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)

Kanzler October 20th, 2016 6:07 PM

[QUOTE=Aliencommander1245;9457982]
Quote:

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

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

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

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

Aliencommander1245 October 20th, 2016 6:59 PM

Quote:

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

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

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

0 October 20th, 2016 7:01 PM

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 October 20th, 2016 7:29 PM

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nah October 20th, 2016 7:33 PM

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

Aliencommander1245 October 20th, 2016 8:31 PM

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

Hands October 20th, 2016 11:23 PM

Quote:

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

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

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

Ivysaur October 20th, 2016 11:33 PM

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

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

Hands October 20th, 2016 11:40 PM

Quote:

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

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

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

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

Sektor October 20th, 2016 11:50 PM

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ivysaur October 21st, 2016 12:02 AM

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

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

Elysieum October 21st, 2016 12:16 AM

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

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

Hands October 21st, 2016 1:25 AM

Quote:

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

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


Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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


Quote:

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

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

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

Aliencommander1245 October 21st, 2016 2:09 AM

Quote:

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

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

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



Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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



Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Hands October 21st, 2016 2:41 AM

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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


Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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



Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Aliencommander1245 October 21st, 2016 5:02 AM

Quote:

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

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

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



Quote:

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

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



Quote:

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

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


Quote:

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

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


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


Quote:

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

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





Quote:

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

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



Quote:

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

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

Hands October 21st, 2016 5:39 AM

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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


Quote:

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


Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Aliencommander1245 October 21st, 2016 4:45 PM

Quote:

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

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



Quote:

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

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



Quote:

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

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




Quote:

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

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



Quote:

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

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




Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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



Quote:

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

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

Caaethil October 22nd, 2016 6:27 PM

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

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

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

Netto Azure October 22nd, 2016 8:10 PM



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

Somewhere_ October 22nd, 2016 8:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Netto Azure (Post 9460275)


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

Alyson Kennedy made the ballot but not Evan Mcmullin?

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

Netto Azure October 22nd, 2016 8:38 PM

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

Somewhere_ October 22nd, 2016 8:41 PM

Quote:

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

I know...

I just want Mcmullin on the ballot in every state.

Ivysaur October 23rd, 2016 12:02 AM

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

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

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

Somewhere_ October 23rd, 2016 6:43 AM

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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


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.