who;e don't like Trump much either, they do have a lot of overlapping policies. With Trump as president life will absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, get harder for minority groups. Civil rights will take a hit.

b. It will cause issues with US foreign diplomacy. Trump is poorly educated, doesn't care who he offends, thinks he knows more about military strategy than he does and is an unabashed racist who is quite happy to let Russia/Putin manipulate US politics. He's making nice with the one large country who hates the US and alienating legions of existing allies. You want a leader that will make you more friendships not lose most of them in exchange for Russia - who will basically be running your country at that point. Not to mention the wars he will inevitably start.

c. Even though Trump will not be able to get every twisted idea he has passed and turn the US into some twisted totalitarian state, if he secures the presidency it does the worst thing it possibly could. It legitimizes his worldview and behaviour. If the president is allowed to be a xenophobic, stupid sexual predator who doesn't care whom he hurts as he shits on lower socio-economic classes then suddenly it becomes perfectly reasonable for the KKK to exist, for police to be prejudiced towards minorities and for homosexuals to be barred from marrying. Trump being elected doesn't necessarily mean it will become legal to go around beating gays or Mexicans to death but it will socially legitimise that behaviour.

2. If you think that the US and your immediate neighbours are the only countries that's going to be effected by the outcome of this election you're extremely detached from the rest of the world. The US is a superpower with a lot of influence, a lot of allies (and a lot of enemies) and a huge economy that has a profound effect on the global economy. If Clinton wins things will remain mostly unchanged internationally. But if Trump wins, global politics will change and as, unlike Trump-style economics, that kind of sudden change and radical leadership for a previously moderate superpower has an enormous trickle-down effect that will make sure that change is dramatic. It might be a US election, but its not just North America that stands to lose a lot from a Trump presidency.

It does not matter that Clinton is inherently flawed as a candidate because both from a domestic and a global standpoint, Trump is not only an objectively far worse candidate but also a dangerous one that would not just have a negative impact on the US as President but on the rest of the world as well.

0 November 3rd, 2016 5:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9474613)
I just want to jump in with a couple of quick points.

1. I don't think most of us are saying that Trump is going to be able to turn the US into Fascist Germany single handed, free of any opposition or w/e if he manages to get elected. That's not the problem. The problems here are that

a. He will get some stuff through, because even though the Republicans as a who;e don't like Trump much either, they do have a lot of overlapping policies. With Trump as president life will absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, get harder for minority groups. Civil rights will take a hit.



I'm truly amazed that you can read the future! Incredible! So that's how it is. Life will automatically be harder absolutely, without the shadow of a doubt for minority groups?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9474613)
b. It will cause issues with US foreign diplomacy. Trump is poorly educated, doesn't care who he offends, thinks he knows more about military strategy than he does and is an unabashed racist who is quite happy to let Russia/Putin manipulate US politics. He's making nice with the one large country who hates the US and alienating legions of existing allies. You want a leader that will make you more friendships not lose most of them in exchange for Russia - who will basically be running your country at that point. Not to mention the wars he will inevitably start.

What will cause issues, a Trump presidency? Trump is poorly educated in what way? Oh, you mean that one other country that also has the firepower to destroy the world hundreds of times over? Yep, bad idea to make friends with the bully, ok. I am again amazed that you know about the war he will inevitably start! How will life be with Hillary???

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9474613)
c. Even though Trump will not be able to get every twisted idea he has passed and turn the US into some twisted totalitarian state, if he secures the presidency it does the worst thing it possibly could. It legitimizes his worldview and behaviour. If the president is allowed to be a xenophobic, stupid sexual predator who doesn't care whom he hurts as he shits on lower socio-economic classes then suddenly it becomes perfectly reasonable for the KKK to exist, for police to be prejudiced towards minorities and for homosexuals to be barred from marrying. Trump being elected doesn't necessarily mean it will become legal to go around beating gays or Mexicans to death but it will socially legitimise that behaviour.

I love how everyone think Trump is so twisted and evil, and they just brush off Hillary like she isn't twisted herself. Like seriously, lmao here.

But again, your future reading powers really must come in handy. I mean, one mans world view is suddenly reflected on his entire population of over 300 + million right off the bat? That's really incredible, I almost can't believe it.

Xenophobic - deep-rooted fear towards foreigners. Interesting, so all the deals and friendships he has made with blacks doesn't count? Becoming friends with Russia doesn't count?

"stupid sexual predator" What is the meaning of this? The accusations and such? I don't think he has even been convicted of such a thing, but maybe you have evidence to the contrary?

Most of the founding fathers had slaves, that didn't suddenly legitimize their worldview or make slavery cool. Same here. Trump simply becoming president doesn't taint the presidency, even if you are racist. Again, his views are all talk, and aside from your future readings, you have no evidence that Trump can reverse 150 years of civil rights.

I find the KKK existing perfectly reasonable, as long as they don't start hanging blacks or beating them. Again, your world views are one thing, your actions are another. They are not equal. Having homicidal thoughts doesn't make you a murderer. Having suicidal thoughts doesn't mean you've killed yourself. Thoughts != Actions.

Police being prejudiced has literally nothing to do with Trump becoming president. Nothing.

Gay marriage should be a community matter, and people have allowed the federal government to control this. Seriously though, Trump here again?

Lol, how does Trump becoming president = legitimizing beating gay people? lmao, what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9474613)
2. If you think that the US and your immediate neighbours are the only countries that's going to be effected by the outcome of this election you're extremely detached from the rest of the world. The US is a superpower with a lot of influence, a lot of allies (and a lot of enemies) and a huge economy that has a profound effect on the global economy. If Clinton wins things will remain mostly unchanged internationally. But if Trump wins, global politics will change and as, unlike Trump-style economics, that kind of sudden change and radical leadership for a previously moderate superpower has an enormous trickle-down effect that will make sure that change is dramatic. It might be a US election, but its not just North America that stands to lose a lot from a Trump presidency.

I am not understanding how you arrived at me believing that. So, to clear the record, what I said was that countries, like Australia, Spain, etc are effected by the presidency, as the USA is a world super power. However, you are all not nearly effected as much as say me or Nah. We have to live with whoever wins, under their direct rule, so while you all are looking mostly at foreign policy, I am looking at domestic policy, as frankly, that matters to me more then what the USA does in other countries. You have your own rulers/governments, who provide the infrastructure for you to work, get health care, and find jobs so you can eat, where as we in the USA are directly effected by who wins. And it's not looking too good either way.

As Badsheep mentioned above, a higher minimum wage is significant to us in the USA, but not nearly as much as someone in Australia. Hell, you probably skipped over that, but what it means that I can put better food on the table for me and my family. While Hillary prances about playing with our allies (I know the importance of this), I'm sitting here looking for another damn job because my current one doesn't pay enough, because companies here are allow to pay scraps. So, in this respect, Trump represents a better candidate to me.

Don't think I don't know that a higher minimum wage would be short term. But this is what directly effects me, while it doesn't affect you. If I had to pick, Trump seems to be more for me then Hillary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9474613)
It does not matter that Clinton is inherently flawed as a candidate because both from a domestic and a global standpoint, Trump is not only an objectively far worse candidate but also a dangerous one that would not just have a negative impact on the US as President but on the rest of the world as well.

I am getting extremely sick of hearing this one rehashed for the 100th time. "Clinton is flawed, but that doesn't matter because Trump is a meanie who says mean things which hurt my feelings." Like you literally are putting Clinton in a blind spot while Trump gets the negative limelight.

I see few to no Hillary supporters going "Well, these are Hillary's flaws, these are Trump's flaws, this is why I choose Hillary over Trump." This is exactly what I've done, except I've either take a no confidence stance, or a Trump stance like now.

What is most every Hillary supporter on this thread doing? "THESE ARE TRUMPS FLAWS!!! What, Hillary has flaws? (brush under the table) WELL TRUMP IS WASIST!!!!!!!!!! Hillary and some emails? Oh, that's nothing compared to TRUMPS MISOGYNISTIC ATTITUDE!"

Come on, be real. I accept the fact that Trump is a racist. I accept the fact that he'd probably make the country worse if he wins. But I have to accept that second fact with Hillary too. I've had to accept it with at least the past two presidents, and it seems it will be a third.

But I've seen both of their flaws, and I think Trump is better. His attitude might be rude or offensive, but I'd rather have a loudmouth who can be stopped then a quiet sneak who hides in the shadows.

It was fun playing devils advocate, as again, I vote no confidence. But you can now see that I vote Trump over Clinton. So, go for it.

Somewhere_ November 3rd, 2016 5:31 PM

While I do not think Trump will trample on civil rights (cause he can't), he will place judges in the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Both Trump and Pence have an interest in doing so.

If you believe abortion is an essential right for women, that right will most likely take a hit. The effects of such would be huge. Gimmepie definitely has a valid point here.

I wont even cover the rest of the post because I would rather engage in a fruitful discussion about Clinton and Trump's policies than a petty debate on their obvious and aggregious personality and character flaws. We (and Americans around the states and around the world) have discussed them for far a year and it has gotten nowhere. Neither side is winning this debate because both candidates are so bad. We get it: Trump, KKK, Clinton, emails, etc etc etc etc. It only displays the pitiful situation American politics is in right now and does not produce a healthy discussion. At this point, I am getting quite tired of it.

Gimme brought up foreign policy, which is very important. Especially following the Iran deal and issues with ISIS. How about we talk about this?

gimmepie November 3rd, 2016 6:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9474750)
I'm truly amazed that you can read the future! Incredible! So that's how it is. Life will automatically be harder absolutely, without the shadow of a doubt for minority groups?

You don't have to have supernatural powers to understand that electing a president who has no respect for minority groups/women is going to make life worse for those people.


Quote:

What will cause issues, a Trump presidency? Trump is poorly educated in what way? Oh, you mean that one other country that also has the firepower to destroy the world hundreds of times over? Yep, bad idea to make friends with the bully, ok. I am again amazed that you know about the war he will inevitably start! How will life be with Hillary???
Trump is poorly educated in the sense that he has next to no political knowledge, routinely spouts "facts" that are completely untrue (and seems to believe that him saying things with no research done in the matter suddenly makes them true) and had exactly no idea how an economy works.

If you think the kind of "alliance" Trump would form with Russia is going to be in any way equitable you're deluded. It would very much be Russia calling the shots - basically a superpower with another superpower as a puppet. That's going to spell bad news for global politics, it's going to create a power imbalance and it probably means all kinds of horrible shit is going to go down in the Middle East under the guise of targeting ISIS (what will actually be happening is Russia strengthening their own power).

Life with Hillary will probably be exactly the same as it is now. She's extremely similar to Obama and like Obama will probably have most of the good things she intends to do blocked by the Republicans (who will then claim the Democrats are the ones obstructing things).


Quote:

I love how everyone think Trump is so twisted and evil, and they just brush off Hillary like she isn't twisted herself. Like seriously, lmao here.
I love how you keep mistaking logical deductions as Hillary favourtism. I'm not saying that Hillary is a flawless candidate - although she's shitloads better than some people in this thread have made out. She did some really stupid stuff with those emails, she's a little more friendly with corporations than I'd like, she's made mistakes in the past but she is not even in the same ballpark as Trump. Hillary is a competent politician with the correct expertise and experience to run your country. Trump is a racist, misogynistic businessman with no prior experience in politics, the temperament of a primary school bully and next to no actual policies who doesn't even handle his own money effectively or ethically. Both candidates have told lies and both have done some shady shit but to even imply that Hillary is anywhere near as bad as Trump is a complete fallacy.

Quote:

But again, your future reading powers really must come in handy. I mean, one mans world view is suddenly reflected on his entire population of over 300 + million right off the bat? That's really incredible, I almost can't believe it.
Again, I don't have to be able to read the future to make logical deductions. There is already a great deal of hyper-conservative people in the US. It was very clear that I was not saying the entire populations views are going to magically change depending on the results of the elections, but there's already a lot of people in the US with the same ridiculous viewpoints as Trump and having him in power very much sends the message that racism, ignorance, misogyny and all those other wonderful traits rampant in hyper-conservative culture are all perfectly okay. It sends the message that devaluing anyone who isn't a male in the majority demographic(s) is perfectly reasonable behaviour (it's not).

Quote:

Xenophobic - deep-rooted fear towards foreigners. Interesting, so all the deals and friendships he has made with blacks doesn't count? Becoming friends with Russia doesn't count?
Suggesting black people in the US can be considered foreigners when the vast majority of black families have been in the US since the 1800s is ridiculous and considering the way he thinks of Central America, Asia, Africa and the Middle East wanting to make friends with another primarily white country that also has a conservative agenda and tendency toward discriminating against minority groups really doesn't cut it no.

Quote:

"stupid sexual predator" What is the meaning of this? The accusations and such? I don't think he has even been convicted of such a thing, but maybe you have evidence to the contrary?
At this point I think if you need evidence that Trump is not particularly intelligent you should just check out his Twitter or listen to him talk. Did you know that the person who wrote Trumps book on business strategies for him considers it one of his greatest mistakes that he made Trump sounds almost reasonable?

As for him being a sexual predator, I believe you heard those tapes correct? That is irrefutable evidence that at least one point in his life Trump has inappropriately touched women without their consent. Don't give me that "locker room bragging" bullshit either, there's no proof of at all to suggest he was making anything up or exaggerating and plenty to the contrary - including numerous claims of sexual assault from all across the US and other misogynistic comments.

There's also been charges filed against him (twice now as a clerical error lead to the plaintiff having to refile in a different state) implicating him in the sexual assault and/or rape of minors. Now, I agree that this is a shaky point to make. The accuser is very poor and waited a very long time to file charges. She could easily be doing this for money or fame. However, she also implicated a convicted paedophile who Trump is good friends with and has spoken highly of, has her story corroborated by a woman who was apparently paid to manipulate young girls into coming to parties said friend and Trump both attended and Trumps own attitude towards women and indisputable ideas about how women should look and act don't really help his case.

Quote:

Most of the founding fathers had slaves, that didn't suddenly legitimize their worldview or make slavery cool. Same here. Trump simply becoming president doesn't taint the presidency, even if you are racist. Again, his views are all talk, and aside from your future readings, you have no evidence that Trump can reverse 150 years of civil rights.
It doesn't now but it sure as hell did at the time. If early presidents had been speaking out against slavery and denouncing the slave trade, it would have added a lot of legitimacy to the anti-slavery view and would probably have resulted in slavery being abolished long before Lincoln. Unfortunately though, the majority of people in the US at the time were racist and politicians were no exception to that rule. But yes, it doesn't make it okay now but back then US leaders being pro-slavery definitely added legitimacy to slave ownership and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

His views aren't all talk, they can and do effect his actions and there's no evidence to suggest that will change if he secures the presidency. His beliefs and his actions are intimately related and you're wearing rose-coloured glasses if you think his getting elected will suddenly make him a decent human being.

Trump's not going to overturn 150 years of civil rights and I didn't say he would. He has however made it abundantly clear that he intends to overturn the legalization of gay marriage which will be a huge step backwards for civil rights. You can argue all you want about him "only returning the decision to the states" but that's with him knowing full well that there's a lot of highly-religious, ultra-conservative states that will proceed to ban it once more. It's also ignoring that states shouldn't have that kind of power anyway which is a whole different kettle of fish.

Trump has also made it pretty damn clear that he doesn't think particularly highly of immigrants or Muslims. He's implied numerous times that he wants to ban Islamic religious attire, he's happy to split up families and separate legal children from illegal parents, wants to make it even harder to immigrate to the US legally (even though it's already extremely difficult to do so) and he constantly implies that illegal immigrants are all rapist and drug mules even though most of them are running away from that kind of criminal activity. This is not just his own messed-up perspective on the world this is his policy.

Quote:

I find the KKK existing perfectly reasonable, as long as they don't start hanging blacks or beating them. Again, your world views are one thing, your actions are another. They are not equal. Having homicidal thoughts doesn't make you a murderer. Having suicidal thoughts doesn't mean you've killed yourself. Thoughts != Actions.
You also think that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are equally as bad as one another despite all evidence to the contrary, you're hardly displaying the best judgement so it doesn't at all surprise me that you find the existence of a group that exists specifically to hate minority groups is okay.

Thoughts don't always equal actions, but the things is people with homicidal thoughts are a lot more likely to commit murder. People with suicidal thoughts are a lot more likely to kill themselves. Thoughts might not necessarily equal actions outright but there is a pretty strong correlation between the two. That's why people who believe in their own racial superiority, who hate minority groups and who spout discriminatory rhetoric are a lot more likely to actually engage in behaviour that negatively effects the people they hate.

Quote:

Police being prejudiced has literally nothing to do with Trump becoming president. Nothing.
Him being president won't change their views one way or the other no, it will just legitimize them. I've already explained how this works.

Quote:

Gay marriage should be a community matter, and people have allowed the federal government to control this. Seriously though, Trump here again?
Civil rights should absolutely not be a community matter. Ever. It should absolutely be the federal government making that call. The states in the US have far, far too much power and that's a big part of why you have such a convoluted legal system over there. Not to mention all consenting, legal adults should have the ability to marry - maybe not religiously but the ability to enter into a legitimate fully recognized marriage should be there.

This "give the power back to the states" rhetoric is usually just homophobes making any excuse to see gay marriage overturned but more importantly is also just a fundamentally stupid idea.

Quote:

Lol, how does Trump becoming president = legitimizing beating gay people? lmao, what?
Socially legitimate =/= legal. It might not make gay bashing legal and Trump himself might not be anti-gay (although I'm pretty damn sure he is) but Trump is very much perceived as anti-gay so him being in power automatically gives social credibility to those people whether we like it or not. It's ludicrous, but it's how society works.

Quote:

I am not understanding how you arrived at me believing that. So, to clear the record, what I said was that countries, like Australia, Spain, etc are effected by the presidency, as the USA is a world super power. However, you are all not nearly effected as much as say me or Nah. We have to live with whoever wins, under their direct rule, so while you all are looking mostly at foreign policy, I am looking at domestic policy, as frankly, that matters to me more then what the USA does in other countries. You have your own rulers/governments, who provide the infrastructure for you to work, get health care, and find jobs so you can eat, where as we in the USA are directly effected by who wins. And it's not looking too good either way.
I didn't intend to imply it would effect everyone equally. I just want to make it clear that it will have a noticeable global effect. I would argue though that whilst it might be the American election it will probably have a bigger effect on the middle east than anywhere else.

Quote:

As Badsheep mentioned above, a higher minimum wage is significant to us in the USA, but not nearly as much as someone in Australia. Hell, you probably skipped over that, but what it means that I can put better food on the table for me and my family. While Hillary prances about playing with our allies (I know the importance of this), I'm sitting here looking for another damn job because my current one doesn't pay enough, because companies here are allow to pay scraps. So, in this respect, Trump represents a better candidate to me.
If you think that Donald Trump - or the vast majority of conservative candidates actually - are ever going to improve things for the working class, you've got another thing coming. Trump's policies benefit one group of people - rich, white men.

Quote:

Don't think I don't know that a higher minimum wage would be short term. But this is what directly effects me, while it doesn't affect you. If I had to pick, Trump seems to be more for me then Hillary.
I actually haven't heard that Trump intends to raise the minimum wage. I'm very curious how he plans on doing that whilst simultaneously destroying your economy since a weak economy means lower wages. Not that Trump actually cares so long as rich people are taxed less.

I'm not entirely sure how Hillary stands on minimum wage either to be completely fair, but I do know that her policies benefit the lower socio-economic classes a lot more than Trumps do. Trump is going to make welfare payments harder to obtain, he's going to make affordable health care and insurance harder to obtain and he's going to make your economy much weaker which means raising the minimum wage will be borderline impossible. He's also completely against renewable energy which means lots of jobs that could be created won't be. Hillary is basically the opposite of that, which is a good thing.

As a side note, you shouldn't be basing your vote off of one issue.


Quote:

I am getting extremely sick of hearing this one rehashed for the 100th time. "Clinton is flawed, but that doesn't matter because Trump is a meanie who says mean things which hurt my feelings." Like you literally are putting Clinton in a blind spot while Trump gets the negative limelight.
It has nothing to do with Trump "hurting feelings". Trump winning the election isn't just going to make a few people sad it's going to set social progress back several years, tt's going to make the rich richer and poor poorer, it's going to hurt foreign relations and have a definitely negative impact on the entire globe and it's also going to ruin your economy whilst he's at it. Oh, he's also going to let Putin run your country. He doesn't have the right temperament to lead a country, has bad business skills, is a sexual predator most-likely, he's a racist and misogynist and has exactly no redeeming traits at all except his apparently going to somehow raise minimum wage and create jobs even though doing that in a weak economy is basically impossible.

Comparatively, Hillary is a bit too friendly with corporate backers (this is a bad thing to base the vote on because anything that benefits the corporations also benefits Trump), she screwed up with some emails once and armed insurgents without forethought in the middle east a few years back. But unlike Trump, she's also got plenty of redeeming qualities. She's not going to set social progress backwards, she's not going to let a foreign nation run the show, she's not going to allow that same nation to completely take control of the middle east, she's going to strengthen the economy and promote green energy, she's planning to invest in education and make it easier to attain a higher degree of education, she's going to raise taxes on the rich which means less money will have to come out of the pocket of the poor and she's going to make it easier to attain healthcare and insurance. This is all on top of having actual political experience, plenty of positive achievements in her track record and a demeanour that's actually befitting a world leader.

Quote:

I see few to no Hillary supporters going "Well, these are Hillary's flaws, these are Trump's flaws, this is why I choose Hillary over Trump." This is exactly what I've done, except I've either take a no confidence stance, or a Trump stance like now.
You say that but I've seen several times over that being done. Alien does it frequently, Hands does it frequently and I literally just did exactly that in the paragraph prior to this one. The problem isn't that you're not seeing anyone mention Hillary's flaws it's that you're not happy with the conclusion we're drawing - Hillary has less flaws than Trump does.

I also love how you keep claiming to take a no confidence stance but then go on to not only support him subtly but also openly admit to taking a pro-trump stance in your last post.

Quote:

What is most every Hillary supporter on this thread doing? "THESE ARE TRUMPS FLAWS!!! What, Hillary has flaws? (brush under the table) WELL TRUMP IS WASIST!!!!!!!!!! Hillary and some emails? Oh, that's nothing compared to TRUMPS MISOGYNISTIC ATTITUDE!"
Nobody is brushing Clinton's faults under the table. I just listed several and so have other people. She's just a better candidate and has less faults. Also, I love how you're implying that racism and misogyny are somehow okay for a president and that those are trumps only flaws even though he'll be an economic and foreign relations disaster.

Quote:

Come on, be real. I accept the fact that Trump is a racist. I accept the fact that he'd probably make the country worse if he wins. But I have to accept that second fact with Hillary too. I've had to accept it with at least the past two presidents, and it seems it will be a third.
Okay, you're never going to hear me say that George W. Bush didn't make your country worse because he was god awful and probably the only President in your history who could be worse than Trump. Even Reagan wasn't that bad and from my understanding he was pretty terrible. However this constant implication from Trump supporters (can we stop pretending you aren't one now?) that Obama was a bad president is ridiculous. He inherited a huge mess from his predecessor and actually cleaned it up quite well, he's improved civil rights in your country and has advocated for better health policy. The problem is that he was also blocked constantly by a party full of conservatives who don't really care about any of those things. He in no way made your country worse and certainly not to the extend that Bush did or that Trump would. Hillary is much the same and I'd take stagnancy over a downward spiral any day if it was up to me.

Quote:

But I've seen both of their flaws, and I think Trump is better. His attitude might be rude or offensive, but I'd rather have a loudmouth who can be stopped then a quiet sneak who hides in the shadows.
Actually you've downplayed several of Trumps flaws and completely ignored his awful economic and foreign policies whilst simultaneously not making any actual case at all against Clinton. That's hardly taking an unbiased look at both their flaws and making a comparison.

So what you're saying is you'd rather a lunatic with no morals who has no has no political experience, who is openly racist, homophobic and misogynistic, who will destroy what's left of your economy and ruin your foreign relations so long as he is open about being an asshole? Not to mention that you're also ignoring all of Trumps illegal and/or shady dealings including sexual assault, abusing illegal immigrant workers and tax evasion. Hell, he won't even release his tax returns (Clinton has).

You prefer that to an actual politician who knows what they're doing, has a demeanour actually suitable for a head of state, won't set social progress back by years, won't ruin the economy just to benefit people who are already rich and who won't totally screw up our country's global reputation and relationships... because she actually acts like a politician.

I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're at least being logical but you're not. You've actually given no reason at all for your dislike of Clinton other than her being "a snake" which is not only just you giving in to campaign rhetoric with no real evidence against her besides the email incident (for which all charges have been dropped I'm fairly sure) but is also a better way of describing her opponent.

Quote:

It was fun playing devils advocate, as again, I vote no confidence. But you can now see that I vote Trump over Clinton. So, go for it.
You weren't playing devils advocate. You were very clearly taking a pro-Trump position without ever actually giving either candidate real critiques. Saying you don't support either and that you're just playing devils advocate doesn't make it true. Kind of like how Trump claiming he doesn't discriminate doesn't make it true. You're a Trump supporter. At least own up to it if you're going to defend him and take a stance against Clinton - evidence be damned.

0 November 3rd, 2016 7:18 PM

^ funny enough, after reading your post above, I think I support Hillary a bit more then trump now.


The points you made above, especially the downward spiral made sense. See, I hoped trump would set things back a bit so that a lot of people would wake up and question "What has our nation become." That's the message I take from make America great again.


However, on further reflection, I realize that no one would wake up, and that he could possibly set the ball rolling much quicker then Clinton ever could for the collapse of the nation.


However, I truly take the side of No Confidence. I understand that Clinton might be a better candidate, but she is still corrupt. In fact, it seems there is corruption that extends pretty deep in this country.


I don't think it can be healed to be honest. The country will fall, but I now get that it is inevitable. Every single nation has fallen in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.


Since this country is on such a decline, I can see I failing in the next 75 years. It is very interesting to realize that one is in such a situation, although I hope it doesn't get too bad.


I've always wondered how Rome fell and the answer was, "It got too big." It is the same here.


Thanks mate for the chat.




As for Badsheep, I found both foreign policies unique in their own ways. Clinton has actual political experience and is well equipped to handle many diplomatic situations, where as it seems Trump has a more business/negotiation type approach, which can be interesting to see. Clinton has some failures, but so does Trump, and it will be interesting to see how the winner handles foreign and domestic issues.

Aliencommander1245 November 3rd, 2016 9:09 PM

Rome didn't fall because it was "too big" it fell because of a wide variety of social, economic and diplomatic problems without any single cause and equating empires of antiquety with modern globalised nations really just doesn't... work? What would a modern country like the US "failing" even mean? I've seen a lot of nihilistic views like that and i honestly don't get anything about it beyond that people have a vague sense of dread that life will suddenly fall apart in some unknown and unseeable way.


The foreign policy of Trump being.... "Business/negations" kind of ignores both his own ability and what he's actually lain out. I'd actually say negotiation fits more with diplomacy than it does with a buisiness approach, which simply cannot work as the foundation for inter-country interaction. While he claims "i'm a successful business man, i can renegotiate all our alliances to be better for the US" he really can't. He doesn't have the negotiation skills and he doesn't understand how foreign policy even works? Claiming that he'll make countries pay to have US army bases in them ignores both the point of having them there and their purpose, claiming vaguely that he'll "renegotiate trade deals" means near nothing nor is it likely that he could even get anything better than is already there- with it more likely that it'll be worse off.

Shaking up old alliances for no functional purpose, or for a purpose that goes against the point of said alliances simply won't work. A man who claims that the US should've taken the middle east's oil as "payment" for their involvement and thinks it was an awful, stupid decision not to steal the resources of sovereign nations for no reason can hardly be thought to have any great negotion skills, not even mentioning his clear lack of understanding of what's politically "good" to make "better" through negotiation

0 November 3rd, 2016 9:53 PM

You can't even give the man a single good point? Like really, he asked what I thought of their approach to foreign matters, and I still think Trump would be pretty good at negotiating deals and such.


We've had a president who was an actor, and he didn't do quite so bad. I'm sure that being a business man would help in negotiations. He does have a multibillion dollar empire(?) after all so you can give him some credit. After reading around, I
candidates approach was good enough, with Hillarys being better due to her past experience. That is all on that matter that I'd like to discuss, as I'm not advocating for one or the other. Both have different flavors of foreign policy.


As for Rome, when I say it got too big, I meant in the context of being a huge empire that spanned quite a length that would inevitably have issues which would lead to it's decline. Social, economic, etc were all implied by that to reclairify.


My view is not nihilistic. I don't think the US will be the same thing however. When Rome fell, you had a split in the empire. It wasn't that Rome suddenly was destroyed. But the Rome that had existed prior was gone, replaced by the Byzantines the scholars and the barbarians (?) who didn't view knowledge as important.


I can see something like how after world war I and II, the maps had been changed quite significantly from even 50 years prior. The theory I have is that the USA would split into smaller sub nations. A more modern example would be Britian and the British empire. The empire did fall, but it wasn't like Britain was destroyed. But there was a redrawing of the entire world map, with nations becoming independent of British control. Same here except, again, the USA would be redrawn into smaller portions.


The economy would tank, however, as USA currency would be invalid, being based on the federal reserve system, and not physical gold or silver or other precious metals. What country would use bills from another country that doesn't have any backing? It would be just paper at that point.


This is all just theory, as I cannot see into the future, but it is based on past events and visualizations. But don't be fooled, the USA as everyone knows it will cease to exist, be it 75 years or 300. I say that also based on past history. If I'd like to go further, it is completely possible that globalization as we know it fails, replaced with some other system. As you said, there are unique circumstances here that simply didn't exist in classical times. But using the past can help with painting the future.


What I know for certain is that any nation that has had huge amounts of corruption has failed, and the USA is not some exception to the rule. The way the system is set up, one can see that it is eventually doomed to failure.


OK point finished!

Aliencommander1245 November 3rd, 2016 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9475026)
You can't even give the man a single good point? Like really, he asked what I thought of their approach to foreign matters, and I still think Trump would be pretty good at negotiating deals and such.

And my question is why, when he very clearly has expressed that he isn't and wouldn't be? Not to mention the whole concept of a business negotiation being one completely different to an inter-country one, but that aside- when he's repeatedly expressed himself as not capable of neither understanding how to negotiate in a political sense nor that he'll try to change them in a good way- how can you say you think he will, and why?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9475026)
We've had a president who was an actor, and he didn't do quite so bad. I'm sure that being a business man would help in negotiations. He does have a multibillion dollar empire(?) after all so you can give him some credit.

Not much credit can be given when he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and founded his empire on the financial support of many millions of dollars in actual exchanged money and bailouts of failed ventures from his father, then inherited the lions share of money from his dementia addled father when he did die, screwing over the family of his own dead brother in the process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9475026)
After reading around, I
candidates approach was good enough, with Hillarys being better due to her past experience. That is all on that matter that I'd like to discuss, as I'm not advocating for one or the other. Both have different flavors of foreign policy.

I know, i'm just very interested in why exactly you think he'd be good at negotiating despite it all, as stated before. Who wants to give an internationally disliked man a better deal than is already going, when any rearrangement would be worse for the US than your own country?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9475026)
As for Rome, when I say it got too big, I meant in the context of being a huge empire that spanned quite a length that would inevitably have issues which would lead to it's decline. Social, economic, etc were all implied by that to reclairify.

My view is not nihilistic. I don't think the US will be the same thing however. When Rome fell, you had a split in the empire. It wasn't that Rome suddenly was destroyed. But the Rome that had existed prior was gone, replaced by the Byzantines the scholars and the barbarians (?) who didn't view knowledge as important.

I don't think many of the issues attributed to the downfall of Rome were size-based as much as a perfect storm of other things, but it should be noted that what became the Byzantine empire was literally just the other segregated half of the roman empire, it didn't rise from the ashes as much as it as just there and re branded itself after the other half crumbled and went on to survive for a thousand years more

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9475026)
A more modern example would be Britian and the British empire. The empire did fall, but it wasn't like Britain was destroyed. But there was a redrawing of the entire world map, with nations becoming independent of British control. Same here except, again, the USA would be redrawn into smaller portions.

I don't really get your line of thinking beyond "I think this would happen" but the British Empire was an empire founded on colonialism expansion of foreign lands, not a single landmass so there's a lot of difference there that can't really be applied here (Separate nations before British rule returning to their own ruler ship, which isn't the same as states rising up as their own powerhouses in the absence of the government as a whole)


Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9475026)
What I know for certain is that any nation that has had huge amounts of corruption has failed, and the USA is not some exception to the rule. The way the system is set up, one can see that it is eventually doomed to failure.


OK point finished!

I don't really think "failure" has any real meaning in the same way it used to, Rome fell and the british isles were conquered but there really is a "too big to fail" thing going on, with the US supported by the global network. There's not really any way to describe or quantify a country "falling" in the same manner

But this isn't relevant and you're right that it's just speculation so this is just opinion v opinion without much fact basis to discuss

0 November 4th, 2016 3:32 AM

^ do you have links or sources to the first three points that show how being someone who can negotiate a business deal is significantly different from negotiating a political deal?


Do you have a source that is not CNN, fox news or any other huge completely biased news source?


As for the country deal, your right, its just a theory. We can speculate all day, but at the end of the day, we wont know who is right because my speculation is that the nation would collapse probably past my lifetime, and I can't even prove it would collapse. So, I let that issue rest.

Aliencommander1245 November 4th, 2016 4:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9475243)
^ do you have links or sources to the first three points that show how being someone who can negotiate a business deal is significantly different from negotiating a political deal?

I'm... not sure how I'm supposed to source that claim since it's not really something built around a factual telling of events as much as it is a concept, but i'll try. Mostly all i can give you is examples of how Trump has been/is a poor negotiator (I.E that his what his (Probably, as he won't release his tax returns) current net worth is less than if he'd just invested the money he got from his father and made no buisiness deals at all by a factor of at least 2x, though that's a poor example considering everything else)

http://fortune.com/2016/07/19/donald-trump-negotiating-the-art-of-the-deal/

https://hbr.org/2016/04/what-donald-trump-doesnt-understand-about-negotiation

A choice quote from that second article that sums this up pretty well:

Spoiler:
One question we often are asked is how negotiating in business differs from negotiating through back channels, with defiant coalition partners, in war zones, and in the shadow of severe mistrust and hostility. One crucial difference is your goal. When you’re negotiating a business deal, your job is to figure out how much money is on the table, to consider all of the ways in which the deal could be structured, and to find an agreement that will allow you to capture more or most of the value that is being created.

That’s not how it works when you’re negotiating a high-stakes, protracted, multiparty conflict that has escalated to potentially devastating levels. There will not be multiple solutions from which to choose. If you’re lucky, there is one deal that everyone can live with — and there are countless barriers standing in the way of achieving even that. Your job is not to convince or threaten the other side into accepting your preferred solution, but rather to use everything at your disposal to knock down the barriers that are making the conflict seem unsolvable. In most cases you are not trying to beat the other side; you are trying, often in collaboration, to reach the one and only deal that can avoid disaster.

This difference between buying real estate, for example, and ending wars, building coalitions, structuring global agreements, and balancing military and diplomatic leverage has serious implications for the kind of negotiator a president should be. Consider these five features of negotiating on the world stage and ask whether what we know of the Trump approach and temperament is suited to surviving (much less succeeding) in such contexts.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9475243)
Do you have a source that is not CNN, fox news or any other huge completely biased news source?

I'll give this a pass since you actually did list two awfully biased american news sources there so i can't be sure if you're implying all big media outlets are bias or that there's some form of anti-trump mainstream media alliance (There's not, there's simply no way to favourably cover someone constantly doing things that are awful)

0 November 4th, 2016 5:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9475290)
I'm... not sure how I'm supposed to source that claim since it's not really something built around a factual telling of events as much as it is a concept, but i'll try. Mostly all i can give you is examples of how Trump has been/is a poor negotiator (I.E that his what his (Probably, as he won't release his tax returns) current net worth is less than if he'd just invested the money he got from his father and made no buisiness deals at all by a factor of at least 2x, though that's a poor example considering everything else)

http://fortune.com/2016/07/19/donald-trump-negotiating-the-art-of-the-deal/

https://hbr.org/2016/04/what-donald-trump-doesnt-understand-about-negotiation

A choice quote from that second article that sums this up pretty well:

Spoiler:
One question we often are asked is how negotiating in business differs from negotiating through back channels, with defiant coalition partners, in war zones, and in the shadow of severe mistrust and hostility. One crucial difference is your goal. When you’re negotiating a business deal, your job is to figure out how much money is on the table, to consider all of the ways in which the deal could be structured, and to find an agreement that will allow you to capture more or most of the value that is being created.

That’s not how it works when you’re negotiating a high-stakes, protracted, multiparty conflict that has escalated to potentially devastating levels. There will not be multiple solutions from which to choose. If you’re lucky, there is one deal that everyone can live with — and there are countless barriers standing in the way of achieving even that. Your job is not to convince or threaten the other side into accepting your preferred solution, but rather to use everything at your disposal to knock down the barriers that are making the conflict seem unsolvable. In most cases you are not trying to beat the other side; you are trying, often in collaboration, to reach the one and only deal that can avoid disaster.

This difference between buying real estate, for example, and ending wars, building coalitions, structuring global agreements, and balancing military and diplomatic leverage has serious implications for the kind of negotiator a president should be. Consider these five features of negotiating on the world stage and ask whether what we know of the Trump approach and temperament is suited to surviving (much less succeeding) in such contexts.





I'll give this a pass since you actually did list two awfully biased american news sources there so i can't be sure if you're implying all big media outlets are bias or that there's some form of anti-trump mainstream media alliance (There's not, there's simply no way to favourably cover someone constantly doing things that are awful)

Your first point made sense, and those sources seem unbiased, though I read your except only so as to get a general concept of the idea.


You are right, conducting negotiations is not easy at all, especially international negotiations. Foreign policy dealing with countries in the middle east are very sensitive and Trump is too gung ho about it.


As for the second point, I was actually mentioning that, because when trying to find trumps foreign policy, I was looking for an unbiased source. Every title was hurr durr, Trump is bad. I wasn't looking for that, I was looking for a real answer and eventually got one.


J also mention it because people in debates typically throw out crap sources like CNN, Fox, etc, which are laughably biased.

gimmepie November 4th, 2016 8:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9475341)
Your first point made sense, and those sources seem unbiased, though I read your except only so as to get a general concept of the idea.


You are right, conducting negotiations is not easy at all, especially international negotiations. Foreign policy dealing with countries in the middle east are very sensitive and Trump is too gung ho about it.


As for the second point, I was actually mentioning that, because when trying to find trumps foreign policy, I was looking for an unbiased source. Every title was hurr durr, Trump is bad. I wasn't looking for that, I was looking for a real answer and eventually got one.


J also mention it because people in debates typically throw out crap sources like CNN, Fox, etc, which are laughably biased.

My favourite source for Trump's policy is Trump. Watch videos of his debates and speeches. He's probably got a campaign website too.

Primarina November 5th, 2016 9:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9474510)
T
To me, non binary roles, genders, or whatever the hell it is is just made up stuff. Don't get me wrong, traditional roles are made up as well, but they worked and have worked for 5000+ years because they are functional and have a purpose. They have worked, and still work, whereas non binary roles seem to me to be useless. They seem to be almost a cry for help, or a product of a society that has lost any form of identity.

I guess the question that I have is: What function do non binary roles provide? Why do you feel the need to make up your own identity/gender? What makes you take them on?

I would also like to make the point that it is extremely difficult to near impossible to provide evidence that can be categorized on the human consciousness, so to ask for evidence as to why non binary roles are an issue is simply not possible. I can't quantify it or write a research paper, hence why I asked the above questions.

As for the rest of it, yes, I was passionate about my points. I could be seen as arrogant, but I am tired of the Hillary camp ignoring things like corruption, of which you described not less then three times, because Trump "hurts my feelings". I personally don't care if he is racist or misogynistic. Those are personal beliefs, and you seem to think that 100+ years of equal rights can suddenly be undone.

Again, he is not Hitler, he doesn't have the populace not the power to make a single law forbidding blacks or women from doing anything. Equal rights has it's leaders, but it's a cultural change, and would need to have a vast majority of the population to reverse, and that is simply not going to happen.

However, corruption on the other hand can and does sway how people live. Think about GMO labeling laws for a second. A few corrupt companies get a few puppets into office and all of a sudden, they are able to block your knowledge of what you eat. I don't know if a tomato has GMO's or not, because it is not a requirement, and labeling is actually stopped. That is what Clinton represents, more corruption and behind doors deals, which do have a impact on my life.

That is again, why I lean more toward Trump, because however racist he might be, he is not a corrupt as Hillary.


1. Domestic

Trump's rhetoric may influence policy, as well as the discretion of bureaucrats (police, teachers, judges, case workers etc.) During the campaign and debates Trump has compared inter-cities to a "living hell", responded to the topic of racial tension "with two words - 'law' and 'order' ", and other rhetoric implying he wants to adopt a Bill Clinton or Reagan strategy of cleaning up the streets and "saving" black people. So, it's not like he's just a racist, but he has vaguely etched out his attitudes toward "the blacks" as criminals he wants to control and fix.

Systematic discrimination against individuals can and does occur and Trump's rhetoric highlights similarities to other administrations on race and crime. For instance, the 1990's Crime Bill under the Clinton Administration called for "getting tough" on criminals and supporting privatized prisons. Basically, this is what ensued after the single omnibus bill was mass incarceration. Literally, one bill caused mass incarceration to spark off (though obviously Reagan got the ball rolling). Similarly, Reagan pushed the "drug war" which systematically targeted "crack" users rather than cocaine users -- of course, the two groups were comprised of different racial demographics. As such, the high-risk areas for crack use were targeted, rather than the cocaine user (many of whom worked in white-collar industries). Black drug users were viewed as the "criminals" and white people who used drugs were just "drug-users". Anyway, both presidencies really screwed over the lives of black people after making so much head-way during the civil rights movement.

Anyway, the aforementioned topic of black incarceration is just the tip of the iceberg as to how CORRUPTION can permeate in public policy and its enforcement. Corruption can be 100% legitimized when a reckless majority of the public targets minorities in order to earn more privileges and be treated differently under the law and enforcement of those laws. As Rousseau, and many others have articulated, when laws do not apply to everyone equally those laws are not geared toward public good or "general will", and rather, those laws are indicative of populist rule or "particular will" formation. Some people who are a part of the populist mob are so blind to their privilege they fail to see how they themselves are a participant in corruption.

Now apply this one policy issue has impacted minorities and their families differently than non-minorities, and see how the disparity influences millions of people differently -- just one policy area.

There are numerous examples of corrupted democracy tied to legal structures throughout recent history of the United States that has impacted LGBTQ, women, and other groups differently. One leader can make that disparity of rights and power far worse.

2. Abroad

When we make racist, sexist, homophobic, and disregard non-binary people it sends a message to countries that we either do not value equality and it could inspire people abroad to:

1. Coalition-build populist movements utilizing which ever flavor of oppression fits their societal model.
2. Coalition-build Anti-American movements through appealing to others who are pointed out by Trump, our head of state, as being somehow inferior. (easy ISIS ammunition)
3. Diffuse power away from the United States among country heads who do not support Trump's xenophobia since that xenophobia distinctly expresses an opposition to their own interests. A weak American influence of soft power to influence policy abroad and support stability and linking international interests as to avoid conflict and war. Basically, losing soft-power (the ability to sway policy directions of other countries as to inspire interest convergence) means losing our ability to influence other countries and international encourage stability, and that likely it means a loss of hard-power as well. Rhetoric does have physical power, it literally changes behavior, strategy, and sense of what is rational discourse in taking on action.


As I have stated, Trump's rhetoric is a recipe for shifting alliances and encouraging instability when we combine all three of the above different outcomes as a result of Trump's words. When information distorts communication, people's identity, interests, and actions change in ways that are hard to predict, but almost certainly if more people adopt Trump's black-and-white thinking it is a recipe for conflict. Populist movement including Brexit are mobilized groups of people who want hegemony as a group. These groups listen to rhetoric and rally around whichever leaders tell them that they are more virtuous and other groups need to be silenced or are somehow inferior (Mexicans, the Blacks, the Gays, anyone with a "pussy" to grab, Arabs, etc.) How the hell do you not understand that divisive words have more negative influence than corruption amongst and against oppositional political parties? Trump and Clinton are corrupt, but in ways that encourage different degrees of instability. Please argue why Clinton's corruption, is somehow encourages instability vis-a-vis Trump's rhetoric to the rest of the world?

PS - I black-boxed the nonbinary debate as per Nah's request. Generally, I have to say how we define men and women has changed drastically in the past 100 years because of the inefficiency of controlling women. How we define men and women, as they relate to one another has changed in the workplace, economy, law, family structure, sexual domain, education, among others places. Non-binary people do not fit either of these core defintions or may be on the peripheries of both. Certainly how we define the roles of men and women have degraded over time in all the above spaces, as such, as individuals men and women are becoming more equal and free to make choices. Though, non-binary people may still not fit the cultural aspects regardless of these changes. For whatever reasons, they cannot navigate the same binary and we should respect that and learn from how they see their gender and navigate the world in order to further improve upon the gender binary at-large.

Basically, the theme of our back and forths has been a difference in how we value pluralism. The more difference we are able to maintain, the more we deconstruct group identities, the more individualistic all people can be -- not just the ones afforded special rights due to conforming. Though, those who conform in many ways are being controlled through a social incentive structure. We should let people be individuals and break up the lines that distinguishes groups of people in order to encourage less corruptible policy and enforcement of that policy. Freedom of expression requires that there is not cultural hegemony linked to some sort of incentive structure that favors some expressions over others. Racists for instance, are not expressing their individuality, but rather their delusional sense of group identity. They have a distorted sense of priorities and interests that cannot truly be their own -- this is what populism is at its core, mind control and indoctrination of a group of people that feel superior. That is what we are getting with Trump. This is his brand of corruption.

I have ranted about Clinton during the primary season, but most of these critiques were similar to Trump, but to a incomparably lesser scale.

Also, I hope we can get the ball rolling in the right direction as far as the tone of our discussion so we can more effectively get our points across. Let me know your thoughts.

Sir Codin November 5th, 2016 9:59 AM

People still think Trump's gonna win?

Aliencommander1245 November 5th, 2016 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarcharOdin (Post 9476644)
People still think Trump's gonna win?

For the explicit purpose of complaining about the election being rigged when he loses, yes

Sir Codin November 5th, 2016 11:05 AM

I don't even give a shit about Hillary's flaws anymore, it was a forgone conclusion that she was going to win that I suppose I'll just have to live with it. She doesn't even seem that bad, who knows, she could lead America to a new Golden Age for all I even know with how much I've even paid attention this past year....which is nearly nil. Really, this election has been so toxic to my health and sanity that I just stopped paying attention to it completely.

I'll be glad when it's over and my friends can get back to only mildly hating each other for the next four years. Kind of like all of America, really.

I don't know what it's like in other countries, but in America, politics is so seriously lacking in integrative complexity and often feels like the country is bordering on civil war. It's an extremely toxic subject and one of two things my parents taught me to never discuss with anyone if you want to keep a conversation civil (the other being Religion).

User19sq November 5th, 2016 12:57 PM

http://i3.ytimg.com/vi/JsOPHyuAuT0/hqdefault.jpg
If Hillary wins, rigged-fans will kill us all. If Trump wins, rigged-fans can stay home and let him do it for them.

If only Johnson wasn't such a ditz, I'd have supported him. And that other one... Joan Stool, she was nowhere to be found in this race.

Ivysaur November 5th, 2016 1:04 PM

Appropriate music:



Btw, turnout data shows Florida's nonwhites hitting record levels of vote share. That clearly sounds good for Trump.

0 November 5th, 2016 2:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9476756)
Appropriate music:



Btw, turnout data shows Florida's nonwhites hitting record levels of vote share. That clearly sounds good for Trump.

You'd be surprised how many people vote for Trump here. Hell, I even see people wearing the clothes, which I can't say for Hillary minus a bumper sticker.

Ivysaur November 5th, 2016 2:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9476830)
You'd be surprised how many people vote for Trump here. Hell, I even see people wearing the clothes, which I can't say for Hillary minus a bumper sticker.

Oh, I'm not surprised, I'm expecting Trump to get 4.2 million votes in Florida. The question was whether Clinton would turn out enough nonwhites to have a decent chance to hit at least 4.3 million or whether Trump would find a hidden stash of white voters to add to his expected results. The answer so far seems to be yes to the former and no to the later.

Incidentally, Trump may talk about the "silent majority" but his supporters, unlike Clinton's, are anything but silent. And we have yet to see whether they are a majority at all.

0 November 5th, 2016 3:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9476844)
Oh, I'm not surprised, I'm expecting Trump to get 4.2 million votes in Florida. The question was whether Clinton would turn out enough nonwhites to have a decent chance to hit at least 4.3 million or whether Trump would find a hidden stash of white voters to add to his expected results. The answer so far seems to be yes to the former and no to the later.

Incidentally, Trump may talk about the "silent majority" but his supporters, unlike Clinton's, are anything but silent. And we have yet to see whether they are a majority at all.

Well, we shall see. I expect Trump to win Flrida, but I'm doing no stats, whatsoever.


However, you should realize that plenty of whites and blacks like him quite a bit.


I have this feeling that the less intelligent people vote for Trump, or that's what I gather from this thread anyway. And the less intelligent people are the majority, so you can figure what I'm saying here.


Of course, it's really hard for me to attribute intelligence to people who vehemently vote for one or the other.

Aliencommander1245 November 5th, 2016 6:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9476867)
However, you should realize that plenty of whites and blacks like him quite a bit.

His biggest, and main, voter demographic is overwhelmingly white males (I'd say white people in general because that's usually how it falls but in particular Trump's alienation of women voters split the white vote to him by gender in a noticeable way) and he's doing fairly abysmally with any minority, something like 9% of African Americans support him? Sure that's a lot of people, based on population, but it's not at all anywhere near a big chunk of African american voters as a whole


Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9476867)
I have this feeling that the less intelligent people vote for Trump, or that's what I gather from this thread anyway. And the less intelligent people are the majority, so you can figure what I'm saying here.

Are they? I don't actually know the statistics but "white guy who wasn't college educated" is his big demographic, and he does poll higher with people who aren't college educated to those who are. A big thing of that is his focus on rural areas and outlandish promises to bring the manual labour jobs back out there. They've suffered hard in rural states from losing them, and promises from a guy who can somehow bill himself as "a man of the people" (Despite being a rich demagogue born into old money) that he'll get them back and is the only one who can save them makes him really appealing.

0 November 5th, 2016 6:44 PM

To your first point, I'm just letting you know what I see from the "battlefield" that is actual voters and such. Or at least the loud/showy ones.


As for your secnd point, reread what I said, because i agree with all of what you said, and that was my point, Trump is appealing to less intelligent and working clad people, even if he is rich. He promises to Make America Great Again for the general populace, and that better then what Hillary has got, if anything.

Aliencommander1245 November 5th, 2016 7:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9477029)
To your first point, I'm just letting you know what I see from the "battlefield" that is actual voters and such. Or at least the loud/showy ones.

I don't think that really reflects much as the consistent polling, but that makes sense


Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9477029)
As for your secnd point, reread what I said, because i agree with all of what you said, and that was my point, Trump is appealing to less intelligent and working clad people, even if he is rich. He promises to Make America Great Again for the general populace, and that better then what Hillary has got, if anything.

Not really, Trump is appealing because he's just telling people impossible things they want to hear. "I'll make america great again and get your jobs back" sounds good but is completely free of any substance or policy to actually do so.

Clinton has legitimately good plans for the country that she's outlined in detail and have been researched- they're simply not as marketable as the slogans and phrases Trump throws around, though. The problem is heavily based around the accessibility and long term effects/foresight of clinton's policies being difficult to distill into phrases or dumb down enough to just throw out the expected results without context, while saying you're doing something and expecting to work it out later is a lot easier and more readily heard by a trusting public/voter base

So really it's not that Clinton doesn't offer much as much as what she's offering isn't as publicised and easy to speak about while Trump offers what you want him to and doesn't have to bother explaining how he'll do it- he just will because he's "the only one who can"

Ivysaur November 6th, 2016 12:21 AM

Clinton has massive leads among younger generations (X/Millennials), non-whites and women. And a) more democrats are voting in Florida than republicans -like 20k, it's razor-thin but an advantage- and b) the independents who will have to break the tie are dispropportionately more female/nonwhite/younger than the general population. So I think Florida looks pretty well for Clinton even if it'll be close.

Meanwhile the ABC-WaPo tracker has had a 6-point swing for Clinton since Tuesday. I think the EMAILS!!! are starting to lose relevance...

Lipstick Vogue November 6th, 2016 10:19 AM

>katy perry
>beyonce
>bon jovi
>jay-z

Pretty embarrassing. Would have swung my vote to Trump had I been born across the pond.

Kanzler November 6th, 2016 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lipstick Vogue (Post 9477775)
>katy perry
>beyonce
>bon jovi
>jay-z

Pretty embarrassing. Would have swung my vote to Trump had I been born across the pond.

What's this?

Netto Azure November 6th, 2016 2:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9477786)
What's this?

Celebrities who campaigned with Clinton on campaign concerts.

Also I'm going to be more passed off if these 2 Washington state electors mess theElectoral College votes up. http://www.vox.com/2016/11/6/13540504/electors-electoral-college-washington?0p19G=c

Like there is a protest vote but seriously don't blow up the country with it.

Ivysaur November 6th, 2016 2:48 PM

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/the-gops-latinos-apocalypse/

I recommend reading this article while looking at the EV data in Florida and Nevada.

Aliencommander1245 November 8th, 2016 1:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mewtwolover (Post 9479716)
That isn't surprise, those generations are so young and naive that they easily swallow without thinking what the mainstream media says. Brexit proved that very well, younger generations who had swallowed the pro-EU propaganda voted mainly for staying in the EU.

I think you've got it twisted around a bit there, you see, the candidate who's entire campaign is built on lies, misinformation and flip-flopping on issues on the campaign trail who's whole "thing" is lying to people on the spot is the one unpopular with the younger generation, not the other way around?

"Mainstream media propaganda" is just lol and shows you both haven't been following the election and are just yourself buying into the objectively false propaganda presented to you. You've naively swallowed without thinking- the exact thing you're accusing others of- which is more than a little ironic.

I mean, it's fairly well known that the leave campaign in brexit was pumped up on lies for the majority of the time, and most of them were dumped with their main paddlers trying to escape from them as soon as the result went through?

Masterge77 November 8th, 2016 9:48 AM

I’ve grown so sick of this election, I just want it over with already. Both candidates are bad, and it’s not easy for one to choose between “bad” and “worse”

I mean, you have Donald Trump, who’s a successful, yet controversial businessman who wants to build a wall on the southern border, potentially ban Muslims from entering the US, and has been accused of being sexist. On the other hand, you have Hillary Clinton, who has been involved in countless scandals, performed actions that have gotten people killed (most notably Benghazi), and supports totalitarian regimes that violate human rights all while being under investigation by the FBI. When both candidates are extremely controversial and dangerous, it’s hard to tell who is worse, especially when I can’t believe either is really qualified to be the president.

Personally, I just want this election over with. I mean really, several sites have projected that Hillary has a 91% chance of winning for several months, which just seems really unreasonable and unrealistic for her to have THAT high of a chance of winning, especially given that these sites tend to be extremely biased and overly liberal. Tumblr SJWs are even worse, they only want Clinton simply because she's female, they don't even care about any of the things she's done, pretend the email scandal never happened, and continuously demonize Trump while worshiping Clinton like a god.

I mean, this election has become so ridiculous that it's hard to tell what's real and what's not, who's really the more popular candidate and who's really ahead in the polls. Major and mainstream news sources claim that Hillary will win, while minor news sources and alternative media claim that it will be Trump who wins. The truth is almost impossible to pinpoint. Trump may say some stupid things, but Hillary's actions have been extremely horrific, and everyone knows that actions speak louder than words.

Let's be honest here, people are over-exaggerating almost everything about both candidates, especially Trump, to the point where they act like he's some kind of ultimate evil. I've actually heard people say that if he wins, the movie "The Purge" is going to become a reality, but let's be realistic here, even if he does win, I highly doubt that The Purge is going to be a reality (or the Hunger Games for that matter, I've seen people bring that up as well).

I mean, people are just so nonsensical, like how Hillary claimed that Pepe, an innocent internet meme was a symbol of white supremacy even though Pepe was only depicted as Trump as a joke and not seriously. The problem is just that people will believe anything the media tells them and is so biased it's painful.

Esper November 8th, 2016 11:17 AM

IT'S ALMOST OVER!!

Please, please, please no recounts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Netto Azure (Post 9478056)
Also I'm going to be more passed off if these 2 Washington state electors mess theElectoral College votes up. http://www.vox.com/2016/11/6/13540504/electors-electoral-college-washington?0p19G=c

Like there is a protest vote but seriously don't blow up the country with it.

Ugh. I hate guys like this. There's a pro-Bernie Facebook group some friends of mine were in during the primaries that's still up and running, but all the sensible people have left and it's mostly now a bunch of aggressive anti-Clinton, pro-Stein asses who act like this. It's awful that this is the takeaway these people got from the election.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9478067)
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/the-gops-latinos-apocalypse/

I recommend reading this article while looking at the EV data in Florida and Nevada.

Perhaps Trump had already doomed his campaign the moment he started it with his nutty wall.

Navenatox November 8th, 2016 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masterge77 (Post 9480033)
I’ve grown so sick of this election, I just want it over with already. Both candidates are bad, and it’s not easy for one to choose between “bad” and “worse”

I mean, you have Donald Trump, who’s a successful, yet controversial businessman who wants to build a wall on the southern border, potentially ban Muslims from entering the US, and has been accused of being sexist. On the other hand, you have Hillary Clinton, who has been involved in countless scandals, performed actions that have gotten people killed (most notably Benghazi), and supports totalitarian regimes that violate human rights all while being under investigation by the FBI. When both candidates are extremely controversial and dangerous, it’s hard to tell who is worse, especially when I can’t believe either is really qualified to be the president.

Personally, I just want this election over with. I mean really, several sites have projected that Hillary has a 91% chance of winning for several months, which just seems really unreasonable and unrealistic for her to have THAT high of a chance of winning, especially given that these sites tend to be extremely biased and overly liberal. Tumblr SJWs are even worse, they only want Clinton simply because she's female, they don't even care about any of the things she's done, pretend the email scandal never happened, and continuously demonize Trump while worshiping Clinton like a god.

I mean, this election has become so ridiculous that it's hard to tell what's real and what's not, who's really the more popular candidate and who's really ahead in the polls. Major and mainstream news sources claim that Hillary will win, while minor news sources and alternative media claim that it will be Trump who wins. The truth is almost impossible to pinpoint. Trump may say some stupid things, but Hillary's actions have been extremely horrific, and everyone knows that actions speak louder than words.

Let's be honest here, people are over-exaggerating almost everything about both candidates, especially Trump, to the point where they act like he's some kind of ultimate evil. I've actually heard people say that if he wins, the movie "The Purge" is going to become a reality, but let's be realistic here, even if he does win, I highly doubt that The Purge is going to be a reality (or the Hunger Games for that matter, I've seen people bring that up as well).

I mean, people are just so nonsensical, like how Hillary claimed that Pepe, an innocent internet meme was a symbol of white supremacy even though Pepe was only depicted as Trump as a joke and not seriously. The problem is just that people will believe anything the media tells them and is so biased it's painful.

Much agreed. I too have the impression that people and media have been overly focused on making clear how much of a jerk Trump is and that he's nothing more than a bigoted racist and misogynist (which I'm not denying, don't get me wrong), however the bad things that Clinton has said and done have been largely kept silent about.

What especially gets me about the latter candidate is her continuous call for a no-fly zone over Syria, even though she herself acknowledged in 2013 that such a zone "would kill a lot of Syrians". On top of that, several former US-military members advise against her plan and even go as far as to say that imposing a no-fly zone in Syria could potentially lead to war with Russia. Now read that again. RUSSIA. The largest nuclear power on earth. It gets all the more alarming when you consider that Clinton was, among others, funded by an Ex-NRA lobbyist. Now, I really hope that I'm just reading too much into this, because honestly, a nuclear war between the US and Russia is the last thing this planet needs at the moment.

So yes, I can fully understand that many Americans are fed up with this election and the candidates, and I'm glad that I'm not in the position of having to vote for one of them. I'd probably vote for a third-party candidate or outright make a blank vote, because as you said, neither of the two is qualified to hold the most powerful office in the world.

Somewhere_ November 8th, 2016 12:15 PM

Why do i keep seeing things that show that Trump actually has a chance of winning?

interesting how this has suddenly grown a lot closer

Nah November 8th, 2016 12:22 PM

Any idea when we'll hear the results? Obviously won't be today or tomorrow, but man I wanna know.....

User19sq November 8th, 2016 12:41 PM

Results may actually come as early as tomorrow, if our new tech can handle the tallies.

I can't believe this is really happening! I never had a girl fall in love with me yet! I dun wanna die without someone to love emotionally nor physically! ; ^;

Netto Azure November 8th, 2016 4:20 PM

We'll know who will win in about 2 hours.

Anyway Kentucky and Indiana has been called for Trump. Vermont goes to Clinton.

Somewhere_ November 8th, 2016 4:27 PM

Trump is winning New Hampshire, but not very much has been released.

Florges November 8th, 2016 5:52 PM

Once again, Indiana doesn't go one day without being a national embarrassment. I'm so disappointed in my state's love for punishment.

Esper November 8th, 2016 6:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Florges (Post 9480430)
Once again, Indiana doesn't go one day without being a national embarrassment. I'm so disappointed in my state's love for punishment.

It's okay. You weren't a swing state at least where a few hundred people could change the fate of the whole country. There's a certain state that won't be named which seems bent on doing that over and over.


0 November 8th, 2016 6:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9480462)
It's okay. You weren't a swing state at least where a few hundred people could change the fate of the whole country. There's a certain state that won't be named which seems bent on doing that over and over.


Fuck outta here with that bullshit. Florida is badass.

I hate you posers acting like people can't choose what they want. If people want Trump in Florida, so be it. Don't pretend like my state is somehow bad or whatever shit you're pretending. Secede Florida from the USA? My ass, looks like you want a war with whoever disagrees with you, and a war is what will happen with attitudes like that. We tried that in the 1800's, tell me how that went, eh?

Anyways, it looks like Trump is indeed going to win here, so you should all just suck it up and take it in stride.

Sir Codin November 8th, 2016 7:00 PM

I have a message to everyone regardless of whichever candidate wins...


DO IT. MOVE. LIKE YOU SAID YOU WILL.

Florges November 8th, 2016 7:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9480462)
It's okay. You weren't a swing state at least where a few hundred people could change the fate of the whole country. There's a certain state that won't be named which seems bent on doing that over and over.

I wouldn't be as salty if it wasn't for the fact we went Red on everything. We elected Mike Pence 2.0, and he's actually worse than him. I just have no faith in our state or country whatsoever.

0 November 8th, 2016 7:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarcharOdin (Post 9480488)
I have a message to everyone regardless of whichever candidate wins...


DO IT. MOVE. LIKE YOU SAID YOU WILL.

Kek. I can feel bad things coming along, but running from problems doesn't always help.

Advice noted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Florges (Post 9480492)
I wouldn't be as salty if it wasn't for the fact we went Red on everything. We elected Mike Pence 2.0, and he's actually worse than him. I just have no faith in our state or country whatsoever.

Haha, and yet all who have no faith in the country usually stay.

Ewery1 November 8th, 2016 7:16 PM

Welp.





We're fucked.

Somewhere_ November 8th, 2016 7:18 PM

trump is doing much better than expected, but Clinton is retaking Virginia.

Esper November 8th, 2016 7:31 PM

Bernie would have been winning by a large margin. The Democratic party was too corporatist going into the election, too arrogant about this, and now they've got a very slight chance.

Florges November 8th, 2016 7:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9480494)
Haha, and yet all who have no faith in the country usually stay.

I would if I could, but between finances, my career, family, and my fiancee not wanting to leave I'm tied down to Indiana. If anything, I can keep performing promoting a progressive outlook for the families I serve in the community and hope it helps.

Esper November 8th, 2016 7:47 PM

https://twitter.com/SRowntreeNews/status/796141495573155840
Quote:

I am at a Trump rally in Manhattan, and thousands are chanting "We hate Muslims, we hate blacks, we want our great country back". Disgusting

Aliencommander1245 November 8th, 2016 7:49 PM

This is stressing me out a lot, a Trump presidency would be awful for america sure (You don't have to be a legal genius to see all his awful policies, and the way they're inferior to Clinton's in every possible way for what they are)

But... his election would be directly effect people abroad, too. It empowers people who listen to his derogatory, regressive rhetoric both citizen and politician alike. That doesn't just stunt social progress, it quite literally puts people in danger.
An anti-lgbt, anti-migrant, anti-non-white government that Trump presents spreads his own views and justifies them elsewhere, here in australia the fringe right controlling our prime minister and his party will only get bolder, louder and more powerful with the election of Trump and that makes me genuinely upset for the future of my own country

Somewhere_ November 8th, 2016 7:56 PM

Polls showed that Bernie would have beaten Trump, and its possible he could have; however, Bernie may have been too far left for the US. Despite the polls displaying those numbers, they were before the primaries even ended (too early), so I would bet my money on a Trump win against Bernie.

I think it would come down to people not wanting to pay Bernie's absurdly high tax rates. He even admitted his taxes would have risen taxes on the lower taxes.

It would have been very interesting: a left-wing populist vs. a right-wing populist

Ewery1 November 8th, 2016 8:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9480505)
Bernie would have been winning by a large margin. The Democratic party was too corporatist going into the election, too arrogant about this, and now they've got a very slight chance.

Yeah pretty much. They're all idiots, I'm really annoyed at them, they screwed us over.

Judge Mandolore Shepard November 8th, 2016 8:40 PM

While looking at the list of states for where it is too early to call, I was very surprised that my home state of Washington is one of them.

Somewhere_ November 8th, 2016 8:42 PM

I think its coming down to Michigan. If Clinton wins Michigan, she wins it all.

0 November 8th, 2016 8:53 PM

https://a.desu.sh/zwbuxv.jpg

EDIT: reddit link is still up
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5bk3i2/holy_fucking_shit_john_and_tony_podesta_abducted/

Somewhere_ November 8th, 2016 9:31 PM

My final predictions before going to bed:

Trump will win Michigan. He is winning and the grey areas will most likely go trump.

Trump will win Arizona. It is not even close.

Trump will win Wisconsin. its 85% reporting... so most likely Trump.

Pennsylvania is really close. its 96% reporting, but Trump is only winning by 2,000 votes. Penn usually goes Democratic tho, so I do not know here.

Clinton will win Maine. There is no way she will lose Maine.

Clinton will win Minnesota. Same here.

Clinton will win New Hampshire. She just surpassed Trump and it usually goes democrat. There has been a trend of Clinton doing better and better there in the past hour or so.

Overall: Trump will win I think. Some of the polls and AI predictions that have never been wrong are going Trump too. Plus if you look at historical trends, presidencies tend to shift left and right. Its a right shift at the moment.

Biogoji November 8th, 2016 9:38 PM

Just a reminder. Berine Sanders would have wiped the floor with Trump.

François November 8th, 2016 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biogoji (Post 9480572)
Just a reminder. Berine Sanders would have wiped the floor with Trump.

Bernie Sanders is Jewish, a socialist (i.e. a communist to Americans), pro-immigration, pro-minority and part of the "establishment". If you think he'd have been elected then you have no idea why people voted for Trump and why they didn't vote for Hillary.

I can't believe this result came to pass. There are so many people who have so much to answer for here and I hope the media are ashamed for the absolutely pivotal role they played in this. This is what happens when you spend an entire year telling people that having a private email server is an equal evil to the sum of everything brought against Donald Trump just so you can have a story.

Scared for the world right now.

Hikamaru November 8th, 2016 10:50 PM

I just found out Trump is at 259 which means he's nearly 10 away from the 270 needed to win. Well done America, you will find out what a huge mistake you made by electing what is going your country's worst-ever President.

I know how evil Trump is because of how he verbally attacked Mexicans, and then there's the immigration concerns. He's racist, xenophobic, and against the LGBTI community. Like Aliencommander said, a Trump presidency is definitely concerning for my home country of Australia as well.

Anyways, I guess we'll have to look forward to a lot of American residents moving out of the country.

Edit: Trump wins with 279 votes. We're going to have a bad future.

Sektor November 8th, 2016 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hikamaru (Post 9480684)
Well done America, you will find out what a huge mistake you made by electing what is going your country's worst-ever President.

I would actually debate this statement at another time in length, so I'll be brief.

Many a historian would disagree with you and say James Buchanan was the worst of the worst. Others would argue adding a $7T to country's already staggering debt would be a slight misstep. *shrug* Not to mention Nixon, Reagan, Grant, Pierce, and Harding.

It's also hard to judge and predict the future, unless you're clairvoyant . . . you. . . aren't, are you? *worries*

Bellsprout November 8th, 2016 11:15 PM

weed is now legal in my state

what a time to be alive

Sir Codin November 8th, 2016 11:21 PM

What I just saw was the ignoble end of any reason to ever again believe in the United States.

Her November 8th, 2016 11:26 PM

sure is time to sink america to wherever atlantis rests

Aliencommander1245 November 8th, 2016 11:54 PM

Just.. Ugh. There's hope in seeing the "i told you so" when he bumbles into the oval office with no plan and wrecks the country, but it's immediatly dashed by the very real fears currently had by just about every minority right now.

A trump presidency is going to be a regressive presidency. How do you go from Obama and his amazing reforms to what, not even the polar opposite, just... whatever he is. He will fix nothing, he's told you all as much through his policies and words, and even actions

What is this actual nonsense, I'm sure someone else like snopes can nail down facts about this but... what? "These two high profile figures kidnapped a child for no reason" is something spewn from the onion, not people trying to look reputable

Mewtwolover November 9th, 2016 12:00 AM

Trump made it! Clinton did her best and mainstream media was on her side but in the end, she just couldn't stump the Trump.

Aurora November 9th, 2016 12:01 AM

I wrote this on another forum, and it still holds true:

Quote:

As an Australian who's been watching this since the first polls closed this morning, I'm dumbstruck. I had a feeling he was going to win when he assumed the lead in Ohio, Texas, North Carolina and Florida fairly early into the vote counting, but none of this makes it any less shocking.

Goodness me.

RetroPokeman November 9th, 2016 12:04 AM

Sweet! Now I can IV breed a Yungoos named "President Trump" to use in online gag battles. YUUUUUUGE!

gimmepie November 9th, 2016 12:07 AM

Let's try and keep the memes out of RT guys.
Please serious.

0 November 9th, 2016 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9480739)


What is this actual nonsense, I'm sure someone else like snopes can nail down facts about this but... what? "These two high profile figures kidnapped a child for no reason" is something spewn from the onion, not people trying to look reputable

"They

are part of Clintons campaign, they must be pure!"


Get real. I would NEVER put it past ANY politician to do such things. The amount of dominance that comes through such an act would appeal to such corrupt people.


Snopes? Like, srsly? "Well, if the one source that is biased to my cause dishes out the dirt, then MAYBE it is true."






I'd like to refine my point about about globalism and add another point which occurred to me from all the butthurt about Trump winning.


A huge problem that people outside of this country have with a Trump presidency is how this will effect them and their lives. In reality, your countries should be independent of the USA for basic needs like food, water, shelter, etc. We now have to deal with what is in my eyes an internal matter, that really doesn't concern anyone outside of the USA. However, you all keep crying about how shillary should be president, etc, etc. That is due, in a very large part, to globalism.


I'm fine with treating your neighbor fairly and with respect and all, but when you start relying on what your neighbor makes in income, you have some real problems. Instead of touting globalism, you should all get your shit together before relying on another country.


I understand how we are currently intertwined, but you are all the people of your own countries, and should figure out how to be self reliant before worrying about an election a few thousand miles away.

Kikaito plush November 9th, 2016 12:27 AM

Oh Trump won I wonder how Sturgeon feels about that after she was backing Clinton.

gimmepie November 9th, 2016 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9480756)
A huge problem that people outside of this country have with a Trump presidency is how this will effect them and their lives. In reality, your countries should be independent of the USA for basic needs like food, water, shelter, etc. We now have to deal with what is in my eyes an internal matter, that really doesn't concern anyone outside of the USA. However, you all keep crying about how shillary should be president, etc, etc. That is due, in a very large part, to globalism.


I'm fine with treating your neighbor fairly and with respect and all, but when you start relying on what your neighbor makes in income, you have some real problems. Instead of touting globalism, you should all get your shit together before relying on another country.


I understand how we are currently intertwined, but you are all the people of your own countries, and should figure out how to be self reliant before worrying about an election a few thousand miles away.

You don't know very much about globalism. Globalism is not one country having a huge effect over everyone, globalism is about unity and equality. This is not about globalism. This is about US interventionism.

The US has a long culture of getting involved with foreign politics and strong-arming its way into global politics. The reason other countries are so linked to the US is largely because the US has forced itself onto them during periods of war or political unrest like WW2, the Gulf Wars or the Vietnam and Korean Wars.

As for most of us, this has nothing to do with "food and shelter". This has a lot to do with the changes in the balance of power and the global economy that the Trump presidency is extremely likely to bring. This is going to be a very unruly, unpredictable and dangerous time politically. You keep talking like the rest of the world don't have to worry about this but you're completely wrong. This was the American election but when superpowers undergo drastic political change it effects the whole world because of political alliances and antagonisms that couldn't exist in a truly globalist society.

Legendary Silke November 9th, 2016 12:35 AM

I suspect a Trump presidency might end up being extremely boring in retrospect, though I can't really predict the future. It's extremely likely he won't do extremely unwise things. He probably will be kept in check by other people and the world...

Am I too optimistic?

Luck November 9th, 2016 12:36 AM

Who would've thought that it'd be a bad idea to promote the face of pro-establishment policies in a heavily anti-establishment atmosphere?

I wouldn't put too much stock in a rumor that's tied in with spirit cooking and a child sex ring.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twiggy (Post 9480773)
I suspect a Trump presidency might end up being extremely boring in retrospect, though I can't really predict the future. It's extremely likely he won't do extremely unwise things. He probably will be kept in check by other people and the world...

Am I too optimistic?

Donald Trump isn't going to be building gulags for the minorities, but he won't be kept in check. Republicans are the majority in the Senate and House, and many politicians are too spineless to go against their party's best interest, so Republicans are in the perfect position to pass whatever bills they want with little trouble. They'll also inevitably fill the empty Supreme Court seat with one of their own.

Lucario November 9th, 2016 12:41 AM

TRUMP WON????? SHIT, THAT DICK NOW RUNS THE US?

0 November 9th, 2016 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twiggy (Post 9480773)
I suspect a Trump presidency might end up being extremely boring in retrospect, though I can't really predict the future. It's extremely likely he won't do extremely unwise things. He probably will be kept in check by other people and the world...

Am I too optimistic?

No, that's not far off. Everyone keeps freaking out over the second coming of Hitler, but I think he'll probably not do much, or be somewhat boring. He will also be checked by the other balances.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucario (Post 9480780)
TRUMP WON????? SHIT, THAT DICK NOW RUNS THE US?

No, he does not run the US, yet. January he will.


Luck does have a point. Let's see how things go, all we need to do is wait till January.


Americans, what will you do to prepare. I feel things are a brewing, so I'm going to learn self defense.


Sorry about the double post,x on mobile and it takes a long time to edit old posts and merge.

Aliencommander1245 November 9th, 2016 1:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Limerent (Post 9480799)
I am so proud of the American people at this result, that they've seen through all the lies and media manipulation. It's time to end political correctness, unchecked immigration and globalisation. To the people that opposed Trump, this is your own fault. You created your own boogeyman by continually denigrating in particular the white working class with buzzwords like racist, sexist, islamophobic, bigot etc... If you sling out serious words as insults at the slightest sign of disagreement people will go silent and wait for their time to strike down those who stifle their freedom

You were literally banned from this forum for being racist at one point my man, I need to put this out here before people try and swallow your garbage

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9480756)
"They

are part of Clintons campaign, they must be pure!"


Get real. I would NEVER put it past ANY politician to do such things. The amount of dominance that comes through such an act would appeal to such corrupt people.


Snopes? Like, srsly? "Well, if the one source that is biased to my cause dishes out the dirt, then MAYBE it is true."

Ah yes, a major and reputable fact checker, what a fraud!!!! I disagree with them so they're all fake liars!!!

Anyway, the idea two random rich guys would kidnap a child for no conceivable reason, with the only evidence being that they were in the same country as the kidnapping during the time it occurred (And honestly, the source is just reddit, it's not even likely to 100% be true) is baffling to me. Why not blame the country's leader? He was there, too




I
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9480756)
'd like to refine my point about about globalism and add another point which occurred to me from all the butthurt about Trump winning.


A huge problem that people outside of this country have with a Trump presidency is how this will effect them and their lives. In reality, your countries should be independent of the USA for basic needs like food, water, shelter, etc. We now have to deal with what is in my eyes an internal matter, that really doesn't concern anyone outside of the USA. However, you all keep crying about how shillary should be president, etc, etc. That is due, in a very large part, to globalism.


I'm fine with treating your neighbor fairly and with respect and all, but when you start relying on what your neighbor makes in income, you have some real problems. Instead of touting globalism, you should all get your **** together before relying on another country.


I understand how we are currently intertwined, but you are all the people of your own countries, and should figure out how to be self reliant before worrying about an election a few thousand miles away.

I have no idea what you're talking about here on globalism, if you think that America's economy crumbling shouldn't have any effect on any other country I don't know what to say to you other than "What?"

Not to mention that i don't think anyone is talking about the economic effects being the major worries anyway? They're valid concerns, but people are worried about Trump's rhetoric- the unacceptable xenophobia, homophobia, and racism- that's legitimised now.

I don't know how it wouldn't sink in to you that Trump has legitimised racism, homophobia and xenophobia in the west and beyond. This will have a direct impact on me, my country and my life. Right-wing politicians already hold a leash around the Prime Minister's neck and they're only empowered by this election- they're made stronger, their views legitimised and this is nothing beyond bad.

With a country calling for marriage equality held in check, only just, by these people now, and xenophobia allowed to flair up- what about in a Trump controlled world? They're going to be more powerful, they're going to feel legitimised. They're going to use this power, and it's going to suck, a lot.

Don't give me "anti-trump whining" when people are making valid complaints about his policies of bigotry and nothingness, and people are geuninly fearing for their safety. Don't give me "Butthurt trump whining" when the bad decision of the US voter base will not only hurt themself, hurt their most vulnerable, but hurt me and others in other countries. And even then, not only will it be a damage with foreign diplomacy and trade- it's going to be damage to my country from the inside by people powered up by Trump.

Maybe you can sit back and pretend that none of this matters (Because even if you're not a member of a minority, Trump's incompetence and lack of vision, with Pence's vile rhetoric on top) WILL bite you regardless

Attribule November 9th, 2016 1:55 AM

As a minority living in a small town made up mostly of minorities near the US-Mexico border, I wonder how long it'll be before Trump Tanks begin rolling down our streets and troops start forcing us to help build The Wall. I'm afraid we'll have to do it or else we'll be deported.. or gunned down. :kec:

Lipstick Vogue November 9th, 2016 4:03 AM

Congratulations, America!

I honestly didn't think you had the balls.

Ivysaur November 9th, 2016 4:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lipstick Vogue (Post 9481104)
Congratulations, America!

I honestly didn't think you had the balls.

I don't think that's the best way to address someone who just committed suicide.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonibros (Post 9480781)
No, that's not far off. Everyone keeps freaking out over the second coming of Hitler, but I think he'll probably not do much, or be somewhat boring. He will also be checked by the other balances.

By whom? The Republican House? The Republican Senate? The Supreme Court he'll pack with hyperconservatives?


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:52 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.