This is a bit of a hot button topic, but it was up on the old forum, so why not here. Keep it civil, respect each other's opinions.
If the poll's open to non-Americans or non-registered voters, "Who would you vote for" might be a better poll. ;)
If the voting was done today, I would write in Ted Cruz. I don't agree with him on everything, but I think there's more similarity there, on what I feel are some of my most important issues, than with most politicians, and I feel this is the only way I can clearly get my point across as to how I feel about the "candidates" both major parties are running. That said, my political views are always evolving. Maybe I'll vote for Rubio.
More or less my current perspective, except I would change my answer on businesses being allowed to deny services to simply "Yes", without qualifications. (http://www.isidewith.com/processing?uid=2553756122#2553756122)
If Cruz had gotten further, I would undoubtedly vote for him.
As it stands, though, it appears my vote will be going to Trump. . . My reasons? Trump is a wild card. He's unpredictable. While that's not necessarily a good thing, that means we don't know exactly what he's going to do, whereas with someone like Sanders or Clinton, we know what they're going to do, and it's not something I want to happen.
Just saying literally everyone outside America is scared of Trump starting WWIII. The British parliament also had a meeting discussing whether or not he should be banned from the UK.
Most of the options in this election are scary.
I'm voting for Trump, and to tell you the truth I'd rather not be. But I can't get behind Gary because he's just running to get the green party noticed, he's not running to win. And that doesn't inspire the greatest confidence in me. As for Clinton I'm one of those people who look at Benghazi, who looks at her Email scandal, and just listens to the amount of lies and media driven bias about things like Global Warming, and I'm disgusted.
I really wish that the Democrats could put a candidate forward that spoke out against these kinds of things. Because Democrats like FDR and John F. Kennedy are the kind of people I can get behind and support.
I'm with Skarzs on initially voting for Cruz and then moving to Trump. And while I'd rather not have a bully as president, its better then the other choices. Besides he does have a background in business, so he might be able to get the U.S foreign deals back on track, which would be great.
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on September 03, 2016, 04:39:25 PM
But I can't get behind Gary because he's just running to get the green party noticed, he's not running to win
Johnson is the Libertarian candidate; Jill Stein is the Green candidate.
It's more than about getting them "noticed" or "getting attention"; if the Libertarian party secures more than 5% of the popular vote nationwide, they'll qualify for federal funding in future elections, taking a serious step towards credibility and becoming a viable option.
I'm not sure what criteria you're using to tell whether Mr. Johnson believes he can win or not. But even if he doesn't, I'm not sure what that has to do with his campaign and whether voters should support it. No third-party candidate has received electoral votes from multiple states, besides segregationists in the deep South, since Theodore Roosevelt. Given the American system's current extreme slant towards a bipolar party system, and the Libertarian party's current state and funding, it would be foolish to think that this is the cycle where 104 years of third parties being crushed is going to be suddenly and dramatically reversed. Sure, I guess it's
possible, but everybody knows it's extremely unlikely, and I don't see how being able to trick yourself into thinking you've got a great chance better qualifies you for the presidency. The most realistic objective for the Libertarians at this point is to win enough support today to help them become viable in the future, and it seems to me that Johnson is going above and beyond to get that done.
Your right, Gary is for Libertarians, not the Green Party, my mistake. But I was right in saying he's just running to get the party noticed, he's on record with Louder with Crowder saying that. And therein lies why I wont support him. He's not running to win, he's running to get noticed, and why should I support someone who is just running to make his party more popular and get federal funding?
Besides you kinda doubled on yourself saying that I should support him because he can't win? Just so the party can have a better chance in the future?
That doesn't make sense to me. :-\
The bipolar party system is just ridiculous to me.
Quote from: Jet the binturong on September 03, 2016, 05:23:16 PM
The bipolar party system is just ridiculous to me.
Which is where Trump comes in. ;D
Trump is a Republican.
Besides I wouldn't vote for Trump if a gun was pressed to my head.
Trump is Republican only by name, and nothing else.
Quote from: Jet the binturong on September 03, 2016, 05:30:19 PM
Besides I wouldn't vote for Trump if a gun was pressed to my head.
Good think you don't have to, then! ;D :P
He's hardly a Republican ideal-wise. ;)
Hypothetically who would you vote for Jet?
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on September 03, 2016, 05:21:35 PM
He's not running to win, he's running to get noticed, and why should I support someone who is just running to make his party more popular and get federal funding?
When you use the word "just" you make it sound like it's a contemptible goal. That really isn't the case, if you believe in breaking up the two-party system.
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on September 03, 2016, 05:21:35 PMBesides you kinda doubled on yourself saying that I should support him because he can't win?
No, I didn't say that. What I'm saying is that whether they can "win" or not is not relevant, given their legitimate chances of getting closer to achieving their objectives by doing well in this election, and that because of this, if you agree with his party's principles, you should support them
in spite of their probable loss. If you really want more than two parties to choose from, then logically, at some point you have to support a third one. That means supporting their growth, because it isn't realistic to hope that one will just pop up, fully mature and ready to take over the country, overnight.
I don't know much about any of them except the prime two candidates, and since a vote against Clinton is basically a vote for Trump, I'd vote for Clinton. I prefer her to Trump, if only slightly.
Some sixty percent of voters say they want a second choice. If Gary had, had the right ideals, the right strategy, and the guts to do it he could've been a viable option come November. It would be a struggle, but he could have done it. Not anymore. I don't think he has those qualities, he hasn't demonstrated these qualities, and his campaign has been lackluster. Which is why I wont support him. Personally.
And I can't get onboard with the idea that I should support him just to make sure there is a third option in the future. Especially when there is a fine option right now. And that's Trump.
I think its perfectly noble to support him, if you think that its the right thing. He seems like a decent guy. And hey, maybe your right and the Libertarians will become federally funded and have a serious chance next election. ;)
@Jet, If your interested in learning more, not that I'd be if I was a Brit, Just look up 'Why should I vote for Clinton?' In Youtube. You'll find some crazy stuff. ;)
You'll find some crazy stuff on anyone on Youtube. Problem is, when seeing that stuff, they're biased in both directions, so you're always gonna get some lies, exaggerations, and omissions of facts.
Bleh. I'm sick of politics. I hate all the candidates and nobody represents my views. Trump is a blustering idiot and hardly a decent Republican, Hillary is a criminal, Gary Johnson is irrelevant and Jill Stein is insane.
The problem with politics: Any decent person wouldn't want to be President, and anybody who does want to become President should never be allowed to :P
Quote from: Wylder Treejumper on September 03, 2016, 06:58:08 PM
Bleh. I'm sick of politics. I hate all the candidates and nobody represents my views. Trump is a blustering idiot and hardly a decent Republican, Hillary is a criminal, Gary Johnson is irrelevant and Jill Stein is insane.
HA HA! That's hilarious.
The problem with politics: Any decent person wouldn't want to be President, and anybody who does want to become President should never be allowed to :P Well put.
My vote, if I could vote, would be for Trump. I honestly don't want Hillary to win because of the loads of scandals and stuff like that, plus he does have some potential.
EDIT: One thing I do like about Trump though is his VP pick Mike Pence. He has shared some great stuff, and his a pretty awesome guy.
/me loves Australia right now.
Ah.
I wouldn't vote for any of these options. . . . . . . . Trump's a pedophile, Hillary's a nutcase, and the other two I don't know and don't care to.
Quote from: Jet the binturong on September 03, 2016, 04:23:23 PM
Just saying literally everyone outside America is scared of Trump starting WWIII. The British parliament also had a meeting discussing whether or not he should be banned from the UK.
There is that. I wouldn't trust Hillary not to, either, though - Oh wait, I
don't trust her. At all. So moot point.
Oh yes, Corn knows some things about politics. ;) Corn just hates discussing them because she has unpopular and unheard-of views.
Quote from: Gonff the Mousethief on September 03, 2016, 10:40:53 PM
My vote, if I could vote, would be for Trump. I honestly don't want Hillary to win because of the loads of scandals and stuff like that, plus he does have some potential.
EDIT: One thing I do like about Trump though is his VP pick Mike Pence. He has shared some great stuff, and his a pretty awesome guy.
Mike Pence is awesome. Except for one case in Indiana, when he approved a bill, and then repealed it. It should have been kept. *Not trying to start an argument here. ;D*
The points made in this thread are interesting.
I was tempted to vote for "Other" and comment, "We're all doomed", but decided to hold off until I solidify my opinion and make a real vote. In the meantime,
Does anyone remember a presidential election that was this, well, bad? I could be wrong, and this is a normal part of American politics. But personally, I don't recall ever having an array of candidates so worrisome. This just exacerbates my dark perception of where the US (and the world in general) is heading. But that's another topic ;)
One thing I've heard is that many people adopt a hopeless perspective about voting and politics in general: the idea that since they're only one person, their actions don't really matter. It's easy to assume that one vote in the sea of ballots won't make a difference in the end. The problem is when many people feel this way. Then, it's not just one vote that's held back, but a lot, and that can make a considerable difference.
I think that's the reason why people say "your vote counts". Not necessarily because one slip of paper will change the outcome (has there ever been an election like that? Serious question), but because by nudging Americans away from this apathetic view, a number of opinions can avoid being stifled.
Quote from: Skyblade on September 04, 2016, 04:26:00 AM
Does anyone remember a presidential election that was this, well, bad? I could be wrong, and this is a normal part of American politics. But personally, I don't recall ever having an array of candidates so worrisome.
You're not wrong. I don't think any of the elections in any of our forum members' lifetimes come close.
Both major parties
have had candidates that are arguably this bad before, but never at the same time.
The last election that I think comes close as far as how odious both candidates are remembered to be would be 1964, and then I think there are valid points to be made for both Johnson and Goldwater being a step above the candidates today.
Quote from: Peony on September 04, 2016, 12:58:48 AM
I wouldn't vote for any of these options. . . . . . . . Trump's a pedophile, Hillary's a nutcase, and the other two I don't know and don't care to.
A pedophile?
Gary Johnson probably seems like the best bet for America.
Trump is a complete and utter idiot, as well as being an insensitive moron. He'd put us on bad terms with so many countries...
On the flip side, Hillary knows what she's doing and can execute it well. The only problem with that is, she is an absolute criminal and I fear what she'd do with her manipulation.
To put it basically, Trump will ruin our exterior affairs while Hillary will ruin the interior.
I won't be eighteen by the time voting rolls around... which is honestly a good thing.
Quote from: Groddil on September 03, 2016, 10:42:27 PM
/me loves Australia right now.
Sadly, given the fact that America is currently the only global superpower, whoever they choose will undoubtably have effects over here, even if we have shifted the bulk of our relations to Asian powers now, specially given our alliance (they are our "great and powerful friend", after all). But I must say I am thanking my lucky stars we have preferential and compulsory voting so we're not in this mess (though I can't say I'm massive fans of either of our major parties). :P
If I had the choice, I would reluctantly vote Clinton. I can't say I like her much, but she's much better than Trump in my view (probably my admittedly left-wing bias there, but hey, I'm trying to be objective here ;)). Honestly, Trump terrifies me, and the amount of influence he has and the fact that he has a legitimate chance of winning is horrifying. Clinton may be uninspiring and questionable, but much less so than Trump. And I would definitely vote, I think in this election more than ever there is basically no choice for anyone who doesn't want Trump to win, and I'm always a fan of engaging in the political system anyway. :)
Quote from: Skyblade on September 04, 2016, 04:26:00 AM
I think that's the reason why people say "your vote counts". Not necessarily because one slip of paper will change the outcome (has there ever been an election like that? Serious question), but because by nudging Americans away from this apathetic view, a number of opinions can avoid being stifled.
In Australia's election this year, there was a seat that was only won by eight votes and they had to recount to make sure they got it right. That turned in to... a 37 vote victory for the Opposition. Sure, that is only one seat out of 150 (in the lower house), but the margin of victory for our current government (well, for the party to form government without needing the help of other non-opposition parties)
was one seat, so you could say something like that happened here. Also, I think the Al Gore scandal proves that votes really do matter, and especially that votes to third parties can have a big influence.
Quote from: DanielofRedwall on September 04, 2016, 08:19:23 AM
Quote from: Groddil on September 03, 2016, 10:42:27 PM
/me loves Australia right now.
Sadly, given the fact that America is currently the only global superpower, whoever they choose will undoubtably have effects over here, even if we have shifted the bulk of our relations to Asian powers now, specially given our alliance (they are our "great and powerful friend", after all). But I must say I am thanking my lucky stars we have preferential and compulsory voting so we're not in this mess (though I can't say I'm massive fans of either of our major parties). :P.
True, but while our politicians are useless, they at least they aren't psychopaths.
I can't vote but if I could it would be for Hillary because she seems like the lesser of two evils. ::)
I liked Bernie but nooo.
This is my first presidential election I'll be voting in. Really not sure which is the better of the two major candidates, but I heard Johnson (this mysterious third candidate) has a shot that most independent party members don't have. I need to do some more research before I get to my final decision, but boy does this election cycle seem bad.
Bernie is a Socialist. Socialism has failed even for Communist China, which has somewhat adopted Capitalism. ;)
So just so ya'll know I really, really, really dislike Trump. But I dislike Hillary more and here's a few reasons why I just can't consider voting for Hillary. BTW I'm an independent voter, with a strong conservative base, but slight left leaning ideals.
These are all facts to the best of my knowledge, and not just opinion. If there is anything provably untrue, please provide links or evidence that say so.
Hilary rigged the game with the Democratic primaries so Bernie couldn't win using super delegates. Basically Bernie won in California, but due to these Super Delegates he lost. They actually have it recorded on video where they just made up the numbers Bernie would get.
She claims to support women, but takes large financial donations from countries that abuse, and stone women. Forcing them to wear full body coverings, or face death. Also those same countries throw gays off of roofs, and some still practice slavery.
She's called Gold Star Families liars. For saying she lied about Benghazi, which she did lie about Benghazi. Claiming the 2012 attacks to be caused by a Youtube video. You know the attacks that happened on 9/11/12. During the Democratic Debate she called the mother of a fallen Navy Seal wrong, insisting the attacks were caused by a "Insensitive youtube video we had nothing to do with." Just watch the movie 13 Hours to get a basic rundown of what actually happened.
She's claimed to be an outsider when she literally is the dictionary reference of a political insider. Married to the former president, and the Former Secretary of State, the head of a Foundation that gets donations from corporations and pay to play special interest insiders, and also foreign country leaders.
She lied about leaving the Whitehouse dirt poor, and having to start from the ground up. You know, the ground up living on the permanent Presidential salary from Bill Clinton plus the money from the Clinton Foundation.
Her best claim to presidency is that she's a women. I always break this one by asking people if they'd be more willing to vote for Trump if he did the transgender thing and became a women. ::)
She's got an obvious media bias, which sets up the massive double standard between her and Trump. And apparently simply disagreeing with her makes one a wide array of different things, all of which are preferably left unmentioned.
Her email scandal, the big one you've probably heard about, where she sent classified documents through an unsecured server, which was hacked, and sensitive, dangerous documents were stolen. To which she lied, and deleted all her emails claiming most were personal or featuring yoga. Deleting I might add, evidence in a investigation which is a criminal act. Lying under oath which is a criminal act. And yet somehow getting away with it, which we can only assume was done by bribes. A criminal act.
I don't know about ya'll, but I find the insensitive, slightly insane, jerk whose name is Trump, to be a little more appealing to the lying, criminal, insider, who just happens to be a women, Hillary.
Of course that's just my opinion. ::)
Edit: James why is the word gays censored?
Are there people who are attracted to/want to vote for Hillary because she's a woman?
Yes. That is probably one of her biggest appeals. Is that she's a women.
One of her main arguments is that she's a woman and therefore deserves to be president. Saying things like "as the first female president of the United States" and then continuing to talk about things which have nothing to do with gender.
But I'd rather have a politically competent criminal in office than a blustering politically inexperienced bully like Trump. Clinton may be scary for America, but Trump is scary for the world.
The fact that Hillary is a woman is not appealing to me. She represents women about as well as Trump represents Americans. I'm pretty done with feeling embarrassed about all of this.
I'd be interested in a poll change to who is voting in the upcoming election, just to gauge how many of us are old enough and will vote, old enough and won't vote, and aren't old enough to vote.
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on September 06, 2016, 01:10:49 AM
Yes. That is probably one of her biggest appeals. Is that she's a women.
No disrespect to anyone who believes this, but I completely disagree.
I'd like a female president sometime too. Not only that, but diversity in ethnicity (we've yet to have a Hispanic, Asian-American, etc. president, although it's great we've had an African American one) would be really nice, too.
But this quality shouldn't be a criterion for voting, in my opinion. If you're voting for Hillary because she's a woman, you're voting for her because of who she is, rather than what she can do. Nobody chooses whether to be born male or female, white or black, this or that. This quality has no bearing on her
abilities, which we ought to be focusing on instead.
Honestly, I'm shocked. Can anyone provide a counterargument to what I'm saying? Because this doesn't make sense to me.
EDIT: I agree with Banya's idea.
During the Democratic Debate, and other press conferences. Which I've watched. One of her best ways to get around serious political questions was, "Well I'll be the first women president." That has everything to do with gender, and nothing, nothing to do with policy.
By the way you'd rather have a criminal in the office of the most powerful person. In. The. World. Because why? Your afraid Trump is going to start WW3? The guy whose chummy with Putin? The guy who wants to fix terrible trade deals with China? The guy whose visited the Mexican president to discuss this wall he's going to build. The guy who built a multi billon dollar company off a million dollar loan from his dad? The guy who wants to stomp out terrorism?
I mean sure its nice for other countries to have a pushover like Obama as America's president, but if things really came down to it. Would you rather the leader of the free world is someone that inspires people. Or a leader that disgusts and sells out her country of the right price? Whose only president because of her gender, and special interest groups?
@Skyblade Thank you Sky, you wont believe how many people write me off simply because I'm a white male. :)
Quote from: Jet the binturong on September 06, 2016, 01:12:16 AM
But I'd rather have a politically competent criminal in office than a blustering politically inexperienced bully like Trump. Clinton may be scary for America, but Trump is scary for the world.
Agreed.
Quote from: Groddil on September 06, 2016, 02:07:01 AM
Quote from: Jet the binturong on September 06, 2016, 01:12:16 AM
But I'd rather have a politically competent criminal in office than a blustering politically inexperienced bully like Trump. Clinton may be scary for America, but Trump is scary for the world.
Agreed.
Second that.
But honestly, guys.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/29/74/43/297443f2c249f7988fbca33aef7b34db.jpg)
Quote from: Ashleg on September 06, 2016, 03:47:04 AM
Quote from: Groddil on September 06, 2016, 02:07:01 AM
Quote from: Jet the binturong on September 06, 2016, 01:12:16 AM
But I'd rather have a politically competent criminal in office than a blustering politically inexperienced bully like Trump. Clinton may be scary for America, but Trump is scary for the world.
Agreed.
Second that.
But honestly, guys.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/29/74/43/297443f2c249f7988fbca33aef7b34db.jpg)
I love that joke.
Same here, mate. ;D ;)
I think that being a female candidate at this time has a whole lot of meaning to many people. We are living in a time where there have been big revivals to movements for women and minorities. This is because these groups of people feel that they are not being represented fairly or not being given equal treatment for various social and economical issues. Hillary has made it a cornerstone of her campaign to appeal to these voters, so I think that it's natural women, hispanics, blacks, and demographics with a history of being treated unfairly would rally behind her. If not for the economic strategy, certainly the social strategy. Hillary has done a very good job painting herself as a candidate for social justice. The fact that it's very possible she becomes the first women president would register as an enormous victory on the social justice front for these people.
On the other hand, you have Trump, who seems to have struck a nerve with a lot of people around the country who feel that America is not as great as it once was. Many people feel that, under the current administration, America has become a country that is weak and a pushover. Which, naturally, makes them really angry. The economic policy that Trump suggests would be one that seeks to keep the country from declining into bankruptcy, and he is someone who is looking to do what a large chunk of the popullation would want to do: make Mexico build the wall, get out of the bad trade deals with China, be more firm with the countries in the Middle East, etc. People are also supporting Trump because he is someone who cannot be bought out. Being a multi-billionaire, bribing or using money against him as leverage has no effect, so voters feel safe in putting their trust in someone who appears less likely to become corrupt. Given the chance that he becomes president, many voters feel that this would be a big step in the right direction to making the country a bigger economic powerhouse and less of a "pushover".
I think Obama's done a better job than people give him credit for.
Yeah he just doubled the national debt, divided the nations racial and ethnic groups even more then they were, and nearly passed through gun control, he also pulled troops out of Iraq leaving the region to be controlled by rebel insurgence groups which we armed, who eventually turned into ISIS. But your right, he did pass national health insurance which has been a nice disaster, and he's allowed kids to leach off their parents until their twenty-five, so we'll give credit where credit is due.
Frankly the best thing Obama did in office was have the guts to give to order to go through with the mission to take out Bin Laden. :-\
I'll say this, as bad as Obama has been he's a little better then Hillary. And for what its worth he was the first black president, and while I think electing someone in so they can be the first whatever is a bad way to judge someone's eligibility, its still a milestone in American history.
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on September 06, 2016, 02:48:04 PM
Yeah he just doubled the national debt, divided the nations racial and ethnic groups even more then they were, and nearly passed through gun control, he also pulled troops out of Iraq leaving the region to be controlled by rebel insurgence groups which we armed, who eventually turned into ISIS. But your right, he did pass national health insurance which has been a nice disaster, and he's allowed kids to leach off their parents until their twenty-five, so we'll give credit where credit is due.
Yeah. . . agreed.
19
trillion dollars in debt. That's a
million million.
@Sagetip
Quote from: Banya on September 06, 2016, 01:23:37 AM
I'd be interested in a poll change to who is voting in the upcoming election, just to gauge how many of us are old enough and will vote, old enough and won't vote, and aren't old enough to vote.
Sure, but I'll change it back in time for the actual voting to begin.
Quote from: Sagetip on September 06, 2016, 11:53:36 PM
Sure, but I'll change it back in time for the actual voting to begin.
Sweet. thanks.
Quote from: Ashleg on September 06, 2016, 03:47:04 AM
Quote from: Groddil on September 06, 2016, 02:07:01 AM
Quote from: Jet the binturong on September 06, 2016, 01:12:16 AM
But I'd rather have a politically competent criminal in office than a blustering politically inexperienced bully like Trump. Clinton may be scary for America, but Trump is scary for the world.
Agreed.
Second that.
The way I see it, it's like this: would you rather have the sneaky, doublecrossing Chancellor Palpatine or the blundering Jar Jar? (Perhaps not the best analogy, but still.) I'd take the guy whose motives and intentions (seem to) have a greater chance of being genuine.
The way I see it, its better to put up with Hillary for four years or however long the prezzers is in office for, then immediately get somebody better. Trump is just... No.
I agree, except Trump for four years, and then someone better. Do you know Trump, how many have his speeches have you watched? How many of his ideas have you reviewed?
Too many. ;)
If I had to pick between Trump and Hillary, I'd go with the former, just because I don't think they'd let him do anything. I find the comparison of Hillary to Palpatine extremely apt.
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on September 07, 2016, 01:19:01 AM
I agree, except Trump for four years, and then someone better. Do you know Trump, how many have his speeches have you watched? How many of his ideas have you reviewed?
Trump is nothing more than a redneck with a lot of money. Hitler gave good speeches too, but I don't think many people would have liked him as the US President.
On the contrary, before Hitler became known as a Nazi villain the Democratic left considered him to be the model of leadership and progressiveness. They also thought Stalin was great, until you know they realized he killed loads of his own people.
And Trump is anything but a redneck. And there ain't nothing wrong with rednecks neither. That's just an insult based off emotions rather then facts.
If you see Trumps track record he's actually a rather interesting extrovert.
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on September 07, 2016, 01:48:30 AM
And Trump is anything but a redneck. And there ain't nothing wrong with rednecks neither. That's just an insult based off emotions rather then facts. He's racist, insults just about everyone, and his claim to fame is that he's rich and a total stuck-up [rat].
Lets not get to vicious here. But how is he racist?
I did just ask that. ;)
@Everyone
Back me up here, guys.
If you are so sure he's racist, then give me one example of how he's racist.
It should be obvious to anyone who can
hear that he's racist.
But anyway...
He makes a better meme than politician.
YOUR CANIDATE, EVERYBODY!
Can you provide evidence. A quote, a soundbyte, a thirty second video showing him doing or saying something racist against any ethnicity.
Not just hurt feelings. I'm serious guys. Anything?
I'm just going to put these here:
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racism-history (http://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racism-history)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83)
There is also this, which is just twisted if I were to put it simply.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/07/opinions/trump-purple-heart-sean-barney/ (http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/07/opinions/trump-purple-heart-sean-barney/)
QuotePeony, Chipster of Noonvale, Jukka the Sling, LT Sandpaw, psybox and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
^^ Well. Politics sure bring us together. To argue. So much fun.
That was a lot of material. The fact that its the Huffington Post and a copy of the Huffington post makes me doubt its legitimacy. And just reading some of the sources cited makes me wonder how this proves Trump's a racist. But I'll keep reading, and if I find anything that actually is a legit source, and shows Trump is racist then I'll come back on and admit you were right. ;)
He's a blowhard, alright, we know. And while we shouldn't judge him for being racist or not, he certainly does have a thing against too much foreign influence/input- Which in a way is good, because if our country focuses more on our own resources, it may improve our economy.
Thanks for the alternative viewpoints, Captain Leo! I still disagree with them though, to be honest.
QuoteI think that being a female candidate at this time has a whole lot of meaning to many people. We are living in a time where there have been big revivals to movements for women and minorities. This is because these groups of people feel that they are not being represented fairly or not being given equal treatment for various social and economical issues. Hillary has made it a cornerstone of her campaign to appeal to these voters, so I think that it's natural women, hispanics, blacks, and demographics with a history of being treated unfairly would rally behind her. If not for the economic strategy, certainly the social strategy. Hillary has done a very good job painting herself as a candidate for social justice. The fact that it's very possible she becomes the first women president would register as an enormous victory on the social justice front for these people.
Personally, I think the idea that Hillary should be voted for social reform is more emotional appeal than anything else. I understand that her election would be a milestone in US History, but at what cost? I would rather have a competent white male in office than an incompetent minority who just got his/her name written in the history textbooks for innate qualities. I'm not saying that Trump is competent, either, but I hope I've made my point. I believe that people need to focus less on this and more on who would do better for our country. Period.
QuoteOn the other hand, you have Trump, who seems to have struck a nerve with a lot of people around the country who feel that America is not as great as it once was. Many people feel that, under the current administration, America has become a country that is weak and a pushover. Which, naturally, makes them really angry. The economic policy that Trump suggests would be one that seeks to keep the country from declining into bankruptcy, and he is someone who is looking to do what a large chunk of the popullation would want to do: make Mexico build the wall, get out of the bad trade deals with China, be more firm with the countries in the Middle East, etc. People are also supporting Trump because he is someone who cannot be bought out. Being a multi-billionaire, bribing or using money against him as leverage has no effect, so voters feel safe in putting their trust in someone who appears less likely to become corrupt. Given the chance that he becomes president, many voters feel that this would be a big step in the right direction to making the country a bigger economic powerhouse and less of a "pushover."
Perhaps, but at what cost? Personally, just watching him speak makes me uneasy. Shouldn't a President be more tactful? I mean, let's think about this. The President isn't just a powerful figure - he (or she :P) is a representation of America. And to imagine Trump, with his ever-changing attitude and coarse language, as the person standing for our country is rather unnerving.
Then again, the same can be said of Hillary, but with different reasons. America, what have we done.
Tactful? The problem with most politicians is that they're too tactful! No straight answer, always changing the subject, deflecting the matter onto someone or something else, and a plethora of other ways of turning the question around to slap the asker in the face or simply kill the query altogether.
Not being argumentative, I'm more of ranting on how politics work. . . (Pah. . . politically correct is an oxymoron.)
QuotePah. . . politically correct is an oxymoron.)
Lol. I almost died reading that. That ought to be a meme, is that a meme I just haven't seen yet?
BTW
@Groddil @Ashleg So last night I spent a good portion of time reading through those articles ya'll presented as "Evidence," of Trump being racist. After a good inspection, and I really scoured those things, my faith in Huffington has now dropped from the negatives, into the even worse negatives.
Nothing on there provides hard evidence due to circular research, improperly quoted individuals, and simply absurd accusations. The best thing that is on there, the best thing, is that Trump said a judge was impartial because they were Mexican. That's racist and rude and I'll admit that. Unfortunately that doesn't seal in stone that Trump is a full blown racist, though it does support that he's rude which I don't think anyone is denying.
Still rude is better then criminal.
As for the Gold Star Family. I was disgusted when this came out, because people for some reason think that this gold star family is allowed to insult, and demine, and falsely quote Trump without him being able to say a thing about it. And then when Trump does come along and deny what they are saying about him. He's racist because they are Muslim? Nah, that's not how it works. Frankly its even worse because a gold star family is calling Hillary a liar and blaming her or their son's death, and she's allowed to tell the world they are wrong, and blinded by grief, and they don't know what they're talking about. But that's fine? Because, she's a Democrat, and the media sides with her.
As for the purple heart thing.... I don't understand how that makes him racist. I think the proper word is. Rude.
Definitely rude and blunt.
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on September 07, 2016, 03:42:03 PM
QuotePah. . . politically correct is an oxymoron.)
Lol. I almost died reading that.
It's true, though! It really is!
I know. ;D
I did a project on Donald Trump for my Media Production course highlighting all the racist and rude things he's said. I can't remember much of it, but one I do remember is a quote from him saying something like "It is a fact that blacks are bad at handling money. I wouldn't trust blacks with my money. The people I want handling my money are the short people who wear little hats."
EDIT: I FOUND THE EXACT QUOTE! "And isn't it funny. I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day."
He also said "Laziness is a trait in blacks."
He refused to condemn the endorsement of white supremacists including a former leader of the KKK.
When his supporters attacked a "Black Lives Matter" protestor at his rally, what did he say? Oh yes "Maybe he should have been roughed up." And the guys who attacked and urinated on a homeless Latino man (and they said they did it because "Trump was right - these illegals need to be deported") who was BORN AND RAISED in the USA? "Oh they're just really passionate." No Donald, that's what we call being a disgusting racist.
Not to mention the fact that whenever he's accused of racism he says "Oh but I'm not racist, I have (insert minority group here) friends" which is a textbook racist response.
And he refers to whole groups of people with blanket statements, calling them "The blacks," "the muslims" and "the Hispanics."
And that is supremely racist.
He's revolting.
Quote from: Wylder Treejumper on September 03, 2016, 06:58:08 PM
Bleh. I'm sick of politics. I hate all the candidates and nobody represents my views. Trump is a blustering idiot and hardly a decent Republican, Hillary is a criminal, Gary Johnson is irrelevant and Jill Stein is insane.
My opinion still stands. :P
Quote from: Wylder Treejumper on September 07, 2016, 09:19:17 PM
Quote from: Wylder Treejumper on September 03, 2016, 06:58:08 PM
Bleh. I'm sick of politics. I hate all the candidates and nobody represents my views. Trump is a blustering idiot and hardly a decent Republican, Hillary is a criminal, Gary Johnson is irrelevant and Jill Stein is insane.
My opinion still stands. :P
I second this.
My only consolation: I won't be able to vote. Thank heavens.
Paul Ryan for President 2020!
The real problem is, that it might only get worse.
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on September 07, 2016, 03:42:03 PM
As for the purple heart thing.... I don't understand how that makes him racist. I think the proper word is. Rude.
Maybe I should've specified, that wasn't to show that he's racist rather than to show that he's sick if he cannot respect his country's soldiers.
He donated a million dollars to military charities. And he tried not to make a big deal out of it until biased media forced him too reveal what he did.
The fact that he said, "I always wanted a purple heart." And Marine got upset about that, isn't Trump disrespecting our soldiers. That's a Marine getting upset about something, which I think is minor compared to other things Trump's said.
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on September 07, 2016, 10:07:15 PM
The real problem is, that it might only get worse.
At this point, I don't think that's possible :P
You'll be surprised.
Quote from: Wylder Treejumper on September 07, 2016, 11:15:43 PM
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on September 07, 2016, 10:07:15 PM
The real problem is, that it might only get worse.
At this point, I don't think that's possible :P
We could do our elections like China, where one party gets 99.9% of the votes for every election. ;)
Well, in all fairness, a one-party state can still have competitive elections; the people in the party simply split into new factions and fight it out within that system.
Now, when you have a nation like North Korea, where 100% of the voters are on record as supporting Dear Leader, then things might be a little bit rigged.
And the opinions still stand!! >:0
Do they even have elections in North Korea? I thought Kim was Supreme Ultimate Benevolent Commander for Life.
That's fine Ashes, I think that's a perfectly noble opinion to have. Honestly its such a toss up between mouthy and sickly anyway. I only go for Trump because we've been on the Democratic slide for far too long now. You can't take eight years of bad polices, and turnouts and still blame it on Bush.
Why not take the canidates and push them somewhere else? ;)
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on September 07, 2016, 11:30:19 PM
Do they even have elections in North Korea? I thought Kim was Supreme Ultimate Benevolent Commander for Life.
They have elections for the lower positions. I
think they do for his position too. He (and the officials in lower positions, for that matter) just win with unanimous approval every time.
Quote from: James Gryphon on September 07, 2016, 11:33:23 PM
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on September 07, 2016, 11:30:19 PM
Do they even have elections in North Korea? I thought Kim was Supreme Ultimate Benevolent Commander for Life.
They have elections for the lower positions. I think they do for his position too. He (and the officials in lower positions, for that matter) just win with unanimous approval every time.
Well I guess that is to be expected.
The ballot the voters are faced with has only one candidate to choose from. You're allowed to vote "No" by crossing out the candidate's name with a red pen, and putting your ballot in the "No" box. It's worth noting that election officials are there watching you while you make your vote.
It's described more accurately as a "political census" than an election.
A true Democracy. Good thing we here in America are a Republic and use the Electoral College. ::)
Quote from: Ashleg on September 07, 2016, 11:32:49 PM
Why not take the canidates and push them somewhere else? ;)
Because then we'd have to touch them. :P
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on September 07, 2016, 11:44:40 PM
A true Democracy. Good thing we here in America are a Republic and use the Electoral College. ::)
You say that as though you don't support the electoral college?
I resentfully support the electoral system. Kinda how I support Trump actually.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Hammer_and_sickle_red_on_transparent.svg/2000px-Hammer_and_sickle_red_on_transparent.svg.png)
PUT THAT THING BACK WHERE IT CAME FROM OR SO HELP ME...
I am old enough to vote, for the first time in a presidential election, but I don't like either candidate.
Hillary is a disgusting liar. I've seen video compilations of venom and garbage spewed from her. Her terrible policies and scandals are numerous and famous. It's honestly a wonder that she is even allowed to run. Any normal person who has done what she has would be locked up at this point. I can't think of more than one or two people I trust less than Hillary Clinton. Both of them are drug addicts and currently in prison.
Trump is not qualified or prepared for the most powerful position on earth. People initially took his campaign as a joke, and at times it seems as though he takes it as a joke to. His public statements often are cringe - worthy and the fact that he's a frontrunner is a mystery to me. He is very insensitive to the minorities, and if allowed to run the country unchecked we would either have incredible success, or we would get into world war 3. With Trump it's just hard to imagine an in between. However, his power won't be unchecked, so I could stand behind a Trump presidency.
I'm still making up my mind, but I'm leaning towards Trump, because even though the words that come out of his mouth are crazy, I can believe that he really means what he is saying.
Who should I vote for? ;D
The reason Hillary is the best presidential candidate
@Fatch of Southsward I think you can guess who I'd say. But if anything could tip your choice, it would be Mike Pence for VP; because that guy is great. He's a great counterbalance for Trump's crazy. And should anything happen to Trump, then Mike would make a wonderful, if a bit unenergetic president.
Quote from: Groddil on September 08, 2016, 12:21:07 AM
The reason Hillary is the best presidential candidate
Yes!!
She has a sense of humor!
And Fatch thought Trump was often cringe-worthy? Hilary makes me want my face cave in until I'm nothing but a black hole.
That wasn't Hillary. That was an actor.
I know. I'm talking about real life.
Can never tell. ::)
With Trump I can but Hillary's actors always look like her.
Still think Bernie's the best, however.
((Or how 'bout we just go back in time and get Abraham Lincoln?))
Quote from: Groddil on September 08, 2016, 12:21:07 AM
The reason Hillary is the best presidential candidate
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHSHSYAHA
Quote from: FatchWho should I vote for?
My question as well. I don't know who's the lesser of two evils.
How are the third party candidates? Not that I'll probably vote them; it seems unlikely they'll win. Perhaps I could do what James suggested and support them in the hopes that they become a bigger thing later.
However, what are they like? I don't know much, other than that Gary Johnson (the Libertarian candidate) doesn't know what Aleppo is.
I'll give the new poll the weekend, then choose a new presidential topic.
Quote from: Skyblade on September 09, 2016, 04:44:13 AM
Quote from: FatchWho should I vote for?
My question as well. I don't know who's the lesser of two evils.
Instead of picking the lesser of two evils (Which is darn near impossible nowadays) why not just not vote? Really, is it so ingrained in y'all's brain TO vote that NOT voting isn't an option?
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on September 07, 2016, 11:58:09 PM
I resentfully support the electoral system. Kinda how I support Trump actually.
If it worked like it's supposed to I might think it was a good idea, but it doesn't.
Quote from: Skarzs on September 08, 2016, 01:15:10 AM
Hilary makes me want my face cave in until I'm nothing but a black hole.
Well hey, lookit the bright side! She might not even last until November. If she does, well, I don't think she'd last much longer. My question is what the heck are they planning.. . .
Also, guys, why does your vote have to be Clinton or Trump? If you have to vote, why not take a vote away from either of them? They're both dirty, cheating liars.
Because we have an Electoral college who will vote, whether we vote or not. And while Trump is rude, and pompous and a bully. He's not a criminal, who kills his enemies, and sells out his country, and is a pathological liar. Because that is what Hillary is, and also because I have the right to vote as an American citizen and if we don't exercise these rights, like the Second Amendment, and the First Amendment we'll lose these rights.
Well, I'd like to point out that "pathological" is not the same as being a "psychopath" or "sociopath". It means "involving, caused by, or of the nature of a physical or mental disease". It can also be informally described as "compulsive".
Hillary is not a compulsive liar, that is, someone who tells lies just for the sake of it. Everything she does is calculated towards getting better results for Hillary. I firmly believe she is amoral, and it's likely she does possess psychopathic tendencies, but that's not the same thing as being a "pathological" liar.
(Incidentally, Politifact's review of Donald Trump's statements (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/) more strongly make the case that he could be a pathological liar, as he's recorded as making more false statements than true ones, even when his lies are easily disproven and it seems like he could get along as well by just spinning the truth like everyone else does. However, I'm inclined to believe that Trump's dishonesty, like Hillary's, is strategic, and that he's simply playing to his base, most of whom have already bought into the narrative that Trump is an unusually honest man by virtue of his being politically incorrect, and simply won't listen to any argument that proposes the contrary.)
Kitsune for president 2K16
Quote from: Peony on September 09, 2016, 03:36:07 PM
Quote from: Skyblade on September 09, 2016, 04:44:13 AM
Quote from: FatchWho should I vote for?
My question as well. I don't know who's the lesser of two evils.
Instead of picking the lesser of two evils (Which is darn near impossible nowadays) why not just not vote? Really, is it so ingrained in y'all's brain TO vote that NOT voting isn't an option?
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on September 07, 2016, 11:58:09 PM
I resentfully support the electoral system. Kinda how I support Trump actually.
If it worked like it's supposed to I might think it was a good idea, but it doesn't.
Quote from: Skarzs on September 08, 2016, 01:15:10 AM
Hilary makes me want my face cave in until I'm nothing but a black hole.
Well hey, lookit the bright side! She might not even last until November. If she does, well, I don't think she'd last much longer. My question is what the heck are they planning.. . .
Also, guys, why does your vote have to be Clinton or Trump? If you have to vote, why not take a vote away from either of them? They're both dirty, cheating liars.
Simple: If you don't vote then that's one less voter voting for the better candidate, whoever you believe that to be. Every vote counts, and your vote could have helped to change the outcome.
As to why vote for Trump or Hillary, also simple: One of them is going to win. Most other people in the country will be voting for Trump or Hillary, therefore if you vote for neither of them, you're one lost vote for the candidate you find least objectionable.
Quote from: Thomas JeffersonWe in America do not have government by the majority-- we have government by the majority who participate... All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
@Peony: ^^
But we use the the electorial system. Who says they vote for who they're supposed to?
So called "Faithless Electors" are extremely rare. We are currently debating the virtues of the electoral system in my We the People class (My favorite class, BTW), and very few have ever occurred throughout history. The last one I can recall was an elector from North Carolina in 1968 that voted for George Wallace. The electoral system has its own problems, but faithless electors are just about the least of them.
Can Americans move for a vote of no confidence?
@Jet the binturong: ...As in, get rid of the current candidates? Or to remove the President from office?
Remove the president from office.
Congress has to do that, via impeachment and conviction. It basically never happens unless the president is a confirmed criminal, and no president has ever been removed through office by this process (unless you count Nixon, who resigned before that could happen because his removal was certain).
If it was up to the citizens, there'd be non-stop recall elections.
Would that be such a bad thing?
Regardless of whether I vote, it's highly likely that either Trump or Clinton will take office. It makes sense to determine who would be less destructive and support that candidate, to do my part to prevent the worse from winning.
A counter argument may be that I have only one vote and it doesn't matter anyway. But I can do more than checkmark a ballot. For one, I can spread awareness, bringing my insight to others. My influence may not be that much, but that doesn't mean I won't use it.
Mod: Kit: Once was enough; this is a serious thread. Don't post if you don't have anything new to say.
Quote from: James Gryphon on September 07, 2016, 01:21:48 AM
Too many. ;)
If I had to pick between Trump and Hillary, I'd go with the former, just because I don't think they'd let him do anything. I find the comparison of Hillary to Palpatine extremely apt.
You don't know the half of it. Clinton and Palpatine are both INTJ's according to the MBTI. As an INTJ myself, I'm not sure how to feel about this. :-\
Personality doesn't pertain to the decisions you made that got you where you are now. I'm an INTJ (and ISTP- it fluctuates) too.
Quote from: Skarzs on September 12, 2016, 03:23:35 AM
Personality doesn't pertain to the decisions you made that got you where you are now. I'm an INTJ too.
Ditto. We may be the same personality type, but that doesn't mean anything. I'm pretty sure that that doesn't automatically make us psychopaths/Meme Queens.
Has anyone else heard Hillary Clinton collapsed and has pneumonia and other health developments?
She may be dropping out of the race...
This could actually be a good thing for the democratic side. Her scandals held her back a lot. If Biden replaces her, and it's rumored he might, more people might be willing to back him.
This could be interesting.
Why wouldn't Bernie just come back since it was rigged anyway?
Republicans have loathed Hillary with a fervency earned by few others in the party's history. That said, they owe her this much, in that she's the only candidate the Democrats were likely to have put up that could lose to someone like Donald Trump.
For that matter, I think Trump's the worst candidate the Republicans could have picked to beat Hillary. Both candidates are very fortunate to be facing each other.
I'm not sure I see Vice President Biden running. I think he would beat Trump without too much difficulty, but after 8 years as veep and with his son having passed away, I suspect he'd like to spend the rest of his golden years with his family. Sanders seems to be the best other candidate, given that he did run and picked up a lot of momentum, plus polls well against Trump.
That said... if she's nothing else, Hillary's two things: power-mad, and a survivor. I don't see her ever quitting over something like health issues. She would have to be forced out, and I doubt that will happen.
New poll.
The problem I see with Hillary's health issues is that Tim Kaine isn't a bad enough guy to discredit from being President. He'd be lackluster, and nothing big for America, probably continue along the same lines as Hillary and Obama, but he hasn't been shown to be a huge marvel of villainy that Hillary has been. Maybe he just hides it better I don't know.
So I think enough Democrats are willing to force Hillary into office just so she's the first women president, then when she keels over they're fine with having Kaine take her place.
Personally I think that is horrible, but to be perfectly honest I wouldn't mind the same for Trump and Pence...
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSR9YSrvFTchZknyBRgkbnSFV9369viGmyKpfowU1T0DwrHWNje)
Quote from: Fatch of Southsward on September 12, 2016, 05:49:39 AM
Has anyone else heard Hillary Clinton collapsed and has pneumonia and other health developments?
Heard it? By this point in time I'm surprised everyone doesn't know.
New poll.
Ted Cruz is an incredible man, and it's unfortunate that he didn't get further.
(Paul Ryan for President!)
The debate is happening on soon, anyone else going to watch? I'm going to be on discord too if ya'll want to talk while its going on.
Go Trump!
Yeah, my family and I are going to try to watch it.
Unfortunately, it looks like it's going to be on at the same time as the Stars' first preseason game, so I don't know if I'll be able to listen... ;)
More seriously, debates are really only for people that might change their mind. I can't imagine anything likely to happen that could compel me to willingly vote for Hillary, so there's no real point in my listening to her 'debate'. I might listen to it if I want to think about giving Trump a second (or third, or fourth, or fifth...) chance, but the damage has been done; what he says now won't change what he's already said. Mainly, I'd just be listening to see if he says anything else stupid or outrageously offensive, to consider in my bag of 'evidence' when I decide whether to vote for him or protest vote, and I know the negative news stories and sound bites that I anticipate coming forward in the next few days will be able to hook me up with that information without me having to spend however many hours listening to him.
My big "why you shouldn't vote for Trump" is that he doesn't understand why we don't use our nukes. He's literally said that he wants to nuke the Middle East.
Hillary, on the other hand, has not said she wants to nuke the Middle East.
I wouldn't go so far as to say go Trump, but may the least awful candidate win. :P
This debate is getting heated, and Trump keeps roasting Hillary.
EVERYONE LIKES CRUZ when I think if we have to have one of those guys it'd be Trump but that's a have, I'm certainly still hoping Hillary gets some fire and roasts Trump.
HE SHOULD FEEL THE BERN EVEN IF IT'S NOT COMING FROM BERNIE....
and I'm sorry, but Cruz seems too... :/
Too conservative for you, eh?
I cringe when these people start interrupting each other and the moderator.
I know, I feel so bad for Lester.
Quote from: James Gryphon on September 27, 2016, 02:59:17 AM
I cringe when these people start interrupting each other and the moderator.
Because you're a mod yourself? ;)
Quote from: Søren on September 27, 2016, 03:36:37 AM
Quote from: James Gryphon on September 27, 2016, 02:59:17 AM
I cringe when these people start interrupting each other and the moderator.
Because you're a mod yourself? ;)
I thought he was talking about me when I first read his post. :0
Quote from: Søren on September 27, 2016, 03:36:37 AM
Quote from: James Gryphon on September 27, 2016, 02:59:17 AM
I cringe when these people start interrupting each other and the moderator.
Because you're a mod yourself? ;)
;)
It just strikes me as dreadfully disrespectful of the rules which they've agreed to, as well as the others involved in the debate. I wouldn't be opposed to shutting off the candidate's mike when they start going over. The candidates might grouse for a little bit, but I think they'd get with the program eventually.
On the first debate: Trump's campaign manager Conway, who seems to be as hyperbolically gifted as her boss, claimed a few days ago that Donald Trump was the Babe Ruth of debating. I guess I can understand why she'd think so; after all, the saying goes that Babe struck out more than anyone else in baseball.
Hillary Clinton isn't very likable, honest, or even a great debater in her own right, but she at least lives in two dimensions. Donald Trump is like a particularly basic video game boss, who repeats the same moves over and over and doesn't pay any heed to the context of the fight.
From the part of the debate I saw (most of the first half of it) before it got too painful to keep listening, overall Hillary had the edge.
I did not appreciate Trump's performance in this debate. I suppose in the beginning he did fine, keeping true to his basic ideals. Yet somehow later on he kept falling for her traps, and talking about stuff he shouldn't be talking about. I don't think he lost, at least not horribly, but certainly didn't win.
I couldn't believe the amount of lies that were pouring from both of their mouths though, and the sheer idiocy. To Trump's credit, I don't think most of those were intentional, he just has a problem being seen as bad in the slightest, so be blubbers half truths to cover it up, and he kept forgetting the questions, going off on bunny trails about how great his company is. Honestly that's not a bad thing to hear once in the debate, but after the fifth or sixth time it got a little old.
He really should have focused more on where he was winning, when Hillary charged him with not paying federal taxes, he should have attacked her right back about the emails and how she covered them all up. He should not talk about how it makes himself smart finding loopholes in the national law. Sure it makes him smart, but that's not what people want to hear, God.
And lord, he should never have said anything about temperaments, I have no idea what his strategy was there, but nah, not a good plan.
So Trump did some things right, he defended the rights to individual citizens, he promised at least three hundred times to bring back jobs, and he made it clear he wanted to get more law and order, and use that to help build up the inner cities. He didn't dive headlong into the race issue, a huge bonus there for not saying something stupid about that, and I think he might have won some black voters, so good for him.
As for Hillary, well she played this like a Politian, which might have been good for Trump if he hadn't been trying to play it as a Politian. Her main strategy was to dodge the questions by listing off a bunch of things she'll do for people, and then spouting some media driven lie about Trump. Or she'd make some sort of blab about Trumpeconomics, Trumpthis, and Trumpthat This would reel him in, and Trump would do a fairly good job of defending himself, but then would have no time to attack back. One could tell from how the audience acted she had a lot of supporters in the room so she was playing on the home field, and I'd say that the moderator was definitely helping Hillary out.
While she was as dishonest as always, she certainly did a better job of it then Trump. She fought a losing battle over the Iraq war B that they kept bringing up though. I don't understand why they are both so against it, but whatever, an appeal to some voters I guess. I hate that Hillary mentioned a fact checker on her website. This was a terrible move on her part, and she definitely should have mentioned how it wasn't her website, but on someone else's, and how they set it up to keep both candidates honest. No one is going to trust a fact checker, on the website of the biggest liar in America. That was a seriously bad move on her part. Also the way she kept going on about how financial professionals had looked at their two plans, and detailed that hers was better and his would cost jobs. That's just not honest, and its an appeal to those who weren't actually going to take the time to look at her plan, which is practically the same thing as Obama's, and look where that got us. Lots more debt. To put it plain financial experts have looked at both plans and have agreed that Hillary's will keep us steadily going downhill, and they aren't sure where Trump's will take us. But it isn't fair to say her plan wont add any debt, because that's ##:1046 and she certainly shouldn't raise the minimum wage, because that isn't going to help anything. Making college debt free would be a disaster, and claiming these things boost the economy is a downright fib, and they have been proven in every other country -that's tried it- to be a failure.
And honestly, they have absolutely no idea what either of them are talking about when it comes to Cyber security. I was just waiting for one of them to say something like, "This is an issue that the US can deal with like any other, I'll rely on our leading edge technology, and the loyal American professionals to help deal, and stay ahead of this problem."
Instead they just went on rants about how they'd do a better job at the head of this, and how their opponent would fail the nation.
Over the course of this debate I wanted to stab my eye out several times, both of them were almost intolerable, I'm just glad I was able to get through it without losing support of Trump. I really expected better from him. And Hillary was just lying and needling her way through it the whole time, so she probably didn't lose any voters, but I don't think she would have gained any either.
To tell you the truth James, Gary Johnson the social justice warrior is looking a lot better every day. You might have something going there, though he's not much better, I'll keep an eye on him.
That's just some of my thoughts from the debate. What'd ya'll see? Anything I missed or you disagree with?
Totally agree.
In the words of Trump, the debate was a disaster. However I'm still supporting Trump because there is no way I will let Hillary get in the white house. Gary wouldn't be that bad, but I still disagree with him on some important issues... Anyways, here is my political stances http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/2620174261 (http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/2620174261)
Donaldo wants to use nukes. Vote for someone who doesn't want to use nukes. Also Hillary's already been inside the White House, she's the wife of a former president. Meanwhile good ol' Trumpykins is a liar, a bully, a sexist, a racist and quite possibly a rapist (and frankly, I wouldn't put that past him).
Did you see the way he was holding his daughter in that one picture? A pervert if I ever saw one. There was a huge PSB on Reddit too.
I mean, he said if Yvanka wasn't his daughter that he might date her. Like, that is so not an okay thing to say.
*adjusts microphone, sips water*
@Jet I don't want to get into get into a argument or anything... But I couldn't disagree more.
Everything I've said has been factually correct (if you're talking about the rapist thing, his ex-wife accused him of it). You can look it up if you want.
Yet you support Hillary? Oh yeah, Here's her acomplishments:
• Flunked the D.C. Bar Exam.
• Was removed from her House Judiciary Committee staffer job because of incompetence and lying.
• The Whitewater scandal.
• Married a serial liar and cheater
• Lied about "sniper fire" in an attempt to simulate exposure to danger in a war zone.
• The subject of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" that led to the impeachment and disbarment of her husband
• Took crockery, furniture, artwork and other items from the White House — had to return and/or pay for them.
• Said "what difference, at this point, does it make" about four brave people killed in Libya as a direct result of her failure to protect them on the anniversary of 9/11.
• Totally ignored the structure and rules for the handling of sensitive national security information.
• Amassed a personal fortune with "speaking fees" and payments from private sector political donors and foreign governments into transparent "foundations" in obvious exchange for future political favor.
And were just scratching the surface.
I think both candidates are bloody awful. I'm glad I don't live in the US.
-Things I wish I could say
About the last one: Trump hasn't exactly been legal with his foundation either. He's used money for himself on multiple occasions, and it's obvious that he's not exactly responsible with the money he already has.
Yeah, he's not very good with his money... He only has 10 billion dollars.
He's also described forcing people out of their homes as good business and said that avoiding tax makes him smart. He's not published his medical history, yet he demands it of Hillary, and has not published his full tax returns. Then there's the fact that he knows nothing about politics.
Hillary may be a horrible politically, but Trump is horrible politically and personally.
Hillary also threatened one of Bill Clinton's rape victims to keep her silent. You think she isn't horrible personally?
And Jet, Trump said in the debate that he thinks nukes are one of the greatest threats to America, so this fear mongering you're trying to spread isn't true. He isn't going to go around launching nukes at anyone.
He's built a great company, its an amazing company, he's built an amazing company, and let him tell you, he is very proud of it, its an amazing company, let him say this, its a great company, a massive company, he's very proud of it..."
I'll say this, when he gets elected I hope he never goes to a UN meeting.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/03/donald-trump-asked-why-us-cant-use-nuclear-weapons-if-he-becomes/
I don't trust a word that comes out of that man's mouth. He constantly denies things that he's been recorded saying on video, he said that women should be punished for abortions and then changed his mind two hours later, his record of backtracking his more controversial statements (and for Trump, that's saying something) is incredibly consistent.
So Trump never said he was going to use nuclear weapons. Even in that article it never says anything about him wanting to use weapons. He asked why couldn't we use them? Which is a totally legitimate question. If someone attacked the US why shouldn't we use our most powerful weapons? That's debatable sure, but he never said anything about wanting to blow everyone up.
As for the inconsistency part, I'm not going to fault you on this because you're aren't American, but saying that is like saying, "I'm going to vote for Hillary because Trump told a lie." You can't fault one candidate on being inconsistent, when the other one is just as bad. Hillary has been on both sides of almost every issue.
I personally find it alright to fault Hillary on the lies she tells, because her lies have cost American lives, whereas Trump's lies simply make him look bad.
Perhaps Trump's lies have not harmed people, but his actions certainly have. He's deliberately driven people out of their homes and plunged people into serious debt and called it good business. He's refused to condemn the support he receives from the KKK, he's tried to make excuses for people who beat up and urinated on a homeless Latino man because "Trump was right" and said that "some of [his] supporters are just really passionate." That's not passion, that's out and out racism.
Hillary may be part of the establishment, but all she wants to do is maintain the status quo. Trump, on the other hand, wants to change things for the worse.
Give me proof.
I made several statements, what, specifically, do you want proof of?
I have several problems with you reasoning Jet.
First off you list all these horrible things Trump may or may not have done. Right after saying Trump might not have harmed people, but he's done this, this, and this. Okay, except Hillary has cost American lives! Her terrible policies helped create the mess that is the Middle east right now. This status quo that's perfectly fine, is continually rising debt, and a shaky unhappy America. She is incapable of calling ISIS radical Islam for crying out loud.
And have you seen on youtube what some of her supports do to people, who are just trying to have a debate? No? Well then here ya go. Just watch two minutes.
Spoiler
And this isn't even close to the worst things her supporters have done, this violence isn't one sided. I'm not going to deny there are some idiots on Trump's side, but you can't fault Trump over something he had no control over. Actually, there has been more violence from Hillary's side believe it or not.
And as for the KKK thing, did you know there is another racist group voting for Hillary and she hasn't condemned them. Once again you can't fault one candidate for something, when the other is doing the exact same thing.
I actually said that Trump has harmed people. Driving people out of their homes and placing them in massive debt is pretty likely to kill them.
It wasn't just Clinton who messed up in the Middle East, it was pretty much all higher-ups in the American government at the time. Let us not forget that it was the CIA who helped to start Al Qaeda during the Cold War in an attempt to prevent the spread of Communism (Al Qaeda literally meaning 'the base' as in the database of extremists the CIA could use) and continued to supply them with weapons even when their conflict started. Heck, to this day, America still funds and arms Isis (though they use the Saudi government as a proxy).
The violence isn't one-sided, no, but from what I've seen it is more severe on Trump's end (aforementioned incident with the Latino man, that video of that man being beaten up, thrown to the floor and dragged out of the rally by his throat, etc.). Trump himself has talked about violent things he wants to do to his political opponents. And while Trump may not be responsible for the attack on that Latino man, he refused to condemn the people that did it and instead decided to make excuses for them.
I've found evidence of Hillary herself saying racist things, but no evidence that she's backed by racists. Unless you're referring to her backers that killed people during BLM protests in Ferguson?
QuoteI've found evidence of Hillary herself saying racist things, but no evidence that she's backed by racists. Unless you're referring to her backers that killed people during BLM protests in Ferguson?
Oh, maybe that.
And I am also referring to the Black Lives Matter organization, which is a racist group, that promotes racist ideas. Such as when they stopped a white girl from entering a pubic library where they were holding a meeting, just because she was white. And all of their protests where they've attack people of differing races, for no reason, other then the crime of being born white.
So yeah, she hasn't asked them to stop voting for her.
And putting people in debt, is
no comparison to actually being the cause of people's deaths. Hillary's lies have caused deaths. How do you compare putting people in debt, which is business strategy that businesses try to do, with being the cause of someone's death? How do you justify that?
There is also a conspiracy that she's had peopled killed for her political agenda, such as the Whitehouse doctor that illegally released some of her medical secrets, who was found a week later in a park with a bullet in the back of his head.
Unproven, but still suspicious and nasty stuff.
Oh yeah, America does send money to those countries, and that's the kind of thing Trump wants to stop. We shouldn't be giving money to any country that openly supports terrorist groups. Its absurd and stupid, but its the kind of thing Hillary will continue to do.
Hillary's side has been far more violent. There is nothing more to say on that.
LT, I think you were talking about this...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/26/klan-leader-claims-kkk-has-given-20k-clinton-campa/
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/26/klan-leader-claims-kkk-has-given-20k-clinton-campa/)
Boys, I really don't think you're going to change each others' opinions. . . . That's like trying to stop people from breathing when they're as stubborn as you two are. . . Just doesn't work. . .
Quote from: Peony on October 04, 2016, 01:58:54 AM
Boys, I really don't think you're going to change each others' opinions. . . . That's like trying to stop people from breathing when they're as stubborn as you two are. . . Just doesn't work. . .
Agreed.
Quote from: Peony on October 04, 2016, 01:58:54 AM
Boys, I really don't think you're going to change each others' opinions. . . . That's like trying to stop people from breathing when they're as stubborn as you two are. . . Just doesn't work. . .
So?
Quote from: CaptainRocktree on October 04, 2016, 01:25:21 AM
LT, I think you were talking about this...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/26/klan-leader-claims-kkk-has-given-20k-clinton-campa/
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/26/klan-leader-claims-kkk-has-given-20k-clinton-campa/)
Wow, I had absolutely no idea about that Rock, the media must have been really covering this sort of thing up. Now, there is an argument to be had about whether this is legitimate, or just the KKK trying to mess with her chances. Still, its something to be looked into.
But I was actually talking about BLM. ;)
@LT Sandpaw As much as I love being a helpful contribution to society, I don't think I provided that link :P
Whoops, my bad. ;D Rock gets the credit!
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on October 04, 2016, 02:06:57 AM
Quote from: Peony on October 04, 2016, 01:58:54 AM
Boys, I really don't think you're going to change each others' opinions. . . . That's like trying to stop people from breathing when they're as stubborn as you two are. . . Just doesn't work. . .
So?
My bad, I forgot who I was talking to.
...I want someone who will treat everyone equally no matter what the hecky heck kinda reasons society uses to discriminate, someone who'll focus on our economy, be friendly with other countries but not to the point we're mocked or taken advantage of, and someone who doesn't get into other peoples' business.
Who's with me?!
(Paul Ryan for President 2020!)
Who's he?
Paul Ryan is the current Speaker of the House.
Mod: Things have gotten a bit heated here, and as such, this thread's going to be locked down for a time. It'll be back when we feel the time is right.
Went out and voted today.
Quote from: James Gryphon on November 04, 2016, 08:51:23 PM
Went out and voted today.
Please tell me it wasn't for Hillary.
Quote from: Groddil on November 04, 2016, 09:37:12 PM
Please tell me it wasn't for Hillary.
Of course it wasn't.
Well turns out they're both criminals. Except there's no proof that Hillary is whereas Donald Trump has confessed to his crimes.
On the record, I didn't vote for that man either. I found both of the main party candidates unpalatable.
Okay cool.
That was just a general comment though.
Quote from: James Gryphon on November 04, 2016, 09:44:51 PM
On the record, I didn't vote for that man either. I found both of the main party candidates unpalatable.
Yeah, if I was actually a voting-age American, I'd be voting for a third-party candidate as well. People might consider that a waste of a vote, but come on, voting for Trump or Hillary isn't?
Quote from: Groddil on November 04, 2016, 09:53:00 PM
Quote from: James Gryphon on November 04, 2016, 09:44:51 PM
On the record, I didn't vote for that man either. I found both of the main party candidates unpalatable.
Yeah, if I was actually a voting-age American, I'd be voting for a third-party candidate as well. People might consider that a waste of a vote, but come on, voting for Trump or Hillary isn't?
I agree with you- partially. We have to vote on issues. Foremost among these, in my mind, are Supreme Court justices. Right now, we have a court about to be tipped out of balance. If you look at voting records, liberal justices block-vote, because they are not in any way concerned with the Constitutionality of the matter- only the touchy-feely emotions or liberal talking-points attached to it. Justice Scalia, on the other hand, went out of his way to deliver judgments he didn't agree with because of his views on Constitutionality. It is justices like that that I want- ones interested in judging cases based on the Constitution, and not ones interested in delivering "social progress". This is an issue of preserving the Constitution, or hamstringing it for decades to come. A President Clinton couldn't care less about the limits of government- see emails.
This race is still surprisingly close, with Trump not getting as slaughtered as expected. The FBI reopening Hillary's case has been really hurting her.
That and the fact that it was revealed she was hiring people to go cause fights at Trump rallies.
This election was just bad, I'm glad its almost over. Its really been a stain upon American politics, I suppose we can just hope that it will be different in four years.
Quote from: James Gryphon on November 04, 2016, 09:44:51 PM
On the record, I didn't vote for that man either. I found both of the main party candidates unpalatable.
Did you vote for Gary Johnson or Evan McMullin?
I had to think about it. It was a toss-up between Johnson, McMullin, and Castle. A pro-abortion candidate, a flash in the pan who's practically the same as the guy that lost the last time, or a guy whose party is totally irrelevant, and who my voting for would not change anything in any way (except possibly get me on the extremist watch list).
I left home to go to the polling place unsure, but thinking I would probably vote Libertarian. I generally agree with them on their limited-government positions. But when I was actually standing there, in the box, it occurred to me that while some of the specific details of government policy might not be mentioned anywhere in the Bible, the principles that would lead one to stand for life, and against abortion, absolutely are. Do the particulars of the implementation of government policies outweigh that?
I voted Evan McMullin.
I don't agree with many of his thoughts on things (his being a CIA spook probably has somewhat to do with that), but if my support does nothing else, it will clearly send the message that I could never vote for someone like Donald Trump, and that that's the main reason I didn't support them this time.
Quote from: Jet the binturong on November 04, 2016, 09:42:19 PM
Well turns out they're both criminals. Except there's no proof that Hillary is whereas Donald Trump has confessed to his crimes.
No proof but common sense, y'mean?
Honestly? Both major candidates are criminals lower than a worm's belly. Who knows what's gonna happen, during and after election. (Speaking of which, did you know that the electoral votes aren't counted until the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December? [Or was it the other way around?])
I, personally, am just scared of what's gonna happen after the new president is announced. I have dance next Tuesday. . . Hope I can get home, at least, before things get heated.
Question: Why are either of them allowed to run for president? Donald Trump has confessed to sexual assault and tax avoidance which should land him jail time, and Hillary Clinton is under heavy suspicion of numerous crimes.
Because the morals of our country are in a very messed-up state.
We were talking about this in school--some kid in my class said it's the "Day America Expires".
:P
If I could I would vote for Hillary, at least she tear down all the good Obama put up however flawed she may be. I still don't understand how anyone who cares about other people could vote Trump.
Quote from: Jet the binturong on November 05, 2016, 12:49:15 AM
Question: Why are either of them allowed to run for president? Donald Trump has confessed to sexual assault and tax avoidance which should land him jail time, and Hillary Clinton is under heavy suspicion of numerous crimes.
Wait, what? When did he confess to sexual assault?
I'd post the video, but it's so disgustingly inappropriate I can't do it.
Basically, he bragged about violating women to someone in 2005, and the Washington Post released the video of him saying it, alongside that it was "locker room talk" according to Trump. It was incredibly degrading to women, and Trump, naturally, tried to shrug it off.
Quote from: Sagetip on November 05, 2016, 04:09:58 AM
I'd post the video, but it's so disgustingly inappropriate I can't do it.
Basically, he bragged about violating women to someone in 2005, and the Washington Post released the video of him saying it, alongside that it was "locker room talk" according to Trump. It was incredibly degrading to women, and Trump, naturally, tried to shrug it off.
He was talking to Billy Bush, it was horrible, but sadly not surprising after all that Trump has done and said already,
Quote from: Sagetip on November 05, 2016, 04:09:58 AM
I'd post the video, but it's so disgustingly inappropriate I can't do it.
If you had, I'd have taken it down.
To be honest, even your description made me think about whether I should edit the post or not.
It's safe to say that this is not someone that I feel someone who's fully informed can readily support. There's a very sweet person I know who is inclined to vote for Trump, and I couldn't explain
why he's so bad because I couldn't think of any way to adequately describe how obscene he is that I wouldn't feel at least a little guilty about saying it to them out loud.
I knew about that already. I didn't think that he explicitly said he'd done any of that. Although, from what I've heard about it, the things he said were atrocious.
Wait, that was from 2005? What does that have to do with this election in 2016?! The things these politician-things do to each other is incredible.
Yep.
Quote from: alexandre on November 05, 2016, 01:27:24 AM
If I could I would vote for Hillary, at least she tear down all the good Obama put up however flawed she may be. I still don't understand how anyone who cares about other people could vote Trump.
Yeah, swap Trump and Hillary around there. However bad he may be, he doesn't want to establish a no-fly zone over Syria, even after already being told that that will require WAR WITH SYRIA AND RUSSIA, like Hillary does. I'd rather have a jerk in charge than have war.
The mental gymnastics required to try and reason that either of the candidates are morally worthy to take office would be impossible. Even Gary Johnson is a immoral hypocrite, and he's not even a libertarian.
If you want to vote moral-wise you've got to vote for Evan McMullin, who might win Utah. If he's lucky...
I'm personally going to vote Trump, I want him to get rid of Obamacare and business regulations, everyone knows Trump is going to help corporations and businesses (He's a business man after all) which is what I think is most important. He'll help secure the border, ICE and the Border Protection have endorsed him so we know they'll work with him to achieve that goal, whether he can build a wall or not, honestly I don't care about the wall, so if it never gets built I'm fine with that.
The last thing most Americans want is to emulate Sweden and Germany, so my vote unwillingly goes to Trump.
Fingers crossed.
@Groddil Do you Watch GradeA UnderA by any chance?
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on November 05, 2016, 09:40:31 PM
@Groddil Do you Watch GradeA UnderA by any chance? Heh. Thought somebody would realize that.
Quote from: Groddil on November 05, 2016, 08:52:46 PM
Quote from: alexandre on November 05, 2016, 01:27:24 AM
If I could I would vote for Hillary, at least she tear down all the good Obama put up however flawed she may be. I still don't understand how anyone who cares about other people could vote Trump.
Yeah, swap Trump and Hillary around there. However bad he may be, he doesn't want to establish a no-fly zone over Syria, even after already being told that that will require WAR WITH SYRIA AND RUSSIA, like Hillary does. I'd rather have a jerk in charge than have war.
I find it odd that you think Hillary would be the one to start a war, I would remind you all of what happened as far as the middle east goes last time we elected a Republican President, war.
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on November 05, 2016, 09:40:31 PM
The mental gymnastics required to try and reason that either of the candidates are morally worthy to take office would be impossible. Even Gary Johnson is a immoral hypocrite, and he's not even a libertarian.
If you want to vote moral-wise you've got to vote for Evan McMullin, who might win Utah. If he's lucky...
I'm personally going to vote Trump, I want him to get rid of Obamacare and business regulations, everyone knows Trump is going to help corporations and businesses (He's a business man after all) which is what I think is most important. He'll help secure the border, ICE and the Border Protection have endorsed him so we know they'll work with him to achieve that goal, whether he can build a wall or not, honestly I don't care about the wall, so if it never gets built I'm fine with that.
The last thing most Americans want is to emulate Sweden and Germany, so my vote unwillingly goes to Trump.
Fingers crossed.
@Groddil Do you Watch GradeA UnderA by any chance?
I also find it odd that you think helping corporations is a good thing, how many people will have to lose their jobs and money before you will realize that the corporations don't care about you, they just want more money, your money. As for Trump being a business man, I would not call four bankruptcies anything a worthy businessman could call successful. Also, Cheney tried to run the country like a buisness, remember what happened then?
Everyone wants border security from drugs and crime, it is just that we should be focusing on letting people enter the US legally and pave a path toward citizenship instead of feeding off of racism and trying to keep everyone out. This country was made by immigrants, so let us make them a part of our great nation, our American dream instead of insisting that they are stealing American jobs, they aren't stealing American jobs, they are equal to Americans and should be treated as such.
I find it more than a bit sexist that after everything Trump has done, people still find them equal. Trump has done and said things on more than one occasion that I am definitely not allowed to post on the forum. Trump also doesn't have any experience with the political world, he is a reality tv star, a lot of people like the fact that he is not a politician, honestly, I am perfectly fine with someone with 30 years of experience in the field being elected. The whole "we don't want a politician thing" kind of makes me think of a class of kindergartners, most of them probably would rather have a teacher with no experience that just gave them time to play all day while their brains slowly crumbled, and they would later regret not learning than have a teacher who teaches them what they need to keep learning and grow up and be successful even if the teacher could be quite mean sometimes. In the Metaphor, the second teacher is Hillary. Anyone old enough to vote should have grown out of that attitude by now.
While I'm set on choosing Trump, and there is very little that could change my mind, I don't mind a healthy debate considering the Republican and Democratic choices. I must warn you though, I've done my research into Trump and Clinton, and I've made my choice not on the back of who said something worse, but on policy. While I dislike Trump with every fiber of my body, I will still vote for him, but don't expect me to defend why he said something, or agree with everything he stands for. Because I wont, and I can't.
Still he is the better choice. I'll try to clear up my statements with more information to hopefully let you see how I see the matter.
So for your points.
Corporations) I understand why you might think Corporations are bad. Everyone and everything has been depicting them as evil, shadowy tycoons who don't care about you and only care about making money. This is perfectly true. Why should any corporation's CEO care about anyone that isn't his/her family or friends? They aren't obligated too. And the whole point of a corporation is to make money, and to do so they need to create jobs, spread out wealth, and capitalize on investments, all things that help and stimulate the economy. All things that help build this country in the wealthiest in the world.
And its not like Hillary isn't helping big corps either. Her private speeches uncovered by WikiLeaks detail how she claims to have a public face, and a private face were she'll make policies giving her big donors (Corporations funding her) tax breaks and government provided loopholes, while telling the public how much she dislikes those evil corps. But that sort of thing is common for politicians, and not entirely surprising.
Border Security) Once again I understand why you might see stricter immigration laws as bad. This year especially its been depicted as a very good thing, and it is. But we do have a path for immigration, and thousands of people enter legally every year. The big problem is that hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants are also entering by overstaying their visas or sneaking across the border. But instead of kicking them out and telling them to do it properly we provide these people with homes, health care, and other expensive things all on the taxpayers dime. And those illegal immigrants don't have to pay taxes. They're leaching off a welfare system that is bankrupting the United States.
People immigrating legally on the other hand pay taxes, and though they are recognized as full citizens, they don't automatically get all the perks that comes with sneaking in illegally.
While I think it would be perfectly fine to let all these illegals stay, it is important to make them pay taxes, and they need to be recorded. And they certainly can't live off of government welfare programs.
Sexism) Its not sexist to think Hillary is an awful person. Because she is. And what people want is an outsider, someone who isn't corrupt and bought out by interest groups. But I don't think its possible to get into the White House without a whole lot of money. Which is why Trump is so popular. He's paying his own way into the White House, which should mean he isn't hamstringed by special interest groups, and behind the counter promises. Hopefully.
He probably is... but this reason is not why I dislike Hillary. That's a turning point for some people though.
As for his lack of experience, don't let anyone think for a second that he'll be a good president. Because he wont be.
War) Now this one is funny, because I personally think we need a no fly zone over Syria, and we need to stop the Russian advance, not befriend it. So I kinda agree with Hillary on this one. Take that any way you want. :P
Now I don't believe for a second Russia would dare go to war with us. For all Putin's bragging they can't support it. Their economy is down even worse than ever before, their military, though large is subpar. And even for everyone's moaning and groaning the United States is still extremely powerful, and will remain so for some time.
So if she does become president, and she does create a no fly zone over Syria, which I doubt, but if she does, that would be a good thing. Obama's line of, "They're on the wrong side of History," When Russian invaded Georgia, when they did that incursion into Ukraine, and even now as they bomb Aleppo is obviously not stopping them. Strong American force of will, will.
Quote from: alexandre on November 06, 2016, 12:05:09 AM
Quote from: Groddil on November 05, 2016, 08:52:46 PM
Quote from: alexandre on November 05, 2016, 01:27:24 AM
If I could I would vote for Hillary, at least she tear down all the good Obama put up however flawed she may be. I still don't understand how anyone who cares about other people could vote Trump.
Yeah, swap Trump and Hillary around there. However bad he may be, he doesn't want to establish a no-fly zone over Syria, even after already being told that that will require WAR WITH SYRIA AND RUSSIA, like Hillary does. I'd rather have a jerk in charge than have war.
I find it odd that you think Hillary would be the one to start a war, I would remind you all of what happened as far as the middle east goes last time we elected a Republican President, war.Quote from: LT Sandpaw on November 05, 2016, 09:40:31 PM
The mental gymnastics required to try and reason that either of the candidates are morally worthy to take office would be impossible. Even Gary Johnson is a immoral hypocrite, and he's not even a libertarian.
If you want to vote moral-wise you've got to vote for Evan McMullin, who might win Utah. If he's lucky...
I'm personally going to vote Trump, I want him to get rid of Obamacare and business regulations, everyone knows Trump is going to help corporations and businesses (He's a business man after all) which is what I think is most important. He'll help secure the border, ICE and the Border Protection have endorsed him so we know they'll work with him to achieve that goal, whether he can build a wall or not, honestly I don't care about the wall, so if it never gets built I'm fine with that.
The last thing most Americans want is to emulate Sweden and Germany, so my vote unwillingly goes to Trump.
Fingers crossed.
@Groddil Do you Watch GradeA UnderA by any chance?
I also find it odd that you think helping corporations is a good thing, how many people will have to lose their jobs and money before you will realize that the corporations don't care about you, they just want more money, your money. As for Trump being a business man, I would not call four bankruptcies anything a worthy businessman could call successful. Also, Cheney tried to run the country like a buisness, remember what happened then?
Everyone wants border security from drugs and crime, it is just that we should be focusing on letting people enter the US legally and pave a path toward citizenship instead of feeding off of racism and trying to keep everyone out. This country was made by immigrants, so let us make them a part of our great nation, our American dream instead of insisting that they are stealing American jobs, they aren't stealing American jobs, they are equal to Americans and should be treated as such.
I find it more than a bit sexist that after everything Trump has done, people still find them equal. Trump has done and said things on more than one occasion that I am definitely not allowed to post on the forum. Trump also doesn't have any experience with the political world, he is a reality tv star, a lot of people like the fact that he is not a politician, honestly, I am perfectly fine with someone with 30 years of experience in the field being elected. The whole "we don't want a politician thing" kind of makes me think of a class of kindergartners, most of them probably would rather have a teacher with no experience that just gave them time to play all day while their brains slowly crumbled, and they would later regret not learning than have a teacher who teaches them what they need to keep learning and grow up and be successful even if the teacher could be quite mean sometimes. In the Metaphor, the second teacher is Hillary. Anyone old enough to vote should have grown out of that attitude by now.
Hilary was secretary of state and during that time she was extremely careless with highly classified US information, used a private email server when communicating this information, and also managed to get Americans part of the diplomatic corps in Libya killed by not heeding their warnings and requests for help. Not to mention, she was the one who pushed for a Libyan no fly zone and arming of the rebels- some of whom are jihadists if not outright ISIS supporters, link to an article below. Furthermore she is currently under investigation from the FBI- due to her conduct or should I say misconduct as secretary of state...
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438605/
So I really fail to see how is she so fit to be POTUS ? What great policies or deeds did she accomplish during her time as secretary of state?
Now Trump is a pompous mouth on two legs, while he has claimed many radical things I highly doubt he tends to implement them or that he even could if he wanted to. We can't really judge his fitness to be a politician as he has never been in politics before. Clinton has held a senior position in government and it has led to a massive FBI investigation against her, hardly an impressive politician...
Well, I don't hear y'all screaming about Bush's 22 million deleted emails, just sayin'.
Also, why would Trump say all those things if he doesn't wish to implement them, most people say things for a reason, I think all the horrifyingly radical things he said should be worrying people a lot more. What if Obama had done and said all the things Trump had? Would it be excused as "locker Room talk?"
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on November 06, 2016, 01:25:24 AM
While I'm set on choosing Trump, and there is very little that could change my mind, I don't mind a healthy debate considering the Republican and Democratic choices. I must warn you though, I've done my research into Trump and Clinton, and I've made my choice not on the back of who said something worse, but on policy. While I dislike Trump with every fiber of my body, I will still vote for him, but don't expect me to defend why he said something, or agree with everything he stands for. Because I wont, and I can't.
Still he is the better choice. I'll try to clear up my statements with more information to hopefully let you see how I see the matter.
So for your points.
Corporations) I understand why you might think Corporations are bad. Everyone and everything has been depicting them as evil, shadowy tycoons who don't care about you and only care about making money. This is perfectly true. Why should any corporation's CEO care about anyone that isn't his/her family or friends? They aren't obligated too.They should do good things with there money because that is what good people do, they don't because they aren't obligated too, which makes them bad people. And the whole point of a corporation is to make money, and to do so they need to create jobsOr they just take your money and leave the people that help pay to keep them up jobless, like in 2008., spread out wealthPlease expand on what you mean by "spread out.", and capitalize on investments, all things that help and stimulate the economy. All things that help build this country in the wealthiest in the world.
And its not like Hillary isn't helping big corps either. Her private speeches uncovered by WikiLeaks detail how she claims to have a public face, and a private face were she'll make policies giving her big donors (Corporations funding her) tax breaks and government provided loopholes, while telling the public how much she dislikes those evil corps. But that sort of thing is common for politicians, and not entirely surprising.
I'm gonna have to agree with you here, but I believe what small bit of bad with the speeches and all is far outweighed by all the good she has done with wealth especially as first lady.
Border Security) Once again I understand why you might see stricter immigration laws as bad. This year especially its been depicted as a very good thing, and it is. But we do have a path for immigration, and thousands of people enter legally every year. The big problem is that hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants are also entering by overstaying their visas or sneaking across the border. But instead of kicking them out and telling them to do it properly we provide these people with homes, health care, and other expensive things all on the taxpayers dime. And those illegal immigrants don't have to pay taxes. They're leaching off a welfare system that is bankrupting the United States.This part especially bothers me, in order to enter the united states, these people have to have some prepared reason like family or employment relationships. Many of these immigrants are just trying to find a better place for themselves and their kids, free from the mess that is going on back in Mexico, and we should welcome them as fellow Americans, give them jobs so they can become legal and can pay taxes and afford homes instead of insisting that they are stealing our jobs, because that is not how it works
People immigrating legally on the other hand pay taxes, and though they are recognized as full citizens, they don't automatically get all the perks that comes with sneaking in illegally.
While I think it would be perfectly fine to let all these illegals stay, it is important to make them pay taxes, and they need to be recorded. And they certainly can't live off of government welfare programs.
Sexism) Its not sexist to think Hillary is an awful person. Because she is.How is she more awful than Trump? I'm still confused by that conclusion And what people want is an outsider, someone who isn't corrupt and bought out by interest groups. I would call him corrupt, since he has avoided paying taxes for a long time, I'll use wikileaks as a source here because you did earlier, according to wikileaks, Donald Trump only paid 46 dollars in federal taxes in 2014, weren't you just complaining about how illegal immigrants don't pay taxes? But I don't think its possible to get into the White House without a whole lot of money. Which is why Trump is so popular. He's paying his own way into the White House, which should mean he isn't ham stringed by special interest groups, and behind the counter promises. Hopefully.
He probably is... but this reason is not why I dislike Hillary. That's a turning point for some people though.
As for his lack of experience, don't let anyone think for a second that he'll be a good president. Because he won't be.
War) Now this one is funny, because I personally think we need a no fly zone over Syria, and we need to stop the Russian advance, not befriend it. So I kinda agree with Hillary on this one. Take that any way you want. :P
Now I don't believe for a second Russia would dare go to war with us. For all Putin's bragging they can't support it. Their economy is down even worse than ever before, their military, though large is subpar. And even for everyone's moaning and groaning the United States is still extremely powerful, and will remain so for some time.
So if she does become president, and she does create a no fly zone over Syria, which I doubt, but if she does, that would be a good thing. Obama's line of, "They're on the wrong side of History," When Russian invaded Georgia, when they did that incursion into Ukraine, and even now as they bomb Aleppo is obviously not stopping them. Strong American force of will, will.
L.T. Your view kinda seem more Libertarian than Republican to me as far as war, but my knowledge of the Libertarian party is very limited, but I am curious on your view on legalizing Marijuana.
Quote from: alexandre on November 06, 2016, 07:30:38 AM
Well, I don't hear y'all screaming about Bush's 22 million deleted emails, just sayin'. Been and gone. We can't change the past, but we can prevent it from happening again.
Also, why would Trump say all those things if he doesn't wish to implement them, most people say things for a reason, I think all the horrifyingly radical things he said should be worrying people a lot more. What if Obama had done and said all the things Trump had? Would it be excused as "locker Room talk?" Two things. Either he does want to implement them, in which case good luck, because Mexico ain't paying for that wall and the rest of the government isn't gonna like the more radical ideas, or he's just saying it to appeal to a certain demographic.
This part especially bothers me, in order to enter the united states, these people have to have some prepared reason like family or employment relationships. Many of these immigrants are just trying to find a better place for themselves and their kids, free from the mess that is going on back in Mexico, and we should welcome them as fellow Americans, give them jobs so they can become legal and can pay taxes and afford homes instead of insisting that they are stealing our jobs, because that is not how it works Agreed.
How is she more awful than Trump? I'm still confused by that conclusion She wants war.
I would call him corrupt, since he has avoided paying taxes for a long time, I'll use wikileaks as a source here because you did earlier, according to wikileaks, Donald Trump only paid 46 dollars in federal taxes in 2014, weren't you just complaining about how illegal immigrants don't pay taxes? But I don't think its possible to get into the White House without a whole lot of money. Again, agreed. He's an utter git, but he's the lesser of two evils.
All in all, I think the voting order should be like this:
4. Hillary.
3. Trump.
2. Jill Stein
1.
Kanye West Literally anybody else.
Quote from: Groddil on November 06, 2016, 08:14:33 AM
Quote from: alexandre on November 06, 2016, 07:30:38 AM
Well, I don't hear y'all screaming about Bush's 22 million deleted emails, just sayin'. Been and gone. We can't change the past, but we can prevent it from happening again. not much I can argue with that other than that Trumps seems a lot more likely to cause a war like Bush did, also he will cause civil unrest within the US, I don't think he created racism or sexism in the Republican party, He merrily exposed it and now he is bringing the GOP down one word at a time every time he goes on record calling for Muslims in concentration camps, and losing his temper with frightening results, this man can not be elected to the second most powerful position in the world, I will remind you all that he is going on trial later this month for fraud at Trump University, and has 72 other pending lawsuits. LT, you said you won't defend any of the horrible things Trump said, or talk about the candidates as people, but doesn't who they are as a person reflect ultimately on their decisions? Don't you want someone elected to office who seems to actually have made past decisions in both personal and public life that reflect good values? Maybe the emails were a mistake? Hillary Clinton is human too, you and I have both made mistakes in the past, Hillary has owned up to her mistakes, apologized, does this not reflect good values as a person and therefore thoughtful and good decisions for the world. Trump never apologized for what he said and he never will. He is a bully, and the best way to start a war is to try and bully other countries into doing what you want. Getting things done in foreign affairs is done through policy, policy was invented so as to prevent conflict, Hillary has experience with this, experience in dealing with other countries and making agreements to benefit society as a whole. Trumps whole life has just been bullying people to make things go his way, and he has ultimately failed in his career. Four bankruptcies, Trump University: fail. Trump airlines: fail. Trump hotel: fail. Don't make America another one of Trump's failures.
Also, why would Trump say all those things if he doesn't wish to implement them, most people say things for a reason, I think all the horrifyingly radical things he said should be worrying people a lot more. What if Obama had done and said all the things Trump had? Would it be excused as "locker Room talk?" Two things. Either he does want to implement them, in which case good luck, because Mexico ain't paying for that wall and the rest of the government isn't gonna like the more radical ideas, or he's just saying it to appeal to a certain demographic.
This part especially bothers me, in order to enter the united states, these people have to have some prepared reason like family or employment relationships. Many of these immigrants are just trying to find a better place for themselves and their kids, free from the mess that is going on back in Mexico, and we should welcome them as fellow Americans, give them jobs so they can become legal and can pay taxes and afford homes instead of insisting that they are stealing our jobs, because that is not how it works Agreed.
How is she more awful than Trump? I'm still confused by that conclusion She wants war. So she is more likely to start a war than Trump? Isn't she the one who's job as secretary of state was literally to prevent warfare, while Trump can't even control his temper on twitter.
I would call him corrupt, since he has avoided paying taxes for a long time, I'll use wikileaks as a source here because you did earlier, according to wikileaks, Donald Trump only paid 46 dollars in federal taxes in 2014, weren't you just complaining about how illegal immigrants don't pay taxes? But I don't think its possible to get into the White House without a whole lot of money. Again, agreed. He's an utter git, but he's the lesser of two evils.
All in all, I think the voting order should be like this:
4. Hillary.Trump
3. Trump.Gary
2. Jill SteinJill
1. Kanye West Literally anybody else.Hillary
Feeling proud to be an Oregonian, goodnight Goddil.
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/11/oregonians_on_track_to_cast_2.html
Quote from: alexandre on November 06, 2016, 08:41:18 AM
Quote from: Groddil on November 06, 2016, 08:14:33 AM
Quote from: alexandre on November 06, 2016, 07:30:38 AM
How is she more awful than Trump? I'm still confused by that conclusion She wants war. So she is more likely to start a war than Trump? Isn't she the one who's job as secretary of state was literally to prevent warfare, while Trump can't even control his temper on twitter. The whole No-Fly zone thing? That even Trump thinks is a bad idea?
All in all, I think the voting order should be like this:
4. Hillary.Trump
3. Trump.Gary
2. Jill SteinJill
1. Kanye West Literally anybody else.Hillary
How is Jill Stein better than Gary Johnson? How is Hillary better than both of them? The only reason I put Miss "Vaccines cause Autism" above Hillary and Trump is because she's less insane than both of them. Gary's not a criminal, so he's better than Hillary, and he isn't mad, so he's better than Jill.
#Fourmoreyears.
Keep Obama I say, if anything it will only be like it is now.
He's not a raving lunatic and doesn't want war.
*Watches respect for fellow forumers nosedive*
Wow, well I'll try not to get involved in a fight again, and the only way to answer a lot of these questions is to point out all of Hillary's flaws and shortcomings, all of which I did several posts back. And I wont be repeating myself. ;)
As for pointing out my libertarian stance, you'd be right. I have very libertarian ideals, but I'm still Republican on my voters registration.
I think all drugs should be legal to use, but if some idiot uses them they shouldn't expect to be hired, or given Medicare or welfare.
alexandre I don't want to seem like a pompous jerk, and I know I can come off that way sometimes, but the idea that anyone has an obligation to anyone is simply not true. I believe that humans are naturally bad, which makes good acts all the more surprising, and irrational. I think you are clearly a good person, who wants to help people, but its important to make the distinction on whether something feels good, or whether it does good. And I think this is the big difference between the Left and the Right.
Now, I can look at Hillary's past, and Trump's past, and say. "These two people deserve to be in jail." But they aren't, and they are now running for office, which leaves me trying to choose between two very bad people, whom I might one day be taking an order from.
Take a view into my head real quick.
I'm a patriotic guy, my devotion is first to my country, if ya'll couldn't tell. :P What Trump has done, going bankrupt, treating women badly, making these wild statements, ect I see a rude, unknowledgeable, jerk that I'd rather have nothing to do with.
But when I see what Hillary has done, selling government secrets to foreign powers, enabling her husband to rape his interns, and then belittling them when they tried to speak up, abandoning those Americans in Benghazi to die, ect I see a traitor.
This is why we can't get into identity politics. Because when I see a fight between a jerk and a traitor, I'll always go for the jerk. But when someone else is witness to the same truths as me, they might see a fight against a womanizer and a woman so they'll obviously make a different choice.
This is why this election in particular needs to be on policy rather than personality, because both candidates are horrible people, and both can be seen as the lesser of two evils.
Quote from: Ashleg on November 06, 2016, 02:20:42 PM
Keep Obama I say, if anything it will only be like it is now.
He's not a raving lunatic and doesn't want war.
Heh, Obama has us in more wars then Bush could dream of. ;D
And I actually dislike Obama more then Hillary, so that's a thing... Lets not discuss it though. ;)
Quote from: Peony on November 06, 2016, 02:39:25 PM
*Watches respect for fellow forumers nosedive*
Agreed. It doesn't really matter who you want to win; everyone else has someone they want to win just as much. All this debating a ultimately pointless and bordering on becoming unpleasant. I have my views, you have yours, and others have theirs. If we can't agree, at least let's agree to disagree and move on. All of this will surge towards the finish line in a few days anyway, so why don't we all just take a deep breath, shake hands, and go our separate ways?
Quote from: Matthias720 on November 06, 2016, 04:43:29 PM
Quote from: Peony on November 06, 2016, 02:39:25 PM
*Watches respect for fellow forumers nosedive*
Agreed. It doesn't really matter who you want to win; everyone else has someone they want to win just as much. All this debating a ultimately pointless and bordering on becoming unpleasant. I have my views, you have yours, and others have theirs. If we can't agree, at least let's agree to disagree and move on. All of this will surge towards the finish line in a few days anyway, so why don't we all just take a deep breath, shake hands, and go our separate ways?
I would like to point out that sometimes debating can be healthy. Yes it probably won't change anybody's mind, but it can help people to understand each other's views more and it makes people think more about their ideas and why they are what they are. Having that said, I will gladly stop.
Allow me to preface this post by saying that I don't like the military. I hate that it exists and I hate that it is so glorified and seen as some great thing. But I have nothing but respect for war veterans, because sometimes you just have to fight.
I just watched a video of injured war veterans speaking against Donald Trump for how he trivialises the military. One especially powerful one was when the man who was captured by the Nazis watched the clip of Trump saying that POWs aren't war heroes (yes he did say that). I would link it but I found it on Facebook so I can't. I looked it up on Youtube and apparently it doesn't exist there, though there are several similar videos.
Well Trump might be an idiot, Clinton is evil!!! Now I'm not saying I like Trump! Quite the opposite I don't like either of them! Lets just vote for my cat Toppy!
#VoteToppy2016
Quote from: alexandre on November 06, 2016, 05:06:42 PM
I would like to point out that sometimes debating can be healthy. Yes it probably won't change anybody's mind, but it can help people to understand each other's views more and it makes people think more about their ideas and why they are what they are.
THANK YOU! That's what I've been trying to say, I'm glad there's someone else that agrees with me.
Quote from: Peony on November 06, 2016, 02:39:25 PM
*Watches respect for fellow forumers nosedive*
I agree. I find it hard to respect anyone who supports either side too strongly.
That being said, I do lean to one side just because the other is worse, but I do not wish to share my opinions on here.
One thing that's really stood out to me in this thread is that, compared to most other (religious, social, etc.) debates we have on the forum, the opposing sides in this political debate aren't trying to build up their sides. There haven't been examples of "Here is what I want to see done that this candidate promises to do" and "This is what my candidate stands for and why I stand for this candidate." It's all been "Well, at least this candidate didn't do this."
It's not a problem with the debaters. The debating is healthy. It's a problem with the debate material. We're trying to argue our views and argue for our candidates, but our views and our candidates don't line up with each other, and it's making it really difficult to say, "I respect what you're saying and here is how I disagree."
Quote from: Banya on November 07, 2016, 09:18:20 PM
One thing that's really stood out to me in this thread is that, compared to most other (religious, social, etc.) debates we have on the forum, the opposing sides in this political debate aren't trying to build up their sides. There haven't been examples of "Here is what I want to see done that this candidate promises to do" and "This is what my candidate stands for and why I stand for this candidate." It's all been "Well, at least this candidate didn't do this."
It's not a problem with the debaters. The debating is healthy. It's a problem with the debate material. We're trying to argue our views and argue for our candidates, but our views and our candidates don't line up with each other, and it's making it really difficult to say, "I respect what you're saying and here is how I disagree."
You know, that's a really good point. I think that's kinda the result of having a narcissist Republican candidate and a Democratic candidate that might get arrested. :P
Nobody in this thread, from what I've seen, believes that one the candidates is awesome. It's more of a disagreement between candidate people think is the worse. Hence they will choose to vote for the one they view as the lesser of the two evils. But anyway regarding debating, I don't personally see anywhere in this thread where the line was crossed ie that people started using ad hominine arguments or personal attacks. I would also add that conversations where everyone agrees get pretty boring fast, civil disagreement is a good thing. I am genuinely curious what would constitute as a borderline rude or offensive post in this thread ?
The lesser of two evils is still evil. . . . Anyway. It's not exactly rude posts, but some of us (*Glares at Jet and Sand*) take debating waaay too seriously and things get really heated. And awful. So. . . . .
I have a hard time singing happy songs and holding hands with people I consider wrong. I find agreeing to disagree difficult to accomplish in the best of circumstances, but especially so when the future of America is on the line. :-\
Still Flor supports my earlier point, this whole thing is like choosing between death by lion, or death by viper. Still Mike Pence is a worthy VP, he deserves the office, he's kinda the thing that I stake my moral vote on.
Whereas I hold Mike Pence in the same esteem as I hold Trump. Don't know a thing about Hillary's VP though. Don't even know their name or gender.
Quote from: Jet the binturong on November 08, 2016, 03:13:10 AM
Whereas I hold Mike Pence in the same esteem as I hold Trump. Don't know a thing about Hillary's VP though. Don't even know their name or gender.
Tim Kaine, he's a man, ok I guess. Thought I think Hillary should have chosen someone that actually gets people excited like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or Joe Biden, because she is really lacking in the excitement department, and a lot of people need that boost of excitement to inspire them to vote, as y'all probably know by now, I'm very liberal, but I'll give Trump that he is way more charismatic than Clinton, and charisma is a big part of what gets people to vote, especially young people a block that Hillary isn't doing to well in. So though Tim Kaine is a perfectly good choice as far as working with Clinton, I don't think he is really helping her get elected.
Quote from: Peony on November 08, 2016, 02:07:26 AM
The lesser of two evils is still evil. . . . Anyway. It's not exactly rude posts, but some of us (*Glares at Jet and Sand*) take debating waaay too seriously and things get really heated. And awful. So. . . . .
Wait? I take pride in my serious debates, I don't get a glare, and what do you mean by awful? As said earlier, no personal attacks have occured and I trust they won't. As for serious, well true it does get serious, A lot of people care a lot about the election. But I hope that what happens in this topic stays in this topic and we can still go on as friends recognizing our differences and discussing them in appropriate topics, like this one.
She tries not to hurt new people.
It'd be funny if these people were paid behind the scenes to act a certain way in order to preform a social experiment or something to see how absurd someone could act and still get voters. :'D
You mean like some of the illegible candidates on the roster, like Deez Nuts? ::)
Quote from: Skarzs on November 08, 2016, 04:37:45 AM
She tries not to hurt new people.
How long 'till I'm not new and my debating seriousness can be fully recognized? I've already begun helping out in the kitchens : p
Also no, Ashleg, that would not be funny, that would be creepy, and not surprising.
Conspiracy theory: What if Trump and Clinton planned this election so that Trump would try to win the primaries, and would lose to Clinton on purpose? It makes sense right, with the whole lesser of two evils thing, that was planned, Hillary would definitely lose to any of the other republican candidates, and all this info about Trump sexually assaulting people, how come that stuff was only uncovered recently, it wasn't that difficult to dig up from what I hear.
I don't necessarily believe any of this but I would like to put it out there for discussion.
Unrelated news:
1) When do we find out the results? Like, how many hours from now.
Polls close at 8 here in Ohio, that's when they should start counting.
Quote from: alexandre on November 08, 2016, 05:16:45 AM
Conspiracy theory: What if Trump and Clinton planned this election so that Trump would try to win the primaries, and would lose to Clinton on purpose? It makes sense right, with the whole lesser of two evils thing, that was planned, Hillary would definitely lose to any of the other republican candidates, and all this info about Trump sexually assaulting people, how come that stuff was only uncovered recently, it wasn't that difficult to dig up from what I hear.
I don't necessarily believe any of this but I would like to put it out there for discussion.
You know news companies like CNN are in the Clinton's pocket. And WikiLeaks has revealed some interesting discussions between mainstream media and the Clinton campaign, basically saying they wanted Trump, or Cruz to win the Primaries so that the Media could pound on them and hopefully win the election for Clinton. The plan was to report positively on Trump or Cruz until the Primaries were over, and then switch to full on attack mode, which we all saw, don't try to deny it. Except... The plan didn't work out the way they expected.
It was assumed the media would be able to destroy Trump the way they destroyed Romney. That didn't happen though, and now the media are making themselves out as fools as they desperately attack Trump every day with absurd charges. So your 'conspiracy theory' isn't entirely off track.
Anyway off to vote.
Quote from: alexandre on November 08, 2016, 03:37:06 AM
......
Quote from: Peony on November 08, 2016, 02:07:26 AM
The lesser of two evils is still evil. . . . Anyway. It's not exactly rude posts, but some of us (*Glares at Jet and Sand*) take debating waaay too seriously and things get really heated. And awful. So. . . . .
Wait? I take pride in my serious debates, I don't get a glare, and what do you mean by awful? As said earlier, no personal attacks have occured and I trust they won't. As for serious, well true it does get serious, A lot of people care a lot about the election. But I hope that what happens in this topic stays in this topic and we can still go on as friends recognizing our differences and discussing them in appropriate topics, like this one.
You're new. I haven't seen much of you yet, so I dunno how you'll react, so I leave you alone. (Although I really want to thump all three of you on the head) By awful I mean it's like you start to attack each other but not! I'm not just speaking about this thread either. And I hate seeing stuff like that. It literally ruins my day. So yeah it's awful. I'mma ignore Sand's post so I don't blow my top.
What I came to say is - Have a safe election day, guys. For whatever reason it's important to you. So, be safe. At least.
These kind of debates are helpful though, it helps show who the idiots are.
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on November 08, 2016, 02:03:35 PM
Quote from: alexandre on November 08, 2016, 05:16:45 AM
Conspiracy theory: What if Trump and Clinton planned this election so that Trump would try to win the primaries, and would lose to Clinton on purpose? It makes sense right, with the whole lesser of two evils thing, that was planned, Hillary would definitely lose to any of the other republican candidates, and all this info about Trump sexually assaulting people, how come that stuff was only uncovered recently, it wasn't that difficult to dig up from what I hear.
I don't necessarily believe any of this but I would like to put it out there for discussion.
You know news companies like CNN are in the Clinton's pocket. And WikiLeaks has revealed some interesting discussions between mainstream media and the Clinton campaign, basically saying they wanted Trump, or Cruz to win the Primaries so that the Media could pound on them and hopefully win the election for Clinton. The plan was to report positively on Trump or Cruz until the Primaries were over, and then switch to full on attack mode, which we all saw, don't try to deny it. Except... The plan didn't work out the way they expected.
It was assumed the media would be able to destroy Trump the way they destroyed Romney. That didn't happen though, and now the media are making themselves out as fools as they desperately attack Trump every day with absurd charges. So your 'conspiracy theory' isn't entirely off track.
Anyway off to vote.
I think you mean the Trump News Network.
They've given Trump more free reporting then any other presidential candidate in history. Its literally constant. I wonder how much Clinton has had to pay them to do it. ;D
Quote from: Kitsune on November 08, 2016, 02:49:18 PM
These kind of debates are helpful though, it helps show who the idiots are.
Heh, exactly.
Votes are being counted up. I have to admit I'm anxious.
Quote from: James Gryphon on November 09, 2016, 12:09:54 AM
Votes are being counted up. I have to admit I'm anxious.
Yeah its wrapping up. I guess on one hand most people's lives won't change much regardless of who wins...
Kentucky and Indian are Trump victories, with a landslide victory for Hillary in Vermont.
Georgia and Virginia are both looking good for Republicans, however Florida might be lost, it'll be close.
Meanwhile it appears New Hampshire might be a close Trump victory.
If you're going by the Google results, there's so few votes in for NH I wouldn't consider that to have any bearing on what happens there.
Sand, it's an election, not a war. ::) *Sarcasm* Nice terminology. *End sarcasm*
I'm at work right now, which I've mentioned before is the student union on campus. Some people in the city can vote here, but most residents vote elsewhere. Students can vote absentee here, though, and the building has been packed all day. The line is a two-hour wait, so it's moving pretty steadily. I had to move the line when it starting wrapping around the ground floor (voting isn't even on the ground floor; that's how long the line is). It was finally cut off at 8 when the polls closed, with city officials standing by watching the students already in line as it dwindles down. I've dealt with a congresswoman trying to bribe students with food, and I've set the TVs to a nice mix of Fox, CNN, NBC, and ABC to appeal to everyone. I am on one of the most liberal campuses in the country, though, and it's clear from the pins and sidewalk chalk which way nearly everyone leans. There's a live viewing party upstairs that's open to the public, and the feeling in the air is one of uncertainly and excitement.
I forget, who's the liberal one?
I'm watching the TYT live election stream right now, best news channel ever
Quote from: Peony on November 09, 2016, 01:58:59 AM
I forget, who's the liberal one?
Dems are liberal, the blue party, the "liberal left"/"left wing," donkey mascot; Republicans are conservative, the red party, the "right wing," elephant mascot.
Edit: To clarify briefly, libertarians (the Libertarian Party having been in the news quite a bit during this election cycle), tend to be politically conservative and socially liberal, believing in small government but having more accepting views on social topics. Populists, which are much less heard of, are the opposite, being politically liberal and socially conservative. The Taxpayers Party believes in the Bible as the basis of the constitution and the nation and leans right (conservative). The Green party is a progressive, environmental party that leans left (liberal).
Among the religious groups, Catholics tend to lean right (conservative), Jews and Muslims tend to lean left (liberal), Protestants are pretty moderate.
This has been U.S. Government 101.
Any of y'all want to go on Discord to "watch" things with me?
Im down for that, coming right over :)
Trump is going to win. I have mixed feelings about this, but if Hillary takes Texas, she's winning, but now, Trump's going to win.
Join us on discord, Ashe.
Quote from: Lord Ashenwyte on November 09, 2016, 05:18:09 AM
Trump is going to win. I have mixed feelings about this, but if Hillary takes Texas, she's winning, but now, Trump's going to win.
Trump took Texas hours ago.
We should convert this topic to Australian politics, much more chill than American Polotics
At 12:44 AM, PA has been called Republican. Trump victory seems certain. Who ever would've guessed it?
So... looks like we'll have four years under a Republican-nominated megalomaniac, then back to the old drawing board!
According to Google, it's 276 to 218, Trump's favor. Looks like we have a crazy-haired millionaire wierdo for a president, Americans. :P
Quote from: Peony on November 09, 2016, 01:58:59 AM
I forget, who's the liberal one?
Umm, both?
Donald Trump is now the US President. Enjoy your pre-shredded cheese while it lasts, because he's about to make America grate again.
Come with me, and you'll see, politics with no evil people. Come to 'Straya, you'll soon be in love, it's full of words that rhyme with people.
Quote from: Groddil on November 09, 2016, 07:46:31 AM
Donald Trump is now the US President. Enjoy your pre-shredded cheese while it lasts, because he's about to make America grate again.
Come with me, and you'll see, politics with no evil people. Come to 'Straya, you'll soon be in love, it's full of words that rhyme with people.
Heh.
Don't get that second part, though. OH WAIT. I do.
Welp, that ruined my day.
/me jumps into a vat of frying oil.
It's like Brexit version 2.
Quote from: James Gryphon on November 09, 2016, 06:45:19 AM
Trump victory seems certain. Who ever would've guessed it?
I did. During the whole election thing, I saw exactly one Hillary sign and one Hillary billboard. . . . As opposed to Trump plastered everywhere.
Quote from: Groddil on November 09, 2016, 07:46:31 AM
Donald Trump is now the US President. Enjoy your pre-shredded cheese while it lasts, because he's about to make America grate again.
Come with me, and you'll see, politics with no evil people. Come to 'Straya, you'll soon be in love, it's full of words that rhyme with people.
*Laughs*
After four years of Trump, the republican party in the US will be completely ruined, the democrats will have the next election in a landslide and we'll all just forget that any of this happened. Or, Trump will make America another business failure, just like Dick Cheney did.
'
Well at least Hillary didn't become president!!!
Who would have thought my vote out here in Texas counted? If Hillary had won Texas I might have died of shame, but she didn't and we are now looking at a hopeful Trump presidency.
Did we win big, or did we lose small? I can't wait to find out.
Let's make America Great Again!
Quote from: alexandre on November 09, 2016, 02:42:23 PM
After four years of Trump, the republican party in the US will be completely ruined, the democrats will have the next election in a landslide and we'll all just forget that any of this happened. Or, Trump will make America another business failure, just like Dick Cheney did.
'
I could see a split in the Republican party between the old guard and Trump supporters, but I think its unlikely the whole party would get completely ruined...
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on November 09, 2016, 06:26:28 PM
Did we win big, or did we lose small? I can't wait to find out.
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." ~Thomas Jefferson.
Well if people were hanging around poll stations carrying guns and trying to intimidate voters that's probably going to put people off voting (just like they planned).
That's literally what Hitler did.
Me being someone who likes to pick fights, I would have made a shirt that said "if you're carrying a gun around a poll station, you're a coward" and then gone and voted.
(http://www.sharegif.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/4-star-wars-quotes.gif)
I wouldn't call Trump good, but I can believe he means the words he speaks. Hillary just doesn't come across as trustworthy to me. I'm happy with the results, and I don't regret my voting choice.
The interesting thing will be how Trump (attempts) to fulfill his promises. I doubt Mexico has any intention of paying for a wall. It will be interesting for sure. Republicans control everything now, so we could see a lot of change in the next few years.
Regardless of the result I'm proud to be an American and the winner is my president. I said this each time Obama was elected and I repeat it once again now. God bless America.
I feel less safe now.
Whoo.
*Couldn't really care less*
I get that American politics is like really corrupt and your system is stupid (the popular vote should matter more, since, y'know, that's what the voice of the people is) but people not caring is what allows politicians like Trump and his evil little helper to ruin people's lives. I mean, it's not so important with you, because you're not old enough to vote, but for every adult who doesn't care, the politicians get a little more chance to hurt people.
Doesn't, like, 40% of the UK not vote?
Yes, and that is deeply saddening.
Quote from: Jet the binturong on November 09, 2016, 08:54:23 PM
I get that American politics is like really corrupt and your system is stupid (the popular vote should matter more, since, y'know, that's what the voice of the people is) but people not caring is what allows politicians like Trump and his evil little helper to ruin people's lives. I mean, it's not so important with you, because you're not old enough to vote, but for every adult who doesn't care, the politicians get a little more chance to hurt people.
You're are whiner, and a sore loser. ;)
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on November 09, 2016, 09:20:15 PM
Quote from: Jet the binturong on November 09, 2016, 08:54:23 PM
I get that American politics is like really corrupt and your system is stupid (the popular vote should matter more, since, y'know, that's what the voice of the people is) but people not caring is what allows politicians like Trump and his evil little helper to ruin people's lives. I mean, it's not so important with you, because you're not old enough to vote, but for every adult who doesn't care, the politicians get a little more chance to hurt people.
You're are whiner, and a sore loser. ;)
This is not a joke. Two of the people I most despise in the world will soon be running the most powerful country on the planet, I am, quite understandably, very angry. The only good thing about either of them is Trump's friendship with Putin, at least they aren't ever going to war.
Quote from: Jet the binturong on November 09, 2016, 08:54:23 PM
the popular vote should matter more, since, y'know, that's what the voice of the people is
True the voice of the people matters but true democracy is mob rule, which is a terrifying thing. Mobs can be easily influenced. Ancient Greece was horribly damaged by mob rule. A lot of democrats were surprised by the fact that trump won but that's because the media was constantly lying to them. Not enough people research and think for themselves, mob rule would open us to even more corruption because people would be suseptable to blindly following whoever is supported by main stream media. The problem with news these days is that almost every single source is biased. You can't be completely sure of something you hear about unless you experienced it yourself. The media has become the gate keepers of politics and that is not ok.
Very true.
Sad thing is, America was supposed to be based off the Roman republic, not the Greek democracy, which is what it's more turned into.
The electoral college is important. Its vitally important. Without it no one would care about what the people in Alaska thought, or Montana or Rhode Island, no one would care what the ranchers, and farmers, and small town families think. All they'd care about is what the big cities want. And big cities don't want the same things as the smaller towns.
The sun comes up, my friends. Don't get too carried away.
Quote from: Peony on November 09, 2016, 08:40:30 PM
*Couldn't really care less*
Er...
Was that directed at me?
I feel justified to be scared...
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on November 09, 2016, 10:42:46 PM
Complain away SJW. No one is stopping you.
You having and voicing opinions is okay. Jet having and voicing opinions is okay. Your opinion differing from Jet's (and the inverse) is okay. You speaking out and saying that you disagree with Jet's opinion (and the inverse) is okay. You using a pejorative term to dismiss Jet's opinions out of hand, though, is not okay. (Also it's ad hominem, though pointing out fallacies in any conversation about politics on the internet is probably a lost cause.)
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on November 09, 2016, 10:35:38 PM
The electoral college is important. Its vitally important. Without it no one would care about what the people in Alaska thought, or Montana or Rhode Island, no one would care what the ranchers, and farmers, and small town families think. All they'd care about is what the big cities want. And big cities don't want the same things as the smaller towns.
I disagree. All individuals should have equal voting power, regardless of who they are or where they live. Granted, this means that pleasing states like those you've listed less important, but the majority ought to be what matters.
Quote from: Brocktress on November 09, 2016, 10:09:02 PM
Quote from: Jet the binturong on November 09, 2016, 08:54:23 PM
the popular vote should matter more, since, y'know, that's what the voice of the people is
True the voice of the people matters but true democracy is mob rule, which is a terrifying thing. Mobs can be easily influenced. Ancient Greece was horribly damaged by mob rule. A lot of democrats were surprised by the fact that trump won but that's because the media was constantly lying to them. Not enough people research and think for themselves, mob rule would open us to even more corruption because people would be suseptable to blindly following whoever is supported by main stream media. The problem with news these days is that almost every single source is biased. You can't be completely sure of something you hear about unless you experienced it yourself. The media has become the gate keepers of politics and that is not ok.
Well both Brexit and President Trump were treated as "jokes" or something that would never happen and then both did. The media or the pollsters failed to get people's actual opinions rather they were portraying their own opinion or belief in the matter. Also I think the extent of people's discontent with the status quo was not acknowledged or understood.
@LT Sandpaw:
Yep just label everyone who disagrees with you as an SJW, that makes sense.
Allow me to tell you about a legal modern torture practice that nutters like to call "conversion therapy." It's ineffective and not backed up by science. What
is backed up by science is that it almost invariably causes psychological damage. People who undergo it have about a 50% suicide rate, and those that survive are scarred for life. Who diverted $2000 of federal funding to doing it to minors? Mike Zeus-cursed Pence.
For those of you who don't understand the horror of "conversion therapy," allow me to post the incredibly disturbing story of anonymous Twitter user, TeenageCloseted, a survivor of conversion therapy who can barely talk about his experiences and seeing Mike Pence on TV makes him feel sick:
Incredibly disturbing, read at your own discretion
This was his series of tweets about the subject:
"I didn't watch the VP debate because I can't bring myself to listen to Mike Pence speak."
"In case you didn't know, Mike Pence wanted to divert all national HIV funding into "conversion therapy" for the LGBT community"
"Conversion therapy is when they take someone who's LGBT and force them to become straight by any means necessary (including shock therapy)"
"I was in conversation [sic] therapy from November 2012 to May 2013 (I was 15/16). Those are the darkest days of my life."
"The first session they sat down with my parents and I and explained their tactics. They used a 2 part system that usually takes 9 months"
"The first part (the first 6 months) they "deconstructed us as a person." Essentially teaching us to hate ourselves"
"And this wasn't just the fake "oh I hate myself" you hear on the streets. This was a deep loathing for everything you are."
"This stage was done when we were so desperate to change ourselves that we were willing to do anything."
"They explained that about 50% of their "patients" killed themselves when this process was near completion"
"I found this to be true. I met around 50 people during my time there, and 27 killed themselves. We were all between the ages of 13 and 17"
"I never finished step one, but when I left I was destroyed. I still hated myself because they didn't teach you to love yourself"
"All they taught was repression. They even encouraged suicide because "at least we wouldn't be gay anymore.""
"Every time I see Mike Pence, I have flashbacks to these horrible months. I remember what they did to us"
"I couldn't even begin to tell you the tactics they used during step one because when I try to talk about it I completely shut down"
"But it was enough to make 27 people kill themselves in 6 months. Conversion therapy is vile. Do not support this vile man"
I'd link his Twitter but it's full of swearing and most of it is now foreigners and LGBT+ people saying that they're scared to live in America now.
Anyone who supports "conversion therapy" for minors can consider themselves to have earned my eternal hatred. It is completely indefensible, the founder of one of the largest groups for "conversion therapy" has disavowed it and said he hated himself for starting it, it kills thousands and damages the rest permanently. Every scientific and medical organisation on the planet has deemed it completely unethical. And yet, in most states of America, it's still legal because some people are stupid enough to think that their religion is a good enough reason to destroy people's minds. Any parent who enters their child into "conversion therapy" should have their child taken away from them, and never be allowed to raise any other children.
But back to Pence:
Who caused a HIV outbreak in Indiana by shutting down clinics that prevent it? Mike Pence.
Who said that smoking doesn't kill you and that's all just hysteria? Mike Pence.
Who said that homosexual relationships are not of equal value to heterosexual relationships? Mike Pence. That's not disagreeing with gay marriage because of your religion, that's straight up discrimination.
He opposed the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell; a law that disallowed non-heterosexual soldiers to talk about their sexuality, and even prevented them from having relationships.
He defied a bill aimed to combat prison rape.
He sponsored a bill that would prevent children of illegal immigrants from becoming US citizens.
He refused to call the KKK deplorable.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cwz6KlUXUAA-b5o.jpg:large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cw1xthuWIAA49_m.jpg:large)
Mike Pence is a monster.
I will not apologise for anything I have said in this post, as none of it was not factual.
Quote from: Rusvul on November 09, 2016, 11:35:21 PM
@LT Sandpaw: You having and voicing opinions is okay. Jet having and voicing opinions is okay. Your opinion differing from Jet's (and the inverse) is okay. You speaking out and saying that you disagree with Jet's opinion (and the inverse) is okay. You using a pejorative term to dismiss Jet's opinions out of hand, though, is not okay. (Also it's ad hominem, though pointing out fallacies in any conversation about politics on the internet is probably a lost cause.)
Mod: This is the case.
I was hoping that this thread might be useful for people to share their analysis of the election results, and speculate on what happens next. That said, it seems that the kerosene has run low and that all that's left to light is the gasoline, and we will not have that.
As such, this thread is being locked. If you have any questions about this decision or other things to do with the thread, feel free to contact me at your leisure.
Mod Post: I feel the need to bring this up with the recent events in this thread. There are several points of view as to who, what, where, when, why, and how this election was handled. We have a result and it's written in stone. For better or worse, the world has its due. Further discussion only moves to separate factions and drive wedges between us. This disunity is damaging not only to personal relationships, but also to the forum as a whole. Us that what you want? I hope not. This isn't the Redwall Brian Jacques envisioned, I'm sure. Let's end these arguments and move on, shall we?