![]() |
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:
|
| 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.