2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]

[Aliencommander1245]

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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]

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]

Spoiler:

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

 

[Somewhere_]

Spoiler:

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]

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

 

[Somewhere_]

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

I know...

I just want Mcmullin on the ballot in every state.

 

[Ivysaur]

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_]

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.

 

[Caaethil]

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.

I'm nowhere near educated on any of this. I'm just a British guy with my popcorn. Emails and pretty much everything Trump has ever said are more exciting.

You know, I kind of wish our media would talk about something other than the latest [insert group]ist thing Trump has said. Like his actual policies, or anything about Clinton. I feel like the extent of knowledge on this election to the average person in Britain is that Trump is the racist one and Clinton is the not racist one.

 

[gimmepie]

I'm nowhere near educated on any of this. I'm just a British guy with my popcorn. Emails and pretty much everything Trump has ever said are more exciting.

You know, I kind of wish our media would talk about something other than the latest [insert group]ist thing Trump has said. Like his actual policies, or anything about Clinton. I feel like the extent of knowledge on this election to the average person in Britain is that Trump is the racist one and Clinton is the not racist one.

It'd be easier to talk about Trump's policies if he had any.

 

[Somewhere_]

It'd be easier to talk about Trump's policies if he had any.

roasted

his immigration and border are probably his biggest policies. and then probably taxes. And those are the two biggest appeals to him his supporters like.

 

[gimmepie]

roasted

his immigration and border are probably his biggest policies. and then probably taxes. And those are the two biggest appeals to him his supporters like.

That's literally all he has and he's not even got a clue about how to really go about doing either of those things either. This is why people who don't understand politics/economics should not be allowed to be politicians.

 

[Esper]

I'm worried about what will happen after the election if when if Trump loses. He's been so poisonous to the democratic process I can't see his supporters just accepting the result. I fear more of those militia occupations like at the Malheur wildlife refuge, only in more public places. I also fear what it will do for future elections now that this kind of racist/sexist/violent rhetoric has been normalized. Others who decide to run for office and lose might not be content to accept it now that there's a precedent. Trump won't turn to violence because he's got his golden tower and that news media company he's forming, but others might not be so content.

 

[Somewhere_]

Keep in mind that a lot of Trump "supporters" are voting for him to keep Hillary out of office. They wont go violent. The Alt-Right wont go violent, as most of them are pro-democracy and all value nonviolence.

Trump has a large ego, sure. But its absurd to think he would go violent, even if he did not own many businesses.

 

[Esper]

Keep in mind that a lot of Trump "supporters" are voting for him to keep Hillary out of office. They wont go violent. The Alt-Right wont go violent, as most of them are pro-democracy and all value nonviolence.

Trump has a large ego, sure. But its absurd to think he would go violent, even if he did not own many businesses.

But if these people feel like democracy has been subverted? That's essentially what Trump is telling his supporters is happening. And if you look at all the anti-government groups out there, many of whom have committed acts of violence, you can see why I'd be concerned. You've got the people wanting to secede, the people who occupy federal land, and other groups who don't shy away from arming themselves and talking about their belief in government conspiracies. That seems like a bad combination of elements. People who follow ideologies that, at times, have ended in the more violent of them confronting law enforcement (or worse, civilians) with deadly force over much smaller issues (like being pulled over for not have a license plate) are going to be told that an election for president has been stolen, that democracy itself is under attack. Most people won't be violent, but there's been lackluster attempts among the political right's leadership to clamp down on violent talk and actions, and none from Trump itself. Some people are going to get violent and I'm really worried about that.

 

[Ivysaur]

In some way, it depends on the margin. If Clinton wins by 8-10 points, carrying Arizona and even Texas (or finishing within 2-3 points there), plus Utah going for McMullin and the Senate fillping blue, it'll be hard to claim that he lost exclusively because of some shady dealings in Chicago and Philly. If the election ends up being a repeat of 2012 or closer, then you will see the protests. Of course some hardcore Breitbartists will complain about fraud even if she wins by a Reaganesque landslide, but the key is the 60-ish% of Trump voters who aren't voting for Trump but against Clinton. If the margin is wide enough, I don't think they'll complain in such a way.

 

[Somewhere_]

But if these people feel like democracy has been subverted? That's essentially what Trump is telling his supporters is happening. And if you look at all the anti-government groups out there, many of whom have committed acts of violence, you can see why I'd be concerned. You've got the people wanting to secede, the people who occupy federal land, and other groups who don't shy away from arming themselves and talking about their belief in government conspiracies. That seems like a bad combination of elements. People who follow ideologies that, at times, have ended in the more violent of them confronting law enforcement (or worse, civilians) with deadly force over much smaller issues (like being pulled over for not have a license plate) are going to be told that an election for president has been stolen, that democracy itself is under attack. Most people won't be violent, but there's been lackluster attempts among the political right's leadership to clamp down on violent talk and actions, and none from Trump itself. Some people are going to get violent and I'm really worried about that.

Are you aren't being descriptive at all. You keep saying "these groups," "these conspirators," these "anti-government groups." Provide examples, prove that they support Trump, and are relevant enough to be a threat. And prove they are violent.

Anti-government groups do not support Trump. Most anarchists despise Trump, and the few that do, do not want a violent end to the state. I can explain this in more detail if you want because I know this particular community very well.

And if these people are so anti-government and violent, why would they care if democracy is subverted if they do not believe in it? If they are violent, why would they support the government system that showboats its peaceful achievements?

 

[Kanzler]

Are you aren't being descriptive at all. You keep saying "these groups," "these conspirators," these "anti-government groups." Provide examples, prove that they support Trump, and are relevant enough to be a threat. And prove they are violent.

Anti-government groups do not support Trump. Most anarchists despise Trump, and the few that do, do not want a violent end to the state. I can explain this in more detail if you want because I know this particular community very well.

And if these people are so anti-government and violent, why would they care if democracy is subverted if they do not believe in it? If they are violent, why would they support the government system that showboats its peaceful achievements?

I don't think she means anti-government per se, but more like anti-establishment.