2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins] Page 29

Started by Kanzler January 31st, 2016 9:29 PM
  • 53965 views
  • 1240 replies

Nakuzami

Age 24
Female
The Forgotten Crossroads
Seen October 17th, 2022
Posted December 31st, 2020
6,896 posts
12.7 Years
Lol that was a mess (expected and funny)

Maybe it's not too late to get a selfie with Trump and Clinton
"Sure, there're probably infinite dimensions, but I'm with you in this one, so why would I try to find them?"
~Neil Hilborn


Somewhere_

i don't know where

Age 23
Male
somewhere (duh)
Seen June 5th, 2019
Posted March 17th, 2019
Trump interrupted her a lot, and she was respectful and did not. She kept her cool, but I think Trump preformed better overall because he was more commanding and hit her harder on her weak points than she hit him.

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
Trump: "I think my strongest asset may be by far is my temperament. I have a winning temperament."

Trump couldn't help bragging when he was accused of not paying any federal taxes. Like, I get that some people don't like taxes, but did he realize he was practically admitting that he was being sneaky with his tax returns? Despite everything though I don't think any Trump supporters were moved to join team Clinton. I bet the polls will show a small uptick for her though since she was pretty on point throughout.

Kanzler

naughty biscotti

Male
Toronto
Seen April 22nd, 2022
Posted March 11th, 2022
5,957 posts
14.8 Years
His advisers are definitely going to make him practice for the debates next time
George W. Bush practised for debating Al Gore for six months before their first debate. He ain't gonna make it.

Kanzler

naughty biscotti

Male
Toronto
Seen April 22nd, 2022
Posted March 11th, 2022
5,957 posts
14.8 Years
Trump: "I think my strongest asset may be by far is my temperament. I have a winning temperament."

Trump couldn't help bragging when he was accused of not paying any federal taxes. Like, I get that some people don't like taxes, but did he realize he was practically admitting that he was being sneaky with his tax returns? Despite everything though I don't think any Trump supporters were moved to join team Clinton. I bet the polls will show a small uptick for her though since she was pretty on point throughout.
Top percentage temperament. I found it really distracting when he talked about his accomplishments as a businessman. I don't know about what most Americans think, but the debate is an interview for the position of President, not running a business.

I must admit that's true - Clinton might have projected or explained the very stances they are against. But I think Clinton inspired a lot of confidence and projected a lot of strength today, especially for the voters who just aren't quite on board yet.

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire

Age 32
He/him
Madrid, Europe
Seen 2 Days Ago
Posted April 5th, 2023
21,076 posts
16.2 Years
My predictions are that Trump will absolutely destroy Hillary. Even if he has worse ideas, he will still win. I dont think it will even be close because of Hillary's health and Trump... being Trump.
I think my opinion changed a bit... Clinton was definitely better prepared. Trump will need to step it up.
Why Clinton won the debate, in two posts.

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
I must admit that's true - Clinton might have projected or explained the very stances they are against. But I think Clinton inspired a lot of confidence and projected a lot of strength today, especially for the voters who just aren't quite on board yet.
The radio news today was saying that a group of tepid Clinton supporters they followed during the debate felt more energized after and a group of formerly upbeat Trump supporters were feeling subdued.

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire

Age 32
He/him
Madrid, Europe
Seen 2 Days Ago
Posted April 5th, 2023
21,076 posts
16.2 Years
I'll elaborate on it. I think this election will be decided by three groups:

- True undecideds, low information voters who look at TV after Labour Day and can be more easily swayed by slogans, mainstream media coverage and other "gut" instincts.
- D-leaning voters who would have gladly voted for Obama's third term or for Sanders but who feel very "meh" about Clinton.
- R-leaning who happily voted for Mitt Romney four years ago (like, say, Mitt Romney) but who feel like throwing up when they see Trump.

Essentially, the last two groups are pondering voting for "their" natural candidate or abstaining/protest voting Johnson/protest voting Stein. The tightening in the polls these previous weeks seems to have come from a mix of Never-Trump Republicans coming to terms with Teleprompter Trump while a similar amount of Hillary-I-Guess Democrats walked away after Pneumo-gate. And this is where the debate performance may really help Clinton:

- Clinton was generally expected to win (+8, according to pre-debate polls). She pretty much nailed it- she didn't do anything excellent, but she did come across as more experienced, more calm, more respectful and more prepared, which even Trump himself commented on. She even managed to get in a few zingers, whithout ever having to resort to the "tiny hands" lows that Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz were reduced to during the primaries. In short, she looked and acted the part- exactly what she was supposed to. Nothing outstanding, but you didn't have to think twice to realise who was the person on stage with experience on these things.

- Trump was given a low bar- he essentially had to prove that he could play Teleprompter Trump without needing a script on hand. He failed. He fell for all the baits Clinton threw at him, got entangled in fights with the moderator, regurgitated conspiracy theories and even blurted out unbelievable things, like "I don't pay taxes because I'm smart" or "Cheering up for the 2008 housing crash- that's called business", which make excellent advert material. Bonus points for the moment when he said "My best feature is my temperament" and the people at the studio broke in laughter.

As per the result, flash polls gave Clinton a clear win (up to +35 points, as per CNN), and panels of undecideds from swing states (PA in CBS, FL in CNN) gave her an overwhelming victory, even when a lot of participants declared themselves sort of leaning towards Trump before starting. And all of the MSM is talking about Clinton's win.

What is the point here? Well, I'm sure that most of Trump's supporters will feel hit by the debate, but -like Obama's in 2012- will stick on anyway. The key is the three non-rabidly-partisan groups I mentioned earlier. Clinton essentially made a pitch for the undecideds and the soft democrats. Trump talked to people who think that "ask Sean Hannity I swear I told him otherwise" is a good retort to "you lie when you say you didn't support the Iraq War"- and those people are probably already voting for him. Maybe Clinton barely moved the needle in her direction, but Trump certainly didn't make himself any favours. And he is the one who seems to have a lower ceiling of support, while Clinton has the most to gain from embarrassing him on public TV. She is still winning -barely- but winning. If she manages to get some of her softer supporters on board and get Trump's own words to get some soft republicans to give up and walk away, she'll get to Nov 8th much more relaxed than she is right now.

GhostTrainer

Male
Georgia
Seen March 27th, 2017
Posted January 11th, 2017
304 posts
8.5 Years
I think without a doubt, Clinton was the winner of last nights debate. She presented herself in a much more professional manner as compared to Donald Trump. Trump interrupted her from what I counted, at least 20 times, he interrupted the moderator to try to correct him, he tiptoed and did his typical "Trumpsplanation" of things, instead of actually highlighting points in his policies. His actions for the most part last night were very reminiscent of what he did through the entirety of the Republican Primaries, which is good for shock value, but isn't good for actual governing in my eyes. He again was very childish, which is very unbecoming for a presidential hopeful

She on the otherhand, did her best to highlight her points, she was very articulate in her wording, she didn't interrupt the moderator or Trump, she answered the questions asked of her in the allotted time without a moment of hesitation. Which is something that one should expect out of a presidential hopeful.

I've heard people say when I mentioned her state of professionalism and the way she portrayed herself as important factors in a leader, I almost immediately get shot down, which I don't really understand why? If Trump acted the way he did during the primaries and last night's debates during a meeting with a foreign leader (such as the leader of Iran, Russia, etc) do we really think anything of substance would come from it? I at least know with Hillary if she were to act like she did last night, things might move in motion.

Elysieum

Requiescat en pace.

Non-binary
By the lake.
Seen September 8th, 2019
Posted May 1st, 2019
258 posts
9.6 Years
Clinton nailed it.

I haven't been much invested in this race, but I sat down and watched this entire debate from start to finish. It became clear very quickly that Hillary's mind was laser-precise in a way that Trump's 'winning temperament' couldn't match. I didn't like the way she pushed her website as the bible of facts, though. She also laid the courtesy factor on thick, like the way she cloyingly said, "It's good to be with you, Donald".

But other than that, I think she was successful, truly presidential. In some moments, she handed Trump a paintbrush with which he coloured himself as an essentially greedy businessman. She reinforced that his policies would further advance him and the businessmen of his calibre only.

That Trump became abrasive with the moderator was his major downfall, I think. He also totally evaded ownership of the Obama 'birther' lie. And let slip those nuggets about his taxes. Most of his criticism of Hillary was really just rants against the establishment. He kind of treated her as the face of all bad politics ever. A scattershot versus a sniper.

It's also worth mentioning the footage taken after the debate was concluded. Trump and Clinton shook hands and thanked everybody, then their parties showed a disparate image. Trump remained on stage surrounded by his tanned, blonde and slender family while Hillary and Bill Clinton descended to the audience and bowed down to meet the crowd, shaking each hand and talking to them.

Quite revealing, that.

Melody

Banned

Female
Cuddling those close to me
Seen March 4th, 2018
Posted March 2nd, 2018
6,459 posts
18.6 Years
I've always thought that since Hillary was confirmed as Democratic candidate, that it was basically no contest. All Hillary has to do is try just a little bit, and it's evident from this debate that she could really and seriously trounce all over Trump and make him look like a serious monkey's uncle. But she didn't. Sure she definitely fired off a few witty retorts when Trump tried attacking her, but that simply shows her mastery of things. She deflected when she needed to precisely and Trump simply made a bigger ass of himself because he didn't have his teleprompter to help him.

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
Yeah, to any person with a decent understanding of politics and the world and who has even a little bit of critical thinking ability Clinton is the clearly better choice among the two, but so many Trump supporters are people without those basic skills and they're actually going to vote for once. It's frightening. I can't think of a single that that could happen, a single thing that Trump or Clinton could do, that would make them stop supporting him. There's really no stronger belief than the unquestioning faith of the stupidly ignorant.

But to be fair, the whole Clinton team is being pretty dense, too. They seem to think that they've got things locked up because they think that all you have to do is show Clinton and Trump side by side and that's all the argument they need. That kind of overconfidence is going to get them in a lot of trouble if they don't get serious soon. There's like barely over a month left before the election.

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire

Age 32
He/him
Madrid, Europe
Seen 2 Days Ago
Posted April 5th, 2023
21,076 posts
16.2 Years
Of course, they also have decided that the best course is to keep Trump busy with unhinged fights, such as his 3 AM tweetstorm in which he told people (whoever was awake by then) to watch a "sex tape" from a former Miss Universe Clinton baited him with during the debate.

Essentially, the best way for her to win is to invite Trump to keep acting like a total ass. And they found the way with the Khans and are apparently milking it for maximum effect now.

Melody

Banned

Female
Cuddling those close to me
Seen March 4th, 2018
Posted March 2nd, 2018
6,459 posts
18.6 Years
Yeah, to any person with a decent understanding of politics and the world and who has even a little bit of critical thinking ability Clinton is the clearly better choice among the two, but so many Trump supporters are people without those basic skills and they're actually going to vote for once. It's frightening. I can't think of a single that that could happen, a single thing that Trump or Clinton could do, that would make them stop supporting him. There's really no stronger belief than the unquestioning faith of the stupidly ignorant.

But to be fair, the whole Clinton team is being pretty dense, too. They seem to think that they've got things locked up because they think that all you have to do is show Clinton and Trump side by side and that's all the argument they need. That kind of overconfidence is going to get them in a lot of trouble if they don't get serious soon. There's like barely over a month left before the election.
This is true. The Clinton Campaign shouldn't be getting complacent; they've got to swim upstream against the wave of uninformed voters who still adore Trump and won't be swayed.

Of course, they also have decided that the best course is to keep Trump busy with unhinged fights, such as his 3 AM tweetstorm in which he told people (whoever was awake by then) to watch a "sex tape" from a former Miss Universe Clinton baited him with during the debate.

Essentially, the best way for her to win is to invite Trump to keep acting like a total ass. And they found the way with the Khans and are apparently milking it for maximum effect now.
Well yeah they can definitely milk this fact until the cows go home; but if that's all they're doing against Trump; he's gonna pull ahead more than he should be because uninformed voters are actually a threat in this election season; and if Hillary can't clinch off something to say that will properly discredit Trump and make them like her Platform any better then she'll be shocked when we all go to the polls and Trump blows by her like she's standing still. x3

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
Of course, they also have decided that the best course is to keep Trump busy with unhinged fights, such as his 3 AM tweetstorm in which he told people (whoever was awake by then) to watch a "sex tape" from a former Miss Universe Clinton baited him with during the debate.
It's true they can bait him pretty easily, but I think only fairly media savvy, informed voters and young people are going to know what happens with twitter and that a large proportion of his supporters won't even know about it.

Basically I think the Clinton team needs to make her look better to those people who still aren't on board but might be persuaded. That's the only way I think she can win. She's got to get those former Bernie supporters to give up Stein and Johnson and staying home. She can gamble on painting Trump as a force too awful to let win like she's doing, but I think a lot of people don't want her to win either out of some spiteful feeling. Which is understandable. I went through a period where I felt that way. But we can't insist on perfection in a democracy if it means letting the worse of two evils win.

Like, I get the argument that people are making which is that we deserve Trump, that electing him will be a wake up call for America, that it will break the process in some way that will force a change. But in learning more about how much of America thinks (such small) and believes (much conspiracy theory) I don't think America can wake up properly and that trying to break up the system just for the sake of breaking it up is inviting some worse things to take up root in their place.

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
The third reason I'm conflicted is because I'm not sure if Clinton should bother appealing to the Johnson/Stein camp. With only a month to go until the elections, is it possible that some of the Johnson/Stein supporters would coalesce around Clinton anyway, knowing what's at stake? I suppose that's really what's going on in my mind as of the moment.
Given Johnson's second major flub I think there's a chance to siphon off a little of his support.

But it does seem like the debates were good for her. Before the debates they were saying that Trump was leading in Nevada, Florida, and North Carolina and now they're either even or favoring her. I mean, that's just polls, but it does show a slight bump in good news for her. The only thing to worry about is how Trump will "not go easy on her" the next time. Will that work for him or backfire and make him look even worse?

CoffeeDrink

GET WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD

Male
Lootin' Your Poké's
Seen December 4th, 2016
Posted December 4th, 2016
1,250 posts
9.7 Years
I don't know why voting for Trump would be considered ignorant. Sure, he's an ass. So? I have two choices of turkey. I have a Butterball turkey and a Land 'O Lake turkey. I know for a fact that Land 'O Lake makes terrible turkey, so I'll try the Butterball this time around, even though I haven't had it before. It's an analogy that winds up in me still buying the turkey, but a turkey that I have yet to try.

So, this will be Trump's first office holding. Tight. So, can someone explain to me why I should choose someone that has cheated, lied, stolen, covered up, been incompetent, and a whole slew of shady dealings within the last 30 years? We have a concrete record on how Clinton runs and operates. Right? So forgive me when I say that it's pretty obvious what she'll do when she's elected, if she's elected. I've lived through her and her husband's office. I've seen her back things that make absolute zero sense.

So, forgive me if I think I'm going to see what happens when I vote the opposite way. I was always on behalf of the left, until relatively recently (past 7 years). I never really enjoyed either side, both the left or the right, but saw that my opinions greatly differed from the right up until recently.

Seeing really is believing, and what I don't see is Trump supporters shooting at cops, Republicans throwing food at the opposite side, Rep. rioting because another punk ass rattata got shot. See, these are things where I just cant agree with.

She supports some radicals that uphold a Terrorist as their inspiration. So, if #BLM really mattered and really was about peaceful protests then why, in all of holy magics, do you hold a terrorist as a dear friend? Makes as much sense as a peaceful organization holding up Dr. Mengela as an idol.

Congress is still trying to figure out her e-mail mess. Regardless whether or not what she did was considered felonious. She did something she knew she wasn't supposed to do, and handled state secrets, unclassified or no. 33,000 e-mails. I don't know about you but I doubt I've ever read 33,000 emails in my lifetime. Not one of those would be classified?

Trump is racist? Well then she must be too, because her mentor and idol is a former leader of the KKK. Not much to go off of there.

She supports illegal acts, such as staying in a country you're not supposed to be. If I told you to get of my property, and you didn't you'd be trespassing and you know that's illegal, right?

I have heard nothing she has said that has made up for the fact that her incompetence for 30 odd years. Her good intentions haven't made right all the wrongs. The point is this, she has been in a position where she could have genuinely made a difference. Genuinely made better laws. You know what she did instead? Took the money from multiple 'donors' whom had asked her to lobby on their behalf. These 'donors' wanted to lie to all of the American people, because they're 'safe'.

Oh, and I didn't think to call you ignorant, did I? *wink* So forgive me if I choose to vote for a different brand of turkey this time around. It is, after all, just a turkey.

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
I don't know why voting for Trump would be considered ignorant.
Please read more carefully. I said there were a whole bunch of Trump supporters who were ignorant, not that voting for Trump makes one ignorant. Nor did I call you or anyone in particular out by name. Yes, I did make a fairly broad statement, but there are a lot of people in the Trump camp who just plain ignore reality because they don't like it. (I mean, claiming that Michelle Obama is actually a man and their kids are adopted? That's just wacky conspiracy theorizing.) And then there are the climate-deniers and the birthers, of course. They make up a sizable portion.

So, can someone explain to me why I should choose someone that has cheated, lied, stolen, covered up, been incompetent, and a whole slew of shady dealings within the last 30 years?
Don't look at me, I'm not trying to convince you to vote Trump.

But seriously, he's not clean. He's got his own shady dealings. You can claim that they're both corrupt in their own ways. There's a lot to debate there about what kind of dealings are worse. But Clinton is not incompetent regardless of how you feel. She's a practiced politician and looking at her debate performance you can see that she's smart and has the temperament of a serious adult. I don't know why you'd choose the thin-skinned, snake oil salesman over her. Because you don't like her? She's not my favorite choice either, but the country would be worse off with Trump at the wheel.

Also, give up the idea that BLM is a terrorist group. There's no real evidence for that.

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire

Age 32
He/him
Madrid, Europe
Seen 2 Days Ago
Posted April 5th, 2023
21,076 posts
16.2 Years
I'd rather have a woman who keeps a private email server than a person who wakes up at 3 AM to send an insulting tweetstorm at a woman who dared suggest he ever did anything wrong because he cannot allow anybody to say such a thing and walk away undisturbed after that.

Anyway, here is a list of about 200 outrageous and disqualifying things he has said/done: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/07/donald_trump_is_unfit_to_be_president_here_are_141_reasons_why.html

To claim that "they are pretty much the same", then your image of what they are has to be preeeety distorted. Or maybe you think that (scrolls randomly) uhh... "Keeping a collection of Adolf Hitler’s collected speeches in a cabinet by his bed" (what? what the psyduck?) or "Attempting to seize and bulldoze the home of an Atlantic City, New Jersey, widow under eminent domain" is something normal for all politicians.

But thanks! I was mystified by the fact that any sane human being could possibly consider voting for this individual, now I kind of understand why. It's terribly sad, but at least I kinda get it.

CoffeeDrink

GET WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD

Male
Lootin' Your Poké's
Seen December 4th, 2016
Posted December 4th, 2016
1,250 posts
9.7 Years
Spoiler:
I'd rather have a woman who keeps a private email server than a person who wakes up at 3 AM to send an insulting tweetstorm at a woman who dared suggest he ever did anything wrong because he cannot allow anybody to say such a thing and walk away undisturbed after that.

Anyway, here is a list of about 200 outrageous and disqualifying things he has said/done: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/07/donald_trump_is_unfit_to_be_president_here_are_141_reasons_why.html

To claim that "they are pretty much the same", then your image of what they are has to be preeeety distorted. Or maybe you think that (scrolls randomly) uhh... "Keeping a collection of Adolf Hitler’s collected speeches in a cabinet by his bed" (what? what the ****?) or "Attempting to seize and bulldoze the home of an Atlantic City, New Jersey, widow under eminent domain" is something normal for all politicians.

But thanks! I was mystified by the fact that any sane human being could possibly consider voting for this individual, now I kind of understand why. It's terribly sad, but at least I kinda get it.
I wouldn't bring up eminent domain. The Clinton library is a prime example of this. Not only that, but eminent domain has been utilized in over 41 states from 1998 to 2003 (clinton was in office during some of this, by the way) in over 10,000 cases of eminent domain. I advise you to read up on the institute for justice.

Eminent domain also has a few 'new' names that it has gone by as well, such as governmental condemnation and civil forfeiture. The Clinton administration is far from innocent on this one. To say that Trump is solely responsible for eminent domain and that Clinton is clean on this is naive, the IJ proves this. So getting all uppity about this issue is a bit strange considering the Clinton administration has done much of the same thing in the past.

Further more, I would be suspicious of the Condé Nast company, the very same company that publishes such fine rags such as Vogue, teen Vogue, Glamour, Brides, Golf Digest and Wired. None of which are politically rooted to dedicated world news. Further more, Wired alone was crafted by a self proclaimed 'radical libertarian' and Wired used to own Reddit as well, so I know how factual Reddit can be.

This also brings up Slate's reliability, which is notorious for liberal idealism. They have also been criticized for taking stances against wrong or incorrect positions in the past. Publishing an opinion article hardly counts towards factual realism anways. Being criticized on not knowing what Brexit meant is hardly a disqualifying factor. Brexit is a relatively knew term invented to refer to the British exit from the UN, so it would be the same as not knowing what lol or idk or smh means. Not knowing abbreviations and short hand slang as a criticism? So that's now a disqualifying factor for any job application now I guess. That's like me expecting you to know what New Jack means.

They also criticize him for saying 'good job' to Turkey for stopping a coup by the 'Peace at Home' council, a council that began its coup by shooting at police officers. Keep in mind that Turkey is a democratic state. So, they stopped radicals that wanted to cease operating as a democratic state and employed violence to get what they wanted under the guise of 'Peace at Home'. Further even, was that it seems that sole blame of civilian casualties lies on the government itself. Give me a break. Like I said, opinion pieces. That, and I can't find a comprehensive list of sourced from the Slate article you linked me to.

The Clinton administration has plenty of skeletons in the closet, of which have been strung up and used for personal gain under officially sanctioned governmental agency. So I weigh 'which is worse' based upon what I've experienced and what I've learned. Is it worse to have someone whose checkered history hasn't been in office before? Or do I vote for someone who is well versed in the ways of manipulating governmental power for one's own gain?

Like I said, a turkey is a turkey. Both of the candidates are equally poor choices despite what you may or may not believe. They both have bad sides, they both are not ideal candidates the only difference being that I know Clinton has been in office, she's been fired from a political position for incompetence, she's lobbied and used her office for political gain.

She's already abused my trust for years, and I don't feel like voting for her. There's no reason to be overly snide. I just don't feel like voting for someone that has abused their governmental position previously and has shown such disregard to that effect. So what's to say what else that individual might do? I just don't want to find out. Feel free to disagree, but just don't want you to go believing that the Clinton's are squeaky clean.

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire

Age 32
He/him
Madrid, Europe
Seen 2 Days Ago
Posted April 5th, 2023
21,076 posts
16.2 Years
I know that Clinton is not squeaky-clean, that she has a ton of skeletons and that she might be pretty uninspiring to anybody looking for someone "different". But this is a matter of symbolism. Clinton represents politics as usual. Sanders represented an idealistic, clean, principled change looking for equality and redistribution of wealth. Trump represents change too, but a different kind of "chamge": white nationalism, racial profiling, "winner-takes-all" economics, "not paying taxes makes me smart", a very strong personalistic narcissism (which is a very desirable trait in any ruler) and an utter disregard for the basic etiquette of politics.

Between Clinton's éminence grise politics and Sanders' "revolution", the latter is far more inspiring. But between Clinton's blandness and Trump's alt-right takeover, I'd very much prefer the porridge, thank you.

Plus honestly, how can you trust a businessman who manages to make a $916,000,000 loss in a single year?

CoffeeDrink

GET WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD

Male
Lootin' Your Poké's
Seen December 4th, 2016
Posted December 4th, 2016
1,250 posts
9.7 Years
To be fair, a 'winner takes all' attitude might have been needed during '08 when the car companies tanked as well as the banks. She voted to assist the sleazy, greasy business men/car sales persons that failed, horrendously so.

Was it because a fluke? Did these businesses fail due to someone else's fault? No, they were wholly responsible for their own take down. The bailout saw billions sunk into an industry that failed to check itself and passed the buck to you and I. Haven't seen a dime, have you? Clinton also stated she voted for the bailout because she was asked to. Regardless on whether or not Trump backed the bailout or not, she voted in favor of aiding a decaying industry that hasn't paid anyone back fully for their troubles.

Besides, trusting someone who lost money over someone on the take is a bad bet I will not take. For me, it's not really up to much debate, because I'd trust a tinfoil hat wearing homeless man over the well dressed confidence artist any day. I said before, Hillary has proven to me that she's willing to take the bad guy's money so I doubt I'll trust her over another candidate.

Also, as a side note, I do hate to be the bearer of bad news, but a survey-analysis spanning from '96 to '00 found that over 94% of corporate entities owned by US based companies paid 0% of 4% income tax, according to the Wallstreet Journal (Feb '04. GAO-04-358. McKinnon, John D.) So, in hindsight I think that it's still fair to say that the vast majority of all US companies pay little or no federal income tax or any taxes at all for that matter.

So why, out of all the mass of the ocean, should I support a morally corrupt individual that has abused her power of office. She received funds from the banks to lobby for them, she voted to give my money, and your money to a company that failed because their product was inferior to other competitors. Did Nissan, Toyota, Honda, Aston Martin, Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, BMW go limping back to their country asking for handouts? No. She's a known acquaintance to the very same crooks that she claims she's against. I'm still going to stick with the untested candidate. Trump may have lied to me, but he sure as hell didn't lie to me for 30 odd years with the ability to cause serious harm. So again, Clinton is a damn lying liar and I won't have it. I'm through with her and her husband's bullmuk. She represents everything I vehemently despise. She cheats, lies, steals (you brought up ED, so...), takes money from big business, money from pharmaceutical corporations and wants me to think everything is all fine and dandy. So yeah, I feel justified voting the opposite way around this time. I've been burned time and again by their administration and I'm fed up. I may not know what's in store with Trump, but I can imagine what's in store with Hillary, and that's enough for me. Between the two, I dislike one of them so much that despite warnings against it I'm voting for the newbie.

That and Clinton supports terrorism. How, you ask? Well, by taking money from them of course! Why should I trust some greedy troll that accepts cash, cheque or charge from governments that punish homosexuality with death? Isn't that enough for me to warrant a turn in the other direction? She did say she'd help the gay community out right? So why take money from the same people that would lop the heads of the community you said you'd protect? Doesn't make sense to me. Imagine it was me who'd promise to help the Jews, but instead turn around and accept cash from the SS to not help the Jews I said I'd protect. I hope the picture is a tad clearer on my viewpoint on that.

Clinton is seasoned and experienced politician, but an old snake is just as venomous. So yeah, the deals she's made with these people sickens me and I'm not going to vote for someone that has proven to me that she's not afraid to abuse her power of office for personal gain.

Also, fun fact. George Washington embezzled governmental funds.

Hands

I was saying Boo-urns

Age 32
Male
Seen December 15th, 2022
Posted November 23rd, 2022
1,863 posts
6.8 Years
That and Clinton supports terrorism. How, you ask? Well, by taking money from them of course! Why should I trust some greedy troll that accepts cash, cheque or charge from governments that punish homosexuality with death? Isn't that enough for me to warrant a turn in the other direction? She did say she'd help the gay community out right? So why take money from the same people that would lop the heads of the community you said you'd protect? Doesn't make sense to me. Imagine it was me who'd promise to help the Jews, but instead turn around and accept cash from the SS to not help the Jews I said I'd protect. I hope the picture is a tad clearer on my viewpoint on that..
I don't know if you can call Saudi Arabia and Bahrain terrorist groups, I mean their track records are absolutely awful but they're closer to dictatorships than terrorist cells.

Although she has directly supported terrorist cells in the past in Libya, but that's business as usual for the US State Dept now I guess.

I (and I know this sounds strange given our usual relationship) actually agree with you over her behavior, especially when it comes to, as you said, her apparent self championing of LBGT causes and groups. Her piggybacking and prostituting of minority groups and their struggles really annoys me considering her toxic legacy against poc and the lbgt community. A snake in a wig is still a snake.