![]() |
Quote:
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:
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:
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. |
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. |
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Spoiler:
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:
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:
Spoiler:
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. |
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."
|
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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:
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:
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? |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
"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:
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. |
Spoiler:
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. |
|
Quote:
|
Opinions on Evan Mcmullen potentially taking Utah?
|
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. |
What a debate, Clinton was quite more forceful. :O
|
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. |
"you're a nasty woman"
best line of the debate |
“Nobody has more respect for women than I do, nobody” was another good one. Though that "bad hombres" comment is more memeable
|
Quote:
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. |
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. |
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:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Btw, remember the 2000 US Presidential election in Florida, there were many controversial issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount |
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:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Oh look, debunked. Took me all of five seconds to google it :P Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
"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:
|
[QUOTE=Aliencommander1245;9457982]
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
"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? |
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.
|
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
|
Quote:
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. |
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. |
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? |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
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:
You don't have a tax loophole address if you aren't dodging tax. Ironically enough they share the same one. Quote:
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. |
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 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 Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Did she ever claim he made speeches though? I feel like that's not really right Quote:
Quote:
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 Quote:
Quote:
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:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
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. |
Spoiler:
I did my civic duty, now come and join me #GOTV :P |
Quote:
Also I'm pretty jelly right now. I can't wait until I'm 18 and can vote. |
It's a WA state ballot, not a UT one :P
|
Quote:
I just want Mcmullin on the ballot in every state. |
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. |
Quote:
But what about the Tax Policy Center? Were they calculated on a static basis? Ignoring investments, savings, GDP growth/loss, etc. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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.
|
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. |
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
|
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:
Abortion Spoiler:
Gun Control Spoiler:
Foreign Policy Spoiler:
Taxes Spoiler:
Gay Marriage Spoiler:
Health Care Spoiler:
Economy and Jobs Spoiler:
Civil Liberties Spoiler:
Crime and Safety Spoiler:
Environment Spoiler:
Education Spoiler:
Budget and Spending Spoiler:
National Security Spoiler:
Medicare and Social Security Spoiler:
Veterans Spoiler:
Energy Spoiler:
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:
Abortion Spoiler:
Guns Spoiler:
Foreign Policy Spoiler:
Taxes Spoiler:
Gay Marriage Spoiler:
Health Care Spoiler:
Economy and Jobs Spoiler:
Civil Liberties Spoiler:
Crime and Safety Spoiler:
Environment Spoiler:
Education Spoiler:
Budget and Spending Spoiler:
National Security Spoiler:
Medicare and Social Security Spoiler:
Veterans Spoiler:
Energy Spoiler:
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 |
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. |
Quote:
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? |
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. |
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:
|
"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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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:
|
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.
|
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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# |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
A violent uprising or whatever isn't likely, but he's pushing hard to discredit his almost inevitable loss ahead of time Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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 |
Quote:
"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. |
Quote:
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 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 |
Quote:
"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:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Just because other presidents have beaten their wives that means it's ok because it's "better" than that?? Uh? Quote:
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:
and....????????????????? is all i have to say when you equate actual violence against erotic jokes, as if somehow they're "equally bad" Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Has nothing historical to relate to because they're unprecedented attacks Quote:
Quote:
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! |
Oh boy.
Spoiler:
I feel like John Williams should be here. Obama: Spoiler:
This is the answer to your question. All of this. So pardon me for not being all warm and fuzzy with Clinton's shoulder rubbing buddy. I don't like Trump, but I certainly detest the previous few presidencies. Saying Clinton will change things for the better is a pipe dream. She's from the same exact cabinet as Obama. I may polarize some people here, but I think we can all agree that things are bad right now. Not 'going to be bad'. Due to my strong stance against shoddy politics, I am no longer willing to discuss this issue any further, as it won't end well for me, I'm sure. Clinton is bad enough already and supports a really bad Executive. Trump is just... bad. If either win, I lose. Like I've said from the very beginning. I know Hillary. I know Obama. Delving into potential 'what ifs' on Trump don't concern me. There are no 'what ifs' in the current administration. It's like playing a really bad game of Clue and you're trying to find out who dun' it using Monopoly money, the country cards from Risk, playing pieces for Sorry! and the gameboard as Operation and using Trouble for dice. Madness! Trying to untangle this mess is no job anyone can ever hope to complete within four years. No amount of racism rhetoric (both candidates are). I, personally, believe that Obama is far from being labeled as good president. I feel he has let us down financially and globally. He's made me feel a fool on more than one occasion and it bugs me. I made a mistake and more than a few errors in my previous post, if that changes your mind on your parting comments any. Regardless of any mistake or even if it wasn't a mistake, I do not believe it warrants such vehemence or insults to my intelligence, and I don't think I deserve it. The first section of the previous post is not directed at anyone, but more in line with a long rant. If you felt targeted in any way, I do apologize. #Toast2020 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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:
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:
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:
[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:
Spoiler:
This was also something both done before and continued under Obama and something not even related to Obama or his administration, considering the specific law efnorcement things involved. But trump's proposed wall building plan and rhetoric is still worse, actually, considering all the problems it'll cause and lack of any actual substance or solution it'll provide Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
I don't really get the toast thing though |
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? |
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... |
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. |
Quote:
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." |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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
|
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.
|
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. |
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."
|
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. |
![]()
© 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.