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)

Netto Azure September 26th, 2016 6:46 PM

His advisers are definitely going to make him practice for the debates next time

Nakuzami September 26th, 2016 6:52 PM

Lol that was a mess (expected and funny)

Maybe it's not too late to get a selfie with Trump and Clinton

Somewhere_ September 26th, 2016 6:54 PM

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.

Esper September 26th, 2016 7:00 PM

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.

Kanzler September 26th, 2016 7:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Netto Azure (Post 9427214)
His advisers are definitely going to make him practice for the debates next time

George W. Bush practised for debating Al Gore for six months before their first debate. He ain't gonna make it.

Somewhere_ September 26th, 2016 7:34 PM

I think my opinion changed a bit... Clinton was definitely better prepared. Trump will need to step it up.

Kanzler September 26th, 2016 7:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9427220)
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.

Top percentage temperament. I found it really distracting when he talked about his accomplishments as a businessman. I don't know about what most Americans think, but the debate is an interview for the position of President, not running a business.

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.

Ivysaur September 27th, 2016 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadSheep (Post 9427013)
My predictions are that Trump will absolutely destroy Hillary. Even if he has worse ideas, he will still win. I dont think it will even be close because of Hillary's health and Trump... being Trump.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadSheep (Post 9427267)
I think my opinion changed a bit... Clinton was definitely better prepared. Trump will need to step it up.

Why Clinton won the debate, in two posts.

Esper September 27th, 2016 9:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9427277)
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.

The radio news today was saying that a group of tepid Clinton supporters they followed during the debate felt more energized after and a group of formerly upbeat Trump supporters were feeling subdued.

Ivysaur September 27th, 2016 9:39 AM

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.

GhostTrainer September 27th, 2016 10:21 AM

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.

Elysieum September 28th, 2016 1:42 AM

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.

Melody September 30th, 2016 7:34 AM

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.

Esper September 30th, 2016 9:12 AM

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.

Ivysaur September 30th, 2016 11:59 AM

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.

Melody September 30th, 2016 4:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9431290)
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.

This is true. The Clinton Campaign shouldn't be getting complacent; they've got to swim upstream against the wave of uninformed voters who still adore Trump and won't be swayed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9431448)
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.

Well yeah they can definitely milk this fact until the cows go home; but if that's all they're doing against Trump; he's gonna pull ahead more than he should be because uninformed voters are actually a threat in this election season; and if Hillary can't clinch off something to say that will properly discredit Trump and make them like her Platform any better then she'll be shocked when we all go to the polls and Trump blows by her like she's standing still. x3

Esper October 1st, 2016 9:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9431448)
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.

It's true they can bait him pretty easily, but I think only fairly media savvy, informed voters and young people are going to know what happens with twitter and that a large proportion of his supporters won't even know about it.

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.

Esper October 1st, 2016 9:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9432347)
The third reason I'm conflicted is because I'm not sure if Clinton should bother appealing to the Johnson/Stein camp. With only a month to go until the elections, is it possible that some of the Johnson/Stein supporters would coalesce around Clinton anyway, knowing what's at stake? I suppose that's really what's going on in my mind as of the moment.

Given Johnson's second major flub I think there's a chance to siphon off a little of his support.

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?

CoffeeDrink October 1st, 2016 12:38 PM

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.

Esper October 1st, 2016 1:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoffeeDrink (Post 9432518)
I don't know why voting for Trump would be considered ignorant.

Please read more carefully. I said there were a whole bunch of Trump supporters who were ignorant, not that voting for Trump makes one ignorant. Nor did I call you or anyone in particular out by name. Yes, I did make a fairly broad statement, but there are a lot of people in the Trump camp who just plain ignore reality because they don't like it. (I mean, claiming that Michelle Obama is actually a man and their kids are adopted? That's just wacky conspiracy theorizing.) And then there are the climate-deniers and the birthers, of course. They make up a sizable portion.

Quote:

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?
Don't look at me, I'm not trying to convince you to vote Trump.

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.

Ivysaur October 1st, 2016 1:47 PM

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.

CoffeeDrink October 1st, 2016 4:17 PM

Spoiler:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9432566)
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 ****?) 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.

I wouldn't bring up eminent domain. The Clinton library is a prime example of this. Not only that, but eminent domain has been utilized in over 41 states from 1998 to 2003 (clinton was in office during some of this, by the way) in over 10,000 cases of eminent domain. I advise you to read up on the institute for justice.

Eminent domain also has a few 'new' names that it has gone by as well, such as governmental condemnation and civil forfeiture. The Clinton administration is far from innocent on this one. To say that Trump is solely responsible for eminent domain and that Clinton is clean on this is naive, the IJ proves this. So getting all uppity about this issue is a bit strange considering the Clinton administration has done much of the same thing in the past.

Further more, I would be suspicious of the Condé Nast company, the very same company that publishes such fine rags such as Vogue, teen Vogue, Glamour, Brides, Golf Digest and Wired. None of which are politically rooted to dedicated world news. Further more, Wired alone was crafted by a self proclaimed 'radical libertarian' and Wired used to own Reddit as well, so I know how factual Reddit can be.

This also brings up Slate's reliability, which is notorious for liberal idealism. They have also been criticized for taking stances against wrong or incorrect positions in the past. Publishing an opinion article hardly counts towards factual realism anways. Being criticized on not knowing what Brexit meant is hardly a disqualifying factor. Brexit is a relatively knew term invented to refer to the British exit from the UN, so it would be the same as not knowing what lol or idk or smh means. Not knowing abbreviations and short hand slang as a criticism? So that's now a disqualifying factor for any job application now I guess. That's like me expecting you to know what New Jack means.

They also criticize him for saying 'good job' to Turkey for stopping a coup by the 'Peace at Home' council, a council that began its coup by shooting at police officers. Keep in mind that Turkey is a democratic state. So, they stopped radicals that wanted to cease operating as a democratic state and employed violence to get what they wanted under the guise of 'Peace at Home'. Further even, was that it seems that sole blame of civilian casualties lies on the government itself. Give me a break. Like I said, opinion pieces. That, and I can't find a comprehensive list of sourced from the Slate article you linked me to.

The Clinton administration has plenty of skeletons in the closet, of which have been strung up and used for personal gain under officially sanctioned governmental agency. So I weigh 'which is worse' based upon what I've experienced and what I've learned. Is it worse to have someone whose checkered history hasn't been in office before? Or do I vote for someone who is well versed in the ways of manipulating governmental power for one's own gain?

Like I said, a turkey is a turkey. Both of the candidates are equally poor choices despite what you may or may not believe. They both have bad sides, they both are not ideal candidates the only difference being that I know Clinton has been in office, she's been fired from a political position for incompetence, she's lobbied and used her office for political gain.

She's already abused my trust for years, and I don't feel like voting for her. There's no reason to be overly snide. I just don't feel like voting for someone that has abused their governmental position previously and has shown such disregard to that effect. So what's to say what else that individual might do? I just don't want to find out. Feel free to disagree, but just don't want you to go believing that the Clinton's are squeaky clean.

Ivysaur October 1st, 2016 11:11 PM

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?

CoffeeDrink October 2nd, 2016 12:32 AM

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.

Hands October 4th, 2016 5:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoffeeDrink (Post 9433109)
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..

I don't know if you can call Saudi Arabia and Bahrain terrorist groups, I mean their track records are absolutely awful but they're closer to dictatorships than terrorist cells.

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.

gimmepie October 4th, 2016 9:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9435777)
I don't know if you can call Saudi Arabia and Bahrain terrorist groups, I mean their track records are absolutely awful but they're closer to dictatorships than terrorist cells.

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.

A snake in a wig might still be a snake but it's also still safer than a loaded gun and that's what Trump is. Hillary obviously has flaws but she at least knows how to be a politician and isn't going to embaress your country on the international stage.

Esper October 4th, 2016 10:03 AM

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:

Over the past few years, political scientists have suggested that, counterintuitively, Barack Obamas election may have led to greater acceptance by whites of racist rhetoric. Something similar is now happening with gender. Hillary Clintons candidacy is sparking the kind of sexist backlash that decades of research would predict. If she becomes president, that backlash could convulse American politics for years to come.
It cites several studies about the attitudes men have regarding women in positions of power and/or positions traditionally held by men, which it says are

Quote:

relevant because the Americans who dislike [Clinton] most are those who most fear emasculation. According to the Public Religion Research Institute, Americans who completely agree that society is becoming too soft and feminine were more than four times as likely to have a very unfavorable view of Clinton as those who completely disagree. And the presidential-primary candidate whose supporters were most likely to believe that America is becoming feminizedmore likely by double digits than supporters of Ted Cruzwas Donald Trump.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/fear-of-a-female-president/497564/

CoffeeDrink October 4th, 2016 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9436154)
A snake in a wig might still be a snake but it's also still safer than a loaded gun and that's what Trump is. Hillary obviously has flaws but she at least knows how to be a politician and isn't going to embaress your country on the international stage.

We're already the laughing stock of the world. I don't see how much of a difference Trump or Clinton would make. Remember, this is the country that went other the UN to complain about Internet bullies (see: trolls), where most people that are part of the UN wished their only problem was Internet bullies. You see, we aren't ever viewed in a favorable light, and with our two faced stance on what is going down in Syria, it isn't hard to see why.

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.

Ivysaur October 4th, 2016 12:45 PM

Quote:

We're already the laughing stock of the world. I don't see how much of a difference Trump or Clinton would make. Remember, this is the country that went other the UN to complain about Internet bullies (see: trolls), where most people that are part of the UN wished their only problem was Internet bullies. You see, we aren't ever viewed in a favorable light, and with our two faced stance on what is going down in Syria, it isn't hard to see why.
Actually, most of the world sees the US in a positive light (at least since a certain B. Obama is leading it) AND most of the world is very supportive of the US's actions in Syria! Man, it's as if your entire image of your country is based on a misrepresentation of reality.

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.
Wait, who is the "bad guy" Obama is supporting? I missed that. Funnily enough, when both of the candidates met the Egyptian dictator, only one of them was exceedingly happy to make the acquaintance of a "bad guy"- and his name wasn't Hillary.

Quote:

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.
No, no. I think you got it wrong again- that was the Donald.

Quote:

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).
So would you say that the US is currently worse than it was 30 years ago?

Quote:

You and I would probably be jailed if those were our emails (that's not the only bad thing she's done).
Actually, you wouldn't- at least, the previous people who did similar things weren't.

Quote:

Some Europeans actually prefer Clinton's opponent, but that could just be a coincidence.
Yes. Exactly 9% of us. More or less the same amount of people who believe that the moon landings were faked. Probably the same ones as well.

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".

Netto Azure October 4th, 2016 3:43 PM

The battle of the bland vanilla pols should be an interesting watch

Somewhere_ October 4th, 2016 4:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9436543)
Someone let us know how it goes here; I would watch myself, but since I took a nap and woke up late, I've kinda lost interest rip.

^ yes! ^

I can't watch it either- I got homework. :/

Crizzle October 4th, 2016 4:41 PM

Have we had the official PC election poll yet, or is just not worth having this year?

Esper October 4th, 2016 5:13 PM

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.

Kanzler October 4th, 2016 5:44 PM

Mike Pence is infinitely more electable than Donald Trump.

CoffeeDrink October 4th, 2016 7:04 PM

Spoiler:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9436340)
Actually, most of the world sees the US in a positive light (at least since a certain B. Obama is leading it) AND most of the world is very supportive of the US's actions in Syria! Man, it's as if your entire image of your country is based on a misrepresentation of reality.



Wait, who is the "bad guy" Obama is supporting? I missed that. Funnily enough, when both of the candidates met the Egyptian dictator, only one of them was exceedingly happy to make the acquaintance of a "bad guy"- and his name wasn't Hillary.



No, no. I think you got it wrong again- that was the Donald.



So would you say that the US is currently worse than it was 30 years ago?



Actually, you wouldn't- at least, the previous people who did similar things weren't.



Yes. Exactly 9% of us. More or less the same amount of people who believe that the moon landings were faked. Probably the same ones as well.

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".

In terms of inherent lethality? Live Snakes.

Besides, she kept a private server at her private residence, so regardless of that fact, another politico article contradicts the other. It also doesn't change the fact that she lied about it at least once. Then stated 'my predecessors did it' which isn't true. They did not have private servers at their home or under their direct control. It's also one of those cases where it hasn't happened often, so saying that we could do the same thing and get away with it is a tad hopeful in my opinion.

Further more, attacking Syrian Troops doesn't get an 'Oops, thought they were ISIS' pass from me. Bombing an airbase without all the Intel is idiotic don't you think? So that is what I mean when I say the US is making mistakes. Not working with Russia is another mistake. Confusing ones allies with one's enemies is a bad misstep if you ask me.

There seems to be some disconnect with embezzlement and it's definitions. So, the article you positioned was filled on the basis of a licensing dispute, or more in line with failing to license. Also, if I ate an apple and someone said I didn't and showed someone a picture of my neighbor eating an apple does not negate the former. I don't know where the train stopped with that one, but I'll go with it.

Opinion polls aren't always the best source, but a decent enough basis. But, you know, opinions.

Better or worse off than 30 years ago? Well, on the basis of if my opinion matters? Yes, worse off, but you should also note that what I said does not correlate with 'Clinton breathes oxygen, therefore the US is worse than ever'. Economically, the country is okay but it isn't like it used to be. The dollar value has seen itself plummet, manufacturing positions have moved overseas partly because of terribly laid tax plans (thanks Reagan, great job).

So off the top of my head, has Clinton made the country better, or worse? No, on both. She hasn't made anything better and she couldn't stop Nike moving away if she tried. I'm not gullible enough to lay the blame of 30 years of economic turmoil at the foot of one person. So handing me loaded questions is kind of low. I just note that what she has done (or not done) wouldn't have made much of a difference if she wasn't there. Does that make sense?

It isn't a matter of 'here's how bad Trump is' for me so much as 'What has Clinton done'? Does that make sense? Has she squandered her political position? Yes. Has she used her seat for personal gain? Yes. Has she failed the American people? I'll call letting Americans die as a yes.

You see, for me it's like I hold people who hold office to higher standards. I hold cops to higher standards than I do the average joe. Cops are supposed to know the law and rules of their precinct. Now if all they did was use their position to drink all the donuts and eat all the coffee you'd say that they failed in their duty as well, no?

I feel there is a disconnect with 'here's a character'. Hillary is already elected, albeit in a different seat. She has abused this power multiple times. Which seat has trump held? That's the point I'm trying to make. Hillary, abuse of power, known failure of held power. Trump, dork, has had no obligation to hold to a political seat before.

Making snide remarks about how wrong I am and all 'misconceptiony' or what else makes a total of 0 people that would probably legitimately value your opinion. 'Worrying' about me is downright insulting, when issued with loaded connotations. So, cheers I guess.


Pence is pretty well spoken. More than decent vp nominee

gimmepie October 4th, 2016 8:46 PM

"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.

CoffeeDrink October 5th, 2016 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9436808)
"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 ****.

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.

I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe any one person can fix an entire economic downturn that began decades ago, so I don't know why that is even an issue. At best, the vehicle can be steered but the brakes went out a long time ago.

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.

gimmepie October 5th, 2016 4:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoffeeDrink (Post 9436937)
I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe any one person can fix an entire economic downturn that began decades ago, so I don't know why that is even an issue. At best, the vehicle can be steered but the brakes went out a long time ago.

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.

Like a wall.
Not that I think that'd ever actually be allowed to happen, but it speaks volumes to his credibility.

Hands October 5th, 2016 5:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9436154)
A snake in a wig might still be a snake but it's also still safer than a loaded gun and that's what Trump is. Hillary obviously has flaws but she at least knows how to be a politician and isn't going to embaress your country on the international stage.

Neither of them will embarrass my country ;)

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:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9436168)
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.

It cites several studies about the attitudes men have regarding women in positions of power and/or positions traditionally held by men, which it says are

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/fear-of-a-female-president/497564/

Would it make you feel better if I told you I'm just as negative about the other President Clinton?

Hands October 5th, 2016 5:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9437073)
Clinton further clarified that she didn't even want to do the trial, but when you're an attourney, you gotta do what you're hired to do. She even tried to get out of it, but was turned down.

It's best to understand the context of why she did what she did before passing along judgements. It made her sick to defend a rapist, but she was essentially forced to.

I'm not criticizing her for doing her job, no matter how awfully she behaved during it, I'm criticizing her barefaced cheek to claim all victims should be believed when she deliberately misrepresented and in turn, delegitimized the truthful claims of a 12 year old rape victim by painting her as a lustful bunny boiler who was essentially lying.

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.

Hands October 5th, 2016 5:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9437079)
I dunno, Hands. The ugly truth about being a lawyer is that you're probably going to be hired to defend people you don't like. Murders? Kidnappers? Are you going to lose your job just because you don't like the case or the person, or are you going to do what you were hired to do in the first place? What she said wasn't pretty and I don't agree with it, but for christ's sake, she was a defense attourney, that's the kind of stuff you'd expect from a defense attourney.

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

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

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

Hands October 5th, 2016 6:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9437099)
I don't get it. Again, you said you aren't criticizing her for doing her job, but you go on and critize her for doing her job anyway as you said here:



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





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

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

CoffeeDrink October 5th, 2016 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9437051)
Like a wall.
Not that I think that'd ever actually be allowed to happen, but it speaks volumes to his credibility.

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

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

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

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

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

Ivysaur October 5th, 2016 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoffeeDrink (Post 9437462)
I would like a further explanation. Further more how, if possible, would the executive pass through checks and balances without anyone speaking up about it? Regardless, who ever said walls don't keep people out is lying. There really is no concrete proof that, hypothetically, if a wall was introduced that it would not have any affect on illegal immigration.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9320023)
Second, the wall with Mexico is going to do little to help. Not least because the number of illegal immigrants from Mexico has dropped by 8% since 2010 (they are leaving back to their country!) and, consequently, the arrivals from Mexico have fallen by a whooping 80%. No, the problem is that more than half of the illegal immigrants come to the US legally, crossing the border through the official checkpoints with valid visas... and then simply stay once they run out. So having a 100-km tall border wall wouldn't change a single thing to the majority of illegal immigrants who never needed to climb over it to get in in the first place. That's a good waste of billions of dollars! Source.


FreakyLocz14 October 5th, 2016 6:14 PM

I'm undecided between Gary Johnson and writing in a protest vote. I'm a libertarian Republican and as such feel Johnson and Weld are terrible libertarians.

CoffeeDrink October 5th, 2016 11:09 PM

You failed to mention that the DOJ itself is looking to appeal against the Obama administration's DAPA and DACA initiative, due to the majority of the states disagree with the DAPA/DACA, which negates legal or illegal status.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hands October 6th, 2016 5:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoffeeDrink (Post 9437462)
Whoever said walls gone keep people out... I would have sincerely enjoyed watching them try to sneak past the Berlin Wall.

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

Nah October 6th, 2016 5:18 AM

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

CoffeeDrink October 6th, 2016 9:50 AM

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.

gimmepie October 6th, 2016 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoffeeDrink (Post 9438486)
Not necessarily true. The Israeli people placed a wall recently. Walls are meant to divide, so by the very nature of the thing it's doing what it's supposed to. Not to mention all the prison constructs around the world to prevent from prisoners getting out and people getting in without direct means.

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

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

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

https://www.quora.com/How-hard-is-it-to-legally-immigrate-into-the-USA
http://www.investopedia.com/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.

Somewhere_ October 6th, 2016 11:03 AM

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).

Aliencommander1245 October 6th, 2016 6:14 PM

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:

A candidate who's own website said all rape victims have the right to be believed despite her calling the legitimate reported rape of Kathy Shelton (12 at the time of the attack) the fantasy of a young girl who "sought out" older men, A twelve year old girl.
The discussion of this seems to be over, but it should be noted that this isn't at all true Clinton at no stage said this, it's a mishmash of things said by other people during the trial. Clinton did request a psychiatric evaluation of the victim on advice from a child psychologist who said part of that, but she didn't agree or say so herself.

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

Ivysaur October 6th, 2016 11:26 PM

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:

When James Madison proposed a Bill of Rights to shore up the new Constitution’s protection of individual rights, he included a right-to-counsel clause in his earliest drafts. The clause enjoyed nearly universal support at ratifying conventions, since the colonists had suffered under the old English rules barring many defendants from assistance of counsel. Indeed, a majority of colonies already guaranteed the right to an attorney before the Sixth Amendment was even ratified. Moreover, for much of American history, defending vilified clients was seen as an honorable, even noble calling. John Jay and Alexander Hamilton represented universally deplored defendants without apology. So did Abraham Lincoln, who defended several notorious murders. Lincoln, in fact, defended an accused murderer just a year before he was elected president. His client got acquitted.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/10/this_attack_on_tim_kaine_proves_the_gop_is_done_defending_the_constitution.html

Esper October 7th, 2016 8:35 AM

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

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

CoffeeDrink October 7th, 2016 7:25 PM

Spoiler:
Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9438539)
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.

I have brought up several reasons and instances before as to why Europe has lower crime rates than the US. If, as you say, illegal immigration is at an all time low, then the statement as to 'lax immigration laws' and low crime is antithesis to the above statement. Letting people in or blocking people out does not have any correlation with a reduction of crime domestically based.

This is perhaps the reason why I am frustrated. I'll explain that the US has 33k gangs, cite sources, documents, studies, research both European based as well as US based but somehow Europe has everything figured out, every time.

Perhaps Europe has a lower crime rate because there are less people present that commit crimes?

Perhaps there is a direct correlation between drug consumption and criminal activity? Perhaps the reason why is that the majority of the world's narcotic producers [Afghanistan, The Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Burma, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela - courtesy of the Whitehouse Press secretary] are closer to the US than Europe? Not to mention that the drug market is stronger in the US monetarily, and consumption wise.

Perhaps the UNODC, the FBI, the CIA, are incorrect?

Europe has less prisoners, even if you include Russia in the mix. Even, at the very least, if 30% of the US' prison population is violent, that still makes about 650k violent offenders, at minimum. All of Russia has about just as many prisoners total [courtesy of the World Prison Brief].

There are several different reasons why the US has more violence and more crime, but as always Europe is brought up time and again even though they lack several of the issues that we do. This seems to be the latest excuse as to why Europe has less crime than the US.

Someone please explain to me why it's so magical how somebody with less violent offenders deals with less crime. Crime and violent crime has not diminished over the years, but increased steadily along with the population, however homicide itself has diminished considerably (within the US). So, Europe has less gangs, therefore it is common enough sense as to why they have less crime.

Less criminals, less narcotics, less viagra I made that last one up, I don't know for sure. But there could be a correlation between viagra and twinkie consumption and criminal activity. What I am uncertain of, however, is the rest of Europe's black market economy, but chances are that the US would have stronger pull in terms of trends and growth. Walls and immigration have nothing to do with criminal correlation in affects effecting a much larger issue. The numbers would be negligible in terms of illegal immigration and criminal activity.

But, you know, there's always Singapore and their trafficking laws... but this is all besides the point and has nothing to do with the current campaign. So, illegal immigration is breaking the law, but not inherently violent and not all illegal immigrants are violent but all illegal immigration is, well, illegal.

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

Somewhere_ October 7th, 2016 7:46 PM

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.

Aliencommander1245 October 8th, 2016 4:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadSheep (Post 9440219)
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~jag/POL596A/Putnam-Immigration-Lecture.pdf

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadSheep (Post 9440219)
It also reveals that immigration has long term benefits, such as creativity leading to innovation and economic success. I would like to inject my own opinion here that this is not an argument for open borders, but more of an argument for select immigration.

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

Esper October 8th, 2016 9:13 AM

Wikileaks has leaked some Clinton speech transcripts. Unsurprisingly, they show what everyone pretty much already knew, which is that she's said a lot of flattering things about Wall Street to Wall Street.

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

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

Ivysaur October 8th, 2016 12:30 PM

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

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

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

Desert Stream~ October 8th, 2016 7:39 PM

Yep, trump is doing terrible after the recent events thankfully.
Even his wife wasn't supporting him until he made that stupid apology!

GhostTrainer October 8th, 2016 9:45 PM

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.

Somewhere_ October 9th, 2016 6:33 AM

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.

Desert Stream~ October 9th, 2016 4:51 PM

Debate's starting! Although right now they are just saying stuff about some foundation.

GhostTrainer October 9th, 2016 5:14 PM

He's trying to deflect the tapes so bad right now.

Netto Azure October 9th, 2016 6:49 PM

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.

EC October 9th, 2016 7:45 PM

America likes to lead by example. Well, we are setting a horrible example with these two choices for president. Bring on 2020.

EC October 9th, 2016 8:04 PM

Yes, the choice is clear in Hillary Clinton. That doesn't automatically make her a saint though.

Entermaid October 9th, 2016 8:11 PM

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.

Ivysaur October 10th, 2016 1:35 AM

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.

gimmepie October 10th, 2016 2:27 AM

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.

Hands October 10th, 2016 2:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9443368)
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.

That's because he's indicative of a much bigger problem. People simply do not trust the political system. They see someone like Clinton who, quite frankly, could get away with murder. Who also never takes any real responsibility for her actions and who has for each of her growing list of scandals a plethora of excuses and pre-written blanket answers and they see the face of the system they feel has destroyed their country. For all his bumbling and bizarre statements, they still see Trump as "one of the guys", normal and flawed and in their eyes "saying things how they are". Trump does well because he doesn't have a constant, professional spin on everything and because the mainstream American media outlets (who often give free passes to political interests) rip him to shreds constantly. It strengthens their idea he's an outsider who cares about the average Joe and who the elite are worried will split their little club up. In some ways he rides the same waves of disenfranchisement that Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn have benefited so much from. The biggest difference there is that Sanders and Corbyn have well thought out, presented plans and ideals whereas Trump is just firing off whatever he can to stay relevant.

Esper October 10th, 2016 11:09 AM

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:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9443404)
That's because he's indicative of a much bigger problem. People simply do not trust the political system. They see someone like Clinton who, quite frankly, could get away with murder. Who also never takes any real responsibility for her actions and who has for each of her growing list of scandals a plethora of excuses and pre-written blanket answers and they see the face of the system they feel has destroyed their country. For all his bumbling and bizarre statements, they still see Trump as "one of the guys", normal and flawed and in their eyes "saying things how they are". Trump does well because he doesn't have a constant, professional spin on everything and because the mainstream American media outlets (who often give free passes to political interests) rip him to shreds constantly. It strengthens their idea he's an outsider who cares about the average Joe and who the elite are worried will split their little club up. In some ways he rides the same waves of disenfranchisement that Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn have benefited so much from. The biggest difference there is that Sanders and Corbyn have well thought out, presented plans and ideals whereas Trump is just firing off whatever he can to stay relevant.

I mean, this seems like a spot on explanation for the support Trump still has, but what I can't understand is how "outsider" seems to translate to "cares about the average Joe" in their eyes. Is it because they see anyone who isn't a politician as automatically caring about Joe more in the sense that anything greater than zero is an improvement however small, or is it something else I'm not seeing?

Ivysaur October 10th, 2016 12:50 PM

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

Netto Azure October 10th, 2016 5:32 PM

Paul Ryan pulling support from Trump is quite the spectacle on the intra-party civil war that's going to happen post Nov 9

Elysieum October 11th, 2016 12:00 AM

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.

Hands October 11th, 2016 2:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9443836)
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?



I mean, this seems like a spot on explanation for the support Trump still has, but what I can't understand is how "outsider" seems to translate to "cares about the average Joe" in their eyes. Is it because they see anyone who isn't a politician as automatically caring about Joe more in the sense that anything greater than zero is an improvement however small, or is it something else I'm not seeing?

It's because he isn't a standard career politician I think. Clinton, like most politicians, has an excuse or deflection for everything, even if the excuses are terrible and completely unbelievable, but she's never accountable for her past or her words or her actions. People don't like that. Trump on the other hand never really gets a free pass and has on a fair few occasions now apologised (even if the apologies are laboured) and admitted he was wrong. I think that in itself has kept a lot of people following him, the idea that he isn't above apologising. His "I'm sorry, I'm ashamed of what I said, but it was 2005, that isnt me now" stuff helps him immensely because he, whether earnestly or not, accepts responsibility for it. With Clinton (and many, many others) we hear "I misspoke!" or "no comment" more than we ever hear "sorry, i messed up". That goes a long way with blue collar workers I think because they're so used to seeing their high up bosses just shrug responsibility whenever they mess up. To them, Clinton is like the kind of person who costs the company $6mil and causes mass redundancies whilst keeping their job and bonus, and Trump's like the supervisor who says sorry for his part to all the workers even though he wasn't that involved. The analogy doesn't reflect the reality of the race, but that's how a lot of working class Americans I know feel.

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.

Aliencommander1245 October 11th, 2016 4:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9444828)
It's because he isn't a standard career politician I think. Clinton, like most politicians, has an excuse or deflection for everything, even if the excuses are terrible and completely unbelievable, but she's never accountable for her past or her words or her actions. People don't like that. Trump on the other hand never really gets a free pass and has on a fair few occasions now apologised (even if the apologies are laboured) and admitted he was wrong. I think that in itself has kept a lot of people following him, the idea that he isn't above apologising. His "I'm sorry, I'm ashamed of what I said, but it was 2005, that isnt me now" stuff helps him immensely because he, whether earnestly or not, accepts responsibility for it.

Huh? She's dogged by things she's done, and Trump's lied about quite a few things she didn't do, claiming she did on top of those. The difference is that there's simply nothing scandalous about Clinton's past beyond the few obvious things that are direct lines of attack, while Trump is near constantly lying about himself, historical events or other people- It's not that Clinton is "better at getting away with things" It's that Trump is just constantly bumbling his way through scandals and easily fact-check-able lies and has a very shady past to boot. He's apologised a grand total of... what, once? Despite lying and insulting a vast variety of people around him, and deflects any admittance of guilt into attacks on his opponents. Beyond one iteration of this apology for the current scandal it's always "I'm sorry if YOU were offended, but also hillary...." like a child apologizing because they know they have to, rather than out of any sense of needing to morally

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9444828)
With Clinton (and many, many others) we hear "I misspoke!" or "no comment" more than we ever hear "sorry, i messed up". That goes a long way with blue collar workers I think because they're so used to seeing their high up bosses just shrug responsibility whenever they mess up. To them, Clinton is like the kind of person who costs the company $6mil and causes mass redundancies whilst keeping their job and bonus, and Trump's like the supervisor who says sorry for his part to all the workers even though he wasn't that involved. The analogy doesn't reflect the reality of the race, but that's how a lot of working class Americans I know feel.

What hasn't Clinton apologized for/taken the blame for? She has for the email thing, and there's really nothing else i can think of that's not just random propoganda gossip that she even could take the blame for.

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:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9444828)
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.

Honestly the narrative that mainstream media "hates him" or is "bias" is the biggest piece of garbage peddled by him and his followers. When your campaign is built upon lies, and you're getting into a new indefensible scandal with women or minority groups every week, the media reporting on these negative things isn't bias, it's because this is a bloated orange peel going around lying and being bigoted and trying to use that to get him elected.

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.

Hands October 11th, 2016 5:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9444878)
Huh? She's dogged by things she's done, and Trump's lied about quite a few things she didn't do, claiming she did on top of those. The difference is that there's simply nothing scandalous about Clinton's past beyond the few obvious things that are direct lines of attack, while Trump is near constantly lying about himself, historical events or other people- It's not that Clinton is "better at getting away with things" It's that Trump is just constantly bumbling his way through scandals and easily fact-check-able lies and has a very shady past to boot. He's apologised a grand total of... what, once? Despite lying and insulting a vast variety of people around him, and deflects any admittance of guilt into attacks on his opponents. Beyond one iteration of this apology for the current scandal it's always "I'm sorry if YOU were offended, but also hillary...." like a child apologizing because they know they have to, rather than out of any sense of needing to morally



What hasn't Clinton apologized for/taken the blame for? She has for the email thing, and there's really nothing else i can think of that's not just random propoganda gossip that she even could take the blame for.

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.



Honestly the narrative that mainstream media "hates him" or is "bias" is the biggest piece of garbage peddled by him and his followers. When your campaign is built upon lies, and you're getting into a new indefensible scandal with women or minority groups every week, the media reporting on these negative things isn't bias, it's because this is a bloated orange peel going around lying and being bigoted and trying to use that to get him elected.

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.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hillary+clinton+i+misspoke%23&oq=hillary+clinton+i+misspoke%23&aqs=chrome..69i57.3973j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=hillary+clinton+i+misspoke

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.

gimmepie October 11th, 2016 5:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9444921)
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hillary+clinton+i+misspoke%23&oq=hillary+clinton+i+misspoke%23&aqs=chrome..69i57.3973j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=hillary+clinton+i+misspoke

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.

She quite literally apologised for something during the debate. I think she even used the words "I apologize".

Also, can someone please explain the child rapist thing to me? I know nothing of that issue but it's obviously a contentious one.

Aliencommander1245 October 11th, 2016 5:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9444921)
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hillary+clinton+i+misspoke%23&oq=hillary+clinton+i+misspoke%23&aqs=chrome..69i57.3973j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=hillary+clinton+i+misspoke

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.

Sooooooo.... Once in 2008, once in august and once in July she said she misspoke? That's the result you've given me from that google search.

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:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9444921)

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.

What he said could easily be misconstrued as saying veterans were weak, as the ones not suffering from ptsd in the room were told they were strong, unlike others. This was a poorly worded statement that, frankly, would not be out of character for him to actually have said- this is not an example of bias as much as it's an example of the media thinking there's a story where there probably isn't one. There are not scores of incidents though, you cannot provide "scores" and I doubt you could find any more than this, even.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9444921)
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.

Not at all, you've noted yourself that you don't need to stretch the truth and you're right, you've provided a single example of something that could very easily be taken to mean something when heard out of context of the whole exchange (And even if you had it wouldn't be hard to see it). Again though I challenge you to find more examples of this "truth stretching" widespread in the media


Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9444921)
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.

But, again, he doesn't apologize? He doesn't apologize when he claims a judge was sentencing him harshly because of the judge's ethnic background, he doesn't apologize for repeatedly insulting a gold star family, he doesn't apologize for insulting random people and random women, he doesn't apologize for his comments about the former miss universe he errendiously claimed had a sex tape.

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.

Hands October 11th, 2016 6:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9444934)
She quite literally apologised for something during the debate. I think she even used the words "I apologize".

Also, can someone please explain the child rapist thing to me? I know nothing of that issue but it's obviously a contentious one.

She briefly apologised for using the phrase "basket of deplorables" about Trump's supporters simply because it cost her a lot of fringe votes.

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:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9444953)
Sooooooo.... Once in 2008, once in august and once in July she said she misspoke? That's the result you've given me from that google search.

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:



What he said could easily be misconstrued as saying veterans were weak, as the ones not suffering from ptsd in the room were told they were strong, unlike others. This was a poorly worded statement that, frankly, would not be out of character for him to actually have said- this is not an example of bias as much as it's an example of the media thinking there's a story where there probably isn't one. There are not scores of incidents though, you cannot provide "scores" and I doubt you could find any more than this, even.




Not at all, you've noted yourself that you don't need to stretch the truth and you're right, you've provided a single example of something that could very easily be taken to mean something when heard out of context of the whole exchange (And even if you had it wouldn't be hard to see it). Again though I challenge you to find more examples of this "truth stretching" widespread in the media




But, again, he doesn't apologize? He doesn't apologize when he claims a judge was sentencing him harshly because of the judge's ethnic background, he doesn't apologize for repeatedly insulting a gold star family, he doesn't apologize for insulting random people and random women, he doesn't apologize for his comments about the former miss universe he errendiously claimed had a sex tape.

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.

She used the phrase numerous times during her primary campaign and in debates with Sen. Sanders whenever he called out her massive flip flops.

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?

gimmepie October 11th, 2016 6:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9444972)
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.

Well I don't like how she handled it, but really she was doing her job in the end and I don't think she should have to apologise for that.

Hands October 11th, 2016 6:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9444987)
Well I don't like how she handled it, but really she was doing her job in the end and I don't think she should have to apologise for that.

She shouldn't make statements like "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." and then have them removed when she's called out about it by the victim instead of just saying "I'm sorry, I was young, I made a bad call. I'm doing this to make sure no one ever has to go through what you did again" or something. It's not hard, it's really just basic moral decency.

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.

Aliencommander1245 October 11th, 2016 6:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9444972)
She briefly apologised for using the phrase "basket of deplorables" about Trump's supporters simply because it cost her a lot of fringe votes.

Isn't that the motivation for Trump's current backhanded apology? I mean, if we're tallying this here, that's two apologies and acceptance of responsibility to one, meaning she's apologised 200% more than Trump so far. On from that i really doubt that's the reason she did it, it makes more sense that she legitimately regrets saying that because it was a poor decision politcally as well

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9444972)
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.

True, she tried harder than you imply here though.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9444972)
She pushed a narrative that the 12 year old victim was a liar and chased after older men.

Flase, and directly stated so in the Snopes article.
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:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9444972)
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 is partially true, she laughs that it destroyed her faith because she was sure the result would support the prosecution but the polygraph came back supporting her own case. She did not "know he was lying" just hoped he would so he'd have a more concrete sentence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9444972)
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.

And... why should she? She did her job despite not liking it, the guy pled guilty and she got him a plea bargain with the support of the mother of the victim. There's nothing about this case that she needs to apologise for and any apology from her would be meaningless. She didn't do the crime, she didn't get the guy off scott free, she didn't lie, she didn't claim he was innocent and she didn't attack the victim. An apology would be hollow and empty, bowing entierly to any public pressure that would require this happen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9444972)
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.

This is false. It's true that the "right to be believed" part was removed from the page text when the wording was changed from a big quote into a list of policies, but it wasn't in feb 2015 and wasn't after allegations from the 12 y/o (Which did not happen until recenly when the trump campaign got in contact with her, and she has now lied about the case as part of his campaign). It was changed feb 2016. However, the video on the site still retains that part of the quote with the caption that states it.

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:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9444972)
She used the phrase numerous times during her primary campaign and in debates with Sen. Sanders whenever he called out her massive flip flops.

Hmm, might have to look this up. But this is in a completely different context
to the line the last time you were talking about it, so the point still stands.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9444972)
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.

That's... not an apology. "I have said things i regret" is not at all an apology, nor does it even bother to name what he regrets.

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:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9444972)
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?

Of course not, but the implication that she had the power or need to stop them or that she is somehow responsible for all of them personally is absurd (Considering the drone strike programs were running before and are running after her stint in power).

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?)

Esper October 11th, 2016 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9444996)
She shouldn't make statements like "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." and then have them removed when she's called out about it by the victim instead of just saying "I'm sorry, I was young, I made a bad call. I'm doing this to make sure no one ever has to go through what you did again" or something. It's not hard, it's really just basic moral decency.

But see, she's a woman and women in politics get held to a different standard if the article I linked to several days ago is at all accurate (and from what I can see, it seems to be). So she's learned that, if she doesn't want to get eaten alive, she can't admit to ever making a big mistake. That's why she has "slips of the tongue" and so on. To say otherwise would be, in the eye of people against her, admitting that she's not capable or ready or qualified. I'm not saying that this approach is the best and I'm not trying to excuse her actions, but I can understand why she habitually acts as if she's never made any mistakes. It comes from the way people attack women who threaten traditionally male positions of authority. Admit you made a mistake and your enemies will pounce and say you're unfit for the position. (People do this to everyone, yes, but they get extra vicious against women who threaten their sense of male entitlement.) But it's a catch-22 because getting defensive every time about anything large or small, acting as if you're perfect, and you also come off badly and you get accused of being a liar.

Hands October 11th, 2016 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9445017)
here for reply ref.

Quote:

True, she tried harder than you imply here though.
I didn't really imply anything, she tried to not do it and the judge told her she had to. That's all I said. Sorry if it came across that way.


Quote:

Flase, and directly stated so in the Snopes article.
This was something put forward by more than one person, including a child psychologist part of the investigation.
Oh it wasn't directly her who said it? I misread that, my bad.


Quote:

This is partially true, she laughs that it destroyed her faith because she was sure the result would support the prosecution but the polygraph came back supporting her own case. She did not "know he was lying" just hoped he would so he'd have a more concrete sentence.
She was sure it would come back backing the prosecution because she knew he was lying. Hence the guilty plea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hillary Clinton
"But you know what was sad about it was that the prosecutors had evidence, among which was his underwear... His underwear, which was bloody.

Clinton knew her client was guilty, it's why she protested representing him.

Quote:

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.
I missed this earlier, this is also fairly false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hillary Clinton
"It was really odd. I mean, I plea bargained it down because it turned out they didn't have any evidence"

Clinton herself says she bargained for a reduced sentence

Quote:

This is false. It's true that the "right to be believed" part was removed from the page text when the wording was changed from a big quote into a list of policies, but it wasn't in feb 2015
Typo on my part, caught the '5' instead of the '6'.

Quote:

and wasn't after allegations from the 12 y/o (Which did not happen until recenly when the trump campaign got in contact with her
This is false. The case has been well known for decades and the victim has talked about it in interviews a small number of times since 2008 (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/20/exclusive-hillary-clinton-took-me-through-hell-rape-victim-says.html - an interview/article from 2014 when she started to be more open about it after hearing the audio tape interview with Clinton). She was only openly named recently, and she only started making public appearances and statements recently, her and one of Bill's accusers were both focal points in response to the claims on the site.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9445196)
But see, she's a woman and women in politics get held to a different standard if the article I linked to several days ago is at all accurate (and from what I can see, it seems to be). So she's learned that, if she doesn't want to get eaten alive, she can't admit to ever making a big mistake. That's why she has "slips of the tongue" and so on. To say otherwise would be, in the eye of people against her, admitting that she's not capable or ready or qualified. I'm not saying that this approach is the best and I'm not trying to excuse her actions, but I can understand why she habitually acts as if she's never made any mistakes. It comes from the way people attack women who threaten traditionally male positions of authority. Admit you made a mistake and your enemies will pounce and say you're unfit for the position. (People do this to everyone, yes, but they get extra vicious against women who threaten their sense of male entitlement.) But it's a catch-22 because getting defensive every time about anything large or small, acting as if you're perfect, and you also come off badly and you get accused of being a liar.

You know I never even thought about it this way, maybe you're onto something. I just pinned it on her being a bought career politician. Things aren't the same here as they are in the states, so it never crossed my mind how she might be negatively treated for apologising.

Aliencommander1245 October 12th, 2016 1:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9445898)
She was sure it would come back backing the prosecution because she knew he was lying. Hence the guilty plea.

No, he plead guilty to charges before the lie dector test as far as i can tell. And on from that, she never admitted to or stated that she "knew he was lying" in that polygraph test- we don't even know the question she means. She's simply stated that he claimed he wasn't a rapist and that she expected the polygraph test to show he was lying, and was dissapointed that it came back negative. She's not some all-seeing cosmic entity and assumed he was guilty, if she had proof it would've been presented in court

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9445898)
Clinton knew her client was guilty, it's why she protested representing him.

There is no evidence to support this statement, and it makes just as much sense that she wouldn't want to represent an accused child rapist, especially one misogynistic enough to go out of his way to make sure he had a female lawyer defend him and assume it'd get him better off. Again though, she's not psychic and couldn't magically know he was guilty before even taking on his case.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9445898)
I missed this earlier, this is also fairly false.

Clinton herself says she bargained for a reduced sentence


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:

or a variety of reasons, a plea agreement to a reduced charge was reached. Investigators mishandled evidence of Taylor’s bloody underwear, cutting out the stain that contained semen for testing and then losing it. Newsday also quoted a retired detective on the case as saying that Shelton’s “ ‘infatuation’ with the teenage boy, which she refused to admit,” led to “serious inconsistencies in her statements about the incident.” The detective also said Shelton’s mother “was so eager to end the ordeal she coached her daughter’s statements and interrupted interviews with police.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9445898)
This is false. The case has been well known for decades and the victim has talked about it in interviews a small number of times since 2008 (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/20/exclusive-hillary-clinton-took-me-through-hell-rape-victim-says.html - an interview/article from 2014 when she started to be more open about it after hearing the audio tape interview with Clinton). She was only openly named recently, and she only started making public appearances and statements recently, her and one of Bill's accusers were both focal points in response to the claims on the site.

But, regardless, there's no timing link between when the website was changed and when any of her statements came out? Beyond that the text isn't even removed as it's still clearly on the video on the page. The idea she'd remove it to try and avoid controversy that wasn't even really there until after it was moved around is very suspect to say the least.

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/

Sektor October 12th, 2016 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9444828)
It's because he isn't a standard career politician I think. Clinton, like most politicians, has an excuse or deflection for everything, even if the excuses are terrible and completely unbelievable, but she's never accountable for her past or her words or her actions. People don't like that. Trump on the other hand never really gets a free pass and has on a fair few occasions now apologised (even if the apologies are laboured) and admitted he was wrong. I think that in itself has kept a lot of people following him, the idea that he isn't above apologising. His "I'm sorry, I'm ashamed of what I said, but it was 2005, that isnt me now" stuff helps him immensely because he, whether earnestly or not, accepts responsibility for it. With Clinton (and many, many others) we hear "I misspoke!" or "no comment" more than we ever hear "sorry, i messed up". That goes a long way with blue collar workers I think because they're so used to seeing their high up bosses just shrug responsibility whenever they mess up. To them, Clinton is like the kind of person who costs the company $6mil and causes mass redundancies whilst keeping their job and bonus, and Trump's like the supervisor who says sorry for his part to all the workers even though he wasn't that involved. The analogy doesn't reflect the reality of the race, but that's how a lot of working class Americans I know feel.

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.

I haven't really poked my head in here, because, you know, politics. I'm not an expert or anything, but I think this sums up what people feel about both candidates. I mean, you're choosing to be gored or mauled. Not much of a difference here. I don't know how I feel, honestly. I thought I would lean left but some of the actions of the people down here where I'm at make me want to distance myself from them. My brother was accosted by a #blm guy that was stealing other people's drinks at his work. He was called all sorts of names and none too pretty.

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.

Ivysaur October 12th, 2016 12:16 PM

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.

Esper October 12th, 2016 12:49 PM

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.

Mewtwolover October 12th, 2016 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9444921)
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.

Indeed, it's even pretty obvious. Mainstream media has completely ignored the Clinton emails that Wikileaks has leaked, they contain material for many big headlines that could cause serious damage or even destroy her campaign.

Aliencommander1245 October 13th, 2016 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mewtwolover (Post 9447210)
Indeed, it's even pretty obvious. Mainstream media has completely ignored the Clinton emails that Wikileaks has leaked, they contain material for many big headlines that could cause serious damage or even destroy her campaign.

I don't think so. There's a lot of reporting on it, if you actually look, but there's nothing concrete that could "destroy her campaign" and conservative media claiming otherwise is generally either misconstruing what was said, taking a quote out of context, or outright fabricating a story.

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

Ivysaur October 13th, 2016 12:07 AM

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.

UltimateUmbreon October 13th, 2016 6:59 AM

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:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9447254)
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.

Just to play devil's advocate, you can also claim that the accusations of rape against and the KNOWN affairs of Bill Clinton are just as newsworthy and terrifying, as well as Hillary's reactions to them. George Stephanopoulos (Bill Clinton's senior advisor) wrote in his memoirs that Hillary worked to falsely discredit those who made these claims. Again, it seems really newsworthy, but for whatever reason there does not seem to be equal scrutiny. Obviously both are horrific.

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?

Esper October 13th, 2016 11:30 AM

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:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9447248)
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

Well, it seems that the emails do show that the Clinton team wanted to highlight the "Pied Piper" Republican candidates, a.k.a. the ones who shouldn't have had a chance because they were crazypants, a.k.a. Cruz, Carson, and Trump. So they tried to pull some strings with the media to get them to focus on those guys. (You can argue about how much influence they actually have with the mainstream media.) And look what happened. Carson was in the lead for a while and Cruz and Trump got 2nd and 1st place. Oops. Looks like that backfired a bit. Yeah, now Trump is heavily damaged goods and Clinton seems pretty sure to win (though it could have gone differently), but at what cost. People everywhere are sick and tired of politicians and the usual way of doing politics and that's not going away when the next president takes office.

Nah October 13th, 2016 12:41 PM

What is this #repealthe19th thing?

Ivysaur October 13th, 2016 1:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltimateUmbreon (Post 9447580)
Just to play devil's advocate, you can also claim that the accusations of rape against and the KNOWN affairs of Bill Clinton are just as newsworthy and terrifying, as well as Hillary's reactions to them. George Stephanopoulos (Bill Clinton's senior advisor) wrote in his memoirs that Hillary worked to falsely discredit those who made these claims. Again, it seems really newsworthy, but for whatever reason there does not seem to be equal scrutiny. Obviously both are horrific.

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?

On the first topic, the difference is that in one we are talking about things his husband did, not her, which were already tried/settled in the past, and that her involvement is tangential at best VS Trump himself doing the horrific things personally. And, of course, Hillary isn't talking voluntarily about this stuff, whereas Trump can't help himself.

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:

Originally Posted by Nah (Post 9447906)
What is this #repealthe19th thing?

Yesterday 538 published two imaginary maps of "what if only men/women voted". Men-only gave Trump a landslide, so someone (perhaps Trump supporters, perhaps trolls, perhaps both, it's hard to figure out at this point) started a Twitter campaign asking that women be denied the vote again (by repealing the 19th Amendment) so Trump could win easily. Joke? Parody? Real people being batshit insane? Who knows? Happy 2016 election!

UltimateUmbreon October 13th, 2016 4:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9447945)
On the first topic, the difference is that in one we are talking about things his husband did, not her, which were already tried/settled in the past, and that her involvement is tangential at best VS Trump himself doing the horrific things personally. And, of course, Hillary isn't talking voluntarily about this stuff, whereas Trump can't help himself.

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.

Well it certainly is refreshing to hear of course that at least not all media is as biased as some might think. Or at least if they are, not for money or out of fear of being reprimanded by their superiors (not claiming that you are biased obviously). I wish I had a better understanding of the effects of the economic policies, for example, of each candidate, but I unfortunately do not. If you have the opportunity, I would love it if you would run down how each candidate's policies would affect our economy and why you, and many others, claim that Clinton's plan is far superior to Trump's.

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.

Somewhere_ October 13th, 2016 4:25 PM

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.

Sektor October 13th, 2016 10:02 PM

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:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9446552)
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.

I also don't believe slinging wild and snide comments around helps much. I just know what I know, and that's about it. I know Trump hasn't held office and that Clinton has abused her chair's power more than a few times. From the way I look at it, you have two equally poor choices at candidates.

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.


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.