The PokéCommunity Forums

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

Aliencommander1245 August 12th, 2016 5:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9364684)
Yeah, I worry about that too. I think as long as the lbgt marriage cause is held in a positive light by the majority of people then Clinton will leave it alone, despite her long record of standing against it. Trump however is likely to appoint people who will destroy the progress you've made, despite Trump previously defending the LBGT movement in his book.

The really scary thing is the pair of them lie so much you never know what's real and what's lip service.

Honestly i think Hillary is going to be Obama Skim at worst; more centre/right than what you'd call Obama Lite but not nearly as bad as people keep saying?

Her changing on issues to align with what'll get her the most votes and make her seem the best isn't a thing i think will disappear magically once she becomes president, she'll stick to the mindset that got her elected and hope for a second term more than she'll do a 180 and reveal her true cackling witch self or something

Ivysaur August 12th, 2016 5:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9364684)
Yeah, I worry about that too. I think as long as the lbgt marriage cause is held in a positive light by the majority of people then Clinton will leave it alone, despite her long record of standing against it. Trump however is likely to appoint people who will destroy the progress you've made, despite Trump previously defending the LBGT movement in his book.

The really scary thing is the pair of them lie so much you never know what's real and what's lip service.

One question: why would Clinton try to undo same-sex marriage? 76% of democrats supported same-sex marriage, most independents did too. Do you think she really wants to make a big "fuck you" to her voter base for no good reason? Do you really think she sits at home thinking "damn, I should roll back marriage rights just so my voter base gets really angry at me and I probably get an actual primary challenger four years from now"? Yeah, okay, she had a big flop from being against it to supporting it. But she's running in a party which overwhelmingly supports same-sex marriage, and it's not like it's currently illegal and she can just sit on it doing nothing while paying lip service; she'd have to pass a fucking constitutional amendment to re-ban it. All of that to win 0 votes and lose millions, and possibly get booted off from the democratic leadership in 4 years. Do you really think she's utterly unhinged?

Of course, the party that is full of anti-ssm members and which is running on a platform that supports discrimination laws against lgtb people, the Republicans, have nothing to lose from enacting those laws because their own supporters like them. So Trump would be fine doing that (or "leaving it to the states").

But yeah, if you believe Clinton could possibly think that undoing marriage equality is anything worth considering, then it's pretty obvious you have bought her "She's The Devil Incarnate" caricature so there isn't much hope, sadly.

Hands August 12th, 2016 5:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9364708)
One question: why would Clinton try to undo same-sex marriage? 76% of democrats supported same-sex marriage, most independents did too. Do you think she really wants to make a big "**** you" to her voter base for no good reason? Do you really think she sits at home thinking "damn, I should roll back marriage rights just so my voter base gets really angry at me and I probably get an actual primary challenger four years from now"? Yeah, okay, she had a big flop from being against it to supporting it. But she's running in a party which overwhelmingly supports same-sex marriage, and it's not like it's currently illegal and she can just sit on it doing nothing while paying lip service; she'd have to pass a ****ing constitutional amendment to re-ban it. All of that to win 0 votes and lose millions, and possibly get booted off from the democratic leadership in 4 years. Do you really think she's utterly unhinged?

Of course, the party that is full of anti-ssm members and which is running on a platform that supports discrimination laws against lgtb people, the Republicans, have nothing to lose from enacting those laws because their own supporters like them. So Trump would be fine doing that (or "leaving it to the states").

But yeah, if you believe Clinton could possibly think that undoing marriage equality is anything worth considering, then it's pretty obvious you have bought her "She's The Devil Incarnate" caricature so there isn't much hope, sadly.

I think you've misread my post, I said despite her history of being against it, she's likely to leave it alone. I never said I thought she'd go after it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9364706)
Personally I think the notion that Hillary is some giant liar is a lie in itself.

But that's just me. Surely fact-checkers that have analyzed her every statement throughout her campaign and found her to be more honest than your typical politican are wrong, right?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582795/Hillary-Clintons-Bosnia-sniper-story-exposed.html

It's far from the only time she's "misspoke" or "misremebered" something that was significantly different to what happened.

Hands August 12th, 2016 6:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9364749)
Oh look! She fibbed! Like every politican does. Meanwhile, Politifact, an actual reputable independent fact-checking website, has deemed her the second most honest politician, behind Obama.

Yes, she's more honest than Bernie Sanders.

If you don't want an answer that doesn't fit your narrative, don't ask a question that challenges it. I mean Politifact is hardly a non bias source, regardless of what they claim.

She lies, she lies a lot. She gets away with lines like "I misspoke" which is of course political talk for "i was caught lying".

She also constantly flip flops on issues, there's no consistency and there's a lot of hypocrisy.

She's not a trustworthy person, and sure, you could argue a lot of politicians aren't, but a lot of politicians aren't running to be POTUS.

Hands August 12th, 2016 6:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9364770)
"I can't find anything to refute that point, so I'm just going to make a snarky response."

The initial reply was refuting your point about her supposed honesty. The snarky remark was in response to your cop out of "oh no she fibbed better ignore it thats just politics" rhetoric.

Quote:

I dunno. I rely on fact-checkers because honesty of a politican does matter to me. I'm not expecting her to be squeaky clean, I'm expecting her to be honest on the positions that matter most i.e social issues, fiscal issues, economical issues, etc. And she generally is. But hey, who am I to disagree with people more qualified to verify claims than me?
How are they more qualified to verify claims than me or you? In the digital age its increasingly easy to check facts yourself without relying on others like Politifact and Snopes, who have both been noted for using their own interpretation as opposed to what was actually said. Clinton outright made up a story about coming under sniper fire to try and make herself seem heroic, but the evidence showed nothing of the sort happened. That's not a little fib or a white lie, that's an outright porkie.

Quote:

On one hand, you can call it flip-flopping.
http://imgur.com/gallery/yZ0LZDP

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/03/16/4-Hillary-Clinton-Flip-Flops-Will-Make-Voters-Think-Twice

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/15/hillary-clinton-gave-the-exact-right-answer-to-explain-her-flip-flops-it-still-might-not-work/

http://uk.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-gay-marriage-and-immigration-flip-flops-2015-4

It's not me calling it flip flopping, that's what the universally used term for behavior of this nature is.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=compromise&oq=compromise&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3343j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Completely changing your stance to an opposite of positions you've held for years because another candidate's popularity increased isn't compromise, its outright flip flopping. I want someone who really believes what I believe as a leader, someone who's history backs it up. Not someone who is fickle. I want a rock, not a weather-vein.

Esper August 12th, 2016 1:20 PM

I just want to add my own $0.02 about how Politifact is not without bias. Anecdotally, I've seen some of their reasoning for labeling something false are based on very narrow, cherry picked phrases not taken in the context they were spoken in. On the whole they're probably correct more often than not, probably even most of the time, but they are not infallible and I wouldn't agree with their statement that Clinton is more honest than Sanders and others - itself a troubling statement since that comparison doesn't state what statements they are drawing from and we're meant to take their word for it without being to check ourselves.

I don't doubt their motives, but I don't think they're as reliable as they could be since they have to deal with making their analyses easy to digest for the widest group of people interested in this kind of political stuff - and not everyone who is is going to have the same degree of critical thinking to understand a more nuanced answer than "pants on fire."

MadHatter62 August 12th, 2016 5:54 PM

#jigglypuffforpresident2016

Kanzler August 12th, 2016 7:02 PM

Okay, in an attempt to Correct The Record, when did Politifact say that Clinton was more honest than Sanders?

The Gunney August 12th, 2016 8:45 PM

One thing constantly over looked is the fact that 80% of congress is up for re-election in November as well. You honestly think that Trump will be able to pass any of his more radical policies with a hostile Republican congress? or do anything at all with a Democrat majority? If you remember EO's are not law. With Hillery I'm worry about entering the realm of wrong thought policing that Canada and Australia has wondered into as of late.

Kanzler August 12th, 2016 9:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9365683)
It was never explicitly said (of course they wouldn't say something like that), but I've already provided a link that states as much through comparisons of statements. Here it is if you've missed it.

it could very well be that Sanders hasn't made enough statements to really gauge his actual honesty, because this going way back like nine years ago (probably before Sanders was relevant), so there's that.

But you said:

Quote:

Ultimately, it is up to you as an individual whether or not you want to take Politifact's word as truth or not. You can do your own research and come up with your own results. It's certainly true that sometimes their results can seem more or less haphazard or cherry picked, but not without reason. Whether that reason is acceptable is another matter in its entirety.
It doesn't seem like there is a word from Politifact at all.

If we look at the records now, Bernie's file has 52% True and Mostly True, and 28% Mostly False and False. Hillary Clinton has 50% True and Mostly True, and 26% Mostly False and False, but 2% Pants on Fire False.

To Correct the Record, it looks like that, yeah, Bernie Sanders is more honest than Hillary Clinton, give or take.

Sarcasm aside, I don't think that Politifact had any opinion one way or another about the relative trustworthiness between Sanders and Clinton at all. For that reason, I don't think Politifact's reputation is at stake. I also think there's not much value in comparing quantifiable, yes, but ultimately highly abstract and decontextualized data points. But I think it's worth pointing out that a highly reputable source can come up with ideas or data that aren't very valuable, and I'm sure they never meant for it to be taken too seriously.

Kanzler August 12th, 2016 9:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9365703)
Thanks for the unneeded sarcasm,

Much obliged ;)

I wouldn't agree that how serious you take the Politifact numbers depends on individual preference - data, depending on the context, can be more or less rigorous and I don't think either of us disagree that the numbers aren't very rigorous. If the data isn't rigorous, how meaningful can any conclusions derived from said data be? I am pleased that we are in agreement, however, that it's each statement, in its own specific context, that counts.

Esper August 13th, 2016 9:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9365323)
Forgive me, I'm not quite understanding the kind of point that you're making, here. They're not as reliable as they could be because they dumb down information for people who aren't as political inclined? I'm not sure why that makes them unreliable in particular, can you explain?

Like, when you simplify you lose nuance. It's like in math where you're not supposed to round your numbers before multiplying. 9.78 x 10 isn't the same as 10 x 10. But lemme use a different example.

There's been claims that climate change helped cause ISIS and Politifact said that was a lie, but when you get into the nitty gritty details about how climate change forced lots of agrarian people into cities and ruined many people's livelihoods and such that means that, yes, climate change did help push people into desperate situations like forming terror groups. ISIS wouldn't say "We're doing this because of climate change" and there are other factors that come into it, but it did play a part. But that's all very messy and my summary of it is very brief - not the kind of thing that the average person would be willing to learn about just to see if a politician is being honest or not. When you have to simplify the narrative about the founding of ISIS it's all about the political/military events of the Middle East, the US invasion, and that sort of thing - so Politifact says "Climate change cause ISIS? Wrong!" because there's no room for that factor in the simple explanation of it.

Basically, I would say that a lot of what politicians say isn't just direct yes or no statements about very narrow topics - it's more nuanced, which is how you can have confusion about honesty and I don't think Politifact is as nuanced as I would like it to be in order for them to be considered as accurate and authoritative as they are taken to be.

Shamol August 14th, 2016 1:17 AM

Here are my thoughts on Hillary's honesty.

In my experience, the allegations of out-and-out lying against Hillary Clinton usually come not from the progressives or the left, but primarily from the right (on issues like Benghazi) or right-leaning independents. The main gripe the left has with Hillary is that she's a standard establishment politician- whatever major downsides she has ultimately have to do with that fact. Being a standard politician comes with having to be flexible, to an extent, with one's principles. You can only be as good and revolutionary as the donor money and the establishment strictures allow you to be. When these subvenient causes change, so would your policies, thereby explaining the flip-flopping characteristic of the establishment politicians. This means even when you make appeals to change in the right direction it sounds disingenuous. So Hillary, according to the phenomenology of the left, is untrustworthy, compromising, flexible, manufactured, and inauthentic- but all of these come only because of her being a politician.

Now people- democrats, at least- would probably have been accepting of all of this were it not for Bernie Sanders and the political revolution he speaks of. It's because of Bernie setting a different, higher standard than what people are used to is why Hillary is getting so much flak. That's the only reason. Hillary is not more evil than the usual standards, but Bernie came and threw a wrench into those standards that all of us probably considered normative.

Sarah Silverman explains it nicely (link) when she says Hillary's taking corporate donor money really wasn't an issue for her, since it's a necessary evil for the system there is. But when Bernie came along and showed a new way, what was once 'necessary evil' just became 'evil'.

Finally, I posted this video earlier in this thread, Dave Rubin basically encapsulates pretty much all of my thoughts on her becoming the nominee (link).

Hands August 14th, 2016 3:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shamol (Post 9367342)
Here are my thoughts on Hillary's honesty.

In my experience, the allegations of out-and-out lying against Hillary Clinton usually come not from the progressives or the left, but primarily from the right (on issues like Benghazi) or right-leaning independents. The main gripe the left has with Hillary is that she's a standard establishment politician- whatever major downsides she has ultimately have to do with that fact. Being a standard politician comes with having to be flexible, to an extent, with one's principles. You can only be as good and revolutionary as the donor money and the establishment strictures allow you to be. When these subvenient causes change, so would your policies, thereby explaining the flip-flopping characteristic of the establishment politicians. This means even when you make appeals to change in the right direction it sounds disingenuous. So Hillary, according to the phenomenology of the left, is untrustworthy, compromising, flexible, manufactured, and inauthentic- but all of these come only because of her being a politician.

Now people- democrats, at least- would probably have been accepting of all of this were it not for Bernie Sanders and the political revolution he speaks of. It's because of Bernie setting a different, higher standard than what people are used to is why Hillary is getting so much flak. That's the only reason. Hillary is not more evil than the usual standards, but Bernie came and threw a wrench into those standards that all of us probably considered normative.

Sarah Silverman explains it nicely (link) when she says Hillary's taking corporate donor money really wasn't an issue for her, since it's a necessary evil for the system there is. But when Bernie came along and showed a new way, what was once 'necessary evil' just became 'evil'.

Finally, I posted this video earlier in this thread, Dave Rubin basically encapsulates pretty much all of my thoughts on her becoming the nominee (link).

Well yeah, Clinton isn't Hitler. She's just another career politician who only cares about her own pockets. Clinton is getting so much flak because she's the one running for POTUS. I mean, the DNC e- mail hacks, the CNN collaboration and the clandestine paid speeches to Wall Street haven't helped her in the eyes of the left (although the 'lost' votes, voter registration changing, polling stations closing etc certainly benefited her nomination) but the whole thing is indicative of a bigger problem.

Of course, there's also her own political record to take into account, the fact she hired DWS literally a day after she had to step down from the DNC Chair for attempted antisemitic attacks against Sanders and her Super PAC paying people to post child porn to Bernie Sanders facebook pages which haven't helped her credibility either.

The western world is getting tired of it. We saw it in Greece, in Spain, in Britain (Jeremy Corybn, a borderline socialist, won a landslide victory to lead his party and is set to win it again) and have already seen a far more left Germany, France, Sweden and Holland. America is playing catch up, but rest assured, people have had enough.

Ivysaur August 14th, 2016 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9367414)
The western world is getting tired of it. We saw it in Greece, in Spain, in Britain (Jeremy Corybn, a borderline socialist, won a landslide victory to lead his party and is set to win it again) and have already seen a far more left Germany, France, Sweden and Holland. America is playing catch up, but rest assured, people have had enough.

As a Spaniard who voted for Podemos, I feel I need to point out a massive difference: the US political system is designed to actively punish parties that split up and to make radical agendas pretty much undoable. Let me explain. To begin with, I need to point out that the parties rising in Germany, France, Sweden and Holland are more akin to a mix between Trump and Cruz than anything resembling "left-wing", which is slightly terrifying. In fact, a few of those parties started as reformed neo-Fascist outlets, so i don't think that's something to be jealous of.

Second, the places where insurgent left-wing parties have been most successful (Greece, Spain, Italy) are countries that -albeit with bonuses to the winner in G and I- approportion their seats in a proportional way to the vote. You get X votes, you get X seats (again, there are some distortions, but the base is that). So you actually can afford to vote for a new party. In Spain, the Socialists (the equivalent to US Democrats) got 44% of the vote in 2008 and 47% of the seats. This year, the Socialists and Podemos got a combined 43% of the vote... and a combined 43% of the seats. Fair enough! The US, on the other hand, has a First Past The Post system- or Winner Takes All. Meaning, if the Democrats split their votes according to the primary results (55-45), then the resulting two parties would end... with a combined handful of seats in Philadelphia, California and little else. Ever heard about deranged and hated Republican Paul lePage winning blue Maine twice with 30-odd percent of the vote because the left wing split up their votes between two different candidates? That, in all levels of Government, accross all the country, times ten. And this is exactly why the Labour party is trying to kick Corbyn away, fearing a complete wipeout in the next election if they are seen as "too radical" and moderate voters choose to pick the safer-sounding Conservatives, as it already happened in the UK during the 80s.

Third, not only the US has an electoral system that punishes divisions and parties whose leaders seem too radical (see: McGovern, Goldwater), the legislative system is designed to force parties to compromise, drop part of their proposals, pass wishy-washy bargains and flip-flop inside dark rooms. Why? Because, unlike in European systems where Parliament is all-powerful and appoints and removes Governments (and usually the House-equivalent alone has that power, even if there is a Senate), ensuring that both wings are on the same page and can pass laws without too much trouble, in the US there is a complete, absolute division of powers. What does that mean? That one party with barely 41 senators (which is 41% of just 1/3 of Government) can veto every single bill from ever becoming law - even if the other party controls the presidency and has majorities in both houses of Congress. When you give veto power to such a tiny piece of the system, you are essentially forcing both sides to deal. Even if only one of the two sides becomes crazy (see: Republicans), the entire system is doomed into gridlock forever unless both sides compromise in everything.

In other words, the US Constitution was written to encourage moderate, centrist leaders who can deal in the shadows and who can appeal to the largest share of the population by not looking too extreme or radical, and to encourage a "lesser-of-evils" mindset on the voters. Thus, Hillary Clinton. Hence, Trump is tanking. Therefore, insurgent parties simply cannot grow. The US can wake up, but as long as the Constitution is intact, it won't do much good.

Also good luck changing the US Constitution.

Hands August 14th, 2016 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9368025)
As a Spaniard who voted for Podemos, I feel I need to point out a massive difference: the US political system is designed to actively punish parties that split up and to make radical agendas pretty much undoable. Let me explain. To begin with, I need to point out that the parties rising in Germany, France, Sweden and Holland are more akin to a mix between Trump and Cruz than anything resembling "left-wing", which is slightly terrifying. In fact, a few of those parties started as reformed neo-Fascist outlets, so i don't think that's something to be jealous of.

Second, the places where insurgent left-wing parties have been most successful (Greece, Spain, Italy) are countries that -albeit with bonuses to the winner in G and I- approportion their seats in a proportional way to the vote. You get X votes, you get X seats (again, there are some distortions, but the base is that). So you actually can afford to vote for a new party. In Spain, the Socialists (the equivalent to US Democrats) got 44% of the vote in 2008 and 47% of the seats. This year, the Socialists and Podemos got a combined 43% of the vote... and a combined 43% of the seats. Fair enough! The US, on the other hand, has a First Past The Post system- or Winner Takes All. Meaning, if the Democrats split their votes according to the primary results (55-45), then the resulting two parties would end... with a combined handful of seats in Philadelphia, California and little else. Ever heard about deranged and hated Republican Paul lePage winning blue Maine twice with 30-odd percent of the vote because the left wing split up their votes between two different candidates? That, in all levels of Government, accross all the country, times ten. And this is exactly why the Labour party is trying to kick Corbyn away, fearing a complete wipeout in the next election if they are seen as "too radical" and moderate voters choose to pick the safer-sounding Conservatives, as it already happened in the UK during the 80s.

Third, not only the US has an electoral system that punishes divisions and parties whose leaders seem too radical (see: McGovern, Goldwater), the legislative system is designed to force parties to compromise, drop part of their proposals, pass wishy-washy bargains and flip-flop inside dark rooms. Why? Because, unlike in European systems where Parliament is all-powerful and appoints and removes Governments (and usually the House-equivalent alone, even if there is a Senate), ensuring that both wings are on the same page and can pass laws without too much trouble, in the US there is a complete, absolute division of powers. What does that mean? That one party with barely 41 senators (which is 41% of just 1/3 of Government) can veto every single bill from ever becoming law - even if the other party controls the presidency and has majorities in both houses of Congress. When you give veto power to such a tiny piece of the system, you are essentially forcing both sides to deal. Even if only one of the two sides becomes crazy (see: Republicans), the entire system is doomed into gridlock forever unless both sides compromise in everything.

In other words, the US Constitution was written to encourage moderate, centrist leaders who can deal in the shadows and who can appeal to the largest share of the population by not looking too extreme or radical, and to encourage a "lesser-of-evils" mindset on the voters. Thus, Hillary Clinton. Hence, Trump is tanking. Therefore, insurgent parties simply cannot grow. The US can wake up, but as long as the Constitution is intact, it won't do much good.

Also good luck changing the US Constitution.

I was saying that Germany, France etc are now more left win countries, not that there are new, big left wing movements there. Sorry for any confusion.

The Political system differences are irrelevant to the tides of people who are disenfranchised. Whether or not the constitution pushes moderates is of little value to the millions of Americans who back Sanders, Stein, Johnson or don't vote. The sentiment is still there.

Ivysaur August 14th, 2016 1:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9368033)
I was saying that Germany, France etc are now more left win countries, not that there are new, big left wing movements there. Sorry for any confusion.

The Political system differences are irrelevant to the tides of people who are disenfranchised. Whether or not the constitution pushes moderates is of little value to the millions of Americans who back Sanders, Stein, Johnson or don't vote. The sentiment is still there.

Actually... France and Germany are becoming increasingly right-wing, as moderate socialists collapse and the only upstart parties gathering up angry voters are profoundly right-wing and even neo-fascistic. Not sure where the left-wing idea came from, exactly.

And second, the differences are profoundly relevant, as in a Parliamentary system, Sanders could easily build his own party and win well over a hundred seats in the House without needing to jump into the hoops of the Democratic Party, and Stein and Johnson could have a seat (or a dozen) each and actually get a voice in Congress. In the US, disenfranchised voters can only cry and resign themselves to try and take over a major party in the primaries.

Hands August 14th, 2016 1:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9368076)
Actually... France and Germany are becoming increasingly right-wing, as moderate socialists collapse and the only upstart parties gathering up angry voters are profoundly right-wing and even neo-fascistic. Not sure where the left-wing idea came from, exactly.

And second, the differences are profoundly relevant, as in a Parliamentary system, Sanders could easily build his own party and win well over a hundred seats in the House without needing to jump into the hoops of the Democratic Party, and Stein and Johnson could have a seat (or a dozen) each and actually get a voice in Congress. In the US, disenfranchised voters can only cry and resign themselves to try and take over a major party in the primaries.

Are you honestly suggesting France and Germany, as countries, have more right wing Govts and policies now than they had 10 years ago? You're misunderstanding most of what I'm saying. They have become more left wing countries over time. I never once suggested there are growing left wing movements there, I said they already had left wing govts.

Her August 30th, 2016 8:25 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/31/us/politics/donald-trump-mexico-enrique-pena-nieto.html?_r=0

Quote:

Donald J. Trump will visit Mexico on Wednesday to speak with President Enrique Peña Nieto, a trip that will take him to a nation he has repeatedly scorned as a candidate.

Mr. Trump said on Twitter on Tuesday night that he had accepted an invitation from Mr. Peña Nieto and looked “very much forward” to meeting with him. Mr. Peña Nieto’s office confirmed the invitation on Tuesday and said one had also been sent to Hillary Clinton.

The negotiations for the trip were reported in The Washington Post.

Mr. Peña Nieto’s outreach to Mr. Trump is likely to strike many Mexicans as odd. Mr. Trump has regularly taken an antagonistic attitude toward Mexico in his policies and campaign rallies, saying many immigrants entering the United States illegally from there are rapists and repeatedly insisting that Mexico will pay for his proposed wall along the southern United States border.

He is widely reviled in the country, where the border wall plans revived deep grievances over sovereignty and respect that have historically dogged Mexico’s relationship with the United States.

Politicians in Mexico have largely remained silent on Mr. Trump, though there have been outbursts, including from Mr. Peña Nieto himself. In March, he compared Mr. Trump to Hitler and Mussolini for what he called Mr. Trump’s strident remarks and populism, though he later tried to soften his words without quite taking them back. There are likely to be protests during Mr. Trump’s visit, which Mr. Peña Nieto’s office said would involve a private meeting at the presidential palace in Mexico City.
Quite a lot more in the article itself, but that's the gist of it. What do you guys make of this?

Kanzler August 31st, 2016 4:01 AM

I'm not surprised. There needs to be the continuation of policy on the part of both Mexico and the US since their relationship is so comprehensive with such close trade, economic, and security ties. It's also an opportunity for both parties to gauge the actual positions of one another, filtered from all the public rhetoric.

Her September 12th, 2016 1:16 AM

With the first presidential debate happening in exactly two weeks, do you guys have any predictions about how things will go? Do you think that there will be any real bombshells dropped?

gimmepie September 12th, 2016 1:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harley Quinn (Post 9405252)
With the first presidential debate happening in exactly two weeks, do you guys have any predictions about how things will go? Do you think that there will be any real bombshells dropped?

At a wild guess Trump will yell baseless rhetoric very loudly, repeatedly mention emails and all around be out-debated by Hillary. Although Trump's supporters will likely talk as though he was in every way superior.

I just hope Hilary doesn't sink down to the same level and rely more on personal attacks and bullshit than discussion of political issues... but I don't know if I see that happening either.

Kanzler September 12th, 2016 3:28 AM

Hillary Clinton Has Pneumonia.

Expect relentless attacks upon her fitness to be President.

Thepowaofhax September 12th, 2016 4:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9405384)
Hillary Clinton Has Pneumonia.

Expect relentless attacks upon her fitness to be President.

Oh my god, someone got a disease! Clearly that makes them incoherent and not capable of running the United States. We never had a president like this! FDR was never in a wheel chair, nor did Woodrow Wilson have a stroke in his second term, rendering him paralyzed, those are just loony conspiracy theories made by the Democrats. /s.

The only real reason why this is an issue is because the Republicans and Democrats are having a contest on who's side is the shiniest pile of shit, and they need to put any reason possible on why someone shouldn't be in office. Then again, this has been an issue in politics since Nixon vs Kennedy and will probably not stop any time soon.

Livewire September 13th, 2016 5:34 PM

People are acting like she has Stage IV Cancer or Alzheimer's, it's ridiculous. Although, it does raise an interesting ethical issue between a person's right to privacy, particularly when it pertains to their health, and the ability to be commander in chief sanely and free of any physiological or mental roadblocks. That one time you got sick in the summer on a long and brutal campaign trail has nothing to do with one's mental and physiological ability to be President. Hillary with pneumonia, doped up on Amoxicillin would still make more sane choices than Trump regardless, not sure how that affects one's character or judgment, haha.


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


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

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