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)

Aliencommander1245 October 14th, 2016 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9448509)
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.

You... aren't looking at it correctly then. It's a fallacy to compare trump and clinton and call them equally poor. I have no idea at all about what you mean by abusing her chair's power considering most accusations don't involve misuse of power, but i'd be happy to know what you mean there.

But really, Trump hasn't just not held office- he has no plan or idea what to do if he did and in that event he'd have no support from anyone to pass things. Ignoring how abhorrent his platform and VP are as well as his flipflop on every issue constantly there's just no way to say they're "equally bad"


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9448509)
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.

Have you actually looked at what he wants to do? He has next to no concrete plans, and those he does he's fond of contradicting, but if you truly think that means nothing until he's in office- just look at his VP. Pence is... in no way someone you want in the oval office. Someone who caused an outbreak in his home state by systematically defunding every clinic offering easy tests and treatment then claiming he'd rather spend the money on funding gay conversion therapy (A barbaric practice considered analogous to torture, and generally abhorrent in every conceivable way- not to mention completely unrelated to the outbreak of disease he directly caused) tells you a lot about what a Trump presidency would be like, considering someone with no plan and no idea how to lead is going to lean heavily on their politician second hand.

On from that, a Trump president means a hyper conservative justice on the supreme court which puts a both a lot of recent social progress in jeopardy and has the risk of stifling it in future. With a man who's threatened to repeal the marriage equality decision on multiple occasions (And also said he won't just as many times) with a horrifically homophobic VP that's a real risk of damage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9448509)
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!

It DOES mean a lot though, when these speeches are full of policies, plans and general ideas for how to run a country- otherwise what are you voting on? If you're disregarding the policy plans and speeches telling you what these candidates are actually about and what they want to do, how is anyone supposed to make an informed vote about who should lead their country for the next four years?

I hope no one is saying clinton is perfect, but she's far from as bad as people claim and lightyears away from how awful Trump is.

Esper October 14th, 2016 10:20 AM

I mean, if you believe that Clinton is corrupt then I don't think that anything anyone says is going to convince you otherwise, but look at how similar Trump's actions have been to the things that Clinton has been accused of.

She's been said to call victims of assault liars. Trump has done this, to his own victims.
She's been said to be involved in shady money deals through her foundation. Trump evaded paying taxes for 20 years.
She's been said to have been incompetent about the Benghazi attack. Trump has had multiple bankruptcies.

I know they aren't 1:1 comparisons, but when it comes to morals and competencies, if you believe Clinton is bad, you've got to see that Trump wouldn't be any better, and is arguably worse.

Netto Azure October 14th, 2016 12:20 PM

Well at this point Trump is basically flailing about calling the women accusing him "not my first choice". I'm more focused on whether the Democrats will regain the Senate so that any Supreme Court nominee will actually have a fair hearing with McConnell out as Majority Leader controlling the Senate schedule.

Esper October 14th, 2016 1:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Netto Azure (Post 9449279)
I'm more focused on whether the Democrats will regain the Senate so that any Supreme Court nominee will actually have a fair hearing with McConnell out as Majority Leader controlling the Senate schedule.

Didn't they say they'd have a hearing after the election regardless of who won? I mean, I know that's just talk, but if the Republicans retain the Senate it would look pretty bad if they went back on this after stalling for a year. I can't see them doing that without doing even more damage to their brand.

Sektor October 14th, 2016 1:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9449173)
I mean, if you believe that Clinton is corrupt then I don't think that anything anyone says is going to convince you otherwise, but look at how similar Trump's actions have been to the things that Clinton has been accused of.

She's been said to call victims of assault liars. Trump has done this, to his own victims.
She's been said to be involved in shady money deals through her foundation. Trump evaded paying taxes for 20 years.
She's been said to have been incompetent about the Benghazi attack. Trump has had multiple bankruptcies.

I know they aren't 1:1 comparisons, but when it comes to morals and competencies, if you believe Clinton is bad, you've got to see that Trump wouldn't be any better, and is arguably worse.

I did read somewhere that most companies do avoid paying taxes (I don't know the difference between avoiding taxes and evading taxes, really. Needless to say the collective cache of global funds these companies hoard is estimated in the trillions). Some companies that we forked over money to (Bank Bailout) don't pay any taxes at all. Bank of America, Citi Bank, Exxon Mobile, Google, General Electric, FedEx, Microsoft, Verizon, Pfizzer, Walmart, Goldman Sachs, Chevron, Dow Chemical, Procter & Gamble, IBM, Facebook, JP Morgan & Chase, Disney World is trying to weasel out of gate and property taxes, Coca-Cola was caught hiding tax havens and subsidies, and a huge chunk of America's major companies don't pay taxes. The CTJ did a study here. What I'd like to know is why haven't you been mad at, like, every company ever for the past 'as long as you've been alive'? What frustrates me is that people are just now realizing companies dodge income taxes all the time. This isn't surprising, it's been happening for decades.


I also want to share with you about Wilmington, Delaware. What did Delaware boys? Evidently she [Delaware] wore the same exact loophole that's been utilized by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, that's not mentioning the 280K other companies that use the same address to avoid taxes.

Let's not forget that Tyco International (Internationally based in Ireland to avoid taxes) donated money to her own campaign. If she was vehemently against these people as she stated she was (John Controls) she wouldn't have taken the money from Tyco, because the companies will be merging, effectively negating Tyco as a different corporate entity.

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have utilized tax loop-holes. They placed their multi-million dollar home in a 'residence trust' i.e. they don't pay taxes on the home. So, going after Trump on his taxes completely ignores what Clinton has done to avoid taxes. Don't buy into it, both of them [candidates] have avoided paying taxes. Trump, however, is just straight up about it. So on avoiding taxes? I'd say Clinton is worse in that regard. She says she's against it, but does it herself. That's worse in my experience; I'd rather be killed loudly than softly so I know it's coming.

I still think they're both bad on par with each other. Clinton's remarks and dismissal of Benghazi alone is worth more in it's badness than slurs and remarks about a woman's cooch. I know for a fact that Clinton denied several requests for additional security. She continually denied these requests, and when they [consulate] were attacked, they did not have the man power or equipment to adequately repel the attackers.

The actions in Benghazi alone show how utterly deplorable she behaved while in a political chair. She denied security requests, of which there are speculated 600 requests (I'm not so sure about that number but it's been brought up). She was dismissive of claims of her incompetence.

Quote:

With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.
If someone can possible show me the kind of data or facet that Donald Trump was somehow involved in gross negligence that resulted in the deaths of Americans off of American soil I might change my view on "Who's Bad" (-Michael). But up to this point, she knew there was a major lack of security and continually did nothing about it. I would think at the very least it would be classified as gross negligence or manslaughter. If you owned a construction site and refused hard hats for your workers, you'd be held liable. This didn't happen in this case, but it doesn't paint Clinton in a favorable light.

My opinion is just my own, but I think an act like this takes the whole cake and a slice of pie. Her "What difference does it make?" comment was completely asinine. Well it doesn't make a difference now, Mrs. Clinton, because they're dead and it was potentially preventable. Out of context alone it's bad, but in the whole context of her incompetence it's worse by far. She denied security requests hundreds of times, and now they're dead. Simple math. If you don't let firefighters have firetrucks things will be burnt. It's the only simile I could come up with, but it's pretty accurate. If you don't defend and arm soldiers properly, they die.

The reports on the Benghazi matter are sorely lacking and only one terrorist was 'brought to justice'. Maybe it's just me, but it bothers me greatly some people are willing to see past this heinous mistake. I'm willing to look past several of her other mistakes, but this one is a huge pink Donkey in a telephone booth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9448644)
You... aren't looking at it correctly then. It's a fallacy to compare trump and Clinton and call them equally poor. I have no idea at all about what you mean by abusing her chair's power considering most accusations don't involve misuse of power, but i'd be happy to know what you mean there.

But really, Trump hasn't just not held office- he has no plan or idea what to do if he did and in that event he'd have no support from anyone to pass things. Ignoring how abhorrent his platform and VP are as well as his flipflop on every issue constantly there's just no way to say they're "equally bad"

Have you actually looked at what he wants to do? He has next to no concrete plans, and those he does he's fond of contradicting, but if you truly think that means nothing until he's in office- just look at his VP. Pence is... in no way someone you want in the oval office. Someone who caused an outbreak in his home state by systematically pulling funding for every clinic offering easy tests and treatment then claiming he'd rather spend the money on funding gay conversion therapy (A barbaric practice considered analogous to torture, and generally abhorrent in every conceivable way- not to mention completely unrelated to the outbreak of disease he directly caused) tells you a lot about what a Trump presidency would be like, considering someone with no plan and no idea how to lead is going to lean heavily on their politician second hand.

On from that, a Trump president means a hyper conservative justice on the supreme court which puts a both a lot of recent social progress in jeopardy and has the risk of stifling it in future. With a man who's threatened to repeal the marriage equality decision on multiple occasions (And also said he won't just as many times) with a horrifically homophobic VP that's a real risk of damage.

It DOES mean a lot though, when these speeches are full of policies, plans and general ideas for how to run a country- otherwise what are you voting on? If you're disregarding the policy plans and speeches telling you what these candidates are actually about and what they want to do, how is anyone supposed to make an informed vote about who should lead their country for the next four years?

I hope no one is saying Clinton is perfect, but she's far from as bad as people claim and light years away from how awful Trump is. *snip-snick* (I'll just take my comments out of here for you)

On Mike Pence's signing of the religious freedom law:
Spoiler:
This law actually works both ways. It allows people to deny service to anyone. There have been cases where entire bakeries close their doors by simply refusing service. Rather than take their business elsewhere, they press the issue and take everything. I'm not saying I agree with this, but it's happened. Another thing people are not quick to point out is that bakeries owned by practitioners of the Islamic faith also deny service to the LGBTQRSTUV community in equal measure. It might be reprehensible but it does protect a wide group, and not just the Christians everyone so vehemently despise.

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" doesn't mean anything anymore. Instead of taking your money and going elsewhere because the owner is a dirtbag, going after everything the person owns is equally as spiteful. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with this law, just that it does what it says on the box. It protects many religious faiths from Jewish, to Islamic, Christianity, Hinduism, and even some Buddhists. I'm not saying homosexual people are wrong, but I do think it's wrong to demand respect regardless what another person's beliefs are. If the owner is being respectful, but declining in a way that doesn't devolve into "You're gay, weird and wrong, leave my store or I kill you" I feel that taking your business to another store and telling everyone about your experience rather than sue them for everything they own.

It's a mistake that they chose to make and you should go elsewhere, not turn into some money grubbing fund sucker. It's just as bad, if not worse, taking everything you can from them.


I respectfully agree to disagree saying that both candidates are bad. So, hypothetically, if the House and Senate become completely polarized from the commander in chief [Trump in this instance], then how so will he then implement all of his planned projects? Most things need a vote to get going (Except some executive orders) and if the House and Senate refuse to work with him, it'll be a four year stalemate, no?

Also, you brought up the Supreme Court. Why? In what way could he control the supreme court? You do know they serve until death, right? That's why they all look so old. Ohohohoho! One placement on the Supreme Court is not enough to sway the scale in his favor.

Also, I don't think you have to worry about anyone placing a successful repeal of Gay marriage. I think the people have spoken and it's ingrained enough that attempting to grab a majority vote is going to be an up Mt. Everest battle. So that's my thought on that.

Trump is Trump and Hillary is Hillary. Hillary has at least one gross negligence notch on her belt and Trump has an orange tan. So I think they're both equally as bad. Maybe not on the same scale, but they're bad. The only difference is Clinton made her Benghazi blunder as an elected official and no amount of hooting and hollering is going to change that fact. Trump may be a 'deplorables' but that's about all he is. He hasn't had any previous chances to push forward any political agenda like Clinton has, so duly elected official 'mistakes' are worth more bad pennies than shady business practices and crotch grabbing (-Michael). So let's just agree that I'd rather vote for my dog than any of the candidates, but the fact of the matter is that one of them is going to become the next Executive of the United States. All it then boils down to whom you think is the worst, and until the votes are in, we won't know for certain which is worse.

Gosh. This stuff isn't as fun. I think I'll leave the table for a week and come back then. It's depressing.

Esper October 14th, 2016 1:46 PM

I mean, there might be people just now waking up to the way corporations are awful, but I can tell you that just in this forum we've had discussions that included talk about their shady dealings several times before. So just here I can say that we've got members who know what they do. We're just harping on Trump because not only does he do it, but he tries to normalize the practice by saying that it should be allowed. Again, not gonna try to convince people to change their mind on Clinton regarding tax loopholes, but I don't like that Trump is on the one hand saying "Yeah, I take advantage of this loophole the corrupt politicians gave me" and on the other saying "But we shouldn't be having taxes like this in the first place either." Like, the politicians he is criticizing are giving him what he wants and what he advocates for. It's like accepting stolen money and saying "But I didn't steal it."

Aliencommander1245 October 14th, 2016 5:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9449355)
But up to this point, she knew there was a major lack of security and continually did nothing about it. I would think at the very least it would be classified as gross negligence or manslaughter. If you owned a construction site and refused hard hats for your workers, you'd be held liable. This didn't happen in this case, but it doesn't paint Clinton in a favorable light.

Doesn't that disagree with the findings of the investigation into that situation?



Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9449355)
On Mike Pence's signing of the religious freedom law:
This law actually works both ways. It allows people to deny service to anyone. There have been cases where entire bakeries close their doors by simply refusing service. Rather than take their business elsewhere, they press the issue and take everything. I'm not saying I agree with this, but it's happened. Another thing people are not quick to point out is that bakeries owned by practitioners of the Islamic faith also deny service to the LGBTQRSTUV community in equal measure. It might be reprehensible but it does protect a wide group, and not just the Christians everyone so vehemently despise.

This is basically untrue, I'm not aware of any "bakeries closing their doors" because they have to do their job and provide service to people. I've seen a restaurant that was so bombareded with negative feedback over their decision not to serve anyone non-christian or gay that they closed down, but that's honestly well deserved.

It does not go both ways though. You cannot equate descrimination against minorities to the ability to discriminate against anyone freely as that's meaningless- the bill was always targeted at LGBT people as it's primary purpose and as such achieved it's goal of legalising discrimination.

The issue is that it does not "protect" anyone and infact does the opposite. "You can go somewhere else" is a bs justification coming from a person who has not and likely will not face this kind of discrimination.

And even then, that bill is not the sole reprehensible thing pence has done, especially discrimination wise, and wasn't even an example i brought up.


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9449355)
I respectfully agree to disagree saying that both candidates are bad. So, hypothetically, if the House and Senate become completely polarized from the commander in chief [Trump in this instance], then how so will he then implement all of his planned projects? Most things need a vote to get going (Except some executive orders) and if the House and Senate refuse to work with him, it'll be a four year stalemate, no?

....Yes and no? No, Trump's moronic electorial platform won't gain much traction if he alienates the rrepublican party but that doesn't mean ALL his bills won't go through, and again, pence is his VP and someone who's a "real" politician capable of getting HIS things through.

Also, you'd have an idiot in charge of foreign diplomacy who has shown that he doesn't care about wildly insulting people and a western world that's condemned Trump pretty heavily from the sidelines. It'd be awful for foreign diplomacy.


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9449355)
Also, you brought up the Supreme Court. Why? In what way could he control the supreme court? You do know they serve until death, right? That's why they all look so old. Ohohohoho! One placement on the Supreme Court is not enough to sway the scale in his favor.


Also, I don't think you have to worry about anyone placing a successful repeal of Gay marriage. I think the people have spoken and it's ingrained enough that attempting to grab a majority vote is going to be an up Mt. Everest battle. So that's my thought on that.

Yes it is. With the supreme court on the verge of being majority progressive, the election of a hyper conservative to the bench has both the ability to undo so much social progress and the prerogative to stifle any of it for the rest of their lifetime. With "we can repeal gay marriage" part of the big conservative pushback that Donald Trump is riding on into populism it's certainly a real possibility that this could do a lot of damage.

Regardless of the likelihood of repealing things like marriage equality there's a very real and likely risk of eroding away at it through successive bills like Pence's that allow discrimination or create conditional equality, possibly even desegregating it into a second class situation.


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9449355)
Trump is Trump and Hillary is Hillary. Hillary has at least one gross negligence notch on her belt and Trump has an orange tan. So I think they're both equally as bad. Maybe not on the same scale, but they're bad. The only difference is Clinton made her Benghazi blunder as an elected official and no amount of hooting and hollering is going to change that fact. Trump may be a 'deplorables' but that's about all he is. He hasn't had any previous chances to push forward any political agenda like Clinton has, so duly elected official 'mistakes' are worth more bad pennies than shady business practices and crotch grabbing (-Michael). So let's just agree that I'd rather vote for my dog than any of the candidates, but the fact of the matter is that one of them is going to become the next Executive of the United States. All it then boils down to whom you think is the worst, and until the votes are in, we won't know for certain which is worse.

Again, you're creating a false equivalency. The idea that someone who's shown herself to be capable in office, has a coherent platform and agenda for their presidency and is able to conduct themselves officially is somehow just as bad a candidate as the person who is the exact opposite of all of those is just incomprehensible to me.

Trump has no plan, no experience, no idea what he's doing, no capacity to act diplomatically and brags about sexually assaulting women. He's currently in an ongoing court case about sexually assaulting a child. There's nothing redeeming about him or his vapid plans, it's all just... nothing?

Sektor October 14th, 2016 6:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9449625)
Again, you're creating a false equivalence. The idea that someone who's shown herself to be capable in office, has a coherent platform and agenda for their presidency and is able to conduct themselves officially is somehow just as bad a candidate as the person who is the exact opposite of all of those is just incomprehensible to me.

Trump has no plan, no experience, no idea what he's doing, no capacity to act diplomatically and brags about sexually assaulting women. He's currently in an ongoing court case about sexually assaulting a child. There's nothing redeeming about him or his vapid plans, it's all just... nothing?

I don't believe I create a false comparison. The Benghazi case is so full of wholes it's rather embarrassing. The false reports that were created and blaming a Youtube video for the terror attack are entirely... I don't have a word for it. They placed blame on a Youtube video to shift the focus on what really happened. I think reading the final report will better explain why it's so outrageous. The Benghazi deal is still a fresh wound, despite being four years old.

I still would like someone to tell me, truthfully, that letting security requests go ignored and result in the potential failing of the safety of Americans is not as bad as what someone says. They were told time and again, why security was needed, why it was an issue, where it was required and so forth. I wouldn't call shrugging your shoulders and saying 'oh well' an adequate apology. This situation alone is so convoluted that trying to swim through it is like trying to see through mud.

Once again, a well read candidate does not always result in a better elected official. I believe I need to further cement my position by saying that I would rather see an Action Figure(or a Barbie doll, or any other inanimate object) elected. It's not really a spectrum on my part. There isn't 'this is somewhat bad, and this is not as bad'. You either cut it, or you don't. Neither candidate is desirable enough, and both are, in my opinion, not qualified. Trump's green, and Clinton is just, well, a Clinton.

We have two choices of either being burned alive or drowning in a pool of lye. Either way, it's painful and you die. I wish there was a third option for 'none of the above' but there's not, so we play with the cards dealt begrudgingly or not. I don't really enjoy being grilled too much on who's worse. All of them are bad, it's just who's bad and who's worse. None of them are favorable (Tim Kaine wants to deregulate HF), none of them are favored by me. They're bad. They're all bad. No degrees or spectrum of badness, just bad. I'll just leave it at that.

Aliencommander1245 October 14th, 2016 7:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9449729)
I don't believe I create a false comparison. The Benghazi case is so full of wholes it's rather embarrassing. The false reports that were created and blaming a Youtube video for the terror attack are entirely... I don't have a word for it. They placed blame on a Youtube video to shift the focus on what really happened. I think reading the final report will better explain why it's so outrageous. The Benghazi deal is still a fresh wound, despite being four years old.

I still would like someone to tell me, truthfully, that letting security requests go ignored and result in the potential failing of the safety of Americans is not as bad as what someone says. They were told time and again, why security was needed, why it was an issue, where it was required and so forth. I wouldn't call shrugging your shoulders and saying 'oh well' an adequate apology. This situation alone is so convoluted that trying to swim through it is like trying to see through mud.

Saying the situation is convulted and muddied but also that your sole perspective is correct and that it makes Clinton more unfit to lead a country than a man who sexually assaults people and has no idea what he's doing seems off to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9449729)
Once again, a well read candidate does not always result in a better elected official. I believe I need to further cement my position by saying that I would rather see an Action Figure(or a Barbie doll, or any other inanimate object) elected. It's not really a spectrum on my part. There isn't 'this is somewhat bad, and this is not as bad'. You either cut it, or you don't. Neither candidate is desirable enough, and both are, in my opinion, not qualified. Trump's green, and Clinton is just, well, a Clinton.

Someone who's proven themselves as an elected official and has a clear plan trumps someone who has neither and is so convoluted in what he wants that it's impossible to tell. This is undeniable. "We haven't seen him in office" is no excuse when he, right now, has no policies that both are possible and haven't been contradicted by himself endlessly.

"We don't know until we get them" is utterly false and completely against the whole point of electing an official. If you're not willing to look at the plans from either candidate and the platform they're trying to be elected on to make your decision, how can you possibly elect someone. What merits do you instead deem more important than experience or an actual lain down plan that means someone without either is equal in this aspect to someone who does?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9449729)
We have two choices of either being burned alive or drowning in a pool of lye. Either way, it's painful and you die. I wish there was a third option for 'none of the above' but there's not, so we play with the cards dealt begrudgingly or not. I don't really enjoy being grilled too much on who's worse. All of them are bad, it's just who's bad and who's worse. None of them are favorable (Tim Kaine wants to deregulate HF), none of them are favored by me. They're bad. They're all bad. No degrees or spectrum of badness, just bad. I'll just leave it at that.

You are correct that neither is a perfect choice, and in a normal election year a standard democrat or republican would win over both, but that is not the election year that is happening.

You cannot in good conscience however claim that "both are just as bad" there is literally no metric in which this is true.

Racism? Homophobia? Sexism? No plan on any aspect of presidency? Sexual assault? Economic abilities? Public speaking? Diplomacy? Respectfulness? Criminal history? Vice president pick? Experience leading? Likelihood to enact self serving legislature? Lying?

All of those things are merits on which Trump is worse than Hillary. There is no faucet of presidential duty in which Trump could conceivably be seen as equal to, or better than, Hillary.

Hillary is not a saint, she is not a particularly great candidate, but she is impossibly better than Trump in every way that matters, and probably every way that does on top of this.

Sektor October 14th, 2016 7:56 PM

Spoiler:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9449753)
Saying the situation is convulted and muddied but also that your sole perspective is correct and that it makes Clinton more unfit to lead a country than a man who sexually assaults people and has no idea what he's doing seems off to me.

Someone who's proven themselves as an elected official and has a clear plan trumps someone who has neither and is so convoluted in what he wants that it's impossible to tell. This is undeniable. "We haven't seen him in office" is no excuse when he, right now, has no policies that both are possible and haven't been contradicted by himself endlessly.

"We don't know until we get them" is utterly false and completely against the whole point of electing an official. If you're not willing to look at the plans from either candidate and the platform they're trying to be elected on to make your decision, how can you possibly elect someone. What merits do you instead deem more important than experience or an actual lain down plan that means someone without either is equal in this aspect to someone who does?



You are correct that neither is a perfect choice, and in a normal election year a standard democrat or republican would win over both, but that is not the election year that is happening.

You cannot in good conscience however claim that "both are just as bad" there is literally no metric in which this is true.

Racism? Homophobia? Sexism? No plan on any aspect of presidency? Sexual assault? Economic abilities? Public speaking? Diplomacy? Respectfulness? Criminal history? Vice president pick? Experience leading? Likelihood to enact self serving legislature? Lying?

All of those things are merits on which Trump is worse than Hillary. There is no faucet of presidential duty in which Trump could conceivably be seen as equal to, or better than, Hillary.

Hillary is not a saint, she is not a particularly great candidate, but she is impossibly better than Trump in every way that matters, and probably every way that does on top of this.

I don't understand. What is wrong in saying that they're both bad? I must be missing something here. I call getting killed due to negligence as bad. I call what Trump does bad. What more do you need? I'm not going to lean one way or the other. They're bad and I wouldn't have either of them over for tea. I can have, in good conscience, my opinion. They're bad. Either one has the potential to bring down despair down upon our ears. I also think that creating more loopholes for banks to slip through by deregulating them is a terrible idea. I'm not an expert on Trump, but I know Hillary.

I know what she has and hasn't done, so, believe me when I say it's best to just let me be on saying they're both equally as bad, because I really don't feel like digging out the snow shovel in the garage. Digging for more dirt on either side is a bad idea, because I assure you, no matter how terrible a person that Trump is, there will always be more skeletons in Clinton's closet when it comes to Political back dealings. It's the Colosseum effect. Everyone watches the gladiator's dirty tricks with awe (Trump), but everybody is reticent about the assassination up in the Parthenon. I think it's actually very lenient saying that both are bad when I'm only well known in one of the candidates.

Clinton is an official, i.e. a cop. Trump, up until recently, is just a civilian in this example. Clinton knows better, and she should be held to a higher standard, as well as every elected official (Every official should be for the people, not the other way around). I know people don't like Trump. I don't particularly like him either. But there is something to be said about turning a blind eye and constantly going on about a singular candidate and not the other.

I saw the 'Trump avoids taxes' argument brought up, which is an unfair and unfortunately, an uneducated view when in fact both candidates are equally guilty. Trump and Clinton are in the spotlight, Trump more so, I feel. People are quick to point out his prejudices but ignore Clinton's own prejudices. They like to bring up Trumps taxes, but ignore hers. Everyone was fast at pointing fingers at Trump for having a KKK member endorse him, but conveniently forgot to mention Clinton's mentor/friend is a member of the very same organization.

Both are terrible candidates, and I'd rather not argue over which is worse, or whose conscience is dirty or not. I'm not here to point fingers or sling mud, I'm just sharing my opinion and the information I have at my disposal. I'll say that focusing on just a singular person can cause you to be blindsided by the other. Clinton is in it with the banks, I've read articles and other sources stating that certain banks paid her to lobby for them. They are both the very bottom of the barrel from each of the parties. There are no winners in this election. I feel that trying to raise Clinton on some pedestal above Trump is doing a disservice to yourself. They're both terrible, terrible people, and I can't predict the future. Who knows? Maybe something incredibly damning will pop up within the next month that'll make up my mind, but until then I'm still in the precarious position of voting for two pissers that I don't like. I'd prefer if they both lost and someone else was elected, but that's not going to happen.

Like you said, Pence is against gays. Okay, I'm not sure about it because I'm not buried in any of the papers, but on the same flip Clinton is backed by several countries that would kill you as soon as look at you if you were gay. So she promises love and compassion to the gay community but accepts money from people that want to kill them [homosexuals].

TL;DR I know more about Clinton Politically than I do about Trump. Trump is bad from what I've heard, and Clinton is bad from what I've read. I don't like either and I won't champion either of them, I won't fight to lift either up because I know I'll lose on both bets.

Ivysaur October 18th, 2016 12:44 PM

http://i.imgur.com/8UAnhSv.png

So... when did Texas become a swing state?

Kanzler October 18th, 2016 1:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9455233)
http://i.imgur.com/8UAnhSv.png

So... when did Texas become a swing state?

You're excluding several other polls that are just as recent, but are a bit further down the list. The average is still about 48%-43% for Trump.

Somewhere_ October 18th, 2016 1:36 PM

Opinions on Evan Mcmullen potentially taking Utah?

Ivysaur October 18th, 2016 1:42 PM

http://i.imgur.com/YtxaNuQ.png

From those polls, Dixie is relatively old (and yet also shows a close race, after adjusting for house effects), Emerson is older still (and also close), and Google, Ipsos and Cvoter aren't Texas-specific polls but rather estimates based on the Texas interviewees for a larger national poll- Ipsos and Cvoter each poll less than 600 people, making the result little better than an educated guess of where Texas is, whereas the Google one does have a decent sample but a poorer weighting and is therefore less trustworthy than a specific, tailored Texas-only poll.

But looking back, I'm seeing that the last five Texas-focused polls show a similarly close race- and a 5,000-sample poll from August-September gave a surreal "Clinton +3", so I'd say there is something serious going on.

Netto Azure October 19th, 2016 6:45 PM

What a debate, Clinton was quite more forceful. :O

Her October 19th, 2016 6:51 PM

No, you're a puppet.

The thing that sticks most in my mind (right now, that is) was his refusing to say he'd accept the election results. Good lord, what a mess.

Somewhere_ October 19th, 2016 6:59 PM

"you're a nasty woman"

best line of the debate

Netto Azure October 19th, 2016 7:21 PM

“Nobody has more respect for women than I do, nobody” was another good one. Though that "bad hombres" comment is more memeable

Somewhere_ October 19th, 2016 7:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Netto Azure (Post 9456728)
“Nobody has more respect for women than I do, nobody” was another good one. Though that "bad hombres" comment is more memeable

I forgot about "bad hombres"

at least he didnt pronounce the "h" xD

A mix of funny, but I wouldnt be surprised if he got backlash from it. Borderline racist.

Sektor October 19th, 2016 10:09 PM

Sadly, I didn't get to see the debate, but I hope I can find it online somewhere. When I have time, I might look into it some more, but as time wheres on and I hear more about the Democratic party's dirty laundry I become more cynical. Both sides are bad, but with the timeclock running on those e-mails and such, I think they need to get down to business quick before more is uncovered and there's enough sway to damn them through popular opinion.

I have an article in my local paper say that the voting officials (those that count votes, I suppose is more accurate) are offended at Trump saying that "The system is rigged". I'm not sure whether or not the system is rigged, but it sure is suspicious that Bernie Sanders was never going to get the ticket no matter what. It was one of those raw deals that he got stuck with, so forgive me if I think that rigging an election is fully within the toolbelts of some officials. Not that that means they always do such things, but we've seen something like it before with Al Gore so... I don't know. All we can do is watch I suppose.

Aliencommander1245 October 19th, 2016 10:24 PM

I think it's fair to say Hillary won hands down and fact checkers had another field day every time Trump opened his mouth, so that's something.

I'm glad the abhorrent republican platform isn't likely to go anywhere in regards to presidential behavior no matter who wins, but Pence would probably stick to it enough that I'm very, very glad he's not going to touch the whitehouse. Hopefully supporting Trump for as long as they did nets the republican establishment a loss in the senate too so they can go back and rethink their whole "Let's be awful" strategy

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9456859)
Sadly, I didn't get to see the debate, but I hope I can find it online somewhere. When I have time, I might look into it some more, but as time wheres on and I hear more about the Democratic party's dirty laundry I become more cynical. Both sides are bad, but with the timeclock running on those e-mails and such, I think they need to get down to business quick before more is uncovered and there's enough sway to damn them through popular opinion.

Huh? As far as i'm aware there's neither new "dirt" nor anything email related about the DNC going on

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9456859)
I have an article in my local paper say that the voting officials (those that count votes, I suppose is more accurate) are offended at Trump saying that "The system is rigged". I'm not sure whether or not the system is rigged, but it sure is suspicious that Bernie Sanders was never going to get the ticket no matter what. It was one of those raw deals that he got stuck with, so forgive me if I think that rigging an election is fully within the toolbelts of some officials. Not that that means they always do such things, but we've seen something like it before with Al Gore so... I don't know. All we can do is watch I suppose.

Bernie was behind from the start and it became pretty clear fairly early on that he couldn't get the numbers to stay in, it's unfortunate but he's a relative unknown running as a firebrand so it's not entirely unsuspected or anything.

Let's be clear though, rigging an election or even committing voter fraud on the ridiculous scale required to influence an election is both implausible and near impossible, simply the act of attempting it would also be impossible to hide considering the scale and amount of people that would need to be involved.
It's like the moon landing conspiracy, the amount of effort and people involved would guarantee it'd be leaked out if it were to (have) happen(ed) and it's so difficult to do to start with that there's not really a point.

Mewtwolover October 20th, 2016 6:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9456867)
Let's be clear though, rigging an election or even committing voter fraud on the ridiculous scale required to influence an election is both implausible and near impossible, simply the act of attempting it would also be impossible to hide considering the scale and amount of people that would need to be involved.

Actually it's fully possible, rigging the electronic voting machines is easy (they're closed source) and that's what they're going to do: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/george-soros-hillary-clinton-voter-fraud/

Btw, remember the 2000 US Presidential election in Florida, there were many controversial issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount

Esper October 20th, 2016 10:02 AM

Rigging elections has historically been used to disenfranchise minorities and since, generally speaking, minority groups currently favor the Democratic side there's not really any precedent or reason for them rigging a general election. That's not to say that it couldn't happen, but it would be an awful idea to try it in the current climate. If even one vote gets miscounted you'll probably see people in the streets with their guns. We've already see that kind of intimidation tactic in practice and Trump's basically encouraging it at polling places for election day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mewtwolover (Post 9457200)
Actually it's fully possible, rigging the electronic voting machines is easy (they're closed source) and that's what they're going to do: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/george-soros-hillary-clinton-voter-fraud/

I agree that electronic voting machines are a bad idea in general because they'd be easy enough to manipulate by whoever has control over them and they lack a paper trail. But if you think that there is some Soros-Clinton conspiracy in battleground states like Florida you gotta remember that those battleground states mentioned in your link are run by Republicans legislatures. (Illinois, Oregon, California, and others are controlled by Dems, but those states wouldn't ever go to Trump.)

So, really, the people you gotta watch for cheating on election day and after are more likely than not the Republicans because they're the ones guarding the hen house in the states that will determine the winner of the election.

Sektor October 20th, 2016 1:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9456867)
Let's be clear though, rigging an election or even committing voter fraud on the ridiculous scale required to influence an election is both implausible and near impossible, simply the act of attempting it would also be impossible to hide considering the scale and amount of people that would need to be involved.
It's like the moon landing conspiracy, the amount of effort and people involved would guarantee it'd be leaked out if it were to (have) happen(ed) and it's so difficult to do to start with that there's not really a point.

Have you ever heard of gerrymandering? It's a very real thing and (I'm not certain of the particular laws violated) illegal. Voter fraud is a very real thing. Ballot stuffing, 'zombie' votes, gerrymandering, destruction of valid votes, 'dropped' or 'lost' counts, tampering with electronic machines, and more. Zombie votes and voter fraud are a used nearly every election and cases of fraud are always prevalent. Rigging elections is highly plausible, if not possible.

During the 2000 election, like Mewtwolover pointed out, Al Gore won the popular vote meaning that the people wanted him as president. However, even though the majority of Americans wanted him as President the electoral vote stalled and barred Gore from becoming President and we received another Bush instead. It happened, it's real and the only time in history a candidate that won the Popular vote lost. None of this is news, it happens all the time and I implore you to looking a bit more into it, because it isn't a 'fake moon landing' as you put it.

Also, John Podesta's leaked e-mails further the drill a tad. Now, I'm not saying all the leaked e-mails are true, however there is always some kernel of truth in every half-truth. Now, if allegations that Podesta colluded with the NYT to paint opponents in a bad light, hosted a private party for 'noteworthy' media persons to sway them against trump, working with Wall Street trying to paint her economic plans in a 'progressive' light. Now, I'm not naive in thinking that all of these e-mails are true, but if even 20% of them are true or even 10% it shows a painted picture that's pretty ugly. Now, Podesta may or may not have acted on his own and not consulted Hillary Clinton, but it doesn't help her in the least that he was caught with his pants down.

To further cement the shoes, Esquire published this today, stating that: Podesta's e-mail along with several other officials was indeed hacked. Like I said, as time wears on and these e-mails are gone through it's not looking pretty. It's an ugly mess and it doesn't help Clinton in the least.

Again, either side is as desirable as a bowl of live maggots, but these e-mails are beginning to push buttons and not in a good way.

Aliencommander1245 October 20th, 2016 5:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mewtwolover (Post 9457200)
Actually it's fully possible, rigging the electronic voting machines is easy (they're closed source) and that's what they're going to do: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/george-soros-hillary-clinton-voter-fraud/

http://www.snopes.com/george-soros-controls-smartmatic-voting-machines-in-16-states/

Oh look, debunked. Took me all of five seconds to google it :P

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9457658)
Have you ever heard of gerrymandering? It's a very real thing and (I'm not certain of the particular laws violated) illegal.

It's legal if it's bipartisan for some reason, but it's not at all voter fraud and mostly prevalent within republican owned states statistically, although both parties have done it, but voter restriction laws targeted at specific groups or minorities are a much more prevalent problem, look at the multiple republican laws voted down recently that were directly and undeniably targeted specifically at african american voters (Who are a lot more democrat leaning)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9457658)
Voter fraud is a very real thing. Ballot stuffing, 'zombie' votes, gerrymandering, destruction of valid votes, 'dropped' or 'lost' counts, tampering with electronic machines, and more. Zombie votes and voter fraud are a used nearly every election and cases of fraud are always prevalent. Rigging elections is highly plausible, if not possible.

All of those methods are either too small a scale to have any effect (On the basis of an individual voting more than once) and as such pointless (While also not being widespread at all, as records and prosecutions of said crimes/evidence of said crimes are near nonexistent in number) or too large a scale (Destroying or losing votes) to go unnoticed by a bipartisan and highly rigorously checked process like voting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9457658)
During the 2000 election, like Mewtwolover pointed out, Al Gore won the popular vote meaning that the people wanted him as president. However, even though the majority of Americans wanted him as President the electoral vote stalled and barred Gore from becoming President and we received another Bush instead. It happened, it's real and the only time in history a candidate that won the Popular vote lost. None of this is news, it happens all the time and I implore you to looking a bit more into it, because it isn't a 'fake moon landing' as you put it.

I have looked into it, and the evidence is simply not there to support any concept of widespread voter fraud effecting elections, and considering the lineup of presidents in modern history that's not really surprising. You're also wrong about Al Gore being the first to win a popular vote but lose, as he was the fourth, BUT he won the popular vote by such a small margain that it's not really surprising that there was the possibility he could lose, it's not like it was 70/30 and somehow this guy no one liked won the election.
But you are correct that the 2000 election was very very close, and it's for that reason that the florida recount in particular was so controversial as was bush's response to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9457658)
Also, John Podesta's leaked e-mails further the drill a tad. Now, I'm not saying all the leaked e-mails are true, however there is always some kernel of truth in every half-truth. Now, if allegations that Podesta colluded with the NYT to paint opponents in a bad light, hosted a private party for 'noteworthy' media persons to sway them against trump, working with Wall Street trying to paint her economic plans in a 'progressive' light. Now, I'm not naive in thinking that all of these e-mails are true, but if even 20% of them are true or even 10% it shows a painted picture that's pretty ugly. Now, Podesta may or may not have acted on his own and not consulted Hillary Clinton, but it doesn't help her in the least that he was caught with his pants down.

To further cement the shoes, Esquire published this today, stating that: Podesta's e-mail along with several other officials was indeed hacked. Like I said, as time wears on and these e-mails are gone through it's not looking pretty. It's an ugly mess and it doesn't help Clinton in the least.

A lot of the information is falsified, those emails are an annoying tangled mess of false propaganda and legitimate leaked emails, but not enough of the information is incriminating beyond stuff that's pretty patently false, or taken as out of context lines for news sites. It's a mess sorting through the slog that they are and trying to gleam what's actually true within the mess of falsified and edited documents but in particular i find the idea that Clinton is "colluding with the media" to be pretty hard to swallow considering how critically her actions are being looked at by the media, and how impossible it is not to paint her opponent in a negative light when there's nothing positive about his campaign, plans for the country or even things he says in public.

"I'll only accept the result of the election if i win" Is hard to spin anything other than the ramblings of a man on the verge of a tantrum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9457658)
Again, either side is as desirable as a bowl of live maggots, but these e-mails are beginning to push buttons and not in a good way.

I really do not feel like you're well informed about either candidate if this is the extent of your knowledge on them with the emails vs.. everything. A man who admitted to sexual assault, has several people accusing him of sexual assault, is currently in a court battle over sexually assaulting a child, claims the election is rigged only if he doesn't win and has no actual clear plans for his presidency with a vice presidental pick who cannot be described as anything other than a poor governor and fairly awful person who prefers to pretend his candidate hasn't and doesn't say hateful things rather than defending or (rightfully) decrying them is in no way equitable to a woman with years of political experience who hasn't been convicted of criminal wrongdoing for easily understandable and outlined reasons over mistakes which, while not particularly defendable, either didn't break laws or were not solely her fault and has been accused of shady activity without legitimate evidence

Kanzler October 20th, 2016 6:07 PM

[QUOTE=Aliencommander1245;9457982]
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mewtwolover (Post 9457200)
Actually it's fully possible, rigging the electronic voting machines is easy (they're closed source) and that's what they're going to do: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/george-soros-hillary-clinton-voter-fraud/

http://www.snopes.com/george-soros-controls-smartmatic-voting-machines-in-16-states/

Oh look, debunked. Took me all of five seconds to google it :P

That doesn't debunk the possibility that electronic voting machines can be easily rigged. It only suggests that George Soros himself isn't controlling Smarmatic voting machines in 16 states. I think it's important to have a paper trail as a security measure.

Aliencommander1245 October 20th, 2016 6:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9457994)
That doesn't debunk the possibility that electronic voting machines can be easily rigged. It only suggests that George Soros himself isn't controlling Smarmatic voting machines in 16 states. I think it's important to have a paper trail as a security measure.

It debunked the soros claim directly, but the line noting that there's a variety of machines from different manufacturers in use in different states (Different electoral areas? I can't find anywhere if it's on a state by state basis of deals with individual companies or if it's an electorate by electorate thing) does sort of go along with the idea that any kind of widespread vote fraud using that means would be very difficult, I can't find anywhere on if it's a singular closed system used or multiple on state/electorate/machine manufacturer basis but it seems like if it's the former, physical access is required to install software on the individual machine and if it's the latter then it would require significantly more resources and ability to be able to influence much due to the different systems involved

But you're right, they do certainly have issues that are hard to adress. It should be noted that 27 american states do already mandate a paper audit on electronic voting, and 18 have them in some places but not all, with a total of 5 that have no paper involved whatsoever, as it's not like there's no paper trail fullstop anywhere

0 October 20th, 2016 7:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9457982)
http://www.snopes.com/george-soros-controls-smartmatic-voting-machines-in-16-states/

Oh look, debunked. Took me all of five seconds to google it :P

I have a simple question. Why do you fight so hard for Clinton?

JD repeatedly says that neither candidate is good, but Trump is green in this regard while Clinton has a no-so-great political past. He supplies examples and reasons for why both candidates are bad, and constantly, you refute them with lame "evidence", like snopes, and go on about how great one is over the other.

I mean, seriously, why do you defend this terrible candidate so much, so vehemently? What possible gain do you have in this?

To me, both are garbage. Clinton has a past and trump plays a fool. Neither candidate is one that I think should run an ant farm, much less a country. So, why do you fight so hard for her? Because of a notion that she will be 0.000001% better?

0 October 20th, 2016 7:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9458056)
Why do you think Clinton is terrible? Because she's a stereotypical politican?

Clinton isn't flawless, nor am I implying that. I keep seeing these pessimistic, oftentimes world ending prophecies from people that she's the coming of Satan in disguise as a Democrat when the only evidence people have of the such is that she screwed up on her emails and some leaked Wikileaks stuff that turned out to be a big deal to precisely nobody but Trump supporters and people who didn't like Clinton in the first place. But the fact of the matter is that through and through, she's about as status quo politican as you can get. I don't see what's so bad about that (right now, anyway).

If you really believe a stereotypical politican is as bad as an openly racist, ableist, mysoginistic turd who praises dictators and wants to mimic their style of government, then I'm not sure what else to tell you.

"Neither candidate is one that I think should run an ant farm, much less a country." Interesting how you pointed out that I said that only Clinton was terrible. I said both were terrible to clear the record, and I was wondering why people fight so hard, just like you, for a crummy candidate against another crummy cadidate.

"she screwed up on her emails" This isn't a game. National secrets should never be run on a private server unless you have hundreds of people who know what they're doing that lock it down to any and all break ins. Just a couple of emails on wikileaks doesn't do any justice to how grave that situation is. Information is no joke. Don't pretend that it is.

"she's about as status quo politican as you can get." this is true, no one is really as much of a snake as Clinton right now, at least not in public office.

"If you really believe a stereotypical politican is as bad as an openly racist, ableist, mysoginistic turd who praises dictators and wants to mimic their style of government, then I'm not sure what else to tell you." Yes, that is exactly what I am implying. I'd rather someone have open beliefs and ideals, no matter how bad, then a snake whom I don't really get what they think.

As I've said, both are bad. Both are stinking piles of garbage, but one smells more like rotten eggs then rotten fish, and some people prefer one over the other.

Me personally, I know that both are bad in their own ways. But, my real question wasn't addressed by you, which is, why do you fight so hard for rotten garbage in the first place? Because it stinks a bit less?

Nah October 20th, 2016 7:33 PM

I'm pretty sure that people are more saying that Clinton is (clearly) the less bad of the two rather than that she's a wholly good candidate in general.

Aliencommander1245 October 20th, 2016 8:31 PM

I don't fight for clinton, i fight to dispel this misinformation people seem to have and the idea that somehow she's just as bad as trump, neither are paragons of good governance but it's very clear clinton is just a politician with nothing particularly notably good about her, but very little bad either (As most, if not all the claims that she's a "snake" or "criminal" come from places of misinformation or baseless conspiracy) while it cannot be overstated how bad Trump is, and even if you disregard a presidency under him as no one doing anything because he's so outlandish any laws he tries to push would go for them (Ignoring that people would go for for some of his more xeophobic and racist ideals) his vice president being closer to republican establishment does legitimately put people in danger, and put a lot of things people have worked very hard for at risk

Hands October 20th, 2016 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9457982)
I really do not feel like you're well informed about either candidate if this is the extent of your knowledge on them with the emails vs.. everything. A man who admitted to sexual assault, has several people accusing him of sexual assault, is currently in a court battle over sexually assaulting a child, claims the election is rigged only if he doesn't win and has no actual clear plans for his presidency with a vice presidental pick who cannot be described as anything other than a poor governor and fairly awful person who prefers to pretend his candidate hasn't and doesn't say hateful things rather than defending or (rightfully) decrying them is in no way equitable to a woman with years of political experience who hasn't been convicted of criminal wrongdoing for easily understandable and outlined reasons over mistakes which, while not particularly defendable, either didn't break laws or were not solely her fault and has been accused of shady activity without legitimate evidence

Yeah because no one has ever put forward complaints about Clinton that exceed the e-mail scandal (which one is anyone's guess since the DNC hacks) like targeting her abysmal record in office, her shady dealings with Bahrain or her dirty dancing with Wall Street.

Trump is a worse person than Clinton sure, and i think it's been fairly clear since his nomination he wasn't going to win. But stop pretending the only issue with Hillary is that she's careless at best with confidential material.

Ivysaur October 20th, 2016 11:33 PM

The problem is that she might not be as exciting as Sanders or have the same gravitas as Obama, but she is a normal politician with a coherent platform, actual experience, and who needs the support of progressives to win, meaning she has to at the very least include some of their proposals in their plans. Trump is an inexperienced racist who admits to sexual assault, can't speak in coherent sentences, has no idea of policy or how the Government works, ans is running for a party of no-taxes, no-redistribution white nationalists.

If Clinton is a 0, Trump is a -1,000. So saying "both are equally as bad" is actually kind of belittling to Clinton. And if you literally cannot see any difference between their candidacies, then it speaks really poorly about your civic knowledge, sorry to say.

Hands October 20th, 2016 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9458234)
The problem is that she might not be as exciting as Sanders or have the same gravitas as Obama, but she is a normal politician with a coherent platform, actual experience, and who needs the support of progressives to win, meaning she has to at the very least include some of their proposals in their plans. Trump is an inexperienced racist who admits to sexual assault, can't speak in coherent sentences, has no idea of policy or how the Government works, ans is running for a party of no-taxes, no-redistribution white nationalists.

If Clinton is a 0, Trump is a -1,000. So saying "both are equally as bad" is actually kind of belittling to Clinton. And if you literally cannot see any difference between their candidacies, then it speaks really poorly about your civic knowledge, sorry to say.

And therein lies the problem, all of her awful behaviour is normalised. Giving private speeches for millions of dollars in exchange for favours down the road? Yeah sure that's just politics! Advocating and overseeing the destruction of Libya? Just politics! Dodging tax? Politics!

She's not worse than say, Blair, Cameron, Bush or Johnson, but to suggest any of those people were anything other than terrible is ridiculous. A good bulk of people don't rag on Clinton to support Trump, they rag on her because they're sick of the state of corruption in the west. Why do you think Jeremy Corbyn is doing so well now in England? Or why Nigel Farrage gained such a following?

Sektor October 20th, 2016 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9458111)
I don't fight for clinton, i fight to dispel this misinformation people seem to have and the idea that somehow she's just as bad as trump, neither are paragons of good governance but it's very clear clinton is just a politician with nothing particularly notably good about her, but very little bad either (As most, if not all the claims that she's a "snake" or "criminal" come from places of misinformation or baseless conspiracy) while it cannot be overstated how bad Trump is, and even if you disregard a presidency under him as no one doing anything because he's so outlandish any laws he tries to push would go for them (Ignoring that people would go for for some of his more xeophobic and racist ideals) his vice president being closer to republican establishment does legitimately put people in danger, and put a lot of things people have worked very hard for at risk

Maybe I still don't get it. How are they not both bad? Trump is mean and Clinton is a questionable reptile. Trump has been, from as far as I can tell, a business man and NOT a politician. Clinton, on the other hand has been a politician for three decades. She's backed policies that I don't personally agree with, such as their (the Clinton's) Crime Bill and stance on three strikes (most of which has been abused). Trump is not a career politician. He has never had the chance to enact any bill whatsoever that had any adverse effects on any law anywhere. I know that is why a lot of people are drawn to him. Trump is truly outside of the elements of congress and he's gotten this far because people thought he was a joke.

Clinton, on the other hand, has hung her hat in the same office as the 'wall street fat cats' she lobbies against! She's going to fight for women's rights, gay rights and the LGBTQ community? She takes money from the same people that would behead you if you're gay, stone you if you're a woman that gets raped, and are spiritually obligated to murder you if you're a queer or outside the faith.

I've brought up Benghazi and her utter incompetence in the situation! Her dismissal of her involvement and detestable behaviour towards the families of the victims.

Her abhorent failure at Comsec and Transec regardless whether or not there wasn't anything damning on the files, but as time wears on people are reading some pretty gritty stuff. I showed you an article stating how the e-mails were hacked utilizing a phishing scam. She should not have had a private server in her residence at all. There was no reason for it and no excuse to have one.

She defended a rapist and said all sorts of horrendous things to the alleged victim. She laughed about it regardless. She could have stepped down, risked censure. You ALWAYS have a choice, or do you just think 'All good Germans'? What in the world happened to the case files? Did they just get magicked away to Les Schtroumpfs ville? Where did the files go? No one knows.

How is that not bad? How is any of that not equally as bad? Trump evades taxes? I've already pointed out that Clinton does as well. Trump says racist things? Clinton does as well, not to mention her 'mentor' was a known leader of a KKK chapter! We don't like either candidate. I'm not trying to be rude, but both Clinton and Trump have cannons leveled at them.

Trump is being accused of sexual assault. Do keep in mind we live in America, where you are innocent until proven in a court of law. So It makes me curious why you're willing to damn one candidate over allegations and not the other. Both candidates are bad, I'm sure of it. I don't know what Trump has done, and I don't care much to know. I feel like I am being extremely lenient on Clinton by saying both candidates are equally bad. I know that she is reprehensible and vile and a snake in the grass. She takes money from evil people and says she'll 'protect' those that her donors kill and murder on a daily basis. She has backed terrible people through the years and has taken money from pharmaceutical companies and Wall Street banks to lobby for them. She lies, she cheats, she steals (maybe not directly but it has a nicer ring to it than just two things). What I have been trying to say all this time probably should have been 'Trump is as bad as Clinton'.

I don't like either, and I won't be bullied into saying that my opinion is wrong or incorrect because you have an opposing view. I've been constantly defending my position saying that both candidates and I'm growing weary of it. I don't like either candidate, I've said I'd rather vote for a Barbie Doll, my dog or any other inanimate object even. But I can't, and I'm stuck with bad choices all around. I haven't divulged for whom I am voting for and I don't think I will. I will no longer entertain the thought or idea that my opinion is wrong, skewed or a lapse in judgment.

I didn't come here to make waves, I came here to perhaps exchange ideas on a somewhat equal level and I'm not feeling like that's happening. I do, however, feel somewhat attacked and always on the defensive in regards to my opinion on how both candidates are just as bad. I'm not going to defend my position any longer because there is no need too. We could go back and forth providing sources and samples but the fact is you're probably going to vote for Hillary Clinton if you are able and I may or may not as is my prerogative as a US citizen.

Unless Trump has had equal political opportunity to revel in as much badness that Clinton has, they will remain equally poor, equally bad. I would rather see a taco in office or perhaps a pair of old, crusty underwear with the elastic eroded away in them, but I won't. I'm stuck with two people I wouldn't share a bottle of water with in a desert. I don't feel lucky that Clinton and Trump are running. I don't feel comforted or assuaged. I wish Duke Nukem was President, I wish Harrison Ford was President but they're not. They aren't running. Clinton and Trump are. And those are the choices. I don't like them, and I am not going to sit here and hear all about how Trump is bad and how Clinton is not and be belittled and attacked because of it.

Ivysaur October 21st, 2016 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9458237)
And therein lies the problem, all of her awful behaviour is normalised. Giving private speeches for millions of dollars in exchange for favours down the road? Yeah sure that's just politics!

Giving speeches sure _is_ politics. I MEAN, there are worse things you can do than give speeches when you aren't holding any public office.

Quote:

Advocating and overseeing the destruction of Libya? Just politics!
Actually, you must know that it was the UN Security Council that approved that (UK, France, China, Russia, US) that gave the ok to the "no fly zone" that left Khadafi alone against the opposition in their civil war, that the proceedings were held under the flag of NATO, with the participarion of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, UK and the US, and that the only job of the foreign armies was to keep a sea blockade and prevent the Government from flying planes, right? I mean, the "destruction" of Libya was managed by their own citizens, and it's hardly fair to say that Clinton has the sole responsibility for a 17-country intervention that was approved by Russia and China.

Quote:

Dodging tax? Politics!
Source? As far as I know, the only one who has done this is Trump, but I might be wrong.

Quote:

She's not worse than say, Blair, Cameron, Bush or Johnson, but to suggest any of those people were anything other than terrible is ridiculous. A good bulk of people don't rag on Clinton to support Trump, they rag on her because they're sick of the state of corruption in the west. Why do you think Jeremy Corbyn is doing so well now in England? Or why Nigel Farrage gained such a following?
Oh, you don't need to tell me, I vote for the radical left Spanish party Podemos. But the difference is that the US electoral system (which I do despise) makes it so that you are forced to choose between one or another, and the only moment in which you can choose the "good" option is during the primaries. Once the candidates are set, not voting equals supporting the "worse" of the two.

Same goes in the UK- I gladly vote for Corbyn's ideals in our (proportional representation) elections. But in the UK, with the same "winner takes all" system as in the US, Corbyn's greatest achievement will probably be a Conservative landslide in the next election. In a Winner-takes-all system, you need, by force, to appeal to the middle ground, because you absolutely need to be the majority, or else you are irrelevant. And that's why a traditional politician like Clinton is going to become President, and why the only Labour Prime Minister in decades was Blair.

Elysieum October 21st, 2016 12:16 AM

The lack of cohesion on Trump's part in the final debate sealed it for me. You can really tell that Clinton has thought everything through - she came prepared. And not just in the conventional soundbite-speech kind of way, Clinton had potent counters ready to fly at Trump's "election is rigged" attitude and his usual attack on her history in office. She adapted in a way that Trump did not.

Let's be real - to equate Trump's pitfalls at this point with Clinton's is hideously stupid. He is an ethical disaster area compared to her and trying to get him to own up to it is ostensibly like trying to draw water from stone. Yes, in a normal election (whatever that is) Clinton's bad moves would probably have knocked her out of the running, but that is not the situation America finds itself in right now.

Hands October 21st, 2016 1:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9458266)
Giving speeches sure _is_ politics. I MEAN, there are worse things you can do than give speeches when you aren't holding any public office.

Giving speeches is fine, giving speeches to financial lobbyists and interest groups in private for the sum of millions of dollars then refusing to release the transcripts to the public when you're running for the most public official position there is, is to me, very shady.


Quote:

Actually, you must know that it was the UN Security Council that approved that (UK, France, China, Russia, US) that gave the ok to the "no fly zone" that left Khadafi alone against the opposition in their civil war, that the proceedings were held under the flag of NATO, with the participarion of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, UK and the US, and that the only job of the foreign armies was to keep a sea blockade and prevent the Government from flying planes, right? I mean, the "destruction" of Libya was managed by their own citizens, and it's hardly fair to say that Clinton has the sole responsibility for a 17-country intervention that was approved by Russia and China
.

I am not talking about the no-fly zone, nor am i saying Clinton was solely responsible. I am talking about her State Dept. sending over millions in arms, rockets, munitions and equipment to groups who, as always seems to be the case, turned out to be religious extremists who've laid waste to Libya since (with no effort to stop them by the UN) and Clinton has outright expressed zero regret over this. Whilst I do not like the Daily Mail, it's the first article that pops up relating to the Obama administration dropping charges against Turi is at the very least suspicious.

Of course she's not a sole player in the Libya mess, but she's the only key player from America who is currently running for POTUS. As such, she should be scrutinised for her role in it.

Quote:

Source? As far as I know, the only one who has done this is Trump, but I might be wrong.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/25/delaware-tax-loophole-1209-north-orange-trump-clinton

You don't have a tax loophole address if you aren't dodging tax. Ironically enough they share the same one.


Quote:

Oh, you don't need to tell me, I vote for the radical left Spanish party Podemos. But the difference is that the US electoral system (which I do despise) makes it so that you are forced to choose between one or another, and the only moment in which you can choose the "good" option is during the primaries. Once the candidates are set, not voting equals supporting the "worse" of the two.

Same goes in the UK- I gladly vote for Corbyn's ideals in our (proportional representation) elections. But in the UK, with the same "winner takes all" system as in the US, Corbyn's greatest achievement will probably be a Conservative landslide in the next election. In a Winner-takes-all system, you need, by force, to appeal to the middle ground, because you absolutely need to be the majority, or else you are irrelevant. And that's why a traditional politician like Clinton is going to become President, and why the only Labour Prime Minister in decades was Blair.
It's a discussion for another thread or time but I'm glad you voted for Podemos, I really would prefer if we all moved more to the left. However, i must disagree about Corbyn. Given how the brexit mess has started to polarise Britain's middle ground and how outright awful May is I really think he stands a good chance now. It's a shame that the PLP are such sneaky little snakes and careerists but hopefully we'll be able to deselect the careerist blues.

I just hope you understand my frustration with systems that give us the Blairs and the Clintons over the Benns and the Sanders of the world.

Aliencommander1245 October 21st, 2016 2:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9458327)
Giving speeches is fine, giving speeches to financial lobbyists and interest groups in private for the sum of millions of dollars then refusing to release the transcripts to the public when you're running for the most public official position there is, is to me, very shady.

My question to that is... why? She was paid to make speeches and she did as much, releasing transcripts for a speech you were paid by a company to make (Although not what to say, or how to say it) seems a little off anyway, I feel like you're more obligated to keep something like that private when it was a private-y event. Not to mention that when we did get the transcripts it revealed..... nothing. I think there was one thing she said years ago that didn't match up with her current policies, but beyond that there was nothing noteworthy or newsworthy about them.

Releasing things that actually have precedent for being released like tax returns or medical records (Although is there a precedent for that or did she just do it because trump kept saying she had every disease known to man? I can't remember) that are relevant to holding public office is one thing, but releasing speeches at private, mostly irrelevant events seems superfluous at best



Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9458327)
I am not talking about the no-fly zone, nor am i saying Clinton was solely responsible. I am talking about her State Dept. sending over millions in arms, rockets, munitions and equipment to groups who, as always seems to be the case, turned out to be religious extremists who've laid waste to Libya since (with no effort to stop them by the UN) and Clinton has outright expressed zero regret over this. Whilst I do not like the Daily Mail, it's the first article that pops up relating to the Obama administration dropping charges against Turi is at the very least suspicious.

The daily mail is not at all a good source for information and is pretty frequently caught out embellishing or making up things to fuel a good story but you're still blaming Clinton solely for her dept for acting out orders from NATO and the president as if sole blame lays at her feet or that she somehow could have just not done her job and averted this mess. Does she need to apologise for doing her job? Does everyone at the state dept, in the military, in the judicial branches of the US government responsible for libyan involvement?

Maybe i'm wrong because i'm not super educated on that situation, but as far as i'm aware you can't really blame a singular cog in the machine for that whole situation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9458327)
Of course she's not a sole player in the Libya mess, but she's the only key player from America who is currently running for POTUS. As such, she should be scrutinised for her role in it.

This is a little odd because you're kind of right, her actions in that role should be evaluated from the lens of information at the time and the actions even possible for her to take at the time, but crying out and blaming her and demanding she apologise and saying that somehow it makes her as bad as Trump doesn't seem right at all



Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9458327)
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/25/delaware-tax-loophole-1209-north-orange-trump-clinton

You don't have a tax loophole address if you aren't dodging tax. Ironically enough they share the same one.

This i can actually agree is something negative that she shouldn't be doing when she plans to close said loophole anyway, but it should be noted that Trump's tax dodging includes several shell companies and the whole bankruptcy-into-tax-free-status too. Trump being worse doesn't make this better, and you're correct this isn't something particularly ok even if it's widespread among the wealthy (Although with the clinton plans to close several tax loopholes, I think this actually comes under one of the ones she plans to close? Could be wrong because i can't 1-1 equate it, but i'm fairly sure)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9458327)
I just hope you understand my frustration with systems that give us the Blairs and the Clintons over the Benns and the Sanders of the world.

I totally understand this, and it'd be great if left wing popularists were capable of drumming up the same frenzy right wing ones do but that's not the demographics right now, the whole idea of a right pushback against current social progress is a pretty stiff one and i'd say it's a fair bit more important to shine the spotlight on what there is to lose and what is at stake than to drill into and compare the center left with a microscope for the borderline misfractions while there's someone who is so bafflingly awful it cannot be overstated looming about

Hands October 21st, 2016 2:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9458374)
My question to that is... why? She was paid to make speeches and she did as much, releasing transcripts for a speech you were paid by a company to make (Although not what to say, or how to say it) seems a little off anyway, I feel like you're more obligated to keep something like that private when it was a private-y event. Not to mention that when we did get the transcripts it revealed..... nothing. I think there was one thing she said years ago that didn't match up with her current policies, but beyond that there was nothing noteworthy or newsworthy about them.

People were concerned that she was making clandestine promises and she refused to ever put it to rest, coming out with weird statements like "I'll release mine when the other candidates do" when we all know Sanders wouldn't of ever done said speeches so had no transcripts and the poor practice(s) of the GOP shouldn't be held to our own standards.

Quote:

Releasing things that actually have precedent for being released like tax returns or medical records (Although is there a precedent for that or did she just do it because trump kept saying she had every disease known to man? I can't remember) that are relevant to holding public office is one thing, but releasing speeches at private, mostly irrelevant events seems superfluous at best
The medical thing is ridiculous and an older person like Clinton should never of faced scrutiny for health concerns, the woman is nearly 70 years old, of course she isn't going to be in flawless health. This is one criticism of Clinton I've been staunchly against.


Quote:

The daily mail is not at all a good source
You can say that again, I used it because it was the biggest outlet to report on it, undoubtedly they have embellished the story, I was simply using it to source the charges being dropped and why that seems a bit suspicious to me.

Quote:

but you're still blaming Clinton solely for her dept for acting out orders from NATO
Sorry, but that's how it is. The captain of the ship is responsible for the crew.

Quote:

as if sole blame lays at her feet or that she somehow could have just not done her job and averted this mess. Does she need to apologise for doing her job? Does everyone at the state dept, in the military, in the judicial branches of the US government responsible for libyan involvement?
She's absolutely not the only guilty party by any means, but she is the only one running for President. I'd of held anyone heavily involved in that mess to the same level of scrutiny if they were running.

Quote:

Maybe i'm wrong because i'm not super educated on that situation, but as far as i'm aware you can't really blame a singular cog in the machine for that whole situation
I don't know if there's some confusion here between us, if there is, my apologies. I don't blame just Clinton for Libya, far from it. But other key players aren't running for POTUS.

Quote:

This is a little odd because you're kind of right, her actions in that role should be evaluated from the lens of information at the time and the actions even possible for her to take at the time, but crying out and blaming her and demanding she apologise and saying that somehow it makes her as bad as Trump doesn't seem right at all
I actually dropped the "bad as Trump" pattern after the sexual assault mess. I've always held them both as shady, buyable and dishonest and that's where my comparisons still start and end. Obviously she's not as bad as a man who likely raped people. I would like her to apologise though for her part(s) in the constant scandals. I'd respect her a lot more if she was ever humble.



Quote:

This i can actually agree is something negative that she shouldn't be doing when she plans to close said loophole anyway, but it should be noted that Trump's tax dodging includes several shell companies and the whole bankruptcy-into-tax-free-status too. Trump being worse doesn't make this better, and you're correct this isn't something particularly ok even if it's widespread among the wealthy (Although with the clinton plans to close several tax loopholes, I think this actually comes under one of the ones she plans to close? Could be wrong because i can't 1-1 equate it, but i'm fairly sure)
Yeah, the problem is she still done it and she has still refused to explain why she's done it and continues to use said address. She;ll close some loopholes as pandering to the working class but, as with all careerists, she'll leave a few open for her friends.

Quote:

I totally understand this, and it'd be great if left wing popularists were capable of drumming up the same frenzy right wing ones do but that's not the demographics right now, the whole idea of a right pushback against current social progress is a pretty stiff one and i'd say it's a fair bit more important to shine the spotlight on what there is to lose and what is at stake than to drill into and compare the center left with a microscope for the borderline misfractions while there's someone who is so bafflingly awful it cannot be overstated looming about
Yeah, I thought we must just be there with Sanders and Corbyn, we might still make it with Corbyn at the very least.

Aliencommander1245 October 21st, 2016 5:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9458423)
People were concerned that she was making clandestine promises and she refused to ever put it to rest, coming out with weird statements like "I'll release mine when the other candidates do" when we all know Sanders wouldn't of ever done said speeches so had no transcripts and the poor practice(s) of the GOP shouldn't be held to our own standards.

It's true he campaigned heavily for her to release them and she refused, but isn't the accusation of clandestine deals and promises itself just as weird a statement? I don't really get why she didn't release them, outside of a sense of obligation of privacy for the speeches she was paid to make in a private forum, but it doesn't set a particularly good example to the public to release unrelated documents whenever anyone campaigns for it- Look at Obama and the birther conspiracy (Although that's on a completely different level and motivated by racism rather than this)

Did she ever claim he made speeches though? I feel like that's not really right



Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9458423)
You can say that again, I used it because it was the biggest outlet to report on it, undoubtedly they have embellished the story, I was simply using it to source the charges being dropped and why that seems a bit suspicious to me.

It's near impossible for me to actually research anything on Marc Turi because every article on him i find is a conspiracy website claiming it's an obama coverup, the semi-reputable sources (Or at least ones presenting the information impartially) seem to suggest there simply wasn't enough evidence of his alleged crimes to arrest him so i'm more inclined to believe the official wording than the information coming entirely from unreputable sites



Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9458423)
Sorry, but that's how it is. The captain of the ship is responsible for the crew.

Maybe, but a head of a government department is not a ship and a foreign country effected by their actions is not a crew. Do you hold the operator of a vessel's weapons accountable for the actions of the ship? The captain is the leader of a sovereign vessel who answers to a higher chain of command and is responsible for the well being of their crew, and you're using that analogy to blame someone who was head of a specific department of the US government for actions ordered by the government itself and NATO that ended up adversely effecting a foreign country. The two aren't comparable at all and i don't really get your line of thinking beyond reaching for a way hillary is at fault for this specific situation


Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9458423)
She's absolutely not the only guilty party by any means, but she is the only one running for President. I'd of held anyone heavily involved in that mess to the same level of scrutiny if they were running.

I don't know if there's some confusion here between us, if there is, my apologies. I don't blame just Clinton for Libya, far from it. But other key players aren't running for POTUS.


I honestly don't get what you're saying here sorry, that you don't blame her but you're putting all the blame on her because she's the only person involved running for president? Analyse her actions all you want but as of now you haven't critically analysed her actions vs available options as much as you've lain sole blame for an event and it's outcome on her and said this is why she's not going to be a good president


Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9458423)
actually dropped the "bad as Trump" pattern after the sexual assault mess. I've always held them both as shady, buyable and dishonest and that's where my comparisons still start and end. Obviously she's not as bad as a man who likely raped people. I would like her to apologise though for her part(s) in the constant scandals. I'd respect her a lot more if she was ever humble.

What scandals? All of them together or are there specific ones you're talking about re: sexual assault? I can't really tell, sorry. I don't know what you'd consider humble though, considering I don't think she's actually displayed anything like talking herself up outrageously or ever claimed she was completely free of fault for any of the legitimate issues she's been involved in (Example: Apology and self reflection on email thing)





Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9458423)
Yeah, the problem is she still done it and she has still refused to explain why she's done it and continues to use said address. She;ll close some loopholes as pandering to the working class but, as with all careerists, she'll leave a few open for her friends.

I don't really know about that, it seems pretty pessimistic? It's not really like she's particularly involved with money beyond the Clinton's huge charity and she's been fairly consistent on her intent to close tax loopholes, especially after being required to absorb more of Sanders' stances/policies in exchange for his teaming up with her, it just remains to be seen.
I think there'll always be loopholes in complicated systems like tax but i don't think any particular ones will be singled out to be left out of reform for some kind of personal benefit for herself, that's not really something reflected by her own career history or prior actions



Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9458423)
Yeah, I thought we must just be there with Sanders and Corbyn, we might still make it with Corbyn at the very least.

Maybe? I have to admit i don't know a lot about english politics and aren't first hand acquainted with american politics either but i do hope we get some of that sprinkled over here in Australia, I'm pretty sick of the likes of Pauline hanson and Tony Abbott ruining the country

Hands October 21st, 2016 5:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9458543)
It's true he campaigned heavily for her to release them and she refused, but isn't the accusation of clandestine deals and promises itself just as weird a statement? I don't really get why she didn't release them, outside of a sense of obligation of privacy for the speeches she was paid to make in a private forum, but it doesn't set a particularly good example to the public to release unrelated documents whenever anyone campaigns for it- Look at Obama and the birther conspiracy (Although that's on a completely different level and motivated by racism rather than this)

Did she ever claim he made speeches though? I feel like that's not really right

She doesn't say Sanders made speeches, she says she'll release her transcripts to Wall St when the other candidates release theirs. By this point it was only Bernie, Trump and Cruz left. It was in one of the Clinton V Sanders debates and was again reiterated by Mrs Clinton herself on CNN.

Quote:

It's near impossible for me to actually research anything on Marc Turi because every article on him i find is a conspiracy website claiming it's an obama coverup, the semi-reputable sources (Or at least ones presenting the information impartially) seem to suggest there simply wasn't enough evidence of his alleged crimes to arrest him so i'm more inclined to believe the official wording than the information coming entirely from unreputable sites
Yeah, this is why I used the Mail link, all the other sites were bat crazy Alex Jones type things.

Quote:

Maybe, but a head of a government department is not a ship and a foreign country effected by their actions is not a crew. Do you hold the operator of a vessel's weapons accountable for the actions of the ship? The captain is the leader of a sovereign vessel who answers to a higher chain of command and is responsible for the well being of their crew, and you're using that analogy to blame someone who was head of a specific department of the US government for actions ordered by the government itself and NATO that ended up adversely effecting a foreign country. The two aren't comparable at all and i don't really get your line of thinking beyond reaching for a way hillary is at fault for this specific situation
So if you're leading a Govt dept, your boss tells you to get your dept to kill people, and you tell your dept to kill people, do you think legally you'd be absolved of blame? It's a bit of a poor comparison but I'm trying to highlight why the person in charge is also the most accountable.


Quote:

I honestly don't get what you're saying here sorry, that you don't blame her but you're putting all the blame on her because she's the only person involved running for president? Analyse her actions all you want but as of now you haven't critically analysed her actions vs available options as much as you've lain sole blame for an event and it's outcome on her and said this is why she's not going to be a good president
If someone else who had played a part in Libya, say, Michael Fallon (The Defence Secretary of GB at the time of Libya), was running to be British PM I'd absolutely hold his part in the mess in Libya against him. None of these people ever say they were reluctant. Clinton said she holds zero regrets over Libya, referred to the absolute carnage that was Iraq as a business opportunity and in no uncertain terms suggested she would nuke Iranian cities. That attitude is not the kind I want running things. I don't think it should be that surprising that a pacifist wouldn't want a war hawk who rates a monster like Kissinger as one of her heroes should be in charge of one of the world's most dangerous arsenals. If Obama ran again, I would hold Libya against him too. Only his overall Political record is average-good, her's is pretty bad. From LBGT rights to civil issues to war, Clinton has almost unanimously sat on the wrong bench.


Quote:

What scandals? All of them together or are there specific ones you're talking about re: sexual assault? I can't really tell, sorry. I don't know what you'd consider humble though, considering I don't think she's actually displayed anything like talking herself up outrageously or ever claimed she was completely free of fault for any of the legitimate issues she's been involved in (Example: Apology and self reflection on email thing)
The DNC mess where Schultz had to resign after planning to "jew shame" Mr Sanders where Clinton decided instead of condemning this outright act of Anti Antisemitism she'd hire the main plotter instead. the Super Predator mess, the Taxhouse, Libya on a whole (She did, under pressure, eventually, albeit with all the authenticity of a dollar store knock off, apologise to some degree about Iraq) her voting record against lbgtq equality etc. They aren't her scandals alone, but she has done nothing, absolutely nothing to set things right. And that's the problem, as head of state, she will have to take ownership of a lot more and have to face accountability which she's managed to dodge for most of her political life.

Quote:

I don't really know about that, it seems pretty pessimistic? It's not really like she's particularly involved with money beyond the Clinton's huge charity and she's been fairly consistent on her intent to close tax loopholes, especially after being required to absorb more of Sanders' stances/policies in exchange for his teaming up with her, it just remains to be seen.
I think there'll always be loopholes in complicated systems like tax but i don't think any particular ones will be singled out to be left out of reform for some kind of personal benefit for herself, that's not really something reflected by her own career history or prior actions
Maybe it is just pessimism, but I've seen enough in Western politics in my time to know she's gonna let the economy wreckers off. Her voting records back that.

Quote:

Maybe? I have to admit i don't know a lot about english politics and aren't first hand acquainted with american politics either but i do hope we get some of that sprinkled over here in Australia, I'm pretty sick of the likes of Pauline hanson and Tony Abbott ruining the country
yeah there's another two people i don't like very much haha.

Aliencommander1245 October 21st, 2016 4:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9458573)
She doesn't say Sanders made speeches, she says she'll release her transcripts to Wall St when the other candidates release theirs. By this point it was only Bernie, Trump and Cruz left. It was in one of the Clinton V Sanders debates and was again reiterated by Mrs Clinton herself on CNN.

She did explicitly refer to "the other side" not sanders in the transcript i'm reading, she also makes mention that she doesn't want to do something like this without precedent when no-one else is being required to. I don't know if that's an acceptable reason, but considering how innocuous they were and her reasoning it's fairly understandable



Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9458573)
Yeah, this is why I used the Mail link, all the other sites were bat crazy Alex Jones type things.

I don't particularly feel like a story is valid if i can only find conspiracy theory websites reporting on it, the daily mail is very marginally better than those but i still don't think anything from there can be trusted, honestly



Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9458573)
So if you're leading a Govt dept, your boss tells you to get your dept to kill people, and you tell your dept to kill people, do you think legally you'd be absolved of blame? It's a bit of a poor comparison but I'm trying to highlight why the person in charge is also the most accountable.

I mean, yeah actually you are legally absolved of blame considering you're being told to do something by the government? I'd wager it's not actually illegal to kill those specific people at all if the government is doing it, considering they control the law. But... you've kind of made my point completely clear here, why is the middleman responsible for transferring on an order? Obviously that question isn't a 1-1 scale comparision but you don't seem to be able to explain to me why it's not the government or nato's fault, nor the people who carried out the heavy lifting in libya, but clinton herself for effectively passing on an order already passed on from nato to the president




Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9458573)
None of these people ever say they were reluctant. Clinton said she holds zero regrets over Libya, referred to the absolute carnage that was Iraq as a business opportunity and in no uncertain terms suggested she would nuke Iranian cities.

Clinton has, on multiple occasions, expressed that her vote for the iraq war was a mistake in hindsight and offered the explanation that Bush had presented the vote as a method of leverage to ensure the check for nuclear weapons would go ahead unimpeded, though he evidently didn't mean this or went back on it later.
I can't find anything that's not a conspiracy video on her saying she'd "nuke iraq" and that seems like a fairly dumb thing to say in the first place so it doesn't seem likely?
She didn't claim the iraq war was a business opportunity, but the country of iraq itself was a business opportunity for the US, an opportunity for business to occur with said country.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9458573)
That attitude is not the kind I want running things. I don't think it should be that surprising that a pacifist wouldn't want a war hawk who rates a monster like Kissinger as one of her heroes should be in charge of one of the world's most dangerous arsenals. If Obama ran again, I would hold Libya against him too. Only his overall Political record is average-good, her's is pretty bad. From LBGT rights to civil issues to war, Clinton has almost unanimously sat on the wrong bench.

Matt Baume has an interesting video on Clinton's LGBT rights history but i can't find any quotes about kissinger being claimed to be her hero, only one line from a debate where she mentions his praise of her managerial skills. I actually don't think clinton has had a bad record on voting for issues, and for issues in which she has been on the wrong side for in the past there's a fairly opaque record of her evolution on the issues in the last decade and a half




Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9458573)
The DNC mess where Schultz had to resign after planning to "jew shame" Mr Sanders where Clinton decided instead of condemning this outright act of Anti Antisemitism she'd hire the main plotter instead.

"Jew shame"? I can't find anything on this phrase at all, other than that Schultz herself is jewish? Hiring someone who resigned from their post over bias for you is not a particularly great thing to do for you public image though, that i can agree on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9458573)
They aren't her scandals alone, but she has done nothing, absolutely nothing to set things right. And that's the problem, as head of state, she will have to take ownership of a lot more and have to face accountability which she's managed to dodge for most of her political life.

Everything you listed has, in some fashion, been apologised for though? From the superpredator remarks to the lgbt voting record (Although she defends the defence of marriage act on the grounds it was the lesser of two evils at the time) and has a fairly good voting record on marriage equality in the 2000's ect. Out of everything you listed, libya is the one thing she hasn't apologised for but merely noted that there were better ways to have handled it and in it's current form it requires a lot of work and effort to get the country running completely again



Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9458573)
Maybe it is just pessimism, but I've seen enough in Western politics in my time to know she's gonna let the economy wreckers off. Her voting records back that.

It's pretty mixed actually, she's voted for and against various tax cuts for the middle class and the wealthy, voting for amendments that were shot down that would've increased the tax cuts on college tuition and decreased the tax cuts for the wealthy and voting against the estate tax exemptions but voting for decreased taxes to the upper bracket and wanting to vote down bush's tax cuts. Not perfect, not great but not a history of looking out for the wealthy solely

Caaethil October 22nd, 2016 6:27 PM

I'm just a British guy who knows very little about American politics. Personally I think if we compare all the bad things you can reasonably say about Trump and all the bad things you can reasonably say about Clinton, Clinton comes out the greater evil.

At the end of the day, most of the criticism of Trump as a person comes down to racism, misogyny, and so on. Terrible as they are, I don't think they compare to the actual abuse of political power we've seen from Clinton. At the end of the day it seems like we've seen Trump say a lot of bad things and Clinton do a lot of bad things.

It's a terrible state of affairs and they're both disgusting human beings. I'm glad we all agree on that, at least.

Netto Azure October 22nd, 2016 8:10 PM



I did my civic duty, now come and join me #GOTV :P

Somewhere_ October 22nd, 2016 8:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Netto Azure (Post 9460275)


I did my civic duty, now come and join me #GOTV :P

Alyson Kennedy made the ballot but not Evan Mcmullin?

Also I'm pretty jelly right now. I can't wait until I'm 18 and can vote.

Netto Azure October 22nd, 2016 8:38 PM

It's a WA state ballot, not a UT one :P

Somewhere_ October 22nd, 2016 8:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Netto Azure (Post 9460289)
It's a WA state ballot, not a UT one :P

I know...

I just want Mcmullin on the ballot in every state.

Ivysaur October 23rd, 2016 12:02 AM

One of the things I think gets forgotten in the midst of "who's a better person?" is the policies. Such as:

- Trump promising to kill every green energy measure put in place by Obama and push for the usage of coal, "which is a clean power source" and fracking;
- Trump promising to cut taxes for the rich up to $1 million for people making more than $3.75m a year, which would cause the debt to soar by 7.2tn over 10 years; whereas Clinton wants to raise taxes for people making over $143k a year, up to $800k for the people making over 3.75m, which would cause the debt to fall by 1.6tn over 10 years (source: Tax Policy Centre)
- Trump wants to appoint ultraconservative SC justices to overturn Roe and send it back to the states, meaning that, in a matter of hours, abortion would be outlawed in red states. The Republican Party platform vows to do the same to same-sex marriage.
- Killing NAFTA and putting punitive tariffs against China sounds all fine and well until you find out that free trade has increased the purchasing power of the worse-off by 60%.
- Clinton is proposing a national program to help people suffering from mental illnesses, Trump doesn't care.

Just all of this makes it very clear for me who should be supported, regardless of how deep we go into the "racist/untrustworthy" fight.

Somewhere_ October 23rd, 2016 6:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9460414)
One of the things I think gets forgotten in the midst of "who's a better person?" is the policies. Such as:

- Trump promising to kill every green energy measure put in place by Obama and push for the usage of coal, "which is a clean power source" and fracking;
- Trump promising to cut taxes for the rich up to $1 million for people making more than $3.75m a year, which would cause the debt to soar by 7.2tn over 10 years; whereas Clinton wants to raise taxes for people making over $143k a year, up to $800k for the people making over 3.75m, which would cause the debt to fall by 1.6tn over 10 years (source: Tax Policy Centre)
- Trump wants to appoint ultraconservative SC justices to overturn Roe and send it back to the states, meaning that, in a matter of hours, abortion would be outlawed in red states. The Republican Party platform vows to do the same to same-sex marriage.
- Killing NAFTA and putting punitive tariffs against China sounds all fine and well until you find out that free trade has increased the purchasing power of the worse-off by 60%.
- Clinton is proposing a national program to help people suffering from mental illnesses, Trump doesn't care.

Just all of this makes it very clear for me who should be supported, regardless of how deep we go into the "racist/untrustworthy" fight.

According to the Tax Foundation, Trumps' plan would increase the debt by 10 trillion. Are these calculations on a static basis? Because at the same time, the Tax Foundation predicts a GDP growth under Trump. I need to read the study again...

But what about the Tax Policy Center? Were they calculated on a static basis? Ignoring investments, savings, GDP growth/loss, etc.

Caaethil October 23rd, 2016 9:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9460414)
One of the things I think gets forgotten in the midst of "who's a better person?" is the policies. Such as:

- Trump promising to kill every green energy measure put in place by Obama and push for the usage of coal, "which is a clean power source" and fracking;
- Trump promising to cut taxes for the rich up to $1 million for people making more than $3.75m a year, which would cause the debt to soar by 7.2tn over 10 years; whereas Clinton wants to raise taxes for people making over $143k a year, up to $800k for the people making over 3.75m, which would cause the debt to fall by 1.6tn over 10 years (source: Tax Policy Centre)
- Trump wants to appoint ultraconservative SC justices to overturn Roe and send it back to the states, meaning that, in a matter of hours, abortion would be outlawed in red states. The Republican Party platform vows to do the same to same-sex marriage.
- Killing NAFTA and putting punitive tariffs against China sounds all fine and well until you find out that free trade has increased the purchasing power of the worse-off by 60%.
- Clinton is proposing a national program to help people suffering from mental illnesses, Trump doesn't care.

Just all of this makes it very clear for me who should be supported, regardless of how deep we go into the "racist/untrustworthy" fight.

I'm nowhere near educated on any of this. I'm just a British guy with my popcorn. Emails and pretty much everything Trump has ever said are more exciting.

You know, I kind of wish our media would talk about something other than the latest [insert group]ist thing Trump has said. Like his actual policies, or anything about Clinton. I feel like the extent of knowledge on this election to the average person in Britain is that Trump is the racist one and Clinton is the not racist one.

gimmepie October 23rd, 2016 1:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caaethil (Post 9460837)
I'm nowhere near educated on any of this. I'm just a British guy with my popcorn. Emails and pretty much everything Trump has ever said are more exciting.

You know, I kind of wish our media would talk about something other than the latest [insert group]ist thing Trump has said. Like his actual policies, or anything about Clinton. I feel like the extent of knowledge on this election to the average person in Britain is that Trump is the racist one and Clinton is the not racist one.

It'd be easier to talk about Trump's policies if he had any.

Somewhere_ October 23rd, 2016 1:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9461019)
It'd be easier to talk about Trump's policies if he had any.

roasted

his immigration and border are probably his biggest policies. and then probably taxes. And those are the two biggest appeals to him his supporters like.

gimmepie October 23rd, 2016 2:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadSheep (Post 9461026)
roasted

his immigration and border are probably his biggest policies. and then probably taxes. And those are the two biggest appeals to him his supporters like.

That's literally all he has and he's not even got a clue about how to really go about doing either of those things either. This is why people who don't understand politics/economics should not be allowed to be politicians.

Esper October 24th, 2016 12:51 PM

I'm worried about what will happen after the election if when if Trump loses. He's been so poisonous to the democratic process I can't see his supporters just accepting the result. I fear more of those militia occupations like at the Malheur wildlife refuge, only in more public places. I also fear what it will do for future elections now that this kind of racist/sexist/violent rhetoric has been normalized. Others who decide to run for office and lose might not be content to accept it now that there's a precedent. Trump won't turn to violence because he's got his golden tower and that news media company he's forming, but others might not be so content.

Somewhere_ October 24th, 2016 1:54 PM

Keep in mind that a lot of Trump "supporters" are voting for him to keep Hillary out of office. They wont go violent. The Alt-Right wont go violent, as most of them are pro-democracy and all value nonviolence.

Trump has a large ego, sure. But its absurd to think he would go violent, even if he did not own many businesses.

Esper October 25th, 2016 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadSheep (Post 9462019)
Keep in mind that a lot of Trump "supporters" are voting for him to keep Hillary out of office. They wont go violent. The Alt-Right wont go violent, as most of them are pro-democracy and all value nonviolence.

Trump has a large ego, sure. But its absurd to think he would go violent, even if he did not own many businesses.

But if these people feel like democracy has been subverted? That's essentially what Trump is telling his supporters is happening. And if you look at all the anti-government groups out there, many of whom have committed acts of violence, you can see why I'd be concerned. You've got the people wanting to secede, the people who occupy federal land, and other groups who don't shy away from arming themselves and talking about their belief in government conspiracies. That seems like a bad combination of elements. People who follow ideologies that, at times, have ended in the more violent of them confronting law enforcement (or worse, civilians) with deadly force over much smaller issues (like being pulled over for not have a license plate) are going to be told that an election for president has been stolen, that democracy itself is under attack. Most people won't be violent, but there's been lackluster attempts among the political right's leadership to clamp down on violent talk and actions, and none from Trump itself. Some people are going to get violent and I'm really worried about that.

Ivysaur October 25th, 2016 11:18 AM

In some way, it depends on the margin. If Clinton wins by 8-10 points, carrying Arizona and even Texas (or finishing within 2-3 points there), plus Utah going for McMullin and the Senate fillping blue, it'll be hard to claim that he lost exclusively because of some shady dealings in Chicago and Philly. If the election ends up being a repeat of 2012 or closer, then you will see the protests. Of course some hardcore Breitbartists will complain about fraud even if she wins by a Reaganesque landslide, but the key is the 60-ish% of Trump voters who aren't voting for Trump but against Clinton. If the margin is wide enough, I don't think they'll complain in such a way.

Somewhere_ October 25th, 2016 1:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9463009)
But if these people feel like democracy has been subverted? That's essentially what Trump is telling his supporters is happening. And if you look at all the anti-government groups out there, many of whom have committed acts of violence, you can see why I'd be concerned. You've got the people wanting to secede, the people who occupy federal land, and other groups who don't shy away from arming themselves and talking about their belief in government conspiracies. That seems like a bad combination of elements. People who follow ideologies that, at times, have ended in the more violent of them confronting law enforcement (or worse, civilians) with deadly force over much smaller issues (like being pulled over for not have a license plate) are going to be told that an election for president has been stolen, that democracy itself is under attack. Most people won't be violent, but there's been lackluster attempts among the political right's leadership to clamp down on violent talk and actions, and none from Trump itself. Some people are going to get violent and I'm really worried about that.

Are you aren't being descriptive at all. You keep saying "these groups," "these conspirators," these "anti-government groups." Provide examples, prove that they support Trump, and are relevant enough to be a threat. And prove they are violent.

Anti-government groups do not support Trump. Most anarchists despise Trump, and the few that do, do not want a violent end to the state. I can explain this in more detail if you want because I know this particular community very well.

And if these people are so anti-government and violent, why would they care if democracy is subverted if they do not believe in it? If they are violent, why would they support the government system that showboats its peaceful achievements?

Kanzler October 25th, 2016 3:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadSheep (Post 9463127)
Are you aren't being descriptive at all. You keep saying "these groups," "these conspirators," these "anti-government groups." Provide examples, prove that they support Trump, and are relevant enough to be a threat. And prove they are violent.

Anti-government groups do not support Trump. Most anarchists despise Trump, and the few that do, do not want a violent end to the state. I can explain this in more detail if you want because I know this particular community very well.

And if these people are so anti-government and violent, why would they care if democracy is subverted if they do not believe in it? If they are violent, why would they support the government system that showboats its peaceful achievements?

I don't think she means anti-government per se, but more like anti-establishment.

Sektor October 25th, 2016 4:32 PM

I am a bit confused. I'm not a great expert on the Trump thing, but I think he actually does have some policies. I mean, he can't have none because that just doesn't make sense.

Just by googling Trump's Policies I came up with these:

Immigration
Spoiler:
Quote:

Restore integrity to our immigration system by prioritizing the interests of Americans first. Enforce our immigration laws – at the border and at the workplace. Build a border wall and end sanctuary cities. Send criminal aliens home. Welcome those who embrace our way of life, but keep out immigrants and refugees who don’t through rigorous vetting.


Abortion
Spoiler:
Quote:

The primary responsibility of the federal government is to protect the rights of its citizens. Life is the most fundamental right. The federal government should not diminish this right by denying its’ protection. I am opposed to abortion except for rape, incest and life of the mother. I oppose the use of government funds to pay for abortions.


Gun Control
Spoiler:
Quote:

Unwavering support of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Get serious about prosecuting violent criminals. Get gang members and drug dealers off the street to make our cities and communities safer. Empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves. Expand mental health programs keep the violent mentally ill off of our streets.


Foreign Policy
Spoiler:
Quote:

Foreign policy will be singularly focused on Making America Safe Again by destroying radical Islamic terrorist groups. End the nuclear deal with Iran and the ransom payments to the world’s number one state sponsor of terrorism. America will stand with its allies and end the Obama-Clinton practice of apologizing to our enemies.


Taxes
Spoiler:
Quote:

Cut business rate to 15 percent. Reduce individual rates to three brackets of 12, 25, and 33 percent, with a 0 percent rate for many. Add above-the-line deduction for childcare costs, including for stay-at-home parents.


Gay Marriage
Spoiler:
Quote:

The Supreme Court has issued an opinion on this. Same-sex marriage is an issue that should have been decided by the states.


Health Care
Spoiler:
Quote:

Every American deserves access to high quality, affordable health care, not just insurance. Obamacare has failed on cost and quality of health care. It must be repealed. America needs a patient-centered health care system, allowing families and their doctors to be primary decision makers. Provide for the sale of health insurance across state lines.


Economy and Jobs
Spoiler:
Quote:

Reform the tax code and trade policies to make it easier to hire, invest, build, grow, produce, and manufacture in America. Stop China from stealing our jobs, renegotiate NAFTA, cut unneeded regulations and make America the best place in the world to do business. Putting America First—and not globalism—will keep jobs and wealth in America.


Civil Liberties
Spoiler:
Quote:

When it comes to the balancing security and privacy, we should err on the side of security. We should restore Patriot Act provisions enabling metadata collection for anti-terror surveillance with court controlled access, scrutinize social media of those seeking to enter the US, and limit the ability of ISIS to use the internet to spread terrorism.


Crime and Safety
Spoiler:
Quote:

Crime and violence is an attack on everyone—particularly the poor—and is unacceptable. We will have strong, swift fair law and order. Progress against criminal activity is being reversed by this administration's rollback and discouragement of criminal enforcement. We must work with law enforcement and first responders to keep our communities safe.


Environment
Spoiler:
Quote:

Everyone deserves clean air and safe drinking water regardless of race or income. Water infrastructure will be a big priority. We need to work to protect natural areas, but in a balanced way. End Obama EPA mandates that cost too many jobs, are opposed by most states, and too often have negligible benefit for the environment.


Education
Spoiler:
Quote:

Every child in America deserves a great education and an opportunity to achieve their dreams. We will enhance education options for students through school choice and charters, and respect homeschoolers in their quest for educational alternatives. We will also make it easier for families to afford college so students aren’t buried in debt.


Budget and Spending
Spoiler:
Quote:

Create high-paying jobs to bring growth to our stagnant economy, reducing deficits and spending. Rebuild our military and ensure that veterans receive top quality medical care. Rebuild our infrastructure. End government corruption and rein in wasteful spending to put our ballooning deficits on a long-term path to balance.


National Security
Spoiler:
Quote:

There are serious threats facing the United States, and American strength is the only way to ensure peace. We must rebuild our military, reform our intelligence agencies, and prepare our government for the security challenges of cyberspace.


Medicare and Social Security
Spoiler:
Quote:

Preserve Medicare for future generations. No changes to promised Social Security benefits.


Veterans
Spoiler:
Quote:

Ensure that every Veteran gets timely access to top-quality care through the VA or private Medicare providers if the VA cannot provide timely access. Fix VA corruption and help Veterans find good paying jobs. Veterans should come first in the country they fought to protect, and under a Trump Administration they will.


Energy
Spoiler:
Quote:

We will use our vast coal, shale gas, and other American energy sources in a clean and appropriate manner to benefit American families and workers, not for the economic benefit of the politically-connected. Support coal jobs, safe fracking, energy from offshore and public lands and the Keystone Pipeline, which can be done responsibly.


I'm not for either, but It would bug me if I didn't mention that saying there are no policies or stances on his part is incorrect. There are policies that he has explained or stated throughout his campaign, and the same can be said of Hillary. A fair coverage of both is needed to remain bipartisan (I'd rather a used stick of deodorant wins, but I might be the only one here that would vote for Teen Spirit).

Clinton

Immigration
Spoiler:
We need comprehensive immigration reform with a path to full and equal citizenship. If Congress won't act, I'll defend President Obama’s executive actions—and I'll go even further to keep families together. I'll end family detention, close private immigrant detention centers, and help more eligible people become naturalized.


Abortion
Spoiler:
Politicians have no business interfering with women's personal health decisions. I will oppose efforts to roll back women's access to reproductive health care, including Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. As president, I'll stand up for Planned Parenthood and women’s access to critical health services, including safe, legal abortion.


Guns
Spoiler:
More than 33,000 Americans are killed by guns each year. It’s time to act. As President, I'll take on the gun lobby and fight for commonsense reforms to keep guns away from terrorists, domestic abusers, and other violent criminals—including comprehensive background checks and closing loopholes that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands.


Foreign Policy
Spoiler:
As secretary of state, I worked to restore America’s leadership in the world. As president, my top priority will be to keep us safe and defend our values. That includes maintaining a cutting-edge military, strengthening our alliances, being firm but wise with our rivals, cultivating new partners, defeating ISIS, and enforcing the Iran nuclear deal.


Taxes
Spoiler:
The wealthiest pay too little in taxes while the middle class needs more relief. I'm going to fix that. I’ll close corporate tax loopholes and make sure millionaires and billionaires can’t pay lower rates than middle-class families. And I’ll give tax relief to working families who are struggling with costs from college to health care.


Gay Marriage
Spoiler:
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on marriage equality represents America at its best: just, fair and moving toward equality. Now we have more work to do. I'll fight to ensure lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans have full equality under the law, and to end discrimination in employment, housing, schools, and other aspects of our society.


Health Care
Spoiler:
I've fought for quality, affordable health care my entire career. As president, I'll defend the Affordable Care Act, build on its successes, and go even further to reduce costs. My plan will crack down on drug companies charging excessive prices, slow the growth of out-of-pocket costs, and provide a new credit to those facing high health expenses.


Economy and Jobs
Spoiler:
We need to raise pay, create good-paying jobs, and build an economy that works for everyone—not just those at the top. I’ll cut taxes for the middle class, raise the minimum wage, and ensure the wealthiest pay their fair share. I’ll invest in infrastructure, clean energy, and education. And I’ll help parents balance work and family.


Civil Liberties
Spoiler:
We have to protect Americans’ civil liberties. And we have to discover and disrupt terrorist plots before they can be carried out. That's why I support the bipartisan USA Freedom Act President Obama recently signed into law, which protects privacy while giving our intelligence and law enforcement agencies what they need to can keep us safe.


Crime and Safety
Spoiler:
Everyone in America should respect the law and be respected by the law. We need to end mass incarceration, use strategies like police body cameras to improve accountability, increase substance abuse treatment, and aim resources at criminals who pose the greatest threat. And we need to invest in education and job training—the foundations of success.


Environment
Spoiler:
Climate change is real—no matter what climate deniers say. I've laid out bold national goals to address the threats it poses. As president, I’ll say no to drilling in the Arctic. I’ll stop the tax giveaways to big oil and gas companies. And I’ll make significant investments in clean energy. Our children's health and future depend on it.


Education
Spoiler:
As president, I'll work to ensure every child—from every ZIP code—has access to a world-class education, including access to high-quality preschool. We need to strike the right balance on testing—with fewer, fairer and better tests for elementary and secondary school students. And we must support teachers with the training and resources they need.


Budget and Spending
Spoiler:
Raising Americans' incomes will be my top priority. I'll rebuild our infrastructure, invest in clean energy and manufacturing, create millions of good-paying middle class jobs, and rein in college costs and out-of-pocket health expenses. I'll pay for my proposals by closing corporate tax loopholes and asking the wealthiest to pay their fair share.


National Security
Spoiler:
The president’s most important job is to keep us safe. That means maintaining a cutting-edge military and standing up to our rivals. I’ll also work with our allies to defeat ISIS, dismantle global terror networks, and harden defenses at home by launching an intelligence surge and keeping guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists.


Medicare and Social Security
Spoiler:
My plan will strengthen Medicare by reducing health care costs, enhance and protect Social Security for future generations by asking the wealthiest to contribute more, and expand benefits for widows and those who took time out of the paid workforce to care for a child or sick family member. I'll fight attempts to privatize or weaken these programs.


Veterans
Spoiler:
Supporting our veterans is a sacred responsibility. That’s why I'll pursue a veteran-centric reform agenda that revitalizes the VA—not privatize it. I’ll ensure our veterans get world-class health care without enduring long waits, increase education and job opportunities, end the appeals backlog, and work to end veterans’ homelessness and suicide.


Energy
Spoiler:
On my first day as President, I'll set two big goals. I want the U.S. to have half a billion solar panels by 2020. And I want us to generate enough renewable electricity to power every home in America in the next 10 years. With the right investments, we’ll create good-paying jobs and make America the world’s clean energy superpower.


Now, again, I know Clinton and her firearm policy is utter garbage and if you think it did anything to stem the tide of blood, you are dead wrong. Some of the highest murder counts with firearms are handguns and the 'common sense' ban in 1994 didn't see a considerable drop and murders involving guns were at their highest point since the mid '80s. So bollocks on that.

Her abortion policies are the worst of the two. I'm not saying Trump is right on abortion, but I think that if you want me to pay for your anti-baby pills than I have the inherent right to look and see what the hell is going on behind the curtain. You do not get to have the government control an item regarding pills or healthcare and say that I have to pay and I don't get to see for what my money is being used towards, does that make sense?

If you don't want kids, I know a surefire way 100% to not get pregnant. Don't bang. If you can't find something else to do besides smoosh your genitals together or take responsible action, why must I then suffer financially for your poor judgment or actions? Life shouldn't work that way. I am free and willing to pay for rad-pills, heart pills, laser beam research etc. but I do not see the reason why I should pay for contraceptives, lube, condoms, sex pills, spermicides etc. when I'm not getting any or its not my responsibility to watch you 24/7 to make sure you don't get pregnant or impregnate someone else. That isn't to say that imminent death or forced pregnancy shouldn't be handled by the state. Life and death then becomes a legal issue by the state.

I found it interesting that Clinton made no mention of moving back coporate jobs back to the US. It is a problem that we've seen and it's beginning to increase. She might have something in there about raising incentives to not move your business but I'm not so sure, could someone find that for me?

I did like Trump's policy on the Environment if I interpreted it correctly. Besides, the EPA doesn't have the best track record of all time and should go under heavy reform. "The [New York] air is perfectly safe [to breathe]" - EPA, September 18, 2001. Bringing them to heel would probably be a good thing, as they've been mothballed for quite some time, and need an overhaul. That isn't to say that 500,000,000 solar panels doesn't sound appealing...

I don't like Trump's patriot act restoration idea, however. I never liked it to begin with, but if there is something similar where you can then request immediate assistance through the proper channels to receive wire taps and the like for suspected terrorist plots, then I'd support it. Bush's policies were so holey it was worse than swiss cheese... its not for spying on regular citizens. Shame on the NSA for that.

Both policies regarding veterans. I can't remember a single candidate that said that they wouldn't help veterans, but given Clinton's track scores, I'd like to think Trump has a better idea for it, as much as it pains me to say it. Clinton has shown me her scaly backside and shown us that 'security' is the last thing on her plate of list of things to do. Veterans included. It may or may not be true, but I still don't trust her as far as I can throw her.

Again: Both candidates bring up education as important and that children are the best bet for the future. Which candidate has not?

You see, this is where I get upset. Both sides think they're right, but you clearly miss the point where they both say the exact same thing. Obama wanted education first and foremost. From personal experience with the school districts down here, I know that somewhere down the line some kids and faculty were left behind to eat the dust.

So there, both candidates short hand policies in one post. If I could tell you the Policies of a burnt piece of toast running for office, I would, but I don't speak crumb. Can anyone link me to the sources of Burnt Toast's domestic policies? I'd very much appreciate it.

#Toast2016

Kanzler October 25th, 2016 4:45 PM

RE: people banging

people will bang regardless of what we tell them to do. In light of this, providing subsidised birth control will help keep the costs of unwanted and poorly raised children down. This is going to sound a bit elitist, but what do you think costs more: having somebody's birth control subsidised for about $300 a year for about 30 years or having someone born who might be poorly educated and poorly raised for 70+ years?

Kind of a tangent now, but I think birth control should only be subsidised by the government with needs testing. If you can afford $300 or so a year, I don't that would justify a subsidy. It's not really an urgent medical need.

Sektor October 25th, 2016 6:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9463407)
RE: people banging

people will bang regardless of what we tell them to do. In light of this, providing subsidised birth control will help keep the costs of unwanted and poorly raised children down. This is going to sound a bit elitist, but what do you think costs more: having somebody's birth control subsidised for about $300 a year for about 30 years or having someone born who might be poorly educated and poorly raised for 70+ years?

Kind of a tangent now, but I think birth control should only be subsidised by the government with needs testing. If you can afford $300 or so a year, I don't that would justify a subsidy. It's not really an urgent medical need.

Unfortunately, it's true [people banging]. It leads down a further path that gets pretty muddy and bloody along the way. Its second to only gun control in terms of buzz.

If it were up to me, it'd be placed solely on the initiating party's shoulders, and not mine. Their 2 minutes of fun does not constitute and emergency on my part. Of course, several policies, rules, laws, constituencies need re-writing and reseting.

So all of it, basically. One side is wrong for one reason and the other side is wrong for other reasons but people pass the opportunity to say that both sides are wrong for the same reasons. Placing responsibility on the parent might not be a popular opinion, and I'd rather pay to terminate it rather than pay for drugs... I'd rather not pay at all, to be honest, but my main point was that I deserve the right to choose [vote] how things go down if they really want the government subsidies for their preggo pills. You can't take someone's money and expect them to not wonder or inquire where their money went. That's just what I believe. It's like a phishing scam for your cash but you don't see any returns (informations) until way later, "only until after I free up my millions of doallars in bannannnas assests ind the carrubing republick, 4 moasdt certdinly".

So is it fair to say that I get to at least vote on whether or not they spring for ribbed or just plain rubbers? I don't think it's too much to ask to see a list of expenses just like every other funded institution, right?

Somewhere_ October 25th, 2016 6:24 PM

Im all for reduced government spending, but as Kanzler pointed out, subsidized birth control isn't that bad of an investment. Poorly raised children are more likely to become criminals, which are much more of a burden on society than the birth control.

If you really want to reduce illegitimate or poorly raised children without abortion or subsidized birth control, you will need a cultural change. It would probably have to be conservative- rejecting promiscuity, sex outside marriage, and promoting strict family values.

Aliencommander1245 October 25th, 2016 11:06 PM

I think you should note the level of detail rather than the actual ideas themselves because what you've given for Trump is the actual policies as they're written mostly, while all of Clinton is just direct quotes about her policies.

There's a fairly large distinction, and ignoring Trump's constant flip-flop on the vast majority of those points you have to notice that way too many are just ignorantly stupid.

"I'll redo all our deals with other countries so they're better for us" "I'll get the jobs back from China" "I'll repeal gay marriage" all of them are... objectively bad? Cherrypicking the few that "sound reasonable" doesn't really change this VS Clinton's better policies overall.

Clinton makes no mention of "bringing back" corporate jobs (? Do you mean manual labour ones like steel working because that's what Trump is talking about and i don't think the US is even noticeably shrinking in corporate jobs, I'm assuming you do) because there's no real way to bring those jobs "back" when it's cheaper to have them done overseas- no amount of government influence can change that.

And really, any presidential candidate who threatens to invalidate the marriages of huge swathes of people, with a vice presidential pick who advocates equivocal torture against said group really should not be coming as close to office as this bumbling fool has

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadSheep (Post 9463516)
If you really want to reduce illegitimate or poorly raised children without abortion or subsidized birth control, you will need a cultural change. It would probably have to be conservative- rejecting promiscuity, sex outside marriage, and promoting strict family values.

It should be noted that this actually just creates MORE illegitimate children, underage pregnancy and unwanted pregnancies than fully informational sex ed and open access to birth control, the facts are that the US states that try that have the highest rates of all those things as well as STIs

Ivysaur October 25th, 2016 11:37 PM

"Preserving Medicare & Social Security" sounds great. I'm going to make a policy proposal saying "Making people happy" and run for President. After all, people like being happy, right?

"Killing NAFTA and cutting jobs from China" sounds wonderful, except for the fine print where doing so would increase costs of day-to-day goods up to 60% for the people with lower income. The solution is giving direct economic help to manual labourers who lost their jobs or retraining them, not forcing the rest of consumers (and especially the ones with lower incomes) to essentially subsidize them through inflated prices in most goods. If you are going to force some subsidy, at the very least do it through taxes, which are better distributed. Not to mention that the future of the US certainly is NOT manufacturing jobs, seeing how the output of the US is on its highest level in history thanks to robotisation. Forcing manufacturing companies to come back to the US might cause increased prices but yield no new works as factories use robots anyway. Or is Trump going to force companies to use only 60s machinery?

"Ending the EPA restrictions" and "Using coal and shale gas" doesn't exactly sound like "good for environment". In fact, it sounds kind of the opposite: more CO2, more climate change, sorry kids your world is careening towards utter destruction- but think of the current miners who need to keep their jobs! And maybe if you close your eyes and your ears hard enough and start screaming "It's all a conspiration by evil sciencers, God won't allow anything bad to happen to the planet!", maybe climate change will cease to exist magically! Maybe.

"Create high-paying jobs to bring growth to our stagnant economy, reducing deficits and spending." "Give candy to all children all the time". Oh, by the way, you forgot to mention this part:

- Trump promising to cut taxes for the rich up to $1 million for people making more than $3.75m a year, which would cause the debt to soar by 7.2tn over 10 years; whereas Clinton wants to raise taxes for people making over $143k a year, up to $800k for the people making over 3.75m, which would cause the debt to fall by 1.6tn over 10 years (source: Tax Policy Centre)

In fact, this is Trump's tax plan. Look at this box:

http://i.imgur.com/rX2FEdE.png

The top 1% would increase their available cash by 17.5%! The top 0.1% would get a cheque worth $1,302,887 every year! Meanwhile the bottom 20% would get a boost of 1%, or $128 a year.

Not to mention that the massive budget imbalance would force massive cuts in all sorts of expenditures- and since he's going to "rebuild the military" and "keep Medicare intact", then he'd have to cut every other single program accross the country. Like food stamps, unemployment subsides, education funds- everything. Either that, or cause the country to go bankrupt from massive debt.

Kanzler October 26th, 2016 3:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9463820)
It should be noted that this actually just creates MORE illegitimate children, underage pregnancy and unwanted pregnancies than fully informational sex ed and open access to birth control, the facts are that the US states that try that have the highest rates of all those things as well as STIs

I think you haven't really considered what he's saying.

Aliencommander1245 October 26th, 2016 4:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9463995)
I think you haven't really considered what he's saying.

No, i understand that he's saying that a complete cultural shift to that method of thinking would be required to make it work (Although i kind of feel like the laws & culture of a US state are close enough to be comparable) but i'm disagreeing and saying even in a culture like that there'd still be higher amounts of intercourse going on with way less information about it

Hands October 26th, 2016 6:35 AM

As much as I don't like Hillary, I've come to a , very reluctant, "I'm with her" stance. I realise now that we can't just rapidly change the corrupt system that she's the current face of. It's better the devil you know than the devil you don't I guess, especially with Trump. I can no longer play devils advocate and express an equal footing view between them.

Sektor October 26th, 2016 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9464009)
... but i'm disagreeing and saying even in a culture like that there'd still be higher amounts of intercourse going on with way less information about it

I'm not advocating for the removal of Sexual Education from schools, far from it. The two programs could not be further apart from each other in terms of area of content, one being placed on the shoulders of general education and the other being placed upon the medical side of things. The medical side is not as responsible for educating kids on how to behave or act to prevent STDs and the like. I would propose a furthing in education and a separate teacher for such things. Leaving Sex Ed to some poor guy in his 30s isn't probably the best idea, considering he majored in sciences and maths for example. Teaching 12 year olds about all the ins and outs of the stuff is not the most desirable job to have and can even evoke fear in several educators around the country. Not everyone is comfortable talking to children about their funny junk and getting them to actually listen to you is a roll of the dice. I agree, however, that a massive overhaul of the system is needed to better combat child pregnancy.

I did not cherry pick quotes or general ides. I used google and entered: Trump's/Clinton's policies and those were the results. I was merely explaining that the argument that Trump has no policies is an incorrect stance. If someone were to take the same stance on Clinton it would be just as ridiculous. If you didn't like what they had to say (google), that isn't really my fault and it's completely out of my control. Whether or not they chose to use direct quotes or small summaries is not up to me.

Again, I am not advocating Trump or Clinton. Trump is new and Clinton is a political mess as far as I've seen her operate. Besides her lame track record previously as Secretary of State, she's shown a knack for lying on the fly and she been lying for decades. It doesn't help that the media brushes her misdeeds under the rug but continue to talk about Trump's "Grab them by the pussy" comment. In what land is "Grab them by the Pussy" news for two weeks? Take it and move on. I don't like most of the news that spills out, because of such skewed coverage. Pussy is not a news story.

Does all of this mean I can't point at certain policies of both and say "I like this, but hate that"? I can't do that? Even though I've made it clear I want Toast for president? Don't be ridiculous (more than a few have labeled me as such). I don't like Clinton at all.

I think that I have the right to look at "The better choice" and scoff in disbelief. If you were to tell me that if any other candidate had the chance, you'd still vote for Hillary? Trump is a side note, and being new isn't the best thing for a seat, right? So Clinton remains the political choice, but is one of the most sneaky, lying, snaky, creatures around. There is no "better of the two". If you're being shot in the face pointblank with Slug or 00 Buck it makes no difference and no one would say "Being shot in the face by 00 Buck is the better of the two" being shot in the face is bad.

Having these kinds of choices is bad. I don't agree with all of either candidate's policies and if you say that you do, you're either a lying liar or liar that's lying. I've already stated before that the 'feel good' policies aren't worth much. Education, Veterans, Medicaid, Healthcare... no candidate ever has said that "we need worse health care, poor education and that we need to treat our veterans like garbage" never in the history of anyone ever said that. Bringing up the feel good policies doesn't even mean much, is what I'm getting at. There are always a lot of ideas that get left behind during this stage. I doubt Hillary or Trump will make the VA speed up any faster, and I'm still waiting on some care from them that I started back in May.

I don't trust either. Prattling on about Trump this or Trump that boggles me. Let's all just ignore the fact that both sides are the equivalent of bleach and you're chugging a gallon of Splash-less Clorox with a smile on your face as you point and laugh and talk bad to those that buy the regular Splashy Clorox. Neither side realizes that they're drinking fucking bleach, though. I don't know why you're not as outraged at both as I am. I feel that Clinton torpedoed Sanders through backstabbing and double dealing and I hope she loses, but that means that Trump wins, so I still lose. You see what I'm saying?

So Trump isn't fit to become president. Okay, gotcha there and I understand. But Clinton isn't either. That's what makes them both bad. Either or will not make a better nation, savvy?

Let me paint you an ugly picture: Clinton wants to get rid of all the guns in the country that are legally registered to law abiding citizens. Now, I may not be the biggest proponent for the Second Amendment, but I think that going against the Constitution qualifies as a serious violation. Without arguing semantics on whether or not long rifles or hunting rifles etc. if you take away every single legal weapon in the United States, this leaves only the criminals with the weapons. Defensive firearm use is a thing, and claiming that it isn't is no excuse to create false facts or poor arguments against the things.

Further more, if one of the candidates said that they wanted to restrict the religious freedoms or freedoms of speech, then wouldn't that be grounds for dismissal? I understand that you don't like guns, but I can guarantee you that 100% of all crimes committed with firearms are committed by criminals.

What works for one country does not work for others. What if I began complaining that Europe's crime rate is too high? That they need to look to Norway for advice? Don't be dense. Cultural and geographical differences prevent such easy fixes and no one ever will find a correct fix and you'll probably die of old age before anyone submits an acceptable proposal.

You're caught in between a rock and a hard place, and denying it is a strange denial process that I might just never fully understand. Maybe you have good reasons for backing Hillary. Maybe you have good reason to back Trump? But don't instantly take my opinion of 'cherry picking' ideas and Policies from both candidates as backing either of them. I've been repeating myself multiple times and it's starting to get extremely old and I feel like I'm trying to explain life to a 7th grader because of it. I know we're all better than this. I choose to not back either, because it's stupid.

#Toast2016

Esper October 26th, 2016 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadSheep (Post 9463127)
Are you aren't being descriptive at all. You keep saying "these groups," "these conspirators," these "anti-government groups." Provide examples, prove that they support Trump, and are relevant enough to be a threat. And prove they are violent.

Anti-government groups do not support Trump. Most anarchists despise Trump, and the few that do, do not want a violent end to the state. I can explain this in more detail if you want because I know this particular community very well.

And if these people are so anti-government and violent, why would they care if democracy is subverted if they do not believe in it? If they are violent, why would they support the government system that showboats its peaceful achievements?

There are a lot of different shades of anti-government and, you're right, I should have tried to differentiate and be specific.

There are the people who aren't officially part of any organized group who are generally distrustful/dissatisfied/jaded with the whole of the political process and may not have engaged in politics/voting before. They probably make up a large percentage of Trump's supporters. Anecdotally I'll say that the interviews I've seen various news groups do with random people at Trump rallies gives me a strong impression that "these groups" (people at Trump rallies) have a bad impression of politics, politicians, and government. Right-wring politics in general is very big on "small government" in the first place. They also seem to have an extreme hatred for Clinton which goes beyond normal levels of disagreement with politics and I would characterize it as overall fairly sexist and misogynistic.

Then there are other groups like the KKK, the American Nazi Party, and similarly related nationalist or white-supremacist groups. Generally, these groups are violent or spout violent messages as parts of their core beliefs. For many of them Trump is a good candidate and Trump has only disavowed David Duke specifically and none of the hate groups generally or their ideas, despite these groups stating that they see Trump as supporting their goals in some way. He gives them tacit approval by his silence, which has helped to normalize, to an extent, their involvement in a major political party for this election. Trump is such a deflector and dissembler that when he says something about Muslims, Mexicans, black people, or when he's caught admitting to assaulting women, people don't know if he really means any of it. That is dangerous because people who want to believe he means it (as in hate groups or people sympathetic to these hate groups) become his supporters because they think "Finally, someone running for office who'll represent me."

In other words, one of the reasons Trump has so many followers who've never engaged in politics before is because these people's personal politics were so outside the norm that they've never had a such a large scale voice before.

The violence at several of Trump's rallies should also point to the danger of his supporters being violent again if properly motivated or prompted. And his recent calls that the election is rigged might be the biggest prod he's given yet.

So you've got this mix of racism with sexism in a permissive environment and you've allowed people with violent ideologies to intermingle with your other supporters. That, I think, it dangerous and could lead to violence if Trump loses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9464284)
Let me paint you an ugly picture: Clinton wants to get rid of all the guns in the country that are legally registered to law abiding citizens.

I'm not sure if this is a hypothetical situation you're describing since a lot of people do believe Clinton and/or government want to take away everyone's guns, but she has stated that this is not something that she intends to do. Ignoring all the arguments about the effectiveness of gun control (because that's a whole other thread topic) she has stated in public that she supports the 2nd Amendment. Are we to assume that anything and everything she says might be a lie and proceed as if they were? That seems a dangerous mindset to take because anything she says is either the truth (if you think it makes her look bad) or a lie (if it looks worse for her to have the opposite view ~in secret~).

Ivysaur October 26th, 2016 11:18 AM

I remember how Obama was going to step all over the Second Amendment and confiscate all guns. It just shows how much of a failure he is that now there are more guns than when he started taking them all away and now Clinton has to come and take them all away. I hope she gets the job done before the NRA and friends accuse every following Democratic presidential candidate of "wanting to take away all guns" until the end of all time.

Sektor October 26th, 2016 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9464315)
I'm not sure if this is a hypothetical situation you're describing since a lot of people do believe Clinton and/or government want to take away everyone's guns, but she has stated that this is not something that she intends to do. Ignoring all the arguments about the effectiveness of gun control (because that's a whole other thread topic) she has stated in public that she supports the 2nd Amendment. Are we to assume that anything and everything she says might be a lie and proceed as if they were? That seems a dangerous mindset to take because anything she says is either the truth (if you think it makes her look bad) or a lie (if it looks worse for her to have the opposite view ~in secret~).

Given the fact that the '94 ban was enacted and supported by her, it's the antithesis of supporting the 2nd amendment. I don't know whether or not what she says in private will be put into practice, but the 'common sense' gun laws she supports are completely ineffective. So whether or not it's hypothetical or not is up for debate. She supports a full on ban of 'assault weapons' despite most states outlawing fully automatic weapons already, which doesn't mean much when some punks do a drive by with TEC-9s they bought from some back-alley arms dealer.

If you actually look into the common sense laws themselves it will soon become apparent that they are ineffective and worthless, which is why they were never renewed when the time came. It isn't a question of if, because we've seen them before and know how it works and the common sense laws do not work. Gun control is always the hottest topic and banning firearms for 'looking dangerous' i.e. a semi automatic .22LR AR but keeping the .308 semi-auto M1 Garande because it has wood makes no sense, not common sense.

She's stated she supports 'common sense' gun laws, which point to her opposition to the 2nd amendment, not support of it. So is she two faced? Probably. Lying? Maybe. Common sense? Not really.

Here's what Obama's administration put out not too long ago:

Quote:

Require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust or corporation. The National Firearms Act imposes restrictions on sales of some of the most dangerous weapons, such as machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. But because of outdated regulations, individuals have been able to avoid the background check requirement by applying to acquire these firearms and other items through trusts, corporations, and other legal entities. In fact, the number of these applications has increased significantly over the years—from fewer than 900 applications in the year 2000 to more than 90,000 applications in 2014. ATF is finalizing a rule that makes clear that people will no longer be able to avoid background checks by buying NFA guns and other items through a trust or corporation.
I would like to point out that 'Sawed Off' Shotguns are not sold. At all. It's incorrect to call a short-barreled shotgun a 'sawed off' shotgun, and what's more, hacksaws are available nationwide and no one keeps track of those sales. Serbu Firearms manufactures the shortest shotgun that I've seen, and this is their policy for ordering them:

Quote:

*This product must be transferred through a federally licensed Class 3 firearms dealer and requires federal registration under the national firearms act of 1934. Please see our NFA Ordering page for information on this process. There is a $250 per gun non-refundable deposit on all SUPER-SHORTY orders.
Illegal to purchase? No, but only in states restricting such purchase, and you must purchase one from a dealer that's licensed. Find me the manufacturer that delivers guns by mail to your door and I'll show you a criminal.

I brought up the TEC-9. Clipping the firing pin or illegally modifying the weapon does not count as a machine gun purchase. Machine guns manufactured after '86 are not vetted, and are illegal to own unless they are vetted, or you are a licensed dealer with a note from the police.

These are the laws she supports and wishes to impose. There is a lot of hot air and lots of nonsense held within them. I may not like gun violence, but I know that banning something doesn't make it 'go away'. Look at marijuana use. Up until recently, it was illegal to even posses, no? Did people still manage to get it? Yup. Does that make sense?

We're not talking about placing restrictions on felons, because they cannot own any firearm whatsoever and it is a felony for them to do so. I'd like to point you to the thread I made regarding the shooting of two police officers in Palm Springs, where a felon possessed an illegal firearm. In response to this, California is of the opinion that even tighter laws and restrictions are needed regardless of how the felon obtained the weapon.

To me, these laws [common sense] are just as bad, if not worse, than the war on drug laws. They spin wheels in the mud and not much else. They make legal citizens out to be the bad guy and ignore the fact that the actual bad guy bought his gun from an illegal dealer not sanctioned by the state. Does that make sense?

If you have any questions regarding firearms I'm happy to oblige.

Esper October 26th, 2016 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9464365)
snip

I believe that the gun law you're referring to (the national assault weapons ban of '94) did not get renewed because of opposition from (primarily) Republican lawmakers who in 2004 had control of the national government. They had their reasoning, but Republican-controlled governments don't generally enact gun control laws. (Incidentally, I think it's misleading to say that it didn't work since it had such a small purview legally speaking that it was never going to make a dramatic impact one way or another.)

Regarding "common sense" gun control, if you think that any gun control is antithetical to the 2nd Amendment then I guess I can't really convince you otherwise, but I will say that a person can say they support the 2nd Amendment and still want reasonable restrictions on gun ownership/use without being a hypocrite or liar. It's not unlike how we have reasonable restrictions on many things like, for instance, the 1st Amendment (the classic: yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) and yet we wouldn't consider a person who agrees with that restriction an opponent of the 1st Amendment.

Sektor October 26th, 2016 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9464381)
Regarding "common sense" gun control, if you think that any gun control is antithetical to the 2nd Amendment then I guess I can't really convince you otherwise, but I will say that a person can say they support the 2nd Amendment and still want reasonable restrictions on gun ownership/use without being a hypocrite or liar. It's not unlike how we have reasonable restrictions on many things like, for instance, the 1st Amendment (the classic: yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) and yet we wouldn't consider a person who agrees with that restriction an opponent of the 1st Amendment.

I'm not saying that all gun control is bad, far from it. The common sense laws, however, ban several weapons that make no sense to ban. I gave the .22LR rifle being banned due to polymers and the .308 being able to be sold and traded due to wood. There is no significant drop or decrease in firearm deaths for the Common Sense laws to be reintroduced. Machine guns are banned, sawed off shotguns are banned, each state has the ability to control their own specific laws, so an executive order banning firearms from legal citizens is not acceptable and in opposition to the 2nd amendment.

I've already said that felons shouldn't have guns, they are not allowed to have guns, and (I didn't say this) but in order to own a handgun or firearm you are required to have a photo identification present and for handguns most, if not all, states require you to own a handgun license permit. I am opposed to laws that are ineffective and useless. Someone else here brought up a good point about other tools being used to murder others, and about 50% of all firearm homicides are gang related, which is a huge chunk. Now, is gun control good? Yes, to a degree, just like every single law ever put into place. It isn't a clear cut black and white position and I don't much appreciate being lumped into the crazy crowd saying all gun control is bad.

I'm simply stating that the common sense laws, make no sense. Now, these laws are an addition to the current laws in place, not the law itself. I've stated that machine guns are illegal and felons are not allowed access to firearms at all. I agree with this. How is this coming off as "all gun control is bad"? I'm confused. I like laws that work, and the common sense laws do not work. The murder rate involving firearms spiked in the mid to late '90s involving firearms, taking into account that nearly 50% of all firearm related deaths are gang related and you have one big conundrum on your hands. How'd the criminals get the guns? Why are the gang members able to get them? How? When? Where is the paperwork? You see what I'm trying to say? It's not that all gun control is bad, but some controls and limits put in place do not work. This doesn't even take the drastic changes from state law to state law. If you have two homes, one in California and one in Oregon, you can maintain a much larger reserve or collection of firearms despite being a resident in two states.

Without clear and precise goals, the common sense laws fall apart. They haven't worked, and people continue to say that they do so much. It's not too far of a stretch to say that the ban didn't work considering the firearm murder rate climbed soon after the ban.

Somewhere_ October 26th, 2016 1:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9464315)
There are a lot of different shades of anti-government and, you're right, I should have tried to differentiate and be specific.

There are the people who aren't officially part of any organized group who are generally distrustful/dissatisfied/jaded with the whole of the political process and may not have engaged in politics/voting before. They probably make up a large percentage of Trump's supporters. Anecdotally I'll say that the interviews I've seen various news groups do with random people at Trump rallies gives me a strong impression that "these groups" (people at Trump rallies) have a bad impression of politics, politicians, and government. Right-wring politics in general is very big on "small government" in the first place. They also seem to have an extreme hatred for Clinton which goes beyond normal levels of disagreement with politics and I would characterize it as overall fairly sexist and misogynistic.

Then there are other groups like the KKK, the American Nazi Party, and similarly related nationalist or white-supremacist groups. Generally, these groups are violent or spout violent messages as parts of their core beliefs. For many of them Trump is a good candidate and Trump has only disavowed David Duke specifically and none of the hate groups generally or their ideas, despite these groups stating that they see Trump as supporting their goals in some way. He gives them tacit approval by his silence, which has helped to normalize, to an extent, their involvement in a major political party for this election. Trump is such a deflector and dissembler that when he says something about Muslims, Mexicans, black people, or when he's caught admitting to assaulting women, people don't know if he really means any of it. That is dangerous because people who want to believe he means it (as in hate groups or people sympathetic to these hate groups) become his supporters because they think "Finally, someone running for office who'll represent me."

In other words, one of the reasons Trump has so many followers who've never engaged in politics before is because these people's personal politics were so outside the norm that they've never had a such a large scale voice before.

The violence at several of Trump's rallies should also point to the danger of his supporters being violent again if properly motivated or prompted. And his recent calls that the election is rigged might be the biggest prod he's given yet.

So you've got this mix of racism with sexism in a permissive environment and you've allowed people with violent ideologies to intermingle with your other supporters. That, I think, it dangerous and could lead to violence if Trump loses.

Okay I dont know how to do any of that fancy stuff people do with quotes, so yea lol.

First, a slight critique. Right-Wing politics is not just small government. There are many authoritarian right-wing ideologies, such as Neo-Conservatism, National Capitalism, Right-wing Fascism, and Ultra Capitalism. Neo-Conservatism is the most prominent with many neocons in the Republican party today. Other right-wing ideologies are middle of the road. Like PaleoConservatism and the Tea Party.

Do you have statistics for your first claim that a "large percentage of Trump supporters have not engaged in the political process." And that is is large enough to contain enough people that would commit violence.

To say Trump is the only candidate with racist followers his false. And its false to say he is the only racist candidate...
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-14/ku-klux-klan-grand-dragon-will-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/26/klan-leader-claims-kkk-has-given-20k-clinton-campa/
https://youtu.be/ryweuBVJMEA <- Hillary saying some very nice things about Robert Byrd
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/justinholcomb/2016/08/26/new-trump-add-shows-racist-remarks-made-by-clinton-in-1994-n2210393 <hillary called blacks "super predators"
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8687/video-proof-seven-instances-hillarys-clintons-john-nolte#

Violence was incited at Trump rallies (this article also proves Trump lies)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/20/trump-says-clinton-and-obama-caused-violence-his-r/

You still aren't giving examples of violent ideologies, or that people are following them. Or statistics on racism and sexism among supporters. Or that these sentiments would lead to violence.

Kanzler October 26th, 2016 7:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9464009)
No, i understand that he's saying that a complete cultural shift to that method of thinking would be required to make it work (Although i kind of feel like the laws & culture of a US state are close enough to be comparable) but i'm disagreeing and saying even in a culture like that there'd still be higher amounts of intercourse going on with way less information about it

Yeah, but he didn't suggest that there would be less sex ed with a more conservative culture. People can be highly educated about sex and still have very conservative values. I don't see how that would lead to the higher amounts of intercourse that you claim.

Esper October 27th, 2016 8:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadSheep (Post 9464490)
Okay I dont know how to do any of that fancy stuff people do with quotes, so yea lol.

First, a slight critique. Right-Wing politics is not just small government. There are many authoritarian right-wing ideologies, such as Neo-Conservatism, National Capitalism, Right-wing Fascism, and Ultra Capitalism. Neo-Conservatism is the most prominent with many neocons in the Republican party today. Other right-wing ideologies are middle of the road. Like PaleoConservatism and the Tea Party.

Do you have statistics for your first claim that a "large percentage of Trump supporters have not engaged in the political process." And that is is large enough to contain enough people that would commit violence.

To say Trump is the only candidate with racist followers his false. And its false to say he is the only racist candidate...
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-14/ku-klux-klan-grand-dragon-will-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/26/klan-leader-claims-kkk-has-given-20k-clinton-campa/
https://youtu.be/ryweuBVJMEA <- Hillary saying some very nice things about Robert Byrd
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/justinholcomb/2016/08/26/new-trump-add-shows-racist-remarks-made-by-clinton-in-1994-n2210393 <hillary called blacks "super predators"
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8687/video-proof-seven-instances-hillarys-clintons-john-nolte#

Violence was incited at Trump rallies (this article also proves Trump lies)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/20/trump-says-clinton-and-obama-caused-violence-his-r/

You still aren't giving examples of violent ideologies, or that people are following them. Or statistics on racism and sexism among supporters. Or that these sentiments would lead to violence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Primarina October 27th, 2016 9:54 AM

I want to add that the president of the united states is the most powerful single person in the world as far as the influence of soft-power goes. If Trump wins, it validates separatist/nationalistic policy like Brexit and the rejection of humanitarianism/collectivism resolutions like the Farc Peace resolution to the rest of the world. Trump accessed a core of Americans who want to have complete cultural hegemony over their national territory, despite how dangerous, isolating, and oppressive of those systems of ideology like sexism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, queerphobia, ect,ect,ect. Peace and stability are increased as the more voices that influence identity and consciousness of all people. Certainly voices are tied to capital, but at the same time, we as people are influenced by more people, who are more diverse when we build our consciousness, attitudes, and identities.

Patriarchy vs Matriarchy
Sexism vs Feminism
Reinforce Racial Hierarchy vs Move toward Post-racial Society (we have a LONG ways to go)
Winning (zero-sum game) vs Winning (coalition building, not a zero-sum game)
Isolationism vs Globalism
Walls vs "open-boarders"
Xenophobic Fear-Mongering vs Cosmopolitanism
National Greatness vs International Cooperation
Dominance of in-group speech vs protection of out-group speech

Think past the policy positions, but the actually influence of ideas that the POTUS has and how it impacts power-relations internationally. Do you really feel safer with Trump. I feel much safer with Clinton and the massive feminist and socialist pressure put on her by Bernie Sanders in the primary process. Think about how for the first time in centuries, if not millennia, that a woman is the most powerful/influential person on the consciousness of humankind. Certainly she has had to survive and thrive in a masculine institution and as a result has some dominating attributes we associate with male virtue, but at the same time, she has a double bind to adhere to gendered expectations as a "compassionate" and "passive" woman. Certainly her gender expresses itself in an androgynous way with rhetoric that is tough yet compassionate and protective rather than dominant or passive. Certainly I would like the most powerful person to be even more progressive, but I think Clinton in some ways is a safer choice than Sanders (who I love and voted for) because she may have the ability to redirect the seperatist and nationalist rhetoric which seems to be omnipresent domestically and abroad -- despite her clear hippocracy, "stronger together" is an effective and persuasive use of androgynous values -- strength through collectivism/pluralism.

Again we simply CANNOT downplay the fact that electing a woman as the head of state and head of government symbolizes a turn away from, though not complete abolition of, patriarchy and male virtue. I mean come on, the most influential person in the world for the first time in history will not have a penis. It's amazing to fathom that white-males have held role of the most powerful person for centuries, yet we may soon approach the 10 year mark of out-groups being the symbol of power. Symbolism is so powerful, let's not forget that! In the future I am hopeful women of color and then LGBTQA people will be able to move us toward dismantling the oppressive gender binary which is the progenitor of patriarchy, war, dominance, and illiberality.

As a die-hard Bernie supporter, I wish we some progressives like me would be more enthused with Clinton's bid despite our valid critiques of her previous policy positions and questionable judgment. I wonder if those actions were pragmatic, and that the only way a woman could win an election is through exceptional political maneuvering in a clearly masculine institution. Don't entirely blame clinton; there is a double-bind. Moreover, her presence can effectually combat and dismantle patriarchy and the put at bay the nationalist/separatist movements which seem to want to reinstate and strengthen patriarchical systems which have tended to move us toward war and oppression of out-groups.

Caaethil October 27th, 2016 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9461019)
It'd be easier to talk about Trump's policies if he had any.

I'm not entirely sure Clinton has too many policies that won't suddenly change as soon as she gets in office, but that's just me.

Somewhere_ October 27th, 2016 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9465410)
I don't have statistics on hand, but pretty much every media outlet of any kind has said that Trump is pulling in people who beforehand didn't really get involved in politics and that's the kind of thing that people interviewed at Trump rallies say about themselves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to Trump saying black protestors should be roughed up?

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

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

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

And Trump has allegedly assaulted women. As far as I know, there isn't actually hard evidence. If you want to talk about sexism, what about the time Hillary laughed after she successfully defended a rapist that raped a little girl? And she knew he committed the crime. To be fair, its her job, but its not her job to laugh about it. She hasn't treated Bill's rape victims well either...
http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/bills-sex-assault-victim-lashes-out-over-hillarys-terrorizing/
http://www.dailywire.com/news/9585/9-times-hillary-clinton-threatened-smeared-or-amanda-prestigiacomo#

Aliencommander1245 October 27th, 2016 4:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caaethil (Post 9465532)
I'm not entirely sure Clinton has too many policies that won't suddenly change as soon as she gets in office, but that's just me.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadSheep (Post 9465653)
Trump was referencing that illegal immigrants rape, which some actually do. He did not call all Mexicans rapists. Unlike Hillary's comment, which encompassed more people.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadSheep (Post 9465653)
Link to Trump saying black protestors should be roughed up?

Here you go

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadSheep (Post 9465653)
The KKK, white supremacists, and neo-nazis are much smaller in number today, and either disorganized or organized in small areas. For example, there is an all-white town in Florida with a ton of KKK members, but they only reside there.

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadSheep (Post 9465653)
So sure, hate groups do support Trump. But will they be violent? Why would they be violent just because he lost an election and not now? They are racially motivated.

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadSheep (Post 9465653)
And Trump has allegedly assaulted women. As far as I know, there isn't actually hard evidence.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadSheep (Post 9465653)
If you want to talk about sexism, what about the time Hillary laughed after she successfully defended a rapist that raped a little girl? And she knew he committed the crime. To be fair, its her job, but its not her job to laugh about it.

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

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

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

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

Somewhere_ October 27th, 2016 5:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9465862)
Uh? He said mexico was "sending" it's criminals and rapists, sure "some" are good people according to him but he implied the bulk of (il)legal immigrants are rapists and criminals that mexico is... exiling to the US? Hillary's super predator comments to refer to african american gangs isn't acceptable either but to pretend that Trump didn't mean what he said is a little weird


Here you go



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


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

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


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



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

So i did some quick fact checking on Trump's statements on Mexicans:
77% of women are raped leaving Mexico. Though much of these are probably by gangs, some by migrants.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/16/voices-gomez-undocumented-immigrant-crime-san-francisco-shooting/30159479/
Undocumented immigrants do not commit that much more crime than citizens. Though to be fair, Trump did not mention any numbers when he said that. I still think he was talking about illegal immigration and that the quote is not racist.


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

Thank you for revealing my double standard. Again, I was wrong.

Sektor October 27th, 2016 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9465862)
I think overall if you think that a man bragging about sexual assault, who has a sexual assault court case currently against him from a child, and has several women accusing him of sexual assault has no real evidence against him, using the claim that Hillary might've insulted women that claim her husband sexually assaulted them (that legitimately doesn't have any hard evidence, despite being awful if true) isn't really fair

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

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

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

Trump had this to say about it:
Quote:

I've never said I’m a perfect person, nor pretended to be someone that I’m not. I've said and done things I regret, and the words released today on this more than a decade-old video are one of them ... I said it, it was wrong, and I apologize.
Now, he went on to further state about how this isn't the issue we should be focusing on, and as much as I'd like to sit around and discuss it, he's right. Just like when people were up in arms about Bill having his dick sucked by Lewinsky and lying about it seems like a pretty poor issue to focus time to. I'd rather they had discussed any number of things, like Columbine maybe, or where the hell 10,000 pounds of cocaine came from.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

#Toast2016

Aliencommander1245 October 28th, 2016 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466212)
I had to grab this and see where it went. I believe both sides are equally moronic. Trump said this! Clinton said that! Everyone ignores the simple fact that both parties are under suspicion.

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466212)
Further more, I don't like the "All sexual assault victims should be believed" stance. Some of these women that have come out of the woodwork from years past. Isn't that just a tad suspicious? Just a tiny amount? It's not like it wouldn't have been news back then, right? He had his one reality series, so he was a valid target for them then I would think.

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466212)
Until any of this is fully substantiated, I see no reason to accept either side as true, no? There is sio much paper and mud slinging that I wouldn't be surprised if both were true or both were false.

...Both? Huh, both what? I don't really understand what you're referring to here

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466212)
I mean, let's look at Bill. As soon as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" dropped, several women stepped up to the plate and said Clinton raped them. Of course, he's not in prison so whether or not he did it it shows that these claims were substantiated.

"Substantiating" claims of sexual assault after the fact are incredibly difficult considering the nature of the crime, physical evidence has a very short (24h?) timeframe in which it's collectable and considering the perceived stigma then and now of sexual assault often by the time it's reported it can be too late, and it becomes a he said, she said (Or he said, he said/she said she said) sort of deal that's very difficult to discover the truth in

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466212)
To further nail my point is that both comments are ages old. I voted for Obama, and I regret that. It was years ago, but it's still a regret. I regret getting rid of my Gameboy Advance Micro.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466212)
Now, he went on to further state about how this isn't the issue we should be focusing on, and as much as I'd like to sit around and discuss it, he's right.

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466212)
I can almost guarantee that internet memes have had several cases where "**** her right in the *****" has been said on live television, so saying that no one ever says anything like that is a falsity. What's more is that there have been candidates years past where they have been far worse in character. Certain presidents were even known to drink and beat their wives. Just because someone says something doesn't mean that's what they're all about.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466212)
However, I still do not agree that trusting a group of people that think a cartoon frog is racist and say "I want to protect gays" and accept money from gay killing countries is a bright idea.

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

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


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466212)
Now, before someone goes off on me saying that I love Trump, read a few of my other posts on the subject. "Grab 'em by the *****" < Foreign Policy. It's been historically known that candidates plaster words a candidate has said in the past. This is not new, and some candidates previously had said some pretty heinous things. Further more, what's okay and what isn't?

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466212)
I can not find a single article from any mainstream media on this, but somehow calling all Trump supporters as racist for utilizing an internet meme. God forbid someone uses Mickey Mouse to... wait. You see, this is the issue I have when it boils down to both sides. I don't like either candidate really, but having one sided coverage on how Trump supporters are 'deplorable', racist, misogynistic, sexist, pigs etc. is not a fair argument.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466212)
It also ignores the fact that Trump protesters actually violently attack Trump supporters, and I haven't seen it to a same level of degree the other way around.

Can i have a source on this because i've seen nothing but the exact opposite
http://fusion.net/story/346510/donald-trump-rally-protester-attacked/
http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2016/09/13/69-year-old-woman-punched-asheville-trump-rally/90301468/
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1554524/shocking-footage-shows-donald-trump-supporters-attacking-protester-while-chanting-usa-usa/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGRFEiLBZCE

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466212)
Calling either side as a whole one thing (the individuals) with a blanket term is irresponsible and damaging to journalism.

I'm fairly sure no one is doing this but you, and you're confusing the fact that people are pointing out that said blanket groups unequivocally support trump, not that he is eniterly supported by blanket groups

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466212)
Pepe the frog is not a journalistic subject. Its a frog picture. Just because people draw Micky Mouse or Pooh Bear or Barbie as Nazis, KKK members or otherwise does not constitute as hate symbols.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466212)
Also, CNN is a joke. Reading? Illegal? Not to say that the other side isn't any better.

I have no idea what this is referring to at all

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466212)
In which land has any campaign or bout for the presidency been civilized? Did everyone seemingly forget about Obama's ads against McCain? Roosevelt? Jackson? Bush?

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466212)
I wish this race hadn't devolved into free blowjobs, the colour orange and a cartoon frog...

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


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466212)
Edit: Last thing. The behaviour of each candidates should not be a voting point, and they should not hold sway over each candidate themselves long-term.

YES THEY SHOULD

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

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

Sektor October 28th, 2016 4:41 AM

Oh boy.
Spoiler:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9466300)
...Yes they should...

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

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

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

"My opponent is a criminal and if i become president i will throw them in jail and overrule the decision that they weren't a criminal. Also if i don't become president it's because it's rigged" is not a direct quote. Supplying weapons to ISIL, receiving monetary donations from Islamic states that actively kill others, incompetence, lies, taking money from wall street, deceit, corruption. All under the banner of the American flag as an elected official to the American people. As an American, I do not want Clinton to represent me any more than I do Trump. Clinton's track record is a verified Grade F product. Trump has no product, I don't know what to do with that.

Typo on my part again. Trump supporters violently attack Trump supporters. Should read Clinton supporters

Impartiality in the news should be what every journalist strives for, and CNN discredited themselves by stating reading Clinton's leaked emails as an illegal act.

Fusion: Video starts in the middle of altercation. Instigating party not identified.

The Sun: No charges were filed. Chief of Police condoned violence as he should. Non-issue. Article goes on to show criminal theft and assault of Trump supporters as well. At best 50/50. UK source.

Youtube: "Trump Supporter Violently Attacked" Was... what? Was this supposed to be Hillary supporter beaten?

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


I feel like John Williams should be here.

Obama:

Spoiler:
Bailed out car companies for job security. Car companies moved, lay of thousands regardless of funds from American tax payers. Chrysler is no longer an American company. $25B lost.

Bailed out banks. Banks failed to repay the American populace, no plans were put in place for preventing this.

Lack of clear administration. Most sneaky-sneaky administration in history, denying more freedom of information requests than any other administration in history by about 100%

Whistle blowers on torture and wrongdoing are sent on the lam, despite initial wants for transparency.

Nobel peace prize winner. Wanted to start another war in the Middle East. Placated by an ex-KGB operative. Event avoided due to Russian intervention.

This is a prime example of how campaign promises mean jack shit. I've never particularly believed campaign promises because I'm a realist and the house and senate like to stall.

60+ of Assad's troops killed in US airstrike. Claims to want to work with Russia. Excuse: "We thought it was controlled by ISIS" it is now. Russia wants more communication, the US denies it.

Increase in unemployment due to failure of policies and bad ideas (i.e. bailout)

Ca$h for Clunkers program. Costly. Prices of used cars went up.

"Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." - Obama, 2008

Increased the National debt by 7 trillion dollars. More than all other presidents in history combined.

NSA Spies on the American populace under the administration.

The CIA, the foreign intelligence division, spies on congress under the administration.

Solyndra. That's $535 million dollars we're never going to see again. Tacked onto the national debt (i.e. taxpayers)

Misuse of the IRS under the administration. Actions are suspicious and highly illegal. "Not even a smidgen of corruption [IRS]".IRS released the names of over 400 companies it maliciously targeted.

EPA and IRS 'lost' the hard drives and data regarding information requested by congress, despite them being legally obligated to maintain safe and backed up records.

I'm still waiting on my VA care. Despite promises to speed the process, the process has actually slowed.

Obama care. Estimated to save $2500 a year for each family. Lie.

obamacare.gov was down for months when introduced. Obama: "... Had no idea ..."

Retrieving funds to the tune of $700 Billion from Medicare to inject into Obama care.

Judged police actions before investigation was complete, calling them anything from despicable behaviour to incompetent.

The DOJ did not pursue several black on white criminality cases under the administration.

Still golfing, despite mocking Bush for doing the same thing even though he [Bush] quit.

Says marriage is between a man and woman in '08.

DOJ against voter ID. Obamacare requires ID.

Common Core education programs. Things are getting worse.

Greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression, albeit sans dust bowls.

NASA. Want to be an astronaut? Try the Cosmonaut program instead, you might have better luck.

Failure of foreign relations and policies. Many world leaders do not respect the man and as a result, may have damaged views of the country itself (the reason why you have a leader is to lead and represent you)

Denied Major Nidal as a terrorist incident.

Benghazi, along with Clinton.

The assassination of Gaddafi. Gaddafi actually wasn't that bad. Libya is now a war strewn mess and not sanctioned by congress i.e. other US citizens. The rebels in Libya refused and have said on multiple occasions they want no military assistance from the US.

Negotiation with terrorists. Released 5 terrorists for 1 man that didn't seem too keen on going home to begin with.

Slowdown of the deportation processes. visa expirations and illegal immigrants remain without fear of deportation. Attempted to use executive power to legalize all illegal immigrants. He does not have this power. Failed to reform immigration and to mitigate the problem of drug cartels across the border coming under/over the border.

Financial reform failure. Promises to undue previous administration's mistakes. Failed. More debt, more problems.

Promised stimulus package failed. Billions of dollars lost in effort to stimulate economy (seperate monies from bank and car bailouts). Failed. No influx of jobs, bubble burst, stimulas package didn't pan out.

Egypt failures. Attempt to help Egypt backfired. Now everyone hates our guts. See: Benghazi. See: Syrian civil war.

“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.” - Obama 2012, regarding Russia as a potential opponent to American interests. Crimea called, they would like to know where they can send their surplus of borsch.

"Keeping this facility open is contrary to our values," Obama said. "It undermines our standing in the world. It is viewed as a stain on our broader record of upholding the highest standards of rule of law." - Obama in regards to closing down Gitmo. Still open.

Disrespected the goddamn Queen of England, by not knowing the British national anthem. I guess we're just allowed to talk through the star spangled banner, huh? I'd underline it twice if I could.

Failure for other avenues of going green. Carbon emissions bill struck down by the supreme court didn't help him.

Early withdrawal of Iraq and Iran without plans in place to prevent insurgent uprising.

The Iranian Nuclear deal. A country that continued to clamour own about weapons and rockets and nuclear armaments.

Accepting Syrian refugees. Despite more than a handful of European countries being attacked by individuals going through the system. Brussels was attacked. Brussels! Result of the power vacuum created by mas withdrawal of troops in both Iran and Iraq.

Promised to curb the influence of lobbyists. Appoints more lobbyists.

Failed gun policy, despite continued promises to do so. Promises to use executive action to go against congress to enact forms of control.

Gave a no-bid contract to Halliburton.

Received more money from Wall Street collectively than any candidate in the last 20 years. Supported occupy Wall Street.

Continuing the war on drugs... against marijuana. The only president to attack it so vehemently, even more so than the accursed Reagan administration. He promised the exact opposite.

Used executive orders to expand faith based programs. Those programs people attacked Bush for? The same ones.

Renewed the Patriot act. Said before I didn't approve of it.

Signed indefinite detention bill into law.

Promised to prosecute Wall Street executives. Did not.

Took 1,000 jobs away from Boeing. Told to shut down the factory for being non-union.

Operation Fast and Furious. Released 2,000 firearms to criminal hands. Recovered 710 of the weapons.
Weapons were used to kill civilians in Mexico. What's worse? Build a wall? Or give weapons to their cartels so that they can be used against them?


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

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

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

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

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

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

#Toast2020

Aliencommander1245 October 28th, 2016 7:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Whoops. I actually dropped the ball on my end edit. Wow, one word means a huge difference, don't it? Supporters, "the behaviour of each candidate's supporters." Dang. It completely changes the entire context of the sentence and I seemingly missed that mark. Rereading it I see a few more typos that I missed. ugh.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
The 'valid target' was in reference to his [Trump] popularity, and a popular and well known figure. Waiting to come forth due to sexual assault is not the best idea of all time. As you said, it is difficult to prove after the fact, however, victims of rape can have scarring that lasts far longer than just 24 hours. Defensive wounds and vaginal or anal tearing can be evident days or even weeks after the fact. Police constantly warn people that if they are victims of a crime, they must immediately seek medical and legal attention.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
The similarities between Bill and Trump is a valid example.

Bill Clinton is not running for president

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Pending litigation and investigation means absolutely nothing in terms of concrete fact. Just because you suspect someone of wrong doing doesn't mean that this is true or fact. Wouldn't it upset you more if nobody investigated the claims of these women? That's the only other alternative. If someone has a serious claim such as statutory rape leveled against them, it would make perfect sense to open an investigation by asking more than a few questions, no? Police do not dismiss claims out of hand. Once the investigation concludes, that will be the end of it.

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
"My opponent is a criminal and if i become president i will throw them in jail and overrule the decision that they weren't a criminal. Also if i don't become president it's because it's rigged" is not a direct quote.

You're right, it's two slightly reworded quotes paired into two sentances
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/09/donald_trump_just_threatened_to_prosecute_hillary_clinton_over_her_email.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-accept-election-230098

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Supplying weapons to ISIL, receiving monetary donations from Islamic states that actively kill others, incompetence, lies, taking money from wall street, deceit, corruption. All under the banner of the American flag as an elected official to the American people.

What. I'd like to retread to that whole "without evidence we shouldn't jump to conclusions" ideal you put forward about a legitimate court investigation tied to actual verbal comments and put them here along with the big "citation needed" next to all the claims but the one on taking money from "wall street" (By which i assume the speeches she made for banks that she was paid for? Which doesn't match up with any of the other claims you've made in either severity or... meaningful-ness?)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
As an American, I do not want Clinton to represent me any more than I do Trump. Clinton's track record is a verified Grade F product. Trump has no product, I don't know what to do with that.

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

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


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Impartiality in the news should be what every journalist strives for, and CNN discredited themselves by stating reading Clinton's leaked emails as an illegal act.

That's... not bias? That's being wrong, if that's what they actually said



[QUOTE=JDJacket;9466451]As before, a few examples of isolated Trump Supporters means next to nothing when you have groups, as in established groups with names, actively organizing protests knowing full well that they can and often do devolve into violence. Throwing firebombs at cops is not a peaceful protest. Smashing car windows is not a peaceful protest. Clinton protesters, particularly the "Bill Clinton is a rapist" ones are beaten. Clinton protesters are not widely organized events as Trump protests. Simple deduction would place more violence with the larger crowds of protesters, no?[/SPOILER]

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

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


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Obama:

Spoiler:
Bailed out car companies for job security. Car companies moved, lay of thousands regardless of funds from American tax payers. Chrysler is no longer an American company. $25B lost.

Spoiler:


You mean the ones Bush initiated and the Obama administration merely oversaw? I don't get the problem with the unsuccesful attempt to save jobs though, what in particular do you think would've been a better option? Considering Trump's policies are to try and get these jobs back by creating (Economically impossible) cuts to tax, i'd wager that it would've been better to have not done them at all, but that would only have lowered confidence in the government for passively letting these jobs go (Could Obama have even stopped them if Bush initiated them? I'm not particularly sure)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Bailed out banks. Banks failed to repay the American populace, no plans were put in place for preventing this.

I'm not aware of what "repaying" the populace would entail, and what exactly for, but it seems like from my research that a bailout of the banks was necessary at the time, but the profits and bonuses made back when they rebounded were pretty extravagant and should've been curbed
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-09-12/obamas-wall-street-bank-rescue-stabilized-economy-at-a-political-cost

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Lack of clear administration. Most sneaky-sneaky administration in history, denying more freedom of information requests than any other administration in history by about 100%

77% is the number i've come up with, and that that's a record, but not that it's "100%" ever in history. That 77% is made up of denials of requests and accepted requests that have no new information that's not available to the public, as well as accepted requests that don't have any documents to release period.

I'd actually like to look into this more and see the average number of requests each year to see if there's some kind of outside circumstances that saw an upturn in them that'd account for the increase, because the idea that suddenly Obama doesn't want you to know... anything seems suspect

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Whistle blowers on torture and wrongdoing are sent on the lam, despite initial wants for transparency.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/426/increase-protections-for-whistleblowers/

I'll concede Snowden is a sad exmaple of why law on leakers of classified information are outdated, but that's hardly Obama's fault himself or with his administration. The information leaked was valuable to the public, but the laws weren't changed specifically to persecute him and he knew what they were fully before committing to doing a crime

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Nobel peace prize winner. Wanted to start another war in the Middle East. Placated by an ex-KGB operative. Event avoided due to Russian intervention.

I've got no idea what you mean beyond that Obama received a nobel peace prize he said he didn't think he deserved, the rest of it i can't really comprehend. Something about a middle east war and being talked out of it by ex-KGB, and russia stopping it? That... doesn't sound right, to say the least

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
This is a prime example of how campaign promises mean jack ****. I've never particularly believed campaign promises because I'm a realist and the house and senate like to stall.

...What is a prime example?

Campaign promises mean a lot because they're almost always at least attempted to follow through on, and exactly what is said there tells you about a candidate's plan for the white house- when Trump makes an outlandish and impossible or abhorrent election promise that shows his character and what he'd do with the power he wants regardless of if it's possible for him to personally kick every elderly hispanic woman in florida's shins or not

But anyway, here's a list of Obama's election promises (27 pages of them, over both elections i assume) and to what exetent he achieved them.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/browse/?page=3

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
60+ of Assad's troops killed in US airstrike. Claims to want to work with Russia. Excuse: "We thought it was controlled by ISIS" it is now. Russia wants more communication, the US denies it.

I guess we're back on clinton now, but I think it's very clear Russia does not want more communication considering both are fighting ISIS, but Russia is doing so to keep their ally Assad safe, while America is doing it to protect their own interests (And they don't like Assad, because he's a tryant, and probably a couple more self serving reasons. But the public one is the "not liking his tyranny" one)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Increase in unemployment due to failure of policies and bad ideas (i.e. bailout)

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/obamas-numbers-january-2016-update/

Nope! Decrease in unemployment under Obama

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Ca$h for Clunkers program. Costly. Prices of used cars went up.

Back to obama? Ok

"Costly" is fairly meaningless in this circumstance, but you're right that it didn't earn back the amount it spent (Although i don't think that was ever the intention) and most of the non-environmental effects were pretty lackluster to what was predicted.

The environmental effects were pretty good though, with a good net increase in fuel efficiency of vehicles nationwide due to the program

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
"Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." - Obama, 2008

This was a poor promise to make, but i'd be interested to know what changes he made to go back on that later, as i haven't been able to read up on the specific demographics and the taxes under obama that've changed for them

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Increased the National debt by 7 trillion dollars. More than all other presidents in history combined.

This is fairly complicated to answer, because you're right- infact under that metric you're using it was actually 9 trillion ,to 19 from the 10 he inherited, (Unless you mean by the metric in which he added 6.3 trillion, i can't imagine you mean the one that's 983 billion though)) but actually how quantifiable that is, and how much gross debt like that even matters is a pretty complicated economical journey

https://www.thebalance.com/the-u-s-debt-and-how-it-got-so-big-3305778

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-under-obama-3306293

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
NSA Spies on the American populace under the administration.

And under the administration before that, and i'm fairly sure in the one before that in the "modern" incarnation that i assume you mean, but i'm pretty sure the NSA has near always spied on the american population through some means or another.

Whether this is a needed/good thing or not can be debated but kicking the can of blame down the road onto obama isn't really much of anything

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
The CIA, the foreign intelligence division, spies on congress under the administration.

See above

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Solyndra. That's $535 million dollars we're never going to see again. Tacked onto the national debt (i.e. taxpayers)

It's not really the fault of the administration if a company they give money to fails, there's merit in reflectively looking back at the information available at the time on if it was a good idea to invest or not, but it's not really something that retroactive blame can be applied to


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Misuse of the IRS under the administration. Actions are suspicious and highly illegal. "Not even a smidgen of corruption [IRS]".IRS released the names of over 400 companies it maliciously targeted.

You mean the charity exemption thing? That wasn't companies targeted that was organisations with certain phrases or political messages being scrutinised more heavily than others, in a way that was deemed not illegal but not impartial as it should've been

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
I'm still waiting on my VA care. Despite promises to speed the process, the process has actually slowed.

That seems kind of anecdotal, and i can't find anything backing the claim that it's actually slowed

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Obama care. Estimated to save $2500 a year for each family. Lie.

Is it? All i can find is that health care spending has slowed since it's implementation, which isn't effectively the same thing but it's implicative of something similar

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
obamacare.gov was down for months when introduced. Obama: "... Had no idea ..."

That's not true? It had problems with the amount of traffic it was getting for the first few months but it wasn't down for months at a time? And i'm pretty sure Obama didn't have "no idea" that it was down, but i doubt he knew each and every downing

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Retrieving funds to the tune of $700 Billion from Medicare to inject into Obama care.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/07/mike-huckabee/obamacare-robbed-medicare-700-billion-says-huckabe/

No?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Judged police actions before investigation was complete, calling them anything from despicable behaviour to incompetent.

I don't think this is true at all and can't find anything on it, but i assume you're talking about something related to the shooting of unarmed african americans

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
The DOJ did not pursue several black on white criminality cases under the administration.

....? I'd like some sources on this because this seems like complete nonsense, and doesn't seem to involve Obama personally at all

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Still golfing, despite mocking Bush for doing the same thing even though he [Bush] quit.

How dare he play sports...?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Says marriage is between a man and woman in '08.

Which he very obviously evolved on, considering the historic significance of his presidency to both LGBT rights at large and the issue of marriage equality

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
DOJ against voter ID. Obamacare requires ID.

This is true, Obamacare requires personal identification and that identification is generally needed to be things considered for voter ID just by virtue of state operated identification

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Common Core education programs. Things are getting worse.

Things being what, public education or the programs themselves? They seem pretty innocuous, and considering the state of education in some US states, especially sience and physical education (sex ed being a big one) a larger scale and more encompassing common curriculum would do wonders

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression, albeit sans dust bowls.

You mean the GFC?? That's just an event that occured during his presidency. You can't really blame every hurricane on him too

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
NASA. Want to be an astronaut? Try the Cosmonaut program instead, you might have better luck.

Yep, NASA funding has more or less tanked to feed the overbloated federal defence budget, something America as a whole needs to stop doing but probably won't

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Failure of foreign relations and policies. Many world leaders do not respect the man and as a result, may have damaged views of the country itself (the reason why you have a leader is to lead and represent you)

Uh? I don't think this is true at all, Obama is looked on pretty favourably internationally, i don't know what source you're getting this from

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Denied Major Nidal as a terrorist incident.

The army concluded he wasn't, if you're going to complain he talked about a crime before the investigation was finished earlier and you're also going to complain he agreed with the investigation's verdict here it seems like a double standard

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Benghazi, along with Clinton.

Benghazi is another thing you keep saying is cut and dry despite being anything but

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
The assassination of Gaddafi. Gaddafi actually wasn't that bad. Libya is now a war strewn mess and not sanctioned by congress i.e. other US citizens. The rebels in Libya refused and have said on multiple occasions they want no military assistance from the US.

This is true

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Negotiation with terrorists. Released 5 terrorists for 1 man that didn't seem too keen on going home to begin with.

Not really http://time.com/2809612/bowe-bergdahl-obama-taliban/

But there's merit in arguing the deal wasn't optimal for America

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Slowdown of the deportation processes. visa expirations and illegal immigrants remain without fear of deportation. Attempted to use executive power to legalize all illegal immigrants. He does not have this power. Failed to reform immigration and to mitigate the problem of drug cartels across the border coming under/over the border.

Obama has deported more people than any other president. The only "slowdown" so far has been from his own top speed. His attempts at programs and amnesty to constructively allow illegal immigrants ways to stay in the country legally and allowing families to stay together better are fairly admirable things, especially considering the complete backslide of illegal immigration into the US under his administration (But like most things, not a direct result of his administration)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Financial reform failure. Promises to undue previous administration's mistakes. Failed. More debt, more problems.

Nope, more gross debt (which was inevitable) but less "problems" assuming you mean "problems" to be any of these, i.e cutting deficit

http://www.snopes.com/barack-obama-accomplishments/


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Promised stimulus package failed. Billions of dollars lost in effort to stimulate economy (seperate monies from bank and car bailouts). Failed. No influx of jobs, bubble burst, stimulas package didn't pan out.

Yes influx of jobs as previously states, stimulus packages did work but not to the degree predicted


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.” - Obama 2012, regarding Russia as a potential opponent to American interests. Crimea called, they would like to know where they can send their surplus of borsch.

To be fair this was before they stole part of a country and started their current big "we can do what we want" push


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
"Keeping this facility open is contrary to our values," Obama said. "It undermines our standing in the world. It is viewed as a stain on our broader record of upholding the highest standards of rule of law." - Obama in regards to closing down Gitmo. Still open.

Despite his attempts to close it down numerous times, with constant attempts to the best of his ability only to be stopped by a republican controlled senate ect


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Disrespected the goddamn Queen of England, by not knowing the British national anthem. I guess we're just allowed to talk through the star spangled banner, huh? I'd underline it twice if I could.

A single political gaff that no one actually minded is hardly anything


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Failure for other avenues of going green. Carbon emissions bill struck down by the supreme court didn't help him.

Green energy has only surged under Obama, and his attempts at going green being stopped by a largely climate denialist republican party hardly helps


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
The Iranian Nuclear deal. A country that continued to clamour own about weapons and rockets and nuclear armaments.

Uh? The iranian nuclear deal was a huge success?


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Accepting Syrian refugees. Despite more than a handful of European countries being attacked by individuals going through the system. Brussels was attacked. Brussels! Result of the power vacuum created by mas withdrawal of troops in both Iran and Iraq.

Accepting refugees?! what an awful man! And... no, i'm fairly sure that most notable terrorist attacks in the EU were perpetuated by citizens, not refugees.

Also.... syrian destabilisation is not really a result of the power vaccum in iran/iraq, ISIS existed before that and tangentially benefited from that


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Promised to curb the influence of lobbyists. Appoints more lobbyists.

What? There's an executive order restricting lobbyists from working in the white house


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Failed gun policy, despite continued promises to do so. Promises to use executive action to go against congress to enact forms of control.

"Promises to do something but is stopped at every step by a hostile senate" isn't really a strike against him, and i'm fairly sure he never claimed he'd force gun legislation through


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Received more money from Wall Street collectively than any candidate in the last 20 years. Supported occupy Wall Street.

And yet he introduced big wall street reform. I don't really get why supporting occupy wall street is a bad thing when it's the antithesis of the concept you're trying to put across here, that obama against all evidence to the contrary is corrupt


[QUOTE=JDJacket;9466451]Continuing the war on drugs... against marijuana. The only president to attack it so vehemently, even more so than the accursed Reagan administration. He promised the exact opposite.

Uh? I don't think this is true considering Obama has been doing the opposite and moving towards criminal justice reform- especially towards drug related offences. Over the last few months he's been personally commuting sentences of people charged with drug offences and given mandatory minimum sentences no longer under effect


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Used executive orders to expand faith based programs. Those programs people attacked Bush for? The same ones.

Sort of, he reformed and cleaned it all up though, creating an inter-faith advisory body to give advice on how to best allocate resources ect ect and generally attempted to make it a more effective and efficient set of programs through new rules and regulations.


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Renewed the Patriot act. Said before I didn't approve of it.

Renewed some of the parts set to expire, not all of it (As it as a whole, didn't expire, only certain parts did)


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Signed indefinite detention bill into law.

Did he put it forward? I couldn't find that, only that senate upheld it. Either way it's a negative


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Promised to prosecute Wall Street executives. Did not.

Not personally, but he signed the power to the DOJ to be able to do so, and they didn't prioritise the specific situation in which he said they'd be able to and thus no cases led to prosecution there


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Took 1,000 jobs away from Boeing. Told to shut down the factory for being non-union.

Again i'm fairly sure this wasn't Obama personally or even his administration, but Boeing was sued for breaking the law and since they lost(?) the jobs they promised there didn't materialise


[QUOTE=JDJacket;9466451]Operation Fast and Furious. Released 2,000 firearms to criminal hands. Recovered 710 of the weapons.
Weapons were used to kill civilians in Mexico. What's worse? Build a wall? Or give weapons to their cartels so that they can be used against them?


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

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


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
This is the answer to your question. All of this. So pardon me for not being all warm and fuzzy with Clinton's shoulder rubbing buddy. I don't like Trump, but I certainly detest the previous few presidencies. Saying Clinton will change things for the better is a pipe dream. She's from the same exact cabinet as Obama. I may polarize some people here, but I think we can all agree that things are bad right now. Not 'going to be bad'.

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


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Due to my strong stance against shoddy politics, I am no longer willing to discuss this issue any further, as it won't end well for me, I'm sure.

You seem to have a pretty weak stance on Trump's politics for someone claiming to be against shoddy politics, but alright


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Clinton is bad enough already and supports a really bad Executive. Trump is just... bad. If either win, I lose. Like I've said from the very beginning. I know Hillary. I know Obama.

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


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Delving into potential 'what ifs' on Trump don't concern me. There are no 'what ifs' in the current administration. It's like playing a really bad game of Clue and you're trying to find out who dun' it using Monopoly money, the country cards from Risk, playing pieces for Sorry! and the gameboard as Operation and using Trouble for dice. Madness!

I honestly don't get the analogy but the whole point of presidential hopefuls is looking at their merits on their what ifs. There's also very little "what ifs" being presented in this thread about Trump, it's all what he's currently saying and doing and what he says he'll say and do- not what if scenarios about it


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
Trying to untangle this mess is no job anyone can ever hope to complete within four years. No amount of racism rhetoric (both candidates are).

I think you cut yourself off here but yet again no, they are not equally racist that's unequivocally false


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
I, personally, believe that Obama is far from being labeled as good president. I feel he has let us down financially and globally. He's made me feel a fool on more than one occasion and it bugs me.

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

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


Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9466451)
I made a mistake and more than a few errors in my previous post, if that changes your mind on your parting comments any. Regardless of any mistake or even if it wasn't a mistake, I do not believe it warrants such vehemence or insults to my intelligence, and I don't think I deserve it. The first section of the previous post is not directed at anyone, but more in line with a long rant. If you felt targeted in any way, I do apologize.

#Toast2020

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

I don't really get the toast thing though

Somewhere_ October 28th, 2016 1:23 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/fbi-reviewing-new-emails-in-clinton-probe-director-tells-senate-judiciary-committee/

Will this hurt Clinton when people vote in a few days? Or has Trump dug himself too big of a hole? Thoughts?

User19sq October 28th, 2016 1:44 PM

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

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

Somewhere_ October 28th, 2016 2:04 PM

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

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

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

User19sq October 28th, 2016 2:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadSheep (Post 9467067)
Those emails are pretty damn important. What she did was illegal, and if not, displays a massive character flaw. They reveal how much she lies.

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

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

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

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

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

Somewhere_ October 28th, 2016 2:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taro Tanaka (Post 9467078)
All people holding office should have a public and private position. Just because a president disagrees on a certain bill while most-if-not-all of the citizens support it, doesn't mean the president shouldn't sign it into law. That's what congress was set up for. Not always a good thing, but still relevant.

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

User19sq October 28th, 2016 2:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadSheep (Post 9467080)
There is a difference between respecting the will of the majority and having a public and private position. This was in a speech to Wall Street, which I dont believe I have to explain why the context of her quote makes it so bad. It means she may appease her donors and not her voters.

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

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

Somewhere_ October 28th, 2016 2:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taro Tanaka (Post 9467086)
Keyword being "may". If she enters office, then what? Appease the people who've contributed to her campaign and not the issues brought up by everyone else?

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

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

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

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

I would argue deep-down voters dont care about the debt. They care about their pocket books.

Kanzler October 28th, 2016 4:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadSheep (Post 9467088)
I would argue deep-down voters dont care about the debt. They care about their pocket books.

I agree. It's not something that obviously affects you, unlike government services (if you use them) or infrastructure or job creation.

Aliencommander1245 October 28th, 2016 4:43 PM

It should be noted that these new emails aren't from her private server and they're just determining if they had classified information in them or not, I'm pretty sure regardless of the classification they're not going to change what they recommend justice-wise

Tsutarja October 28th, 2016 6:29 PM

James Comey is just bluffing. It seems now that the tables are turning on him, especially since several sources are now accusing him of interfering with the presidential election, 11 days before the finale.

Ivysaur October 28th, 2016 11:23 PM

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

That's the whole "scandal". My bet? People who have already decided Clinton is worse than Satan will take this as just another nail in the coffin; people who support her and already decided that the email thing was a lot of ado about nothing will just grow angry at the FBI for appearing partisan by bringing this load of nothing exactly with 11 days to go. If there is a movement in polls, it'll probably be marginal.

Esper October 29th, 2016 9:25 AM

It's bad either way. Some people will hear there's a new email thing and go "Okay, that does it. I can't vote for Clinton." Even though they don't know about the contents or context. And if they don't think that, a lot will think "Look how dysfunctional / corrupt / petty government is."

Ivysaur November 2nd, 2016 4:31 AM

I'm at the point at which I have hit maximum saturation. I can't handle another week of this. I want it to be Tuesday. And I'm worried because talking about this kinda is my job. Help.


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.