![]() |
His advisers are definitely going to make him practice for the debates next time
|
Lol that was a mess (expected and funny)
Maybe it's not too late to get a selfie with Trump and Clinton |
Trump interrupted her a lot, and she was respectful and did not. She kept her cool, but I think Trump preformed better overall because he was more commanding and hit her harder on her weak points than she hit him.
|
Trump: "I think my strongest asset may be by far is my temperament. I have a winning temperament."
Trump couldn't help bragging when he was accused of not paying any federal taxes. Like, I get that some people don't like taxes, but did he realize he was practically admitting that he was being sneaky with his tax returns? Despite everything though I don't think any Trump supporters were moved to join team Clinton. I bet the polls will show a small uptick for her though since she was pretty on point throughout. |
Quote:
|
I think my opinion changed a bit... Clinton was definitely better prepared. Trump will need to step it up.
|
Quote:
I must admit that's true - Clinton might have projected or explained the very stances they are against. But I think Clinton inspired a lot of confidence and projected a lot of strength today, especially for the voters who just aren't quite on board yet. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I'll elaborate on it. I think this election will be decided by three groups:
- True undecideds, low information voters who look at TV after Labour Day and can be more easily swayed by slogans, mainstream media coverage and other "gut" instincts. - D-leaning voters who would have gladly voted for Obama's third term or for Sanders but who feel very "meh" about Clinton. - R-leaning who happily voted for Mitt Romney four years ago (like, say, Mitt Romney) but who feel like throwing up when they see Trump. Essentially, the last two groups are pondering voting for "their" natural candidate or abstaining/protest voting Johnson/protest voting Stein. The tightening in the polls these previous weeks seems to have come from a mix of Never-Trump Republicans coming to terms with Teleprompter Trump while a similar amount of Hillary-I-Guess Democrats walked away after Pneumo-gate. And this is where the debate performance may really help Clinton: - Clinton was generally expected to win (+8, according to pre-debate polls). She pretty much nailed it- she didn't do anything excellent, but she did come across as more experienced, more calm, more respectful and more prepared, which even Trump himself commented on. She even managed to get in a few zingers, whithout ever having to resort to the "tiny hands" lows that Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz were reduced to during the primaries. In short, she looked and acted the part- exactly what she was supposed to. Nothing outstanding, but you didn't have to think twice to realise who was the person on stage with experience on these things. - Trump was given a low bar- he essentially had to prove that he could play Teleprompter Trump without needing a script on hand. He failed. He fell for all the baits Clinton threw at him, got entangled in fights with the moderator, regurgitated conspiracy theories and even blurted out unbelievable things, like "I don't pay taxes because I'm smart" or "Cheering up for the 2008 housing crash- that's called business", which make excellent advert material. Bonus points for the moment when he said "My best feature is my temperament" and the people at the studio broke in laughter. As per the result, flash polls gave Clinton a clear win (up to +35 points, as per CNN), and panels of undecideds from swing states (PA in CBS, FL in CNN) gave her an overwhelming victory, even when a lot of participants declared themselves sort of leaning towards Trump before starting. And all of the MSM is talking about Clinton's win. What is the point here? Well, I'm sure that most of Trump's supporters will feel hit by the debate, but -like Obama's in 2012- will stick on anyway. The key is the three non-rabidly-partisan groups I mentioned earlier. Clinton essentially made a pitch for the undecideds and the soft democrats. Trump talked to people who think that "ask Sean Hannity I swear I told him otherwise" is a good retort to "you lie when you say you didn't support the Iraq War"- and those people are probably already voting for him. Maybe Clinton barely moved the needle in her direction, but Trump certainly didn't make himself any favours. And he is the one who seems to have a lower ceiling of support, while Clinton has the most to gain from embarrassing him on public TV. She is still winning -barely- but winning. If she manages to get some of her softer supporters on board and get Trump's own words to get some soft republicans to give up and walk away, she'll get to Nov 8th much more relaxed than she is right now. |
I think without a doubt, Clinton was the winner of last nights debate. She presented herself in a much more professional manner as compared to Donald Trump. Trump interrupted her from what I counted, at least 20 times, he interrupted the moderator to try to correct him, he tiptoed and did his typical "Trumpsplanation" of things, instead of actually highlighting points in his policies. His actions for the most part last night were very reminiscent of what he did through the entirety of the Republican Primaries, which is good for shock value, but isn't good for actual governing in my eyes. He again was very childish, which is very unbecoming for a presidential hopeful
She on the otherhand, did her best to highlight her points, she was very articulate in her wording, she didn't interrupt the moderator or Trump, she answered the questions asked of her in the allotted time without a moment of hesitation. Which is something that one should expect out of a presidential hopeful. I've heard people say when I mentioned her state of professionalism and the way she portrayed herself as important factors in a leader, I almost immediately get shot down, which I don't really understand why? If Trump acted the way he did during the primaries and last night's debates during a meeting with a foreign leader (such as the leader of Iran, Russia, etc) do we really think anything of substance would come from it? I at least know with Hillary if she were to act like she did last night, things might move in motion. |
Clinton nailed it.
I haven't been much invested in this race, but I sat down and watched this entire debate from start to finish. It became clear very quickly that Hillary's mind was laser-precise in a way that Trump's 'winning temperament' couldn't match. I didn't like the way she pushed her website as the bible of facts, though. She also laid the courtesy factor on thick, like the way she cloyingly said, "It's good to be with you, Donald". But other than that, I think she was successful, truly presidential. In some moments, she handed Trump a paintbrush with which he coloured himself as an essentially greedy businessman. She reinforced that his policies would further advance him and the businessmen of his calibre only. That Trump became abrasive with the moderator was his major downfall, I think. He also totally evaded ownership of the Obama 'birther' lie. And let slip those nuggets about his taxes. Most of his criticism of Hillary was really just rants against the establishment. He kind of treated her as the face of all bad politics ever. A scattershot versus a sniper. It's also worth mentioning the footage taken after the debate was concluded. Trump and Clinton shook hands and thanked everybody, then their parties showed a disparate image. Trump remained on stage surrounded by his tanned, blonde and slender family while Hillary and Bill Clinton descended to the audience and bowed down to meet the crowd, shaking each hand and talking to them. Quite revealing, that. |
I've always thought that since Hillary was confirmed as Democratic candidate, that it was basically no contest. All Hillary has to do is try just a little bit, and it's evident from this debate that she could really and seriously trounce all over Trump and make him look like a serious monkey's uncle. But she didn't. Sure she definitely fired off a few witty retorts when Trump tried attacking her, but that simply shows her mastery of things. She deflected when she needed to precisely and Trump simply made a bigger ass of himself because he didn't have his teleprompter to help him.
|
Yeah, to any person with a decent understanding of politics and the world and who has even a little bit of critical thinking ability Clinton is the clearly better choice among the two, but so many Trump supporters are people without those basic skills and they're actually going to vote for once. It's frightening. I can't think of a single that that could happen, a single thing that Trump or Clinton could do, that would make them stop supporting him. There's really no stronger belief than the unquestioning faith of the stupidly ignorant.
But to be fair, the whole Clinton team is being pretty dense, too. They seem to think that they've got things locked up because they think that all you have to do is show Clinton and Trump side by side and that's all the argument they need. That kind of overconfidence is going to get them in a lot of trouble if they don't get serious soon. There's like barely over a month left before the election. |
Of course, they also have decided that the best course is to keep Trump busy with unhinged fights, such as his 3 AM tweetstorm in which he told people (whoever was awake by then) to watch a "sex tape" from a former Miss Universe Clinton baited him with during the debate.
Essentially, the best way for her to win is to invite Trump to keep acting like a total ass. And they found the way with the Khans and are apparently milking it for maximum effect now. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Basically I think the Clinton team needs to make her look better to those people who still aren't on board but might be persuaded. That's the only way I think she can win. She's got to get those former Bernie supporters to give up Stein and Johnson and staying home. She can gamble on painting Trump as a force too awful to let win like she's doing, but I think a lot of people don't want her to win either out of some spiteful feeling. Which is understandable. I went through a period where I felt that way. But we can't insist on perfection in a democracy if it means letting the worse of two evils win. Like, I get the argument that people are making which is that we deserve Trump, that electing him will be a wake up call for America, that it will break the process in some way that will force a change. But in learning more about how much of America thinks (such small) and believes (much conspiracy theory) I don't think America can wake up properly and that trying to break up the system just for the sake of breaking it up is inviting some worse things to take up root in their place. |
Quote:
But it does seem like the debates were good for her. Before the debates they were saying that Trump was leading in Nevada, Florida, and North Carolina and now they're either even or favoring her. I mean, that's just polls, but it does show a slight bump in good news for her. The only thing to worry about is how Trump will "not go easy on her" the next time. Will that work for him or backfire and make him look even worse? |
I don't know why voting for Trump would be considered ignorant. Sure, he's an ass. So? I have two choices of turkey. I have a Butterball turkey and a Land 'O Lake turkey. I know for a fact that Land 'O Lake makes terrible turkey, so I'll try the Butterball this time around, even though I haven't had it before. It's an analogy that winds up in me still buying the turkey, but a turkey that I have yet to try.
So, this will be Trump's first office holding. Tight. So, can someone explain to me why I should choose someone that has cheated, lied, stolen, covered up, been incompetent, and a whole slew of shady dealings within the last 30 years? We have a concrete record on how Clinton runs and operates. Right? So forgive me when I say that it's pretty obvious what she'll do when she's elected, if she's elected. I've lived through her and her husband's office. I've seen her back things that make absolute zero sense. So, forgive me if I think I'm going to see what happens when I vote the opposite way. I was always on behalf of the left, until relatively recently (past 7 years). I never really enjoyed either side, both the left or the right, but saw that my opinions greatly differed from the right up until recently. Seeing really is believing, and what I don't see is Trump supporters shooting at cops, Republicans throwing food at the opposite side, Rep. rioting because another punk ass bitch got shot. See, these are things where I just cant agree with. She supports some radicals that uphold a Terrorist as their inspiration. So, if #BLM really mattered and really was about peaceful protests then why, in all of holy magics, do you hold a terrorist as a dear friend? Makes as much sense as a peaceful organization holding up Dr. Mengela as an idol. Congress is still trying to figure out her e-mail mess. Regardless whether or not what she did was considered felonious. She did something she knew she wasn't supposed to do, and handled state secrets, unclassified or no. 33,000 e-mails. I don't know about you but I doubt I've ever read 33,000 emails in my lifetime. Not one of those would be classified? Trump is racist? Well then she must be too, because her mentor and idol is a former leader of the KKK. Not much to go off of there. She supports illegal acts, such as staying in a country you're not supposed to be. If I told you to get of my property, and you didn't you'd be trespassing and you know that's illegal, right? I have heard nothing she has said that has made up for the fact that her incompetence for 30 odd years. Her good intentions haven't made right all the wrongs. The point is this, she has been in a position where she could have genuinely made a difference. Genuinely made better laws. You know what she did instead? Took the money from multiple 'donors' whom had asked her to lobby on their behalf. These 'donors' wanted to lie to all of the American people, because they're 'safe'. Oh, and I didn't think to call you ignorant, did I? *wink* So forgive me if I choose to vote for a different brand of turkey this time around. It is, after all, just a turkey. |
Quote:
Quote:
But seriously, he's not clean. He's got his own shady dealings. You can claim that they're both corrupt in their own ways. There's a lot to debate there about what kind of dealings are worse. But Clinton is not incompetent regardless of how you feel. She's a practiced politician and looking at her debate performance you can see that she's smart and has the temperament of a serious adult. I don't know why you'd choose the thin-skinned, snake oil salesman over her. Because you don't like her? She's not my favorite choice either, but the country would be worse off with Trump at the wheel. Also, give up the idea that BLM is a terrorist group. There's no real evidence for that. |
I'd rather have a woman who keeps a private email server than a person who wakes up at 3 AM to send an insulting tweetstorm at a woman who dared suggest he ever did anything wrong because he cannot allow anybody to say such a thing and walk away undisturbed after that.
Anyway, here is a list of about 200 outrageous and disqualifying things he has said/done: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/07/donald_trump_is_unfit_to_be_president_here_are_141_reasons_why.html To claim that "they are pretty much the same", then your image of what they are has to be preeeety distorted. Or maybe you think that (scrolls randomly) uhh... "Keeping a collection of Adolf Hitler’s collected speeches in a cabinet by his bed" (what? what the fuck?) or "Attempting to seize and bulldoze the home of an Atlantic City, New Jersey, widow under eminent domain" is something normal for all politicians. But thanks! I was mystified by the fact that any sane human being could possibly consider voting for this individual, now I kind of understand why. It's terribly sad, but at least I kinda get it. |
Spoiler:
|
I know that Clinton is not squeaky-clean, that she has a ton of skeletons and that she might be pretty uninspiring to anybody looking for someone "different". But this is a matter of symbolism. Clinton represents politics as usual. Sanders represented an idealistic, clean, principled change looking for equality and redistribution of wealth. Trump represents change too, but a different kind of "chamge": white nationalism, racial profiling, "winner-takes-all" economics, "not paying taxes makes me smart", a very strong personalistic narcissism (which is a very desirable trait in any ruler) and an utter disregard for the basic etiquette of politics.
Between Clinton's éminence grise politics and Sanders' "revolution", the latter is far more inspiring. But between Clinton's blandness and Trump's alt-right takeover, I'd very much prefer the porridge, thank you. Plus honestly, how can you trust a businessman who manages to make a $916,000,000 loss in a single year? |
To be fair, a 'winner takes all' attitude might have been needed during '08 when the car companies tanked as well as the banks. She voted to assist the sleazy, greasy business men/car sales persons that failed, horrendously so.
Was it because a fluke? Did these businesses fail due to someone else's fault? No, they were wholly responsible for their own take down. The bailout saw billions sunk into an industry that failed to check itself and passed the buck to you and I. Haven't seen a dime, have you? Clinton also stated she voted for the bailout because she was asked to. Regardless on whether or not Trump backed the bailout or not, she voted in favor of aiding a decaying industry that hasn't paid anyone back fully for their troubles. Besides, trusting someone who lost money over someone on the take is a bad bet I will not take. For me, it's not really up to much debate, because I'd trust a tinfoil hat wearing homeless man over the well dressed confidence artist any day. I said before, Hillary has proven to me that she's willing to take the bad guy's money so I doubt I'll trust her over another candidate. Also, as a side note, I do hate to be the bearer of bad news, but a survey-analysis spanning from '96 to '00 found that over 94% of corporate entities owned by US based companies paid 0% of 4% income tax, according to the Wallstreet Journal (Feb '04. GAO-04-358. McKinnon, John D.) So, in hindsight I think that it's still fair to say that the vast majority of all US companies pay little or no federal income tax or any taxes at all for that matter. So why, out of all the mass of the ocean, should I support a morally corrupt individual that has abused her power of office. She received funds from the banks to lobby for them, she voted to give my money, and your money to a company that failed because their product was inferior to other competitors. Did Nissan, Toyota, Honda, Aston Martin, Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, BMW go limping back to their country asking for handouts? No. She's a known acquaintance to the very same crooks that she claims she's against. I'm still going to stick with the untested candidate. Trump may have lied to me, but he sure as hell didn't lie to me for 30 odd years with the ability to cause serious harm. So again, Clinton is a damn lying liar and I won't have it. I'm through with her and her husband's bullshit. She represents everything I vehemently despise. She cheats, lies, steals (you brought up ED, so...), takes money from big business, money from pharmaceutical corporations and wants me to think everything is all fine and dandy. So yeah, I feel justified voting the opposite way around this time. I've been burned time and again by their administration and I'm fed up. I may not know what's in store with Trump, but I can imagine what's in store with Hillary, and that's enough for me. Between the two, I dislike one of them so much that despite warnings against it I'm voting for the newbie. That and Clinton supports terrorism. How, you ask? Well, by taking money from them of course! Why should I trust some greedy troll that accepts cash, cheque or charge from governments that punish homosexuality with death? Isn't that enough for me to warrant a turn in the other direction? She did say she'd help the gay community out right? So why take money from the same people that would lop the heads of the community you said you'd protect? Doesn't make sense to me. Imagine it was me who'd promise to help the Jews, but instead turn around and accept cash from the SS to not help the Jews I said I'd protect. I hope the picture is a tad clearer on my viewpoint on that. Clinton is seasoned and experienced politician, but an old snake is just as venomous. So yeah, the deals she's made with these people sickens me and I'm not going to vote for someone that has proven to me that she's not afraid to abuse her power of office for personal gain. Also, fun fact. George Washington embezzled governmental funds. |
Quote:
Although she has directly supported terrorist cells in the past in Libya, but that's business as usual for the US State Dept now I guess. I (and I know this sounds strange given our usual relationship) actually agree with you over her behavior, especially when it comes to, as you said, her apparent self championing of LBGT causes and groups. Her piggybacking and prostituting of minority groups and their struggles really annoys me considering her toxic legacy against poc and the lbgt community. A snake in a wig is still a snake. |
Quote:
|
So there's a really interesting piece from The Atlantic I read. Basically, it says that just by being a major party candidate, Clinton is going to trigger lots of people to a sexist backlash whether she wins or not, and it suggests that, her scandals aside, the anger that people have for her is way higher than is normally warranted of political candidates.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
We like to back terrorists, evidently. Reagan did it, Bush did it, Clinton backed em, Bush Jr did it, Obama does it. It just never seems to end. We back the bad guy, and I hate it. We have people that have denounced duly elected officials and have even backed war criminals over the collective power of the people because, you know, communism. Besides, a loaded gun by itself isn't inherently dangerous. I have a loaded shotgun under my couch in fact. You don't have to keep an eye on a gun because without people (i.e. power) it can do no damage. Clinton on the other hand, has embezzled millions from their aid foundation. So forgive me if I get confused as to why you'd choose a guaranteed death with a venomous snake over potentially shooting yourself in the foot. Her foreign policy is a mess. We've seen her lie through her teeth, and she's a duly elected official. You see, the difference I see is a business man and a politician. She has a duty to hold herself up and above that of her opponent. She is supposed to do what is best for the American people, but has failed time and again to do so. She had the chance, she had the power but has done nothing to better the country or help those under her purview. Clinton has had 3 decades to fix things and she has squandered 3 decades. She lies, she cheats, she steals, she supports bad practices, two faced, sick, scheming, and a shill (some of these are personal opinions). Sum: I don't think Trump will make us look any worse for wear. Clinton is a known (everything bad that corruption does insert here take your pick, place your bets, step right up ladies and gentlemen.) and does it under the banner of an elected official. You and I would probably be jailed if those were our emails (that's not the only bad thing she's done). Loaded guns are safer than venomous snakes, and I'd rather have a gun than deal with a lethal snake. I'd rather play russian roulette than play with an inlaid taipan, and I'd rather shoot myself in the foot than get bit by a cobra. Although I'm just playing at this point. The analogy is a poor one but I do understand the point you were trying to make. I just think that the rest of the world sees us as the clowns across the sea and we can't do much worse. Some Europeans actually prefer Clinton's opponent, but that could just be a coincidence. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So, in short: you really, really, really, really hate Hillary Clinton and you'd be ready to elect a monkey holding a crossbow if it were her political opponent just because of how much you hate her. At least I'm slightly comforted by the fact that you don't really think Trump is that good. What I'm worried about is the fact that essentially every claim you have made in your post happens to be exactly 180 wrong. I'm not sure how good a judgement you can have when all your facts are upside-down. I guess that's the reason why people can vote for Trump- complete, utter misinformation that "feels right". |
The battle of the bland vanilla pols should be an interesting watch
|
Quote:
I can't watch it either- I got homework. :/ |
Have we had the official PC election poll yet, or is just not worth having this year?
|
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dwKLbFyej7w/TkZmjcqvI7I/AAAAAAAAAGc/nh_c-VTFuVE/s1600/bread_white.jpg
Let's congratulate Pence on winning the debate before it even started. Amazing. God, this has just started and I'm already bored to tears. |
Mike Pence is infinitely more electable than Donald Trump.
|
Spoiler:
Pence is pretty well spoken. More than decent vp nominee |
"What has Clinton done?" is a terrible response when you can also ask the same of Trump. What has Trump done that has benefited anyone ever?
I think a more important questions is "What will Trump/Clinton" do? Clinton will change nothing. She'll continue the moderate-leftist policies of Obama and continue to support equal rights etc etc. Why she's making positive moves doesn't matter because ultimately those are still better for your country than having a lunatic like Trump as your head of state. Trump will continue to weigh in on things that he doesn't understand - that I doubt he is intelligent enough to even learn to understand and will continue to reinforce negative stigmas and encourage people to take steps back when it comes to social issues. Not to mention he's not going to fix your economy or anything either. If anything he'll blow money on stupid shit. I'm not saying Clinton is great. She's very much doing the right thing for selfish reasons but I'd rather take no steps forward than two steps back when it comes to politics. |
Quote:
No, I dont believe it's fair to levy the same expectations on a new politician as opposed to a 30+ politician, I think it's ridiculous and I don't feel like delving into it further aside from asking why a two year old didn't take the trash out as opposed to the 33 year old whose job it is in the first place. It's about as ridiculous. You might think differently, but that's your prerogative. Also, what 'stupid shit' will he attempt to 'blow money' on? Just curious. |
Quote:
Not that I think that'd ever actually be allowed to happen, but it speaks volumes to his credibility. |
Quote:
But i would be embarrassed if my head of state pretended they didn't understand basic shorthand for confidential and lied about coming under sniper fire. The thing is Trump isn't going to win, there's little point calling him out for saying stupid things when we have a dead cert for president who's voting and political record is absolute trash. A candidate who legitimately said she'd nuke Iran if Iran and Israel went to war, regardless of non aggression against the US. A candidate who's own website said all rape victims have the right to be believed despite her calling the legitimate reported rape of Kathy Shelton (12 at the time of the attack) the fantasy of a young girl who "sought out" older men, A twelve year old girl. This doesn't even touch on her awful antics with nefarious individuals and Governments. As someone on the left (the same side of the spectrum Clinton apparently resides on) I cannot overlook any of this, and she cannot be allowed to just sweep it away and continue business as usual. Quote:
|
Quote:
I would rather lose my job than defend someone I knew was guilty for being a child rapist, anyone with even a shred, a shred of moral decency would. |
Quote:
There's nothing unusual about the horrible things she said in the trial, that's not my complaint. My complaint is she made the statement that all victims should be believed despite her destroying the words of a child she knew was telling the truth about being raped. Then, instead of standing up and explaining herself, apologizing for the whole mess, offering to do more to ensure no one else had to face what she put that poor kid through she just ran away from it in typical Clinton fashion and deleted the statement from her website. Clinton is incapable of taking any, any responsibility for her actions and words, whenever something comes up she can't explain away with her patented "I misspoke" line or a bizarre lie, she simply pretends it didn't happen or tries to delete it. These are not qualities of a world leader. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Whoever said walls gone keep people out... I would have sincerely enjoyed watching them try to sneak past the Berlin Wall. A wall, to me, would be a long term investment. And it would be infinitely cheaper than the failed F-35 project (I nailed that thing right out the gate. Ultimately inferior to the F-22). It'd be cheaper than bailing out car companies anyway. To accurately state "a wall is useless" you need to look at actual border traffic from differing countries and lay down a plan. You don't just go build a wall. You look at how it will function, rules, laws, instances, scenarios and you tie these all together in a little bow. So, how would someone effectively go about reducing the amount of illegal aliens jumping a fence? Talk to Mexico? Have them change their laws? Our laws? What? Also, how does saying you want to build a wall worse than wanting to let anyone and everyone in, without the hassle of going "hey, how are you? Are you a felon?" Speak about credibility? Letting as many refugees into the country like that without a planned checking system is mental. Even Bono said himself, and he's supposed to be the help all be all guy. Not to mention we found out she had even more emails than was initially thought. So what about Clinton's credibility? In this race I thought credibility was halfway out the door and limited to what you could nail down. To me, a business a seat of power for your own gain than using your business to do so. You might think the opposite, but we come from different perspectives. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
I'm undecided between Gary Johnson and writing in a protest vote. I'm a libertarian Republican and as such feel Johnson and Weld are terrible libertarians.
|
You failed to mention that the DOJ itself is looking to appeal against the Obama administration's DAPA and DACA initiative, due to the majority of the states disagree with the DAPA/DACA, which negates legal or illegal status.
Again, immigration is still an issue according to 26 states in the union. I also stated that a wall would potentially be cheaper than dumping billions into a worthless plane project, a project that the Obama administration wisely cancelled, after they determined the thing was a money sink. So frivolous purchases? I call waiting six years to cancel something frivolous. Besides, there are several things that need to be rewritten in regards to immigration laws. My question still remains unanswered. How does a wall not keep someone out? What other items besides a wall would be fielded? How will someone go beyond the checks and balances? People keep bringing up the wall and that's about it. Now, I'm not saying that the wall will be built, but I am saying immigration as a whole needs to be reworked and Clinton seems to be vehemently against such a thing. I still say throwing cash at failures a waste of money (not gonna bring up cars or banks again). And again, given the scenario, there isn't a like thing. So whether it would work or not is still up for debate. And again, a wall would be deemed as a long term project and investment. Results wouldn't show for at least a few years. I don't know why I should even have to argue that point... Despite what you may believe, a wall just doesn't 'happen' and it goes through many challenges to even be realised just like any other major project. It might not even happen anyway, so shouting about walls seems silly. I'm for immigration reform, wall or no. Clinton is not. |
Quote:
|
I think an issue with The Wall of Trump, regardless of its cost and/or effectiveness, is the message it sends to other countries. What would this make them think of the US? I doubt anything positive. Especially when the last time a wall was made to separate people/divide a place was the Berlin Wall and it's not like people were terribly fond of that one.
|
Not necessarily true. The Israeli people placed a wall recently. Walls are meant to divide, so by the very nature of the thing it's doing what it's supposed to. Not to mention all the prison constructs around the world to prevent from prisoners getting out and people getting in without direct means.
I still argue for reform, but not necessarily in the form of a wall. Again, it may or may not happen despite fears and seems to be one of the biggest issues for some regardless whether or not such a thing will come to pass. Also, border barriers are not really a new thing. There are at least 20 walls in current use and more being built. The Indo-Bangladeshi wall is anti immigration in purpose and about as large as US' proposed wall. The China-Korea wall is under construction as I type this. We know that NK is pretty oppressive and refuses to let people go so what would be the purpose of that wall (they list it as anti-illegal immigration)? Walls aren't new and there are real world examples of walls just as long as what has been proposed, some are under construction and others have been proposed. |
Quote:
https://www.quora.com/How-hard-is-it-to-legally-immigrate-into-the-USA http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/121114/5-hardest-countries-getting-citizenship.asp http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-10-24/legal-immigration-usa/50895150/1 http://www.davidbreston.com/blog/2015/10/is-it-hard-to-immigrate-to-the-us/ http://reason.com/assets/db/07cf533ddb1d06350cf1ddb5942ef5ad.jpg Aside from that, common sense says that if you want less illegal immigrants from Mexico then you need laxer immigration laws. The best way to stop anyone from jumping the border is to stop making it an enormous financial burden and time-consuming task. Then people will do the paperwork and come in legally instead of resorting to the extreme. You might notice that there's a lot of European countries with laxer immigration laws that also have lower crime rates too, so don't try that argument either. Especially with Canada next door. Personally, I agree that stringent immigration control is important. But I dislike how a lot of countries go about it. |
I would like to add that many of the Alternative-Right and those advocating for a wall want the wall to not just to prevent illegal immigration. Like gimmiepie pointed out, if this was the case, then they would want it easier to become a US citizen.
They want to prevent illegal immigration because of who is illegally immigrating. They dont want these people, legal or illegal, unless they will fully assimilate to the culture, language, and be productive with a job by adding to the economy. To Trump, the wall is a cultural barrier, not a political barrier (at least according to many of his supporters. If not the case, then the supporters advocate this, and regardless of the purpose, it achieves the same thing). In short, to them it is a cultural issue more than it is a safety issue (within the context of Mexico and South American immigration). |
It should also be noted that illegal immigration into the US is at it's lowest in years and only decreasing, so rhetoric about that should be taken only with that knowledge in mind.
Also, while pence did win the debate it should be noted it was through unabashed lying and denial about things more than presenting coherent arguments- he came off looking more "electable" but at the expense of the truth. I would not call him more electable than Trump considering his own frightening history of awful anti-LGBT rhetoric and generally regressive behaviour towards any and all social progress. (I.e, supporting abhorrent "conversion therapy", singing anti-abortion laws that require burial or cremation (Basically a funeral) for aborted or miscarriaged fetuses, systematically defunded planned parenthood and caused an AIDS epidemic in his state due to it being the biggest supplier of testing and care for AIDS patients and publicly said he'd rather put money towards conversion therapy than to preventative measures for the AIDS epidemic he personally caused) Quote:
Source: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/ (Snopes needs to be used a lot more around here for fact check purposes imo) |
On the subject of presidential candidates who worked as attorneys defending criminals because it was their damn freaking job -and the 6th Amendment guarantees that any suspect has the right to have a defence attorney regardless of how bad the charges are-, Slate brings up this gem:
Quote:
|
I would like to add my personal experience with people who are immigrants to the US which is that they're generally very hard-working people. It takes a lot to move to another country. (Money, bravery, etc.) I see a big parallel to people who want to adopt children. They both have to go through a lot of extra effort and be subjected to a lot more scrutiny for something that other people take for granted.
If anything, wanting immigrants to assimilate is in some small way asking them to take what they've worked hard for for granted. |
Spoiler:
What does everyone think about the US accusing Russia of tampering with the election? I think it's a tad... embarrassing. |
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~jag/POL596A/Putnam-Immigration-Lecture.pdf
Just going to leave this here. The above study demonstrates how immigration produces a decline in social trust. I do not know if social trust relates entirely to crime. However, I believe it is relevant to the discussion about the virtues of immigration. It also reveals that immigration has long term benefits, such as creativity leading to innovation and economic success. I would like to inject my own opinion here that this is not an argument for open borders, but more of an argument for select immigration. |
Quote:
From there, the study in question has a very low sample size for studying something with such a wide variety of issues/factors involved (30,000 people in the US, to be exact) filling in personal feelings as the information gathered. As with all social studies, it's very difficult to quantify those, especially in a context with a smaller sample size than what would be necessary to totally understand every faucet of the issue. (Not to mention the issues that would come with trying to get a sample population representative of enough to get accurate readings for those factors) Quote:
|
Wikileaks has leaked some Clinton speech transcripts. Unsurprisingly, they show what everyone pretty much already knew, which is that she's said a lot of flattering things about Wall Street to Wall Street.
How I wish this could have come out during the primaries. And in other news, Trump is dealing with his latest, and perhaps worse, scandal involving some rather crude remark about women that I'm sure you can find for yourselves and I don't need to repeat here. |
Scores of Republicans telling Trump to resign without realising that Trump doesn't give a flying blep about the GOP or about "conservatism", and that the only human being he wants to see as president is himself. If outrageous comments were enough to make him quit, he would have never made it to Iowa in the first place. It's kinda sad.
I'm surprised they -including Pence, looking at reports- did buy their own "I'm supporting him because there is a different Trump in private who is just a normal moderate mainstream conservative" crap and feel now betrayed to find out that there is only one Trump- the one we all knew for years. And if the reports of Wisconsin R voters being angry at Ryan for dumping Trump from his event today are true, it seems that the only ones who did buy into it were the Republican leaders, and no one else. Have fun explaining the 13 million primary voters that the same crap he's been spouting since day 1 is now somehow "unacceptable" and so Pence has to run in his stead. The debate is going to break 100 million watchers though. Count on it. |
Yep, trump is doing terrible after the recent events thankfully.
Even his wife wasn't supporting him until he made that stupid apology! |
I'm confident that this recent Trump scandal will be the nail in the coffin for his campaign, so many fellow Republicans are pulling support from him, his supporters are a bit worried (those who actually find fault with his comments), and since this is a hot button issue now it's going to be brought up multiple times during the Debate/Town Hall tomorrow evening, and he's going to be railed on it through and through by the audience.
|
If you know Trump supporters (NOT the reluctant ones- actual ones), you would know they LOVE Trump. They are very optimistic about his chances.
Now many of them are not confident at all and do not believe he has a chance. That is really saying something. |
Debate's starting! Although right now they are just saying stuff about some foundation.
|
He's trying to deflect the tapes so bad right now.
|
That was quite the ride. I really thank Anderson Cooper and Martha Radditz who actually kept control of the debate by stopping them from talking over each other.
|
America likes to lead by example. Well, we are setting a horrible example with these two choices for president. Bring on 2020.
|
Yes, the choice is clear in Hillary Clinton. That doesn't automatically make her a saint though.
|
Trump was rattled, inarticulate, delusional, lost, and ill-prepared for the debate. Even more so than the last debate. His body language said it all. He was anxiously and aggressively pacing and failed to connect with audience members. Despite my many criticisms of Clinton, her rhetoric has been redirected to include the voices of progressives. At this juncture, Trump's campaign status is so tenuous she has a real ability to turn more and more to the left and contrast her vision of progress to a greater extent against Trump's jingoist, racist, xenophobic, sexist, anti-muslim, and hetero-normative sentiments that have truly exposed a core of our constituency. If the GOP is to go forward, they WILL have to move their platform significantly.
Trump truly embodies a true and representative core of American attitudes and in many ways is allowing us to get behind the mask of the neoconservatism fascism. That's not to excuse or ignore common prejudices that have existed among democrats for decades as well. Pence seems to have jumped ship. Many Republicans, especially women have jumped ship. By far the most cringe-worthy political performance concerning the modern presidency. I almost felt bad for Trump. . . . . Almost. |
Donald Trump is running for dictator ("You'd be in jail", a special prosecutor- he's promising to do the kind of stuff Richard Nixon had to resign for) and has no clue how the political system works ("Why didn't you pass a law about carried interest?" "Because George Bush had a presidential veto." "Blah blah veto schmeto"). Yes, he did better than expected- he didn't pee his trousers on stage, punch a member of the audience or attempt to assault any woman on stage. But I'm not sure this is the kind of president any country needs:
About his sexual assault tapes: "It's locker room talk and one of those things. I will knock the hell out of ISIS." Trump, on health care: "We are going to have plans that are so good" Moderator: "What does that mean?" Trump: "We- we are going to have plans that are so good. So good. There is going to be so much competition." About the economy: "If China has a GDP of 70% that is a national disaster. We are down to 1%" (if someone can tell me what the hell this means, I'd appreciate it). About world conflicts: "Russia is new in terms of nuclear". This guy has no clue about anything, he can't acknowledge mistakes, he can't say coherent sentences. And he still has the unflinching support of 40% of the US population. That is terrifying. |
Trump did better than I thought he would in all honesty, but in the end Clinton was the clear winner if you ask me - not that I'm surprised. Her tendency to go well over her time kind of annoyed me, but much less so than Trump's inability to actually answer questions.
He went back to the same two/three issues over and over - never actually explaining how he'd fix anything - when asked about a topic he didn't have an answer for whilst Clinton had an answer for just about everything - and more often than not, good ones. Her attitude was also far more becoming of a presidential candidate/future president. Kudos to the guy who asked the last question by the way, that was hilarious. |
Quote:
|
In a way you could say Trump did win. Not because he was more accurate or articulate, but because he got his supporters fired up and made it more difficult for other Republicans to move away from him (and face the wrath of his supporters on election day). But that's about the only way you might argue he won. I don't think anyone jumped onto the S. S. Trump who didn't already have a ticket in hand.
Pretty amazed though at how he pulled the rug from under Pence. Ouch. Could he even leave the ticket so close to the election and be replaced with a new VP nominee? Quote:
|
These polls tell a very interesting story, if you remember what happened exactly on the 7th:
http://i.imgur.com/9EVhL9F.png The Teflon candidate: he can say and do anything he wants without being punished... until he is. http://i.imgur.com/m3KuFRo.png |
Paul Ryan pulling support from Trump is quite the spectacle on the intra-party civil war that's going to happen post Nov 9
|
Trump fared a little better than the previous debate I think, Clinton fared a little worse, but mostly their relationship to one another remain the same. Trump has cemented himself as a petulant man. Before you even get to the content of his answers, he introduces them in such a disruptive, disorderly way.
I think Ivysaur said it best - Trump is running for dictator, not President. |
Quote:
They also see media support as a bad thing and will go against it regardless of how it actually effects them (see: Brexit) Trump is hated by the political mainstream and as such, the disenfranchised see him as a stalwart. The alt right and ultra conservatives see him as saying things the way they are, notable elements of the anarchistic side of the left see him in a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" light. |
Quote:
Quote:
Honestly a better analogy is Clinton being a higherup prepared to make jobs redundant to increase efficiency and profits regardless of the status of the workers, while Trump is the Boss' spoilt son who has no vocational training and only got the job due to who he is, who keeps making bad investments, plummeting the company into debt and blaming other people but is kept on because the boss refuses to fire his golden child. Quote:
He has no policy to report on, nothing postive to mention, just scandal after scandal after awful comment. If it's bias to report what's going on, just because it reflects badly on someone, then i'd hate to see what politically neutral reporting is because it sounds a lot like repressing freedom of the press. |
Quote:
She doesn't apologise, she just comes out with "i misspoke". She hasn't apologised for the wall street scandal, she hasn't apologised for the hundreds of kids who died via her droning campaign, she hasn't apologised to the 12 year old who's rapist she got off with a measly 1 year sentence etc. Hell, she nearly, NEARLY, apologised for the Super Predator gaffe but came short of actually saying sorry and instead started spinning again. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/25/clinton-heckled-by-black-lives-matter-activist/ As for "the media arent bias against Trump", from last week's "incident" alone: http://www.salon.com/2016/10/03/draft-dodger-donald-trump-tells-veterans-with-ptsd-cant-handle-combat/ http://heavy.com/news/2016/10/watch-donald-trump-says-veterans-who-commit-suicide-cant-handle-it/ http://perezhilton.com/2016-10-03-donald-trump-veterans-soldiers-ptsd-not-strong http://theslot.jezebel.com/trump-implies-veterans-with-ptsd-just-cant-handle-it-1787365665 http://www.nbcnews.com/card/trump-implies-vets-suffering-ptsd-cant-handle-war-n658706 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-angers-suggestion-vets-ptsd-weak-42543371 http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2016/10/03/ptsd-a-weakness-in-veterans-i-dont-think-so-mr-trump/&refURL=https://www.google.co.uk/&referrer=https://www.google.co.uk/ There are more, but I think you get the gist. Trump never suggested people who had PTSD were weak, or that them killing themselves made them weak, but lets look at those headlines. This is just one of a score of incidents where they've wildly altered or reframed what he's said. http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-didnt-say-vets-with-ptsd-are-weak/ Elements of the mainstream media are definitely bias against him, more than happy to just wildly stretch the truth of what was and wasn't said. You don't have to lie or alter things to make Trump seem idiotic or awful, but they still do it, and his supporters (who people constantly berate and write off as idiots) see that happening. I;m not saying his apologies are sincere (in fact I said that it's irrelevant to his audience if they are earnest or not) but the fact remains, he says the word "sorry" and to a lot of people, that's what they want. Clinton rarely says the word, she usually provides an excuse or deflection, but rarely uses the word. It seems arbitrary but it does make a difference to how an awful lot of people perceive a statement. |
Quote:
Also, can someone please explain the child rapist thing to me? I know nothing of that issue but it's obviously a contentious one. |
Quote:
On from that, there is no wallstreet scandal as none of the wikileak documents actually show anything scandalous, I have no idea what you mean with "her droning campaign" as far as i'm aware she neither started nor was ever in control of drone strikes and the rapist thing is a straight up lie, sadly even being peddled by the victim themself. As I posted to you earlier in this thread, the accused pled guilty and Clinton agreed to a plea deal for her client that net him 5 years jail time. This was reduced by the judge, not by her intervention. From there, it was the victim's own mother who wanted the deal to be done, and pushed for it rather than dragging on the case. Clinton did nothing but her job, and tried to get herself removed from the case as she didn't even want to do it. http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/25/clinton-heckled-by-black-lives-matter-activist/ As for "the media arent bias against Trump", from last week's "incident" alone: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
He has apologized for this one thing so far, and as far as I can tell (And others who have researched more extensively can tell) he has literally never apologized for anything else during his entire political campaign, neither publically or privately. He's apologized for two things ever on the public record outside of the pre-mentioned example from the other day. Once to a councillor fired for voting against Trump's gold resort, and once to his current wife for offending her while she was his fiancé. |
Quote:
Clinton was appointed as legal for a child rapist after he asked for a women to represent him as he felt it would strengthen his case. Clinton asked not to but was denied. She pushed a narrative that the 12 year old victim was a liar and chased after older men. In an interview years later she laughs when talking about her lack of faith in polygraph machines after she had him do a test and it said he was telling the truth when she knew he was not. This isn't where, at least personally speaking, the problem lies. She doesn't attempt to apologise to the kid in the interview, or at all during the years that have followed. The most she's ever expressed regret in regards to the whole fiasco is that she had to work that case. Then she had the nerve to state 'I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault: Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed, and we’re with you." on her website, which, funnily enough, her team removed after the 12 year old made noise about it in feb 2015. At that point Clinton could have apologised for all the grief the case caused, but she opted to flip flop on a statement again instead. Quote:
http://people.com/celebrity/donal-trump-apologizes-for-unspecified-wrongs-and-personal-pain/ Here's a fourth for you. He isn't a spin doctor, that's the whole point. I was asked why people still view him in the way they do, this is one of the reasons why. It's all about the language. http://www.salon.com/2016/06/10/fbi_criminal_investigation_emails_clinton_approved_cia_drone_assassinations_with_her_cellphone_report_says/ Clinton was Sec. of State from 2009-2013, are you honestly suggesting that the Sec. of State had no say or part in US drone strikes during that period? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Here's the real problem, the vast majority of people know Trump is a boorish, rude, sexist, probably racist (if he isn't, he at the very least plays up to them) reactionary egomaniac who has no place in Govt which is why people like me just don't take him seriously. Clinton, however, is supposed to be the good guy in this, her party are supposed to be the good guys. It's time they start acting it. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This was something put forward by more than one person, including a child psychologist part of the investigation. None of those people were Clinton. Clinton requested the victim undergo a psychiatric evaluation to determine the validity of these claims, and the court agreed. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It's pretty nonsense to present the idea that she's suddenly decided that sexual assault victims have the right to be heard and don't deserve to be silence, but they don't deserve to be believed. Quote:
to the line the last time you were talking about it, so the point still stands. Quote:
He might not be smart enough to be a spin doctor, but he employs a load of them. His statements and scripts are built to spin politics and push the buttons he needs to- it's just lucky he could do more of that than the other repub candidates on his own or he wouldn't have gotten far enough to hire them. Quote:
But as the article says the CIA actually controls the drone strikes, and process each request to the state department to allow them a degree of control (Not full control, and not really even full control over their go-ahead) and even this was something signed in under clinton from 2011 onwards (Which means she had what, a year and a half at maximum of any degree of control over drone strikes at all?) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Care to source the claim it's "fairly false"? I never said she didn't get him a plea bargain, but the judge reduced the sentence on that plea bargain from 5 to 1 year from time already served and what appeared to be his own prerogative. This is public record. And even then, it doesn't seem to have been clinton who put it forward anyway and the mother of the victim heavily pushed for it to be taken just to end it. Quote:
Quote:
And honestly? That woman seems to be lying about being subjected to a psychiatric evaluation, as she claims, the court record shows the request was denied by the judge and as such didn't even go ahead? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/11/the-facts-about-hillary-clinton-and-the-kathy-shelton-rape-case/ |
Quote:
I don't know if it's 'left' related, but I was yelled at in the grocery for not letting a fatty cut in front of me. She had a full cart and I had two items. Then was called a misogynist pig. It got worse when I started to chuckle the 'you're crazy' chuckle. Needless to say, she was removed. That doesn't even count how I'm attacked because I choose not to specify for whom I'll be voting for. It's like some interrogation quest. I just don't know how to feel. But I will say that the current administration failed with it's long list of bailouts. The car companies are moving away, regardless. So all the bailout did was prolong the move. It really irks me that they decided to do this, and they [admin] didn't put any levy or conditions on the loans. So the left is damaged from that aspect as well. I didn't vote in the last election, but the choices there were equally poor. |
All I can say is that if you think that Clinton and Trump are *equally* as bad, then you do fully deserve Donald Trump. And may god have mercy on you.
|
The GOP are in trouble, could maybe suffer several congressional losses this year, but something tells me that a Clinton win would do wonders for them in the future, regardless of whether or not the current leadership remains in control of the party or if tea party and Trump supporter types manage to take it over. Either way, hatred for Clinton will continue like hatred of Obama continues and it will give at least some support to the Republican party since it's the only alternative to the Democrats.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The idea of a collective mainstream media that's all agreed that there needs to be bias against Trump is... staggering to say the least. When you consider international independent media outside of an American-centric view on things is generally reporting on the same things as american media in regards to the election you have to greatly expand this conspiracy into some kind of global network, and then try to explain how/why anyone would even bother "hiding the truth" from people who don't care or even get to vote in the american election |
As a journalist who will be writing a piece on the current situation in a few hours, I can only say that accusations of sexual abuse after last week's tape are much more newsworthy (and terrifying) than Clinton giving speeches- even if some of her quotes can look bad without context.
Oh, and nobody is telling me what to report on, giving me orders or promising me a bonus if Clinton wins. I just studied five years of university to know what is newsworthy. |
In regards to the future of the GOP, I'm not sure if Trump's candidacy and/or the election outcome will affect much of the midterm/congressional elections as drastically as some might think. I could be completely wrong and an absolute fool, but I think the overwhelming majority of Americans vote based on party alone, whether they realize it or not.
In my opinion it is one of the real weaknesses of our (bipartisan) political system. I am by no means an expert, but I have seen my acquaintances, whose general location on the political spectrum I am aware of, clearly argue against the opposing candidate's weaknesses/scandals. It's almost just automatic, blind voting for so many: if you lean right, vote republican and if you lean left, vote democrat, regardless of candidate. Again, I may be way off, and by no means does every voter do this (many, many voters do not, I'm sure), but those are my observations. However, I think the blind party following that tends to occur will cripple the GOP. The Democratic platform is much more attractive rhetoric to the general population than the Republican platform. Plus, society as a whole is becoming more and more liberal, which I think will strengthen the Democratic Party for the foreseeable future. It saddens me that one of these two candidates will be our next president. I have no respect for either. Everyone attacks Trump for his various scandals and his narcissistic personality, and rightfully so. But Clinton is no different. She is just a trained politician who knows how to (or maybe just chooses to) display a professional front to the public in order to avoid scrutiny. The problem that is clear is that Trump is just so incoherent that I can't imagine him managing our entire country. It is clear from his debates and speeches. I don't know if he is simply not intelligent enough to form coherent arguments and develop logical answers to questions and issues, but he doesn't do it. The problem with him is that he may just be too arrogant to consider answering questions because whatever he has to say is more important than what others are interested in hearing. Although Clinton is better, she is still not great. Most of her answers are just as empty in substance or contain claims with absolutely no plan of execution. But again, because these two have their respective party nominations, one will be the president as a result of our bipartisan system. I think we should all be very worried about the future of our country. Quote:
On a side note, that must be tough being a journalist in a situation like this. I mean you have your own personal political views, so does that interfere with your ability to produce neutral pieces? Does it make it difficult to cover both sides with equal criticism, praise, etc? |
So #repealthe19th is trending. While I'm sure it's not just Trump supporters, that lots of people are jumping on in a mocking, non-serious way, it still seems like we've hit a new rock bottom for political discourse in America.
Quote:
|
What is this #repealthe19th thing?
|
Quote:
And, on the second part, the problem is that giving "equal praise" to both candidates means being biased towards Trump. I have made some articles being critical of her, sure, but I have also done some positive ones. In Trump's case, though, I think I have only made articles critical with his extremely idiotic economic ideas (I work in an economic paper, after all) and how they'd ruin the country (usually with the back-up of some dozen different economists who are also terrified of him), critical with his racism, with his sexism, with his incompetent campaign management and so on. I mean, when a candidate is so uniquely, extraordinarily, objectively bad, any equivalence with the other is necessarily a "false equivalence" whose only result is either making Clinton seem much worse than she is, or Trump more normal that he is- and he isn't at all. Admittedly, I get a ton of Trump lovers calling me "a George Soros shill" who is taking orders to guarantee money for my paper, but I swear I'm not. Quote:
|
Quote:
The issue I have with it is that president or first gentleman (is that what we would call Bill?), either would be representing the country. So no matter the victor in this election America is going to choose sexual predators as their voice. I mean how low has our society and our race stooped where that is the case? Further, while I completely agree with the stance that Trump's offenses are those of the candidate himself whereas Bill's are those of the candidate's husband, it seems pretty accepted that Hillary Clinton shutting those people up and making their accusations disappear for the betterment of her family's political position. Of course, that is not on the horrific level of actually sexually assaulting someone, but again, I feel like I must emphasize, how is this person going to be our president? I think it should be discussed at length, which it is not currently. Hillary just isn't trustworthy. I mean between what I've just mentioned, her emails, and her associations with the rich and powerful who have donated vast amounts of money to her foundation, I just don't trust her. And while she definitely possesses more positives than Trump does, that stuff I think needs to be more emphasized. |
To be honest, the hardcore Trump supporters might support repealing the 19th if they value a Trump presidency and other right-wing presidents/congressmen/etc over the women's right to vote. I still think its unlikely even for them.
It only makes sense to want to do so to pass your political agenda. Although it would be impossible and its probably a joke. |
About ending women's Sufferage: I think that's just trolling. It has to be. Who in their right mind would actually advocate that? The Islamic religion, maybe? I think putting pound symbols just attract attention to ridiculous ideas and pranks en masse, like 'Dick's out for Harambe'. They just exist to push buttons so I would just take it with a grain of salt. It's not like it's going to happen anyways. Women themselves make up half of the population and they can still vote. To push the idea forward, they' have to at least get a quarter of them on board to vote against their right to vote! So silly. I think it's a troll getting off on his jollies.
Quote:
Besides the fact that I initially voted for Obama's first election campaign and have seen some of the aftermath of the cabinet it makes me leery of voting for a member that was on that cabinet very cabinet. It's a two-sided coin where you called tails. Placing trust in either basket is probably just as ludicrous, I feel, in both instances. You can't trust either one to water your plants while you're away, but really what choice do you have? You either side with one or the other, there really isn't another option. A third party has never snatched the title from either the Republican or Democratic parties so voting for an obscure independent is just going to assure you wasted your vote. The two candidates are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Chances are you'll agree with one more than the other, that's just the way it's always been. I did think Clinton's dry "Pokémon Go to the polls" was funny in a strange way. That's just what I think. It's also hard to determine who's bad (Besides Michael) due to the fact Trump hasn't been in an electoral seat. Sure, some candidates can be detestable, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll be outright bad presidents and vice-versa. We've had Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, Harry Truman and Franklin Delano Roosevelt for example. So just because they have nice speeches or have held an office previously doesn't mean much. I try not to judge all before end all, but it gets more and more difficult as time wears on. And if I was really vindictive of you're comment, I'd vote the opposite just to quietly spite you, ohohohoho! Goodness gracious! I was being serious for about twenty minutes. That has got to be, like, a world record or something! I'm very fun loving, but I can't just let my Gym Badges get a little grimy just because of a few misconceptions about how I see things. I also don't believe it's right to make quips and putting down people that haven't provoked you (unless we're slinging crack and smoking jokes); it's incendiary and serves no other purpose other than to bait someone into a war of quibbles. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:52 AM. |
![]()
© 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.