PDA

View Full Version : Clinton VS Trump


Pages : [1] 2

Flapjack
September 17th, 2016, 06:00 AM
Who do you support?
Why do you support them?
Who do you think will win?

______________________________________________________________
Who do you support? Clinton
Why do you support them? I don't support but between her and Trump there really is no contest. Tbh if she actually stood up to corporations I might be excited for her presidency. I like that she is pro gun control and actually wants to do something about the poverty and inequality in the US. Of course I also reallyyyyy do not want Trump to win so she is my preferred candidate even without that good stuff.
Who do you think will win? Clinton although as Trump gets better advisers and is pandering more to the centre he could have a chance. Especially as the media is doing a terrible job of informing the people of what he is and not challenging him on anything.

Vlerchan
September 17th, 2016, 06:32 AM
Who do you support? Clinton
Why do you support them? She's not Trump. I'm hoping for flip-flops to the centre in government.
Who do you think will win? Clinton - but increasingly Trump the last number of weeks.

Periphery
September 17th, 2016, 06:46 AM
Who do you support? Clinton
Why do you support them?
She's not Trump.

Who do you think will win? Well, the thing is Trump still has a chance, I would love to say Clinton but I can't.

lyhom
September 17th, 2016, 06:58 AM
Who do you support? clinton
Why do you support them? because trump has very little experience at best and hasn't shown me how he could handle being mayor, let alone president, not to mention that my political beliefs align more with clinton's anyways
Who do you think will win? depends on the debates and if the media won't congratulate trump for not overflowing his pants with shit on stage but it's probably going to be clinton

The Byrd
September 17th, 2016, 07:43 AM
Who do you support? Mr Trump
Why do you support them? He intends on legalising marijuana, tighter immigration laws, defund Planned Parenthood, help veterans, pro-life...
Who do you think will win? Clinton.

Endeavour
September 17th, 2016, 08:24 AM
Who do you support?*Clinton
Why do you support them? Anyone is better than Trump.
Who do you think will win? Clinton

Mars
September 17th, 2016, 08:29 AM
Who do you support? No one
Why do you (not) support them? One is a moron, and another I don't know if I can trust
Who do you think will win? Clinton

PlasmaHam
September 17th, 2016, 08:33 AM
Who do you support? Trump

Why do you support them? He isn't Clinton, and is far more honest and open about policy. Supports stronger borders and national defense. Wants to give power back to the states. Help Veterans in an obviously flawed system. Supports 2nd Amendment rights. And he doesn't pander to minorities all the time

Who do you think will win? A few weeks ago I would say Clinton, but over the last month, Trump has been slowing soaring upwards while Clinton has been making mistake after mistake. I can't make any firm guesses right now on it.

Mars
September 17th, 2016, 08:39 AM
Who do you support? Trump

Why do you support them? He isn't Clinton, and is far more honest and open about policy. Supports stronger borders and national defense. Wants to give power back to the states. Help Veterans in an obviously flawed system. Supports 2nd Amendment rights. And he doesn't pander to minorities all the time

Who do you think will win? A few weeks ago I would say Clinton, but over the last month, Trump has been slowing soaring upwards while Clinton has been making mistake after mistake. I can't make any firm guesses right now on it.
And by helping veterans you mean disrespecting them and their families right?... And by supports stronger borders and nation defends you mean building a wall and illegally "making" another country pay for it, and kicking out probably thousands if not millions of "immigrants" based on the colour of their skin right? And by not pandering to minorities all the time, you mean "loving" "his" African Americans and then calling them terrorists and thugs right?...

And also, sources on the Trump is soaring part? Idk if I've seen any polls recently that say that. Genuinely curious

PlasmaHam
September 17th, 2016, 08:51 AM
And by helping veterans you mean disrespecting them and their families right?... And by supports stronger borders and nation defends you mean building a wall and illegally "making" another country pay for it, and kicking out probably thousands if not millions of "immigrants" based on the colour of their skin right? And by not pandering to minorities all the time, you mean "loving" "his" African Americans and then calling them terrorists and thugs right?...

And also, sources on the Trump is soaring part? Idk if I've seen any polls recently that say that. Genuinely curious

My parents and grandparents are both veterans. Believe me, the VA is the bane of their existence. Defending national borders is racist? You really need to research your facts regarding illegal immigration. You say Trump shouldn't be able to break some sort of imaginary law regarding having Mexico build a wall, yet you want to let millions of illegal immigrants to not get what they deserve for breaking the law? Hypocritical if I do say so myself.

As for Trump soaring, that might be a mild exaggeration. But if you look at early August polls, he was considerably behind Clinton in most battleground states. Trump has taken that 10% deficit in some states and has turned it to only a percentage or two. I would call such a drastic spike notable. It doesn't help that Clinton continues to lie about something as mild as pneumonia. Just be honest for once! No one cares if you are sick, people do care if you lie about it!

I'm done for now, I would like to see more people post who they prefer, instead of making the 20th or so Trump vs Clinton debate. When all I get in response is random insults and half-truths, I really don't feel like continuing the debate.

Mars
September 17th, 2016, 08:58 AM
My parents and grandparents are both veterans. Believe me, the VA is the bane of their existence. Defending national borders is racist? You really need to research your facts regarding illegal immigration. You say Trump shouldn't be able to break some sort of imaginary law regarding having Mexico build a wall, yet you want to let million of illegal immigrants to not get punished for breaking the law? Hypocritical if I do say so myself.
Never said that, now we're just jumping to conclusions. The "support" that veterans get does need a lot of improvement and a lot of fixing, I just don't think Trump is the guy to do it. I didn't say defending national borders is racist, I said building a wall and trying to make another country pay for it is illegal. I also never said I want millions of illegal immigrants to come into our country and break the law. I actually never said anything regarding that. If you do want to know how a majority of illegal immigrants get here though, is they overstay their visas. They find a job and a home, and just... stay here. I don't think a lot of Mexicans are actually "border jumpers" because they aren't... Literally jumping... Over the borders... So it's not like a wall would be needed anyway

As for Trump soaring, that might be a mild exaggeration. But if you look at early August polls, he was considerably behind Clinton in most battleground states. Trump has taken that 10% deficit in some states and has turned it to only a percentage or two. I would call such a drastic spike notable. It doesn't help that Clinton continues to lie about something as mild as pneumonia.
She did? Where? Link? Also, would like polls from August

lyhom
September 17th, 2016, 09:19 AM
She did? Where? Link? Also, would like polls from August

she didn't really say that she had pneumonia until after she fainted, I think because she said it wasn't a big deal to her? idk but either way had she said it before some people would have claimed that she was too sick for the presidency anyways so

also fivethirtyeight's election forecast (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/) has clinton at a 60.2% chance of winning compared to trump's 39.8% chance, which isn't a perfect way to see the election but it hasn't been to these levels since the rnc

Vlerchan
September 17th, 2016, 10:10 AM
I guess I should also highlight the policy issues I prefer Clinton v. Trump on,
Her fiscal policy - which I wouldn't consider optimal by any stretch of the imagination - adds up, and won't tear open the deficit.
Her free trade credentials are strong, even though she claims to oppose TPP.
Her immigration platform is a lot more sensible insofar as it realises that just deporting illegal immigrants is going to create a lot more problems than it solves.
Her foreign policy outlook [1] doesn't revolve around making 'deals' that we won't hear about until they happen (though, what little we hear, is consistently disastrous), [2] isn't Russophilic.
I think - ahead of it all - Clinton is the candidate who represents an America that hasn't lost its self-confidence, an America that still believes it's exceptional, and an America that still feels it can make a contribution to the world.
[...] illegally "making" another country pay for it [...]
Even if we pretend that international law has some sort of judicial legitimacy in the United States, it isn't illegal under any treaty or statute I am aware of.

Bull
September 17th, 2016, 10:15 AM
Who do you support? Clinton
Why do you support her? Experience, has and shares a plan going forward, is opposed to the disastrous TPP, believes in reasonable gun control and immigration reform, supports needed changes in income tax laws, and the list goes on
Who do you think will win? Clinton, because reasonable people will step up for America!
BTW, I am a registered Republican, however, there is no way I will ever support a candidate who has no plan, has no respect for one or more class of Americans, is a bully, is unpredictable, is racist, shows disrespect for those who are in opposition, sounds like a child who calls people names and laughs about it, and the list goes on.

Vlerchan
September 17th, 2016, 10:26 AM
[...] is opposed to the disastrous TPP [...]
You'll need to explain what makes TPP disastrous.

Bloo
September 17th, 2016, 10:30 AM
Who do you support? Clinton
Why do you support them?
I love her stance and policy when I comes to education as well as her history with educational reform. I love her desire to actually help people, like she did in Arkansas constantly, and after 9/11, essentially being a whistleblower calling the bush administration and EPA liars when it came to air quality in New York. I trust her, I understand she may have done/might do some shady things, every politician has, and to pretend they haven't is ridiculous. I believe at the end of the day she cares about the people and not the power.
Who do you think will win?
No clue.

mattsmith48
September 17th, 2016, 10:38 AM
One question should be asked about Trump How? How is he going to help veterans? How is he going to deport 11 millions people in 4 years? Mexico will not pay for that stupid wall so how is he gonna pay for that? How is he going to pay for the biggest tax cuts in world history? How is he going to stop ISIS quote ''very very fast''?

Also you cant complain about Clinton being untrustworthy when the other guy is even less trustworthy than her but you still support him

Flapjack
September 17th, 2016, 10:43 AM
You'll need to explain what makes TPP disastrous.
Gives wayyy too much power to corporations.
vY5FHxEcSTM

Vlerchan
September 17th, 2016, 11:39 AM
Flapjack

I would also appreciate if in the future you noted your own opinion as opposed to just showing me a re-education video. It's just less time consuming to have to pick apart when the writing is right in front of me.

0.37: "Let's try to make it as simple as possible"
This is always what I love to hear right before we delve into the particulars of a complex economic arrangement.

1.07: "Has the backing of many corporations as well as the corporatist [!] politicians they financially support."
I guess this had to be included somewhere.

2.28: "The biggest criticism lodged at the TPP was that it was negotiated in secret."
Putnam (1988) (http://www.ou.edu/uschina/texts/Putnam88Diplomacy.pdf) will need to be read. In short though:

Deals can't be formed unless one negotiates to a point where nation's win-sets, the full spectrum of beneficial outcomes, overlap and it is in both their interests to engage in the deal. There are two levels to international agreements. There is the level where one needs to interact with domestic constituencies and the level where one needs to interact with other international actors. The level where one interacts with their domestic constituencies, is the one that decides on the size of the win-set.

Consider a Venn Diagram, where there's some point: xUy. (Except that wouldn't represent TTP: TTP is more like aUbUc...Uz). It's in ones interests to keep the size of ones winset (i.e. x or y) as large as possible to increase the chances of an overlap. That's the reason the negotiations are delivered in secret. It stops, say, the steel industry, of catching wind of some tariff change and then funding a campaign to scare the shite out of the public and either get the deal canned or changed.

Holding the negotiations in secret stops - in the most generic terms: domestic actors from constraining the size of the winset and thus allows domestic representatives to secure the best possible deal in net welfare terms. In other words, it's there to minimise the influence of corporations who stand to lose the absolute most from free trade deals.

3.00: [...] investor-state-dispute-settlement-process [...] [scary graphic O:]
He's explaining what these do incorrectly.

It doesn't hold the state liable for a loss of profits if the state legislates so that corporation loses profits - it holds that state liable if the state legislates to discriminate against foreign competition and as a result a corporation loses profits. It is supposed to ensure investor certainty and does.

3.44: In practice this means Buidweisser could sue Vietnam for requiring that all beer sold in Vietnam include a health warning for pregnant women on the label.
Doesn't offer an example of where this, or something similar, has happened in practice, despite these courts having been in operation for five decades or so.

The greater likelihood is that we would end up with something like Case 178/84 European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany [1987] (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61984CJ0178) where the Germans found out that they couldn't define beer to be one thing to the detriment of French firms. In the modern international jurisprudence - that's the sort of precedent that has been set in these actions.

---

Let's also ignore that the U.S. is open to being sued in these courts as party to about 50 other international agreements. Because scary things could happen.

3.58: "... national healthcare systems restrict investment opportunities."
The courts desire that investment be treated equally - so: no.

4.06 "... essentially grants corporations veto-power over sovreign nations domestic foreign policy."
Europe is a corporate wasteland.

Or not: but we don't care about actual jurisprudence do we.

4.20: [Veolia v Egypt]: "because Egypt increase it's minimum wage.
It's actually suing them for breach of contract triggered by this. If it had happened in Ireland - it would have sued them the national courts but Veolia doesn't trust national Egyptian courts and is suing them through the investor-state-dispute-settlement-process instead (incidentally the reason it invested in the first place is because of the support that this system offers).

Actually, Veolia of France, a waste management company, invoked ISDS to enforce [b]a contract with the government of Alexandria, Egypt, that it says required compensation if costs increased; the company maintains that the wage increases triggered this provision. Incidentally, Veolia was working with Alexandria on a World Bank-supported project to reduce greenhouse gases, not some corporate plot to exploit the people. The case — which would result, at most, in a monetary award to Veolia, not the overthrow of the minimum wage — remains in litigation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-buy-the-trade-deal-alarmism/2015/03/11/41575fee-c1d5-11e4-9271-610273846239_story.html?utm_term=.f240e262879a

So, yeah.

4.32: "[does] not allow for generic drug manufacturing."
It actually just extends patent lives to eight years.

Nonetheless, I agree this is bad - but probably not bad enough to upend the whole deal, especially from an American perspective, where it's already the case.

5.20: [internet - copywrite - censorship.]
Yeah. This was, broadly speaking, all revised out. What leak are you looking at?

It does - in fairness - export the worst of United States copywrite law, but from the manner in which you are defending the current state of affairs, I presume you believe that's just fine.

5.30+: [Gets conspiratorial, again.]

OK, dude.

Bull
September 17th, 2016, 11:51 AM
You'll need to explain what makes TPP disastrous.

Short answer: TPP is not good for American Economy
TPP impinges on American sovereignty
would allow foreign corporations to have veto power over US laws and government action
would allow foreign corporations to sue US if they feel same might impinge future "expected" profits
disputes would be settled by a secret, overseas tribunal not accountable to any government
the likelihood that even more American worker jobs would be lost causing an increase in US unemployment

Full disclosure: I am an avowed American Capitalist who believes that America is Great and I will work to make it even greater and stronger economically!

Vlerchan
September 17th, 2016, 11:59 AM
TPP is not good for American Economy
I would appreciate when you make claims like did it would be accompanied by some report or another. Forcasters predict it will increase result in net gains for the United States and this stands inline with about two centuries of literature that has cropped up around the topic of free trade.

There will be losers, but it's much more efficient to fund re-training and/or lump-sum transfers.

TPP impinges on American sovereignty
The US is already party to about 50 agreements with similar conditions. On net very little is happening.

Do you also oppose NAFTA, the UN, etc.?

would allow foreign corporations to sue US if they feel same might impinge future "expected" profits
I discussed this in my last post. In short: such claims are always hyperbolic, and misunderstand what these courts actually do.

disputes would be settled by a secret, overseas tribunal not accountable to any government
Your supreme court also isn't accountable to the government and that's the manner in which efficient courts are supposed to be.

It's the rules, that the U.S. government decides on, that matters.

the likelihood that even more American worker jobs would be lost causing an increase in US unemployment
Some Americans will lose their jobs, but ignoring the expansion of current export sectors, offshoring tends to result in net job creation. (as middle-class people are hired as administrators, etc.).

That there will be net job losses doesn't approximate empirical fact or come close.

The Byrd
September 17th, 2016, 12:19 PM
And by helping veterans you mean disrespecting them and their families right?... And by supports stronger borders and nation defends you mean building a wall and illegally "making" another country pay for it, and kicking out probably thousands if not millions of "immigrants" based on the colour of their skin right? And by not pandering to minorities all the time, you mean "loving" "his" African Americans and then calling them terrorists and thugs right?...

And also, sources on the Trump is soaring part? Idk if I've seen any polls recently that say that. Genuinely curious

How is getting rid of illegal immigrants and preventing them from entering the country a bad thing?

Vlerchan
September 17th, 2016, 12:32 PM
How is getting rid of illegal immigrants and preventing them from entering the country a bad thing?
Local economies have a structural dependence on them: mass deportation would be recession inducing given to calamitous supply- and demand-side effects.

You're better off gifting amnesty to the current stock - making it easier to get work visas with no path to citizenship - and then enforcing the current laws with much stricter sanctions for firms who hire illegal immigrants (i.e. the market will correct for the social costs).

PlasmaHam
September 17th, 2016, 12:35 PM
How is getting rid of illegal immigrants and preventing them from entering the country a bad thing?

Apparently some people don't seem to understand the difference between illegal and legal immigrants. And they also seem to think that this is a race issue, which it is far from.
You're better off gifting amnesty to the current stock - making it easier to get work visas with no path to citizenship - and then enforcing the current laws with much stricter sanctions for firms who hire illegal immigrants (i.e. the market will correct for the social costs).
The thing is, you aren't fixing the problem, just shifting it around. You will basically be telling illegal immigrants that if they stay in America long enough, and enough illegals come, then they can bypass the legal requirements and work legally. Current laws regarding hiring illegals are basically ignored, ironically, most of Trump's policies that people keep saying are racist, are really just enforcing policies already on the book. Increased government oversight over businesses would also be unpopular and I am not sure if the government has the Constitutional power to enforce that to the extent it needs to so it will work. Fake documentation and shady businesses won't help the effort either.

It seems like it would be much more logical and practical in the long run to simply deport illegal immigrants and then prioritize then when it comes to the legal immigration process. Thus the firm border stance stays strong and many people who have homes or jobs in America have a chance to return once they finish what they should have done in the first place.

Mars
September 17th, 2016, 12:47 PM
Apparently some people don't seem to understand the difference between illegal and legal immigrants. And they also seem to think that this is a race issue, which it is far from.

Yeah, course I don't understand the difference between illegal and legal. Apparently you don't understand how to read either right? Because if you did, then you would've read my last post, where I literally said I didn't think illegal immigration was right and it needs to be taken care of. However, Trump's "plan" is literally a fucking disaster and would put America even farther down the toilet than we already are as far as debt and spending goes. And please tell me how it isn't a race issue when trump repeatedly claims "Mexicans are rapists, drug dealers, and gang bangers" and doesn't even mention the many other countries that people illegally immigrate from.

How is getting rid of illegal immigrants and preventing them from entering the country a bad thing?

I didn't say it was. Again, I said Trump isn't the guy that's going to do it and he shouldn't be the guy in charge of doing such a thing. But as Vlerchan said, it costs a lot of money. Money that America doesn't have.

Bull
September 17th, 2016, 01:29 PM
Vlerchan you asked for and I responded with my reasoning, which I stand by in spite of your challenge. I am not an isolationist, however, the uneven playing field is resulting in damaging American economy with all the cheap stuff coming from countries who engage in near slave labor. It is increasingly difficult to find merchandise "Made in America"!
as far as the Un: great idea that does not work well. Also, member nations need to pay up and stop depending on US to carry the load.
This is a question of who you support and why. I gave my response and am not interested in debating the issue. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I gave mine. Sorry if you disagree. Your problem that I will not make mine.

Flapjack
September 18th, 2016, 06:01 AM
Just dropping these here. they are basically a guy talking over trump's speeches in a funny voice. It sounds like a waste of time but all of the words are the same and nothing is taken out of context, it really drives home what an idiot he really is.
Y44QZNVXzhE
ZH1ObUcBuV4

Now this is a video from Cenk's #LoserDonald series, I really recommend you check out this video and his others! He also calls out and criticises Clinton before you ask. :)
W5byGewNKaA

Vlerchan
September 18th, 2016, 06:22 AM
The thing is, you aren't fixing the problem, just shifting it around. You will basically be telling illegal immigrants that if they stay in America long enough, and enough illegals come, then they can bypass the legal requirements and work legally.
The likelihood is that other concerns dominate illegal immigrants decisions to immigrate to the United States or at least that's the indication from studies on Reagan's gift of amnesty to illegal immigrants in the late 1980s.

Current laws regarding hiring illegals are basically ignored[.]
That's an obvious problem then - and the penalties should become larger and enforcement stricter to counteract it.

Increased government oversight over businesses would also be unpopular and I am not sure if the government has the Constitutional power to enforce that to the extent it needs to so it will work.
Being as there are current federal laws of a similar nature on the books one can be sure that the government maintains the constitutional mandate.

I don't care if dealing with illegal immigration is unpopular - though I figure there's a taste for it at the moment. The current Trump plan - at the least - isn't going to get a thing done and the manner in which he is emphasising the successes of the Obama regime is indicative enough that he realises it too.

It seems like it would be much more logical and practical in the long run to simply deport illegal immigrants and then prioritize then when it comes to the legal immigration process. Thus the firm border stance stays strong and many people who have homes or jobs in America have a chance to return once they finish what they should have done in the first place.
This achieves the aims I outlines with several scores-times the mess and government rough handling.

Like I argued before - one of the biggest issues I have with this is that big government projects tend to underperformed.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I gave mine. Sorry if you disagree. Your problem that I will not make mine.
You can keep your opinion as the aim is never to convince the people I'm in a debate with - but the people who read the thread.

Though - to be frank - I don't appreciate attempts to relegate to the realms of opinion a subject of intense scientific inquiry, where we have a strong idea of what the actual outcomes of policy positions are going to be. So I am reluctant to agree at all that one has an entitlement to a political opinion on the issue - though given the circumstances of the last post I feel there's no further gain to push the position I hold.

Living For Love
September 18th, 2016, 08:03 AM
Just dropping these here. they are basically a guy talking over trump's speeches in a funny voice. It sounds like a waste of time but all of the words are the same and nothing is taken out of context, it really drives home what an idiot he really is.
Y44QZNVXzhE
ZH1ObUcBuV4

Now this is a video from Cenk's #LoserDonald series, I really recommend you check out this video and his others! He also calls out and criticises Clinton before you ask. :)
W5byGewNKaA
This is why I kind of want Trump to win, among other things, even though I think Clinton will be victorious: it's because Trump's opponents simply don't have nothing actually critical and useful to say about him and his policies, so they need to resort to this lame stuff in order to attack him. Some weeks ago I saw some kind of news article that said Trump wanted to nuke Chicago with an atomic bomb, and it was simply a click bait. Then I saw another article which stated that Trump had raped a girl some years ago, and another article that stated Trump had said the following in an interview: "If I were to run, I’d run as a Republican. They’re the dumbest group of voters in the country. They believe anything on Fox News. I could lie and they’d still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific." It all turned out to be false. All Trump's opponents say about him is that he's a racist, a xenophobe, wants to build a wall, wants to deport illegal immigrants (terrible, I know) and wants to ban Muslims, but I never hear any criticism about his economic policies, stuff related to the economy, to foreign policies, to justice, to global trade, nothing. They just resort on superficial stuff that stimulate people's emotions and feeeeeeelings instead of actually explaining why his policies will be bad...

Vlerchan
September 18th, 2016, 08:28 AM
it's because Trump's opponents simply don't have nothing actually critical and useful to say about him and his policies, so they need to resort to this lame stuff in order to attack him.
I criticise the substance of Trumps policies on a regular basis.

economic policies, stuff related to the economy, to foreign policies, to justice, to global trade, nothing.
His economic policies will cleave open a deficit and nullify the gains that the tax rate drops encourages. These will also further income unequality insofar as the mass beneficiaries are the rich - those below the median income level pay a negligible level of income taxation as it is.

Otherwise he offers little of substance on economic matters.

His foreign policies invites disaster. He has so far the suggested breach longstanding geopolitical relationships in Asia and Eastern Europe and cede large swaths of geopolitical influence to China and Russia. In particular his Russian policies demonstrate considerable deference to Putin's interests and an abdication of the United States own. His Middle Eastern policies are non-existent.

He doesn't have policies on Justice - other than being 'tough': whatever that means.

His suggestions on trade court unmitigated disaster. His position on TPP is criticised in above posts. But his preference for protectionism in general will result in considerable net welfare losses.

I can expand as desired.

Flapjack
September 18th, 2016, 08:37 AM
This is why I kind of want Trump to win, among other things, even though I think Clinton will be victorious: it's because Trump's opponents simply don't have nothing actually critical and useful to say about him and his policies, so they need to resort to this lame stuff in order to attack him. Some weeks ago I saw some kind of news article that said Trump wanted to nuke Chicago with an atomic bomb, and it was simply a click bait. Then I saw another article which stated that Trump had raped a girl some years ago, and another article that stated Trump had said the following in an interview: "If I were to run, I’d run as a Republican. They’re the dumbest group of voters in the country. They believe anything on Fox News. I could lie and they’d still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific." It all turned out to be false. All Trump's opponents say about him is that he's a racist, a xenophobe, wants to build a wall, wants to deport illegal immigrants (terrible, I know) and wants to ban Muslims, but I never hear any criticism about his economic policies, stuff related to the economy, to foreign policies, to justice, to global trade, nothing. They just resort on superficial stuff that stimulate people's emotions and feeeeeeelings instead of actually explaining why his policies will be bad...
I criticise Trump's policies all the time xD Name a policy and I will either say I support it or that I don't and why I don't:)

As well as me disagreeing with Trump's policies, I also think he is an idiot that is unfit to lead, as shown by him flip flopping in the same sentence, senior republicans agreeing that he is an idiot and that embarrassing interview where he shows he does not understand Crimea. I was using those videos to show what an idiot he is. Even if you like his polices, I still don't think you should support him.

phuckphace
September 18th, 2016, 09:50 AM
feeling those good 1933 vibes

http://imgur.com/5WHPwSf.jpg

mattsmith48
September 18th, 2016, 10:36 AM
feeling those good 1933 vibes

image (http://imgur.com/5WHPwSf.jpg)

Come on its Trump were talking about its not the swastika he would put on the flag its his own face

Porpoise101
September 18th, 2016, 06:20 PM
Who do you support? Clinton
Why do you support them? Has actual experience, has legitimate connections, will not have a stranglehold on the other branches of government, will nominate someone worthwhile to the Supreme Court, etc. Most importantly, Not Trump.
Who do you think will win? Probably Clinton, even if she keeps messing up with the media. There are some bad signs, but I am optimistic. If things don't start turning around in October, then I will be worried.

Paraxiom
September 18th, 2016, 09:05 PM
Who do you support? Trump, but not for the reasons you may think.


Why do you support them? Entertainment value, nothing more.

I expect him to be a more entertaining US president. Both him and Clinton are basically horrible, but let's have a little entertainment where we can have it.

By the way, I probably would literally kill Trump if I could. Funny that I first thought that a week before someone did try to kill him.
[ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/30/briton-charged-in-us-after-assassination-attempt-on-donald-trump ]


Who do you think will win? Current polls I have seen indicate more momentum for Trump, but current apparent momentum changes with time. I have no idea who will win.


feeling those good 1933 vibes

image (http://imgur.com/5WHPwSf.jpg)

I love that image! :D

PlasmaHam
September 23rd, 2016, 03:28 PM
I'm not too interested in sparking a debate on this subject, but this video just demanded I post it.
_T8tMk-ZOx8

Are you sure that you are mentally fit? Because it seemed like there were a few screws loose during this video. She honestly looked and sounded evil in this video, and scripted, very scripted. I guess all those stories from the Secret Service aren't too off point.

mattsmith48
September 24th, 2016, 11:36 AM
I'm not too interested in sparking a debate on this subject, but this video just demanded I post it.
_T8tMk-ZOx8

Are you sure that you are mentally fit? Because it seemed like there were a few screws loose during this video. She honestly looked and sounded evil in this video, and scripted, very scripted. I guess all those stories from the Secret Service aren't too off point.

Two things about this:

1. You can't ask if Hillary Clinton is mentally fit to be president when your supporting Trump.

2. This isn't the place for conspiracy theories

Paraxiom
September 24th, 2016, 01:35 PM
This isn't the place for conspiracy theories

Why?

Kahn
September 24th, 2016, 01:43 PM
Two things about this:

1. You can't ask if Hillary Clinton is mentally fit to be president when your supporting Trump.

2. This isn't the place for conspiracy theories

This is just silly.

everlong
September 24th, 2016, 01:56 PM
I'm conflicted on who I'm rooting for. I believe my views align with Hillary's more than Trump's by far, but all the scandals and "coincidental" deaths tied with Hillary make me want to root for Trump. This is the one year I wanted to have a political opinion and I've failed. Perhaps in 2020.

Periphery
September 24th, 2016, 01:57 PM
Two things about this:

1. You can't ask if Hillary Clinton is mentally fit to be president when your supporting Trump.


I don't support Trump at all but claiming people who support Trump aren't mentally fit while not knowing the difference between your and you're isn't exactly smart either m8.

Also, what the hell? Does this mean that every single Trump supporter is a braindead sack of potatoes? You may have not said it in this post, but looking at the nature of most of your posts that's how you treat them and act towards them. They also have a right to vote for whoever they want and support whoever they want without being insulted you know.

mattsmith48
September 25th, 2016, 10:30 AM
Why?

This is just silly.

You shouldn't bring up conspiracy theories in debates, it doesn't add anything constructive and it shift the discusion away from the real debate. Best example of that is the climate change debate here on VT instead of being a real debate about how to stop it or how to decrease the effects we are wasting time debating conspiracy theorist whether climate change is real or a hoax.

I don't support Trump at all but claiming people who support Trump aren't mentally fit while not knowing the difference between your and you're isn't exactly smart either m8.

Also, what the hell? Does this mean that every single Trump supporter is a braindead sack of potatoes? You may have not said it in this post, but looking at the nature of most of your posts that's how you treat them and act towards them. They also have a right to vote for whoever they want and support whoever they want without being insulted you know.

I didn't say Trump supporters aren't mentally fit, I said if you support Trump you can't say Hillary Clinton is not mentally fit to be president, its like the Trump supporters who complain or saying they are supporting Trump because Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy, you guys are supporting a pathological liar, you can't complain about her on this.

PlasmaHam
September 25th, 2016, 11:51 AM
You shouldn't bring up conspiracy theories in debates, it doesn't add anything constructive and it shift the discusion away from the real debate. Best example of that is the climate change debate here on VT instead of being a real debate about how to stop it or how to decrease the effects we are wasting time debating conspiracy theorist whether climate change is real or a hoax.
Excuse me for bringing up the obvious, but what sounds like more of a conspiracy theory? The idea, supported by many scientists, that global warming, a theory, has no basis in reality. Or that Donald Trump wants to nuke the whole Earth. You are the pinnacle of conspiracy theories on this site, I find it very hypocritical that you are pointing out me as a conspiracy theorist, when all I posted was a video posted by Clinton that showed her to be acting unhinged.
I didn't say Trump supporters aren't mentally fit, I said if you support Trump you can't say Hillary Clinton is not mentally fit to be president, its like the Trump supporters who complain or saying they are supporting Trump because Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy, you guys are supporting a pathological liar, you can't complain about her on this.
So, you are still saying Trump is mentally unfit, yet anyone who claims Hillary is unfit is a crazy conspiracy theorist? I think you might be mentally unfit to take part in this debate.

mattsmith48
September 25th, 2016, 12:24 PM
Excuse me for bringing up the obvious, but what sounds like more of a conspiracy theory? The idea, supported by many scientists, that global warming, a theory, has no basis in reality. Or that Donald Trump wants to nuke the whole Earth. You are the pinnacle of conspiracy theories on this site, I find it very hypocritical that you are pointing out me as a conspiracy theorist, when all I posted was a video posted by Clinton that showed her to be acting unhinged.

So, you are still saying Trump is mentally unfit, yet anyone who claims Hillary is unfit is a crazy conspiracy theorist? I think you might be mentally unfit to take part in this debate.

I don't see anything in that video that shows that Hillary Clinton is mentally unfit to be president. Trump being mentally unfit is a fact just like its a fact that he as no idea of the consequences of using nuclear weapons. He is a pathological liar and a dangerous xenophobic, racist maniac compared by many to Hitler, he believe in every crazy things he reads on the internet, and there is a pretty good chance he have Narcissistic personality disorder.

What sounds more like a conspiracy seeing facts and agreeing with 99% of scientists that man made climate change is happening or that its all a hoax and 99% of scientists in the world are just lying about it or are bias?

Vlerchan
September 25th, 2016, 01:02 PM
like its a fact that he as no idea of the consequences of using nuclear weapons.
I linked to an article before in which he stated he sees them as being calamitous in there use. You actually responded to this post.

I can only presume at this stage that you are deliberately lying in service of your ideology as opposed to taking an unbiased, objective look at the facts.

---

The Hitler bit is also extreme hyperbole.

mattsmith48
September 25th, 2016, 01:21 PM
I linked to an article before in which he stated he sees them as being calamitous in there use. You actually responded to this post.

I can only presume at this stage that you are deliberately lying in service of your ideology as opposed to taking an unbiased, objective look at the facts.

---

The Hitler bit is also extreme hyperbole.

If Trump having access to nuclear weapons or his plan to start a war on the environment weren't issues I wouldn't really give a shit who wins Ive said before why you are wrong on this.

The Hitler this was kinda a hyperbole at the start but now it looks more and more like a fair comparasion.

Vlerchan
September 25th, 2016, 01:26 PM
If Trump having access to nuclear weapons or his plan to start a war on the environment weren't issues I wouldn't really give a shit who wins Ive said before why you are wrong on this.
OK. I'm not going to repeat the same argument we had prior when I realise you won't be convinced and everyone else who frequents this board already takes my side.

The Hitler this was kinda a hyperbole at the start but now it looks more and more like a fair comparasion.
Define: Fascism, please.

Then feel free to explain how Trump meets that criteria.

Kahn
September 25th, 2016, 01:47 PM
I didn't say Trump supporters aren't mentally fit, I said if you support Trump you can't say Hillary Clinton is not mentally fit to be president, its like the Trump supporters who complain or saying they are supporting Trump because Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy, you guys are supporting a pathological liar, you can't complain about her on this.

This is what I find silly.

>if you support trump you can't say hillary is not mentally fit to be president
>because both are known liars
>so you can't question clinton's mental capacity because ?

The argument is falicious and childish.

StoppingTom
September 25th, 2016, 01:57 PM
Entertainment value, nothing more.

I expect him to be a more entertaining US president. Both him and Clinton are basically horrible, but let's have a little entertainment where we can have it.

By the way, I probably would literally kill Trump if I could.


You have been banned from r/thedonald

Porpoise101
September 25th, 2016, 02:06 PM
Yeah, comparing Trump to Hitler is a gross exaggeration.

That does not mean Trump is unlike Fascist leaders. I am studying Mussolini right now and I see plenty of similarities.
Common things between Donald and Benito:

using fear to gain support
exploiting the religious people
acting 'moderate' to secure support from establishment
forcing the establishment to choose him as a 'lesser evil'
wants to increase government influence in daily life
shows contempt for current system
was originally on the left
was widely known to the public before pursuing office


That being said Mussolini organized a paramilitary movement and had them beat up people. He also was much more radical and he was an open imperialist. Trump doesn't do that. Also Mussolini rose to power in a nation with a weak constitution headed by a monarch. Trump can't enforce his more radical proposals (like national stop-and-frisk) without going against the gov.

In all, Trump isn't a fascist. He is a right wing populist with authoritarian tendencies.

PlasmaHam
September 25th, 2016, 05:23 PM
I'm not the kind of guy that goes around calling everyone I dislike Hitler, but I do feel the need to give someone here a taste of his own medicine. I'm not arguing against Clinton here, I'm just arguing against the idea that Trump is Hitler.

Hitler/Clinton Comparisons:

*Increased gun restrictions
*Higher taxes on the rich
*Convincing a voter block that all their woes are the fault of another group of citizens.
*Favor socialist style economic plans
*Pro-Abortion
*Society over the individual
*Wants to raise wages

I'm not arguing that Hillary is Hitler, but simply to show how foolhardy it is to keep calling Trump Hitler when Clinton has just as much in common. You said earlier that Trump supporters can't judge Clinton's mental competency without being hypocrites, so it stands to reason that Clinton supporters can't call Trump Hitler without being hypocrites too.

I really do wish we would stop with the Hitler comparisons. Hitler killed and tortured millions of people and lead a country that brutally invaded most of Europe. Neither candidate is a Hitler, when you compare them to Hitler you are really just undermining the true horrors that was Nazi Germany. So to sum up, hurting your feelings does not equate to being a mass murdering dictator.

Paraxiom
September 25th, 2016, 07:04 PM
You shouldn't bring up conspiracy theories in debates, it doesn't add anything constructive and it shift the discusion away from the real debate. Best example of that is the climate change debate here on VT instead of being a real debate about how to stop it or how to decrease the effects we are wasting time debating conspiracy theorist whether climate change is real or a hoax.

If a conspiracy theory involves entities which are also involved in a certain debate in a similar way, then there is no reason why the conspiracy theory is not relevant or of potential constructive value to such a debate.

Funnily enough, your mention of them has added to this thread's discussion/debate.

I'm against your view of excluding perceived conspiracy theories in discussion, in much the same way as I am against the no-platforming of viewpoints that one doesn't like, because the former is an example of the latter. It paradoxically is a very authoritarian quality for you, because you say that you're the opposite.

One shouldn't refuse to discuss a view because it's not valid, because one is basically arriving at a presupposed conclusion of the discussion, before the said discussion has even begun!


You have been banned from r/thedonald

I banned myself from even looking at it, about 2 minutes after I first did. :P

PlasmaHam
September 25th, 2016, 08:43 PM
I don't see anything in that video that shows that Hillary Clinton is mentally unfit to be president. Trump being mentally unfit is a fact just like its a fact that he as no idea of the consequences of using nuclear weapons. He is a pathological liar and a dangerous xenophobic, racist maniac compared by many to Hitler, he believe in every crazy things he reads on the internet, and there is a pretty good chance he have Narcissistic personality disorder. You throw around the word "fact" way too often to ever take you serious. I'm pretty sure you are the one who believes everything they read on the internet, because your conspiracy theories about Trump sounds like something from a SJW blog.
What sounds more like a conspiracy seeing facts and agreeing with 99% of scientists that man made climate change is happening or that its all a hoax and 99% of scientists in the world are just lying about it or are bias? Could you actually support that claim, because everything I have read ranged from 35% to 70% of climate scientists support global warming, not this mythical 99% you are throwing around.

You shouldn't bring up conspiracy theories in debates, it doesn't add anything constructive and it shift the discusion away from the real debate. Best example of that is the climate change debate here on VT instead of being a real debate about how to stop it or how to decrease the effects we are wasting time debating conspiracy theorist whether climate change is real or a hoax.
I've read something once about debating, and it went like this. Never dismiss something from a debate because you believe it is impossible. If it is impossible, then it should be very easy to dismiss with proven facts. But outright dismissing it is a sign of bias and close-mindedness. I suggest you read this (http://www.artofmanliness.com/2008/09/21/how-to-debate-politics-civilly/), to better understand how to properly debate on this level.
The Hitler this was kinda a hyperbole at the start but now it looks more and more like a fair comparasion.
If you think Trump is anywhere near equivalent to Hitler, I suggest you actually look at Trump's policies, and then watch a documentary on the Holocaust. You tell me how those two things are logically the same, and then I might take you seriously. Until then though, I suggest you check out the Hillary/Hitler list I made just for you.

I feel like this thread has gone from 'Hillary/Trump' to The Roast of MattSmith48'. But hey, I'm not complaining.

PinkFloyd
September 25th, 2016, 09:07 PM
They're both pretty fucked in my opinion. One is a blatant liar that has cheated the system far too many times; and the other is completely egotistical. He is smart, but I don't think he is able to run one of the major super powers. I'll probably end up voting third party.

phuckphace
September 26th, 2016, 12:03 PM
TONIGHT

Donald "Totaler Krieg" Trump vs. Hillarei, Queen of the Vandals and the Worst Men

if she doesn't show up we'll know there's a wildfire trap under the building...RUN!

Flapjack
September 26th, 2016, 01:39 PM
I'm not the kind of guy that goes around calling everyone I dislike Hitler, but I do feel the need to give someone here a taste of his own medicine. I'm not arguing against Clinton here, I'm just arguing against the idea that Trump is Hitler.

Hitler/Clinton Comparisons:

*Increased gun restrictions
*Higher taxes on the rich
*Convincing a voter block that all their woes are the fault of another group of citizens.
*Favor socialist style economic plans
*Pro-Abortion
*Society over the individual
*Wants to raise wages

I'm not arguing that Hillary is Hitler, but simply to show how foolhardy it is to keep calling Trump Hitler when Clinton has just as much in common. You said earlier that Trump supporters can't judge Clinton's mental competency without being hypocrites, so it stands to reason that Clinton supporters can't call Trump Hitler without being hypocrites too.

I really do wish we would stop with the Hitler comparisons. Hitler killed and tortured millions of people and lead a country that brutally invaded most of Europe. Neither candidate is a Hitler, when you compare them to Hitler you are really just undermining the true horrors that was Nazi Germany. So to sum up, hurting your feelings does not equate to being a mass murdering dictator.
*Increased gun restrictions good
*Higher taxes on the rich I wish
*Convincing a voter block that all their woes are the fault of another group of citizens. How? Trump is certainly doing this with the Muslims and the Mexicans but how is Trump?
*Favor socialist style economic plans I wish
*Pro-Abortion Good, just like post people in the 21st century
*Society over the individual Elaborate?
*Wants to raise wages Oh the horror- for the record, it is not enough.

Yeahhh kinda a weak argument when Trump is flip flopping all other the place whether or not he wants to discriminate against a whole religion and useing fear mongering about them to drive up support from the racists and the uninformed.

EuRo
September 26th, 2016, 03:44 PM
Who do you support? None, but I'd rather support Turmip than Shillary.
Why do you support them? Trump is better than Shillary.
Who do you think will win? No clue, I hope Trump.

Flapjack
September 26th, 2016, 04:02 PM
Why do you support them? Trump is better than Shillary.
.
Why do you think this?

Vlerchan
September 26th, 2016, 04:19 PM
Increased gun restrictions good
*Higher taxes on the rich I wish
*Convincing a voter block that all their woes are the fault of another group of citizens. How? Trump is certainly doing this with the Muslims and the Mexicans but how is Trump?
*Favor socialist style economic plans I wish
*Pro-Abortion Good, just like post people in the 21st century
*Society over the individual Elaborate?
*Wants to raise wages Oh the horror- for the record, it is not enough.
Flapjack is Hitler. Confirmed.

---

Fascism is also the view of the state as the manifestation of the nation - of whose cause is supreme.

The spectrum that is Far-Right is much broader and contains all those of the counter-Enlightenment tradition. Though Trump doesn't fit inside that either.

PlasmaHam
September 26th, 2016, 04:40 PM
*Increased gun restrictions good
*Higher taxes on the rich I wish
*Convincing a voter block that all their woes are the fault of another group of citizens. How? Trump is certainly doing this with the Muslims and the Mexicans but how is Trump?
*Favor socialist style economic plans I wish
*Pro-Abortion Good, just like post people in the 21st century
*Society over the individual Elaborate?
*Wants to raise wages Oh the horror- for the record, it is not enough.

Yeahhh kinda a weak argument when Trump is flip flopping all other the place whether or not he wants to discriminate against a whole religion and useing fear mongering about them to drive up support from the racists and the uninformed.
You missed the whole point of the purpose of that list. That list was simply to show the futility of comparing Trump to Hitler, when Clinton has her fair share of similarities too. As in regards to the third point there, I suggest you read into how Hitler got into power.

phuckphace
September 26th, 2016, 06:26 PM
every time Flapjack makes a shitpost unironically invoking the current year and/or Hitler, THE WALL gains +50 ft. we're now approaching maximum height allowed by engineering tolerances

mattsmith48
September 26th, 2016, 06:29 PM
This is what I find silly.

>if you support trump you can't say hillary is not mentally fit to be president
>because both are known liars
>so you can't question clinton's mental capacity because ?

The argument is falicious and childish.

You can't complain the other candidate about the other candidate's honnesty or say your not voting for her because of that when you are voting for the guy who is who often contradict himself in the same sentence and has changed his mind on every issue multiple times since he started running.

I have already explained why asking you can't ask if a candidate is mentally fit to be president when you support and are voting for Trump.

With almost any other candidate instead of Trump you could ask those questions and complain about Hillary Clinton honnesty but there is no other candidate

PlasmaHam Flapjack I highly doubt Clinton will do anything about gun control that Obama didn't do.

You missed the whole point of the purpose of that list. That list was simply to show the futility of comparing Trump to Hitler, when Clinton has her fair share of similarities too.

Some dictators had good policies or ideas and there is nothing wrong with agreeing with those policies and ideas. Raising the minimum wage and tax on the rich, strick gun control and giving women the right to choose are great ideas and there is nothing wrong with supporting those things. The problem is when you have the bad stuff in common with those dictators like xenophobia, racism, suppressing the voting rights of a certain group of the population, fear mongering and banning a religion for no reason

Karkat
September 26th, 2016, 07:00 PM
No one is a great candidate imo. I'm not a Bernie supporter to the extent most people are, but I feel like he actually gave a crap, and I kinda wish he wasn't out.

That being said, if I do decide to actually vote, I'll DEFINITELY pick a 3rd party. Both the main candidates are garbage.

Kahn
September 26th, 2016, 07:44 PM
https://media.tenor.co/images/a0519404cc1a7c77513113fa6f04ffa7/raw


I have already explained why asking you can't ask if a candidate is mentally fit to be president when you support and are voting for Trump.

>I think Trump is mentally unfit to be POTUS
>Therefore, you can't question Hillary's mental capacity, because I think Trump is unfit to be POTUS
>I think Trump is dishonest
>Therefore, you can't question Hillary's dishonesty because I think Trump is dishonest (it doesn't matter what the candidates are dishonest about- all that matters is the dishonesty!)

With almost any other candidate instead of Trump you could ask those questions and complain about Hillary Clinton honnesty but there is no other candidate

>But, if it were any other candidate, because everyone else besides Trump is mentally fit and honest to the bone, you are "allowed" to question Hillary"s mental capacity and honesty

Yeah, that is ridiculous.

PlasmaHam
September 26th, 2016, 08:02 PM
mattsmith48 What exactly won't Hillary do about gun control that Obama hasn't done? Liberals are still whining about gun control, Clinton is definitely going to pursue stricter gun laws.

Also, the first Presidential Debate has just started. I suggest that if you have any interest in American politics and continuing this debate, you watch it.

Vlerchan
September 26th, 2016, 08:24 PM
Trump is getting creamed.

He also just implied he believed in climate change.

mattsmith48
September 26th, 2016, 08:33 PM
image (https://media.tenor.co/images/a0519404cc1a7c77513113fa6f04ffa7/raw)



>I think Trump is mentally unfit to be POTUS
>Therefore, you can't question Hillary's mental capacity, because I think Trump is unfit to be POTUS
>I think Trump is dishonest
>Therefore, you can't question Hillary's dishonesty because I think Trump is dishonest (it doesn't matter what the candidates are dishonest about- all that matters is the dishonesty!)



>But, if it were any other candidate, because everyone else besides Trump is mentally fit and honest to the bone, you are "allowed" to question Hillary"s mental capacity and honesty

Yeah, that is ridiculous.

No if you vote or support Trump you can't say those things about Clinton. If you don't vote or support Trump your free to say they are both liars or question if Clinton is mentally unfit to be president. Its all about which of the two candidate you support if you support anyone.

Vlerchan
September 26th, 2016, 08:42 PM
Update: Trump is getting fucking creamed.

Edit: Loling at Trumps performance.

Edit: Lol

Kahn
September 26th, 2016, 09:37 PM
No if you vote or support Trump you can't say those things about Clinton. If you don't vote or support Trump your free to say they are both liars or question if Clinton is mentally unfit to be president. Its all about which of the two candidate you support if you support anyone.

Look, I support Trump. I am allowed to question Hillary's mental capacity, and I am allowed to question her honesty, despite whatever nonsense you believe. Lol

I am aware of his history of dishonesty. I am of the opinion it pales in comparison to Hillary's history of flip-flopping on the issues and pandering to voters, while getting nothing done, besides of course causing death and destruction across the Middle East in the form of the Arab Spring.

You have your opinions, I have mine. You cannot tell me or anyone that I "can't" think or say certain things about Hillary because I support the opposing candidate. There is such a thing as healthy skepticism.

phuckphace
September 26th, 2016, 09:59 PM
the Internet:

LOL HILLARY REKT
TRUMP ABSOLUTELY BTFO
WOW LOOK AT SHILLARY WHAT A WITCH
LOL TRUMP HE LOOKS LIKE HITLER WITH DOWNS

always a reminder how useless Twitter polls are (and internet polls in general). I remember seeing this in 2012 when Romney was ALREADY IN THE WHITE HOUSE, PACK YOUR BAGS DEMS

thoughts: Trump talked about himself too much. wasted time on shit nobody cares about. nobody cares about Obama being born WHEREVER, we only care that he is/was a shitty President. we're also well aware that you're rich, now let's talk walls some more

Clinton is lol because she lives in a huge mansion, gets paid millions per speech by Goldman Sachs, hangs with the Illuminati over at Davos, and actually tries to play the left-populist angle by snarking about Trump's money as if her own palms aren't slick with Saudi/donor grease

all in all a very entertaining circus, 5/5 would watch again

PlasmaHam
September 26th, 2016, 10:32 PM
Post debate review: I just watched the whole thing, and it was actually much more civil than I expected. I'm going to analyze all 3 segments and give my honest and probably bias opinions of them, so be warned.

1. The Economy: Honestly, I feel that Trump dominated this arena. He put out detailed, logical plans to rebuild the economy by focusing on businesses. Clinton put out a less detailed plan on rebuilding the economy, by relying on Obama's record and focusing on increased taxes and government programs. Trump just seemed to be much smarter and clearer when it came to the economy. Clinton was depending on policies that aren't too different from what exists today, and the only real support she had for them was this panel of experts she kept referring to yet never explicitly mentioned why it was superior. Clinton pulled out the tax returns issue, with Trump promptly responding with the much more relevant e-mail issue. Trump was clever. So all in all, I give this round to Trump.

2.Race Relations:This round is probably really dependent on your bias, ironically. Neither candidate was able to effectively gain the high ground in this. I will give credit to Trump for his great wording when it came to his responses. He wasn't giving Clinton much to bite at. Trump did falter when it came to the birther issue, he was never able to effectively answer that. However, I feel that Clinton's numerous attempts to paint him as a racist failed. For me, many of Clinton's remarks about racism and the police were outright scary and painted a dim picture. Over all, this debate is really based around bias, so I'll give it a Tie.

3.National Security: This is similar to the previous question, but I do feel that Trump managed to gain a slight lead. He had a very effective argument about how Clinton keeps referring to her pass experiences as a Senator or Secretary of State, yet she never did anything notable. I feel that Trump plan's were very practical, and that Hillary was largely on the defensive about her political career. At this time, Clinton was clearly tiring while Trump was starting to get more aggressive. However, I don't think he ever got to the point that he seemed temperamental. Overall, this was close, but I'll give it to Trump.

Overall, I would call this a win for Trump, but just barely. He continued his trend of being a debate dominator and being open and clear about policies, but there were points where his lack of prep work and debate experience showed through. Clinton was a good debator, but I feel that she wasn't as clear on policy and that I still have no greater trust in her than before the debate.
(This is just my opinion and review, I'm not claiming to be a political expert, this is just what I got out of this.)

Most lol statement: Clinton" He(Trump) believes that women shouldn't be paid as much as men, unless they can the same amount of work as men.
I literally started bursting out laughing when she said this. I was already amused that she supported the 70% myth, but this? This was gold! I don't know about you, but if someone does less work than somebody else, I'll pay them less. Being a woman doesn't give you an excuse to do less. Maybe Clinton misquoted, but I don't see what she could have been initially implying.

Ultimate Loser: Lester Holt, the moderator. Both candidates were rather rude debators, and Holt barely spoke more than 5 sentences through the whole debate. Trump especially would just so nonchalantly ignore Holt to continue his point. If Holt wants to continue as a moderator, he needs to get firmer.

mattsmith48, you are sounding like a religious zealot currently when it comes to Clinton. Trump is not the most honest person in the world, but like Kahn I believe that Clinton is far worse. Your argument against this is so illogical. Even if you don't admit it, let people form their own opinions instead of forcing yours on them. You don't get to decide who is allowed to have what opinions.

I would encourage everyone to analyze the debate for themselves, instead of depending on mine or anybody else's opinions on it. If you didn't watch it on tv, I'm sure you can find it on Youtube or some news site.

phuckphace
September 26th, 2016, 11:57 PM
forget the economy, what about them ICE BURNS THO

"See the thing is, I'm VERY VERY rich. Outstanding. YUGE. it's called business, by the way"

"I call it ---> "TRUMPED" <--- UP trickle down" *badum-TISS*

also lol @ mod getting told by his boss not to press Hillary about the state secrets she gave out while talking about yoga (scissoring) with Huma, guess he didn't want to end up committing suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head several times

Flapjack
September 27th, 2016, 01:18 AM
You missed the whole point of the purpose of that list. That list was simply to show the futility of comparing Trump to Hitler, when Clinton has her fair share of similarities too. As in regards to the third point there, I suggest you read into how Hitler got into power.
My cat breaths air... so did Hitler? Hitler isn't despised for the world for raising the minimum wage or gun control, it is because of the discrimination against the Jews that ultimately lead to genocide and starting a world war, both of which the joke that is trump is much closer to.

Oh and are you not responding to the climate change thread?:P

Vlerchan
September 27th, 2016, 04:44 AM
I am not going to review in terms of policies, because it wasn't about that. Both candidates spoke to their respective bases and the debate centered around attempts to undermine the oppositions credibility in the eyes of their respective leaning-voters.

With that in mind, Trump won the first 15 minutes. He was cool, polite - and, whilst I felt on economic issues both were unconvincing (it was a shambolic presentation for both, frankly) - I felt that Trump was overall the more convincing. Clinton dominated otherwise. Trump couldn't resist responding to personal slights and allowed himself to be baited into too many confrontations, in which he frequently came off as a combination of rambling, angry, erratic, rude, arrogant: with the long, meandering, disturbingly-irrelevant diatribes on foreign policy, cutting worst and underlining his vulnerabilities.

His big gaffes were calling a fourteen million dollar loan: small, cheering a housing bust, claiming to just having taken advantage of the law in defense of moral wrongdoing - I will make sure to mention this next time we discuss women and abortion, his claims that he wasn't racist on the back of their being zero admission of legal guilt, the Birther bit - which was just fucking weird, and I could go on*. Clinton had her own. That comment about wage-equality just sounded stupid, and at times it was clear she was reading her points from a script. But Trump's touched on more provocative issues, and are going to make a better soundbite.

On policies, I never figured either offered a huge amount of substance, though Clinton's expositions were frequently narrower. Both economic prescriptions were shambolic - though, Trump has always relied on a description on the issue and he did well outlining it. On race matters neither offered a huge amount, but I would consider Clinton to have won on purely policy grounds. On foreign policy, Trump came across as confused and frequently served to highlight his own deficiencies - Even if Clinton had said nothing, she would have undoubtedly won (and, frankly, her defense was genuinely, quite good.)

But policies didn't matter and those are not what's going to be discussed in the coming weeks. The debate was about the others baggage and what that should mean for leaners. Remember the part where the moderator challenges Trump on his Iraq support and his response could basically be summed up on, "can you believe this guy?", asked back to his own supporters. That's what this election is. It's partisan, post-fact politics, and the debate was only ever going to be a confrontation of credibilities.

Verdict: Trump was angry, rambling and sometimes weird. Clinton was altogether presidential.

---

* Though - now that I remember - I'd like to emphasise ahead of the rest of that Trumps attempt to spin his tax avoidance - i.e. he's paid nothing - as a virtue. That entire segment on his tax returns went awful on him though.

Edit: For those interested in foreign media: The centrist Irish Times - the most respectable of our papers - had its writers all conclude that Clinton won the debate. You can read the reactions here (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/us-presidential-debate-who-won-was-it-any-good-were-there-any-surprises-1.2807077).

always a reminder how useless Twitter polls are (and internet polls in general).
Internet polls are awful - always.

... besides of course causing death and destruction across the Middle East in the form of the Arab Spring.
Clinton didn't start no Arab Spring.

Kahn
September 27th, 2016, 06:36 AM
Clinton didn't start no Arab Spring.


WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. State Department under the leadership of Secretary Hillary Clinton continued a program to embolden foreign, revolutionary, social media activists to agitate for regime change in various parts of the world. The program arguably had major, detrimental consequences for the trajectory of the Middle East.

Recent leaks show a memo that top Clinton aide Huma Abedin sent to her boss stating, “I’m giving you credit for inspiring the ‘peaceful’ protests,” with regard to Egypt, with quotation marks around the word “peaceful.”

The United States government is believed to have utilized a program called the Alliance of Youth Movements Summit, co-founded by a close Hillary Clinton adviser, to provide networking opportunities for an activist plotting to overthrow Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak several years before the “Arab Spring” protests that led to widespread regime change in the Middle East.

Through the Alliance of Youth Movements Summit, the U.S. learned that the Muslim Brotherhood was supportive of a plan to overthrow Mubarak. The U.S.-supported Muslim Brotherhood later briefly ruled Egypt after Mubarak’s ouster.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/23/hillary-clinton-sponsored-secretive-arab-spring-program-that-destabilized-middle-east/)

Verdict: Trump was angry, rambling and sometimes weird. Clinton was altogether presidential.

Preparation made all the difference. While Trump was stumping and campaigning Clinton was cancelling multiple events (not like she can draw a crowd anyways). Whether it was because of her illness or solely to prepare for the debates I can't say, but she clearly had practiced her arguments whereas Trump was off the cuff and sometimes underprepared. It was hard to watch, because she controlled the direction of the debate so much, and Trump kept falling for her bait, like prolonging the tax return issue. He didn't hammer her about her controversies, he simply got defensive.

phuckphace
September 27th, 2016, 06:39 AM
Clinton's main problem is that she's a Clinton and the country is starting to come down with a serious case of Clinton fatigue after enduring decades of Clintonian politics. I felt like many of the points she made, like on jobs and the possibility of Trump's tax plans being a trickle-down scheme, would have been 10,000% more credible if she were someone else, like Jill Stein for example. Clinton's careerism and long history of lying makes any point she makes fall flat because we're well aware that her singular concerns are money and power.

she also comes across as repellent and unlikable in a "bitchy mother-in-law" sort of way - you can see it on Trump's face when he gets visibly irritated that a Clinton of all people is lecturing him on tax returns. Clinton's irritation seemed to stem from an unspoken impatience, "I tried to talk Mr. Soros out of this but he insisted I come for appearance's sake. Why can't I just be back in the White House already?!"

Mars
September 27th, 2016, 07:10 AM
My thoughts on the debate:

Trump - "can you believe this guy" and continue me yelling at the tv for the rest of the debate

Clinton - "wew lad sure got them there *wipe forehead*"

Overall though, Trump was unnecessarily and horridly rude to both Moderator Lester Holt and Hillary Clinton, irritable, easily agitated, and focuses too much on himself and points that don't matter and no one cared about (aren't they the same tho?)

Clinton made a few unnecessary interruptions, but was mostly composed (if she wasn't laughing at her opponent) and widely presidential.

Trumps policies are kinda horrible tho. His economic plan is trickle down economics and won't work. His views on NATO and our allies are heavily skewed (thinking we should pay our allies for "protecting" them... What?). His reckless remarks and interruptions shows he isn't collected and doesn't have a professional attitude. Also, making remarks like "that's just business" or "because I'm smart" to not releasing his tax returns, not paying his taxes, and doing generally morally wrong things like not paying someone for doing a job for him is really fucked up and I don't want someone like that in office. Period.

His whole "debate" was based around "oh, well Hillary Clinton didn't do this in her thirty years of working. Why haven't u done _____ Clinton? Huh? Cuz ur a bad person for our country that's why! Believe me! I know the best words!" (which, she hasn't been in power for thirty years. She was a First Lady which can't do shit, SOS for 4 years and made some good deals and some eh deals, and senators can't really do anything besides vote on shit that needs to be voted on that needs to be voted on) which is fucking ridiculous. He's a finger pointer basically.

PlasmaHam
September 27th, 2016, 07:56 AM
My cat breaths air... so did Hitler? Hitler isn't despised for the world for raising the minimum wage or gun control, it is because of the discrimination against the Jews that ultimately lead to genocide and starting a world war, both of which the joke that is trump is much closer to.

Oh and are you not responding to the climate change thread?:P

Let me think, taking away guns to make it easier to control the population, one of the first things Hitler did. Convincing a voter block(Hitler: Core Germans)(Clinton: Blacks) that all their woes and disadvantages stem from discrimination from the (Hitler: Jews)(Clinton: Whites). While I'm pretty sure Clinton isn't planning to pursue genocide of white people, she is touting a very similar message that Hitler took to get into office.

Mars
September 27th, 2016, 08:02 AM
Let me think, taking away guns to make it easier to control the population,
No one is advocating that. Literally, no one. Liberals don't want to "take ur guns away". What we want is stricter gun laws so crazies and criminals can't get their hands on them. We aren't going to fucking barge in your house and confiscate your weapons. Idk how you right wingers get this idea and skewed view.

Convincing a voter block(Hitler: Core Germans)(Clinton: Blacks) that all their woes and disadvantages stem from discrimination from the (Hitler: Jews)(Clinton: Whites).
No one is doing that either? Just because Clinton has support from minority groups doesn't mean she hates white people. Actually, last night she said "We need communities who respect the law and police officers who are involved with the people". I don't see how that's sucking up to blacks or Latinos. It's telling people to literally, listen to the police, who are majority white.

While I'm pretty sure Clinton isn't planning to pursue genocide of white people, she is touting a very similar message that Hitler took to get into office.

Please, explain how Clinton shows more similarities to Hitler than Trump does.

StoppingTom
September 27th, 2016, 08:14 AM
"I've got a much better temperament than her!" he screamed as she sat there calmly and smiling

poor lester holt tho, dude was trapped in a dystopian hellscape

PlasmaHam
September 27th, 2016, 08:18 AM
No one is advocating that. Literally, no one. Liberals don't want to "take ur guns away". What we want is stricter gun laws so crazies and criminals can't get their hands on them. We aren't going to fucking barge in your house and confiscate your weapons. Idk how you right wingers get this stupid ass idea and skewed view.
I really do find it odd that you can call me basically a "stupid ass" with skewed views, and implied that I and most conservatives are backwards hillbillys that can't spell, that's fine. Yet when I, with no cussing or bad language, pointed out Flapjack on his debating technique you called that "baiting and bashing".

Mars
September 27th, 2016, 08:31 AM
Every dictator says that his/her policies are just for your "safety." Hitler didn;t just start ranting for the death of all jews, he slowly worked into that. She had said numerous times that the Australian buy-back is a great example of gun control. She even said that similar policies are "worth considering" at the Federal level if she wins. The Australian buy-back literally was the government coming in and confiscating guns, except for the fact they gave you a bit of cash for them. If someone has said these types of policies are "worth considering" I'm scared.

As I said earlier, that list as shown above was simply to show how faulty Trump, Hitler comparisons are. I am not advocating right now that Clinton is Hitler. Hitler is in a league of his own, and to say that any candidate is Hitler seriously undermines the atrocities of Nazi Germany.

I really do find it odd that you can call me basically a "stupid ass" and that I have skewed views, yet when I, with no cussing or bad language, pointed out Flapjack on his debating technique you called that "baiting and bashing".
I didn't call you stupid. I said the idea of twisting words or even the idea of going in and confiscating guns, stupid. You realise that laws and movements have to go through congress and a shit ton of votes right? Something like that would never be passed, as unconstitutional and wrong. Same with 99% of things Trump says he wants to do.

Also, please don't try to argue with me over moderator actions. Both you and Flapjack have a history of baiting, insulting, and going off topic. And seeing as 90% of ROTW threads consist of you two, I almost always have to post a note.

Also, source on that Hillary quote?

Akelly
September 27th, 2016, 08:52 AM
Clinton won debate

Reise
September 27th, 2016, 09:06 AM
From what I noted, concerning the segment "Achieving prosperity", which was concentrated on jobs ; Trump ranted about Mexico, China and allegedly stupid trade deal for 90% of the time.
His main point though was to give a better fiscal environment to companies to prevent outsourcing.

Clinton presented quite a lot of "policies" during these first minutes, especially she proposed to create jobs in infrastructures, manufacturing and clean energy, she also claimed that Trump policies were similar to the ones that brought up the Great Recession.

On racial issues, that was just a bunch of empty bullshits, both technically agree when it comes work on inequalities and associated criminality ; Trump talked about the fact that more police is needed and presented the case of NYC to support this claim (though the decrease of criminality in NYC can be explained by other more ambiguous factors). Clinton talked about ending the private prisons system and more gun safety measures.

And concerning the last one I noted, Securing America, focused on cyber-warfare, that was basically one blaming the other, Russia for Clinton, Obama and Clinton for Trump etc.

It ended up with ranting on NATO etc.

"Surreal", as said that guy from abc news.
Not so conclusive I'm afraid.

I've been particularly interested in the candidates' looks, the background was blue and white and Trump wore clothes in accordance, blue tie, white shirt (classic one anyway), black suit (symbolizing authority or just not wanting to wear something "bluer"?), his eyes were quite blue as well, at least I've seen them that way. I don't know exactly what the strategy was, make him look good, in accordance with the background (taking in consideration what this background was as well)?
On the other hand Clinton wore a red af outfit you could see her a mile away, perhaps was it in order to show some sort of dynamic personality or to mark her differences with Trump. idk.
Trump was also more active concerning gestures.

Though - now that I remember - I'd like to emphasise ahead of the rest of that Trumps attempt to spin his tax avoidance - i.e. he's paid nothing - as a virtue.
"That makes me smart"

Mars
September 27th, 2016, 09:54 AM
Got a few links for fact checkers:

NBC is left leaning, but they include fact checks for Clinton as well
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-presidential-debates/31-fact-checks-first-presidential-debate-n655156?cid=sm_fb

NPR includes the whole debate and does a hell of good job annotating it
http://www.npr.org/2016/09/26/495115346/fact-check-first-presidential-debate

NY Times, another left leaning news source (I'm on mobile so idk if it's gonna work with the link if it isn't on mobile)
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/us/politics/fact-check-debate.html?_r=0&referer=http://m.facebook.com

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/factchecking-the-first-debate/

Kahn
September 27th, 2016, 10:32 AM
Got a few links for fact checkers:

NBC is left leaning, but they include fact checks for Clinton as well
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-presidential-debates/31-fact-checks-first-presidential-debate-n655156?cid=sm_fb

NPR includes the whole debate and does a hell of good job annotating it
http://www.npr.org/2016/09/26/495115346/fact-check-first-presidential-debate

NY Times, another left leaning news source (I'm on mobile so idk if it's gonna work with the link if it isn't on mobile)
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/us/politics/fact-check-debate.html?_r=0&referer=http://m.facebook.com

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/factchecking-the-first-debate/

Thanks for the resources.

Flapjack
September 27th, 2016, 11:02 AM
Let me think, taking away guns to make it easier to control the population, one of the first things Hitler did.
Ohhhh are you one of the people that think they should have the right to own guns so they can take down the US Government if they ever get out of line? Ya know the same government that commands one of the most powerful military forces in the world?

Yet you ignore how those on the terrorist watch list can buy guns and military grade weapons are obviously needed for 'self defence' and that outweighs the kids getting shot up at school.

PlasmaHam
September 27th, 2016, 11:31 AM
Ohhhh are you one of the people that think they should have the right to own guns so they can take down the US Government if they ever get out of line? Ya know the same government that commands one of the most powerful military forces in the world?

Yes, the most powerful military force in the world that lost to a bunch of rebels in third world country... I'm shaking in my boots.

Flapjack
September 27th, 2016, 11:51 AM
Yes, the most powerful military force in the world that lost to a bunch of rebels in third world country... I'm shaking in my boots.
I didn't say most powerful, I said one of and I assume you are talking about Vietnam? I would love to know gun nuts' plan for taking down planes and tanks but that is besides the point, every other developed country in the world has better gun control than the US.

Guns are used in school shootings, accidental shootings and escalations. Many of these can be avoided with better gun control and regulation on what guns are legal.

I am judging by your confederate flag that you are a proud American? Are you not embarrassed that American children are taught how to hide from a school shooter?

Mars
September 27th, 2016, 12:05 PM
I didn't say most powerful, I said one of and I assume you are talking about Vietnam?
Th United States does have the strongest and most funded military in the world though.
I would love to know gun nuts' plan for taking down planes and tanks but that is besides the point,
We aren't fighting Russia, China, North Korea, or any other developed army. They don't have tanks and jets. They have AK's from the Russians and from killing other terrorists for them, and a bodies and minds of cowards. Unfortunately, cowards that have killed.

"Gun nuts" aren't going to start shooting cops and politicians because cops and politicians aren't going to take their guns for no reason.
every other developed country in the world has better gun control than the US.
I wouldn't say every other country. A lot don't have open carry, yes, but there's plenty of shootings and gang violence around the world. We do need to work on our policies and gun control though, I agree.

Guns are used in school shootings, accidental shootings and escalations. Many of these can be avoided with better gun control and regulation on what guns are legal.
Completely agreed. I don't agree with trying to take guns completely away though.

I am judging by your confederate flag that you are a proud American? Are you not embarrassed that American children are taught how to hide from a school shooter?
Keep this on topic, please, and don't try to jab at other users.

PlasmaHam
September 27th, 2016, 12:06 PM
I didn't say most powerful, I said one of and I assume you are talking about Vietnam? I would love to know gun nuts' plan for taking down planes and tanks but that is besides the point, every other developed country in the world has better gun control than the US.

I like the military, and I've read far different opinions on the US not being the most powerful. It is true that the USA has less manpower than some, but the USA completely dominates when it comes to firepower and money.

You seriously expect the US to start bombing it's own citizens in the face of Civil War II. Do you seriously think the US will start rolling tanks down mainstreet? That would be a strategic and public relations nightmare for the US government. If anything does happen, it would be guerilla warfare. And as history has shown, a large enough band of rebels can beat a vastly superior military force.

Flapjack
September 27th, 2016, 12:23 PM
Th United States does have the strongest and most funded military in the world though.
I personally agree, I just didn't want the debate to spiral off into what country has the most powerful military.

We aren't fighting Russia, China, North Korea, or any other developed army. They don't have tanks and jets. They have AK's from the Russians and from killing other terrorists for them, and a bodies and minds of cowards. Unfortunately, cowards that have killed.
I think you took what I said out of context, I was referring to the people that believe they should keep a gun to keep the government in check.

Keep this on topic, please, and don't try to jab at other users.
I think that was on topic and not a jab, Plasma knows a gunman with a more powerful gun can do more harm and I have debated him many times, comparing the US to other countries etc etc. Was just trying to see whether or not I could use the pride he has for his country to see the other side of the debate.
I like the military, and I've read far different opinions on the US not being the most powerful. It is true that the USA has less manpower than some, but the USA completely dominates when it comes to firepower and money.

I do personally agree but saying that on the internet is just asking for a longggg boring debate about the US getting defeated in Vietnam or how Russia has cool weapons and more land mass or how China can have blah blah blah :P I am sure we all can agree that the USA is very powerful:P


You seriously expect the US to start bombing it's own citizens in the face of Civil War II. Do you seriously think the US will start rolling tanks down mainstreet? That would be a strategic and public relations nightmare for the US government. If anything does happen, it would be guerilla warfare. And as history has shown, a large enough band of rebels can beat a vastly superior military force.
Noooo I don't think that and hope it never happens, maybe I wasn't clear enough as Mars got it wrong too.

Ya know the gun nuts that keep an assault rifle to fight the government if they ever are really bad? I was just calling them stupid and saying how they would not last very long :P

Even if they would, I do not think that hope outweighs the horrific effects that the guns are having on Americans everyday.

This is a pretty good video. (https://youtu.be/dMdHE4s3fLw?t=11m40s)

PlasmaHam
September 27th, 2016, 12:36 PM
Flapjack, as much as I'll like to continue on this rabbit trail, I think it is time we get back on topic. History has shown numerous times that a lesser armed and less powerful guerilla force can defeat great armies. I do not see how a second American Civil War would be the curbstomp battle you think it will. But debating military tactics or gun control is not beneficial to this debate.

mattsmith48
September 27th, 2016, 12:40 PM
The first 10-15 minutes, Trump sounded scripted but as soon Clinton started attacking him he just couldn't control himself, he started acting like a child, blaming the others for everything, shouting lies and denying everything he previously said, she even got him to say climate change is real, they were a few moments in the debate where people couldn't stop laughing at Trump's stupidities. He sounded really repetitive and failed again to explain what he would do or how he would do it. He didn't seem to know what he was talking about expacially on foreign policy. Good that Clinton knows raising taxes on the rich is how you create job and help the economy, I doubt she would raise taxes on the rich but its good that atlease she knows what works. They both agree that terrorist should be allowed to legally buy guns. Im sure PlasmaHam enjoyed the nuclear weapons part.

Flapjack
September 27th, 2016, 12:42 PM
@Flapjack (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=122060), as much as I'll like to continue on this rabbit trail, I think it is time we get back on topic. History has shown numerous times that a lesser armed and less powerful guerilla force can defeat great armies. I do not see how a second American Civil War would be the curbstomp battle you think it will. But debating military tactics or gun control is not beneficial to this debate.
It is when one of the issues you have with Clinton is her gun control? I am so done with the gun control debate that I actually welcome this change :P

Why else do you not like Clinton or support Trump?

Vlerchan
September 27th, 2016, 02:19 PM
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The problem with examining one email outside of context is you are examining one email outside of context. Clinton made is clear in her memoirs that she formed part of the hard-nosed realised wing of Obama's cabinet that advocated taking a much more cautious and measured approach to what happened in Egypt - little know fact: Mubarak was in discussions with United States diplomats to volunteer to step aside at the time of his ousting - and happened to be over-ruled in such advice by Obama.

Understanding the actual context I'd actually guess that the staffer was being sarcastic since Clinton had explicitly warned against "pushing a longtime partner out the door".

---

Let's not discuss that the Arab Spring consisted of more than the revolt in Egypt.

While Trump was stumping and campaigning Clinton was cancelling multiple events (not like she can draw a crowd anyways).
In other words, Clinton got her cost-benefit analysis correct.

We can spin this whatever way we want but the fact remains that Clinton made the right choices in the run up to the debate and stood Trump up on the back of it.

China
Very very devalued currency. My friend, who happens to be an economist: top economist, said to me that China are ripping us off. I don't know but that's what people have been telling me. But we need to get smart on trade and when I'm president I'll renegotiate all the trade deals. It will be beautiful. Believe me.

---

Which has, in order words, reminded me, that China spent something like half a trillion propping up their currency so it wouldn't devalue.

His rant about the Fed was also nuts.

PlasmaHam
September 27th, 2016, 04:08 PM
It is when one of the issues you have with Clinton is her gun control? I am so done with the gun control debate that I actually welcome this change :P

Why else do you not like Clinton or support Trump?

Don't get me started on this.

1. Increased Tax rates on the upper class and businesses

2. Increased minimum wage

3. Supports the pay inequality myth and police discrimination

4. Pro-abortion, supports tax paid contraceptives and abortion for minors without parental consent.

5. Less toward VA reform

6. Weak immigration stance

7. More authoritative, less states rights

8. Affirmative Action supporter

Mars
September 27th, 2016, 04:59 PM
Don't get me started on this.

1. Increased Tax rates on the upper class and businesses
What's wrong with this? There's plenty of businesses and wealthy people that pay too little taxes or skip out on them

Do you support Trump's tax plan of heavily decreasing taxes for the wealthy and for large corporations?

2. Increased minimum wage
??? What's wrong with this?? Putting more money in the cycle and people being able to sustain themselves?

3. Supports the pay inequality myth and police discrimination
Idk if wage gap is real or not. I'm 90% sure it is though, and wouldn't be surprised if it is. Also, no she doesn't? Again, like I've said in my previous post, she wants people to respect the law and respect the police.

... supports tax paid contraceptives and abortion for minors without parental consent.
Source?

7. More authoritative, less states rights
Source?

Vlerchan
September 27th, 2016, 05:08 PM
What's wrong with this?
Prompts inefficient allocation of resources, which hampers economic performance.

I am less inclined to see income taxation is a poor taxation strategy than I am to see corporation tax, which I see as indefensibly awful (suppresses business investment, and its primary incidence is on labour).

Do you support Trump's tax plan of heavily decreasing taxes for the wealthy and for large corporations?
No, because it'd cleave open a considerable fiscal deficit though, and not because it's neccisarily bad economic practice.

PlasmaHam: What's your opinion on Trump's plan opening up the deficit? Clinton's won't.

??? What's wrong with this?? Putting more money in the cycle and people being able to sustain themselves?
Leads to higher unemployment rates, and suppressed long-run incomes for the lowest skilled.

If you want to increase the take-home pay of the working class then it's is far superior to increase Earned Income Tax Credits than the minimum wage.

Reise
September 27th, 2016, 05:34 PM
Very very devalued currency. My friend, who happens to be an economist: top economist, said to me that China are ripping us off. I don't know but that's what people have been telling me. But we need to get smart on trade and when I'm president I'll renegotiate all the trade deals. It will be beautiful. Believe me.
At first sight I thought that if I were Clinton I would have asked for a name or some sort, turns out it is a really bad idea to try to seriously refute one's arguments in an oral debate of this kind, and its even worse when trying to be technical.
It seems obvious also that this kind of debates doesn't aim at providing anything substantial concerning the candidates' propositions.

Trump was quite sensitive, responding to everything, where Clinton didn't.
Trump seemed also like he was sort of falling on the rostrum where Clinton kept a straight stature, relaxing her legs, legs that of course the public can't normally see where Trump was rather relaxing on the bust.
This may look like a detail but it has a significant importance when taking into consideration the Halo effect.

Clinton for sure was prepared for this debate.


His rant about the Fed was also nuts.
Considering his previous says concerning the Fed you can't take him seriously anyway.

Vlerchan
September 27th, 2016, 06:00 PM
[...] turns out it is a really bad idea to try to seriously refute one's arguments in an oral debate of this kind, and its even worse when trying to be technical.
I think the issue is that there is a quite limited time to address each subject and so it becomes impossible to offer technical refutations. Like Clinton also made no effort to confront Trump's protectionist arguments - or the FED argument: or a host of foreign policy points.

So, I agree that it doesn't provide anything substantial. Like I said in the first post I made about the entire debate, it's not supposed to.

Trump seemed also like he was sort of falling on the rostrum where Clinton kept a straight stature, relaxing her legs, legs that of course the public can't normally see where Trump was rather relaxing on the bust.
Clinton was probably doing that deliberately to not give anyone the excuse to call her ill, or for Trump to be able to spin it like that. I also heard that she was directed to not cough - or laugh because her cackle is offputting and gives a bad impression.

The Trump's ill rumours are also an amusing consequence of the debate though. I didn't notice it at the time - but looking back on some of the images, it does seem like he was supporting himself on the podium.

Considering his previous says concerning the Fed you can't take him seriously anyway.
Unfortunately it's possible he might get to appoint a governor during his term.

This monetary-populist attitude that seems to be infecting Republicans in the U.S. is one of the main reasons I can never see myself electing them.

PlasmaHam
September 27th, 2016, 06:04 PM
What's wrong with this? There's plenty of businesses and wealthy people that pay too little taxes or skip out on them

Do you support Trump's tax plan of heavily decreasing taxes for the wealthy and for large corporations?
I believe in a flat tax rate for all. I agree that businesses and the rich shouldn't be able to skip or barely pay taxes, but I don't think that they should have to pay more percentage wise than everyone else.

Yes, because who are the ones that are supplying jobs? The rich, the more incentive they have to keep their companies in America, the better.
??? What's wrong with this?? Putting more money in the cycle and people being able to sustain themselves?
You don't just put more money in the cycle, that isn't how economics work. That money has to come from somewhere. Ultimately, higher minimum wage will result in more job lost, as employers cannot afford to keep a full staff anymore, and increased pressure on small businesses where every penny counts.
Idk if wage gap is real or not. I'm 90% sure it is though, and wouldn't be surprised if it is. Also, no she doesn't? Again, like I've said in my previous post, she wants people to respect the law and respect the police.
I want you to respect the law, but the law is the one that is to blame for the lack of respect. That is basically what I got from Clinton last night. Her statements about everyone having secret bias and that training needs to be done to get rid of that is also a bit scary. Also, regarding the wage gap. If employers could pay women 70% (which is already illegal btw) then why aren't all big businesses filled with female staffers and not men? After all, they are out to make money, and every penny saved on having a woman worker is a penny earned. Yet you don't see that, which is odd.

Source?

Source?
First point:
Clinton, 2006,"While we all hope that young women will involve their parents in these decisions, mandating parental consent has the serious potential to do more harm than good. In fact, during congressional testimony, Dr. Warren Seigel, an expert in adolescent medicine, stated that legislation mandating parental involvement 'represents bad medicine and places politics before the health of our youth.'"
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2006/07/25/senate-section/article/S8153-2
To be clear, this was about a law prohibiting minors from crossing state lines to have abortions without parental consent. Clinton voted against it.

Second point: I have no real source to say on that. That is just a summary on many of her policies. You could see that as a pro or a con, I personally see it as a con. Even though Trump isn't too much better on this issue.

Vlerchan
September 27th, 2016, 06:12 PM
PlasmaHam: What's your opinion on Trump's plan opening up the deficit? Clinton's won't.

Kahn
September 27th, 2016, 07:19 PM
Let's not discuss that the Arab Spring consisted of more than the revolt in Egypt.

---

In other words, Clinton got her cost-benefit analysis correct.

We can spin this whatever way we want but the fact remains that Clinton made the right choices in the run up to the debate and stood Trump up on the back of it.

I agree, fam.

PlasmaHam
September 27th, 2016, 07:32 PM
PlasmaHam: What's your opinion on Trump's plan opening up the deficit? Clinton's won't.

Honestly, I don't know enough about how the national economy works to answer that question.

phuckphace
September 27th, 2016, 07:55 PM
Trump looked like he had the worst case of diarrhea in history, fam, that grimace he was trying to hide is ominously familiar to those of us who have traveled to Mexico and got into the tap water. trying to hold back the brown tide in more ways than one, if you know what I mean

Clinton's "trumped up" quip was a rimshot in need of a joke, not because it isn't an acceptably funny pun but because her grating cackle and repellent personality totally kill it. if the DNC were smart they'd nominate Jill Stein to take Trump on with their own left-populism with the added bonus of their candidate being an order of magnitude less unlikable and more personable. too bad George Soros has the whole shebang inside an eldritch crystal ball, peering into it as he strokes the white cat on his lap

Porpoise101
September 27th, 2016, 10:34 PM
Like Clinton also made no effort to confront Trump's protectionist arguments
To satisfy the Sanders wing, Clinton has distanced herself from free trade. This is why she didn't defend it, she wanted to seem anti free trade. Of course, this is a well known flip flop, so she just came off as a liar.

I'm interested to see how Trump changes his style next debate. He will have to because independent voters (which are the ones that matter now) are pretty clear: Clinton did better.

Vlerchan
September 28th, 2016, 06:48 AM
Honestly, I don't know enough about how the national economy works to answer that question.
There's two issues I tend to highlight:
Each budget the US government allocates a certain amount to debt servicing - that is: it must pay for the interest accrued in its national debt. Its about 250 billion a year at the moment - the full sum is closer to 440 billion but the difference is paid into other arms of the government so I don't count it. It's much lower than it should be because interest rates are still on the floor: as soon as interest rates are normalised: the likelihood is it will triple (i.e. the government would be required to spend 750 billion a year on servicing it's national debt). Letting Trump add to this - and it's suggested he'd add considerably to it, is just irresponsible.
Governments borrow from public markets which reduces the supply of loanable funds: in other words - when the government borrows to fund a deficit it crowds out private investment. There's certain times where this will not be the case - but being as this is not one of those times I don't see the need t discuss them. This is also the main reason I don't support the likes of the Bush tax cuts because the deficit crowds out whatever expected investment expansion there is.
There's an argument that productivity-enhancing infrastructure investment will repay itself over the long-run (iff the return on investment > debt interest) so I am fine with Trump doing that. But the tax cuts - no.

To satisfy the Sanders wing, Clinton has distanced herself from free trade. This is why she didn't defend it, she wanted to seem anti free trade. Of course, this is a well known flip flop, so she just came off as a liar.
I agree this is the case in general. But I expected some sort of timid defence of NAFTA.

Paraxiom
September 30th, 2016, 04:51 PM
At this point I'm glad that there will be some finality within two months (finally!).

I still predict riots of some sort with whoever gets in though.

Porpoise101
September 30th, 2016, 07:43 PM
I still predict riots of some sort with whoever gets in though.
If Trump wins, yes
If Clinton wins, no

Rednecks are sedentary types, even the most passionate Trumpie will not actually do anything.

Leftist types, they are younger and poorer. I'm not talking about your hipster millennial leftist either. The rest of the Dems have less to lose and they are already incensed. If Trump wins, they will be out in force.

ThisBougieLife
September 30th, 2016, 07:56 PM
I still can't see Trump winning. This country likes the "safe bet". Like, I can't picture Brexit passing over here.

Paraxiom
September 30th, 2016, 08:10 PM
If Trump wins, yes
If Clinton wins, no

Rednecks are sedentary types, even the most passionate Trumpie will not actually do anything.

Leftist types, they are younger and poorer. I'm not talking about your hipster millennial leftist either. The rest of the Dems have less to lose and they are already incensed. If Trump wins, they will be out in force.

Perhaps the e.g. rednecks will be less fiery than I expect, but I wouldn't be surprised if riots happened with a Clinton win.

Riots with Trump getting in are granted.


I still can't see Trump winning. This country likes the "safe bet". Like, I can't picture Brexit passing over here.

Many did not expect Brexit happening. We shall see.

SeansLittleBro
October 2nd, 2016, 12:22 PM
Who do you support? Clinton
Why do you support them? More that I don't support Trump - he scares me with his bigotry and emotional response to everything.
Who do you think will win? I hope Clinton for sure

phuckphace
October 3rd, 2016, 06:37 PM
he scares me with his bigotry and emotional response to everything.

an overly emotional response to some guy having opinions you don't like

SeansLittleBro
October 3rd, 2016, 07:37 PM
maybe but the question was asked and it is how i look at him

phuckphace
October 3rd, 2016, 08:17 PM
maybe but the question was asked and it is how i look at him

well how about instead of voting with your dick maybe look at policy proposals and how they'll impact your country. this whole "I'm gay so I better support the candidate who recites standard talking points about equality from a script" is p.tired, especially when said candidate is literally on the Illuminati payroll with a decades long history of political bribery and corruption

point being it's possible to reconcile your love of dick with love of your country - don't listen to the Left, you CAN do both (hmu I'm the expert)

Mars
October 3rd, 2016, 08:20 PM
well how about instead of voting with your dick maybe look at policy proposals and how they'll impact your country. this whole "I'm gay so I better support the candidate who recites standard talking points about equality from a script" is p.tired, especially when said candidate is literally on the Illuminati payroll with a decades long history of political bribery and corruption

point being it's possible to reconcile your love of dick with love of your country - don't listen to the Left, you CAN do both (hmu I'm the expert)

>look at policy proposals
You mean raising taxes on the poor, making police states, and building a wall around Mexico/Americas border?

It isn't the matter of being gay or being straight, it's about the guy being absolutely bonkers. Surely you can see some of the stupid shit he's said right? And all the scandals he's been involved in?

Porpoise101
October 3rd, 2016, 08:22 PM
well how about instead of voting with your dick maybe look at policy proposals and how they'll impact your country. this whole "I'm gay so I better support the candidate who recites standard talking points about equality from a script" is p.tired, especially when said candidate is literally on the Illuminati payroll with a decades long history of political bribery and corruption

point being it's possible to reconcile your love of dick with love of your country - don't listen to the Left, you CAN do both (hmu I'm the expert)
Oh Phuck, are you trying to indoctrinate the new members again :rolleyes:. Not again... :lol:

It's interesting that you point Clinton out for corruption when you have a candidate who has been found to be involved in plenty of scandals. Trump U, Trump Foundation, how he ruined Atlantic City (they probably deserved it, but still), and his dodgy taxes.

If we are going to play identity politics: I do not think that having a conservative supreme court justice would work to the LGBT community's favor, just pointing that out.

phuckphace
October 3rd, 2016, 08:33 PM
You mean raising taxes on the poor

I'm not aware that this has been proposed.

making police states

(hyperbole)

not happening.

the Trump in SS uniform fan art is fun, though.

and building a wall around Mexico/Americas border?

infringes on the inalienable human right of border jumping? come on.

It isn't the matter of being gay or being straight, it's about the guy being absolutely bonkers. Surely you can see some of the stupid shit he's said right?

you say he's "bonkers" because he says things you disagree with. did you know there's a huge, expansive country behind the backlot of NEW YAWK where people value far different things and are willing to consider alternatives? we value things like not becoming foreigners in our own country - that's been NEW YAWK for decades so it takes some adjusting.

phuckphace
October 3rd, 2016, 08:44 PM
It's interesting that you point Clinton out for corruption when you have a candidate who has been found to be involved in plenty of scandals. Trump U, Trump Foundation, how he ruined Atlantic City (they probably deserved it, but still), and his dodgy taxes.

who's being investigated by the FBI and who isn't?

who transmitted state secrets on an unsecured server and then lied about it a million times?

who used her influence and connections to send death threats to women testifying against Bill Clinton?

the whole TRUMP U and TRUMP'S TAXES thing doesn't work as a comeback in this context because it objectively pales in comparison to the degree and extent of Clinton's corruption. it really shows both the pettiness and hypocrisy of the Left and how they are willing to excuse literally anything Clinton does because she's one of them.

contrast that to my support of Trump which would evaporate instantly the second Wikileaks releases dox on Trump taking a selfie in a missile silo and then emailing it to ~the girls~ with his Gmail account. how many months would Lügenpresse keep it at the top of the news cycle?

If we are going to play identity politics: I do not think that having a conservative supreme court justice would work to the LGBT community's favor, just pointing that out.

I've noticed how when the Right talks demographics it's "identity politics" but when the Left talks gay rights it's presented as some kind of transcendental natural law that the bigots haven't come to terms with yet. intredasting.

Mars
October 3rd, 2016, 08:45 PM
I'm not aware that this has been proposed.


well he wants to cut taxes on the rich and on big business and use a shit ton of money... Where u think it's gon come from?

not happening.

the Trump in SS uniform fan art is fun, though.

But he's said that he wants to heavily increase police force and task units ?


infringes on the inalienable human right of border jumping? come on.
human =/= alien lol

Not even going to go into the whole "borders are man made and fuckin retarded" argument, but you realise that they don't literally jump the border right?

you say he's "bonkers" because he says things you disagree with. did you know there's a huge, expansive country behind the backlot of NEW YAWK where people value far different things and are willing to consider alternatives? we value things like not becoming foreigners in our own country - that's been NEW YAWK for decades so it takes some adjusting.
>NEW YAWK
lol

And I say he's bonkers because 99% of the shit he says includes "I have the greatest _____", "it's all because our jobs are moving to Mexico and Gina", "Hillary Clinton's health..." And a majority of what he says is lies and completely ridiculous. Not trying to exclude Clinton from the dumb "teehee Trump'ed up trickle down economics, made that one on the spot teehee" shit and the lies she's told, but come the fuck on dude. You can't honestly think he would be a good president, or that anything he says he'll do will be passed, right?

phuckphace
October 3rd, 2016, 09:08 PM
well he wants to cut taxes on the rich and on big business and use a shit ton of money... Where u think it's gon come from?

the rationale behind his tax plan is that simplifying the tax code will encourage investment - if firms don't hoard as much cash overseas to avoid taxes they'll invest more of it in the US which supposedly will create more jobs and increase tax revenue. it's not an original Trump idea but a lot of economists don't like it because it has Trump's name on it and they're paid to shill for the status quo. coming from someone else it would be much better received.

But he's said that he wants to heavily increase police force and task units ?

that's called tackling crime, politicians have a natural incentive to address crime rates because it's pinned on them when it happens under their watch.

I also shouldn't have to point out that there's a pretty big difference between hiring more cops and giving cops the authority to arrest or kill anyone on the President's shit list. POTUS doesn't have that authority, and any attempt at changing that would result in his impeachment.

human =/= alien lol

Not even going to go into the whole "borders are man made and fuckin retarded" argument

man-made and artificial, yes - just like the society they're supposed to protect from invaders (you know, the one that keeps you alive and well-insulated from the forces of nature). but go be my guest out in the wild wilderness hunting mammoths with a throwing spear, if that floats your boat.

but you realise that they don't literally jump the border right?

they literally jump a figurative border?

You can't honestly think he would be a good president, or that anything he says he'll do will be passed, right?

if it's the case that President Trump will be a lame duck his whole term then why are you worried about police states and taxes on poors?

Mars
October 3rd, 2016, 09:15 PM
the rationale behind his tax plan is that simplifying the tax code will encourage investment - if firms don't hoard as much cash overseas to avoid taxes they'll invest more of it in the US which supposedly will create more jobs and increase tax revenue. it's not an original Trump idea but a lot of economists don't like it because it has Trump's name on it and they're paid to shill for the status quo. coming from someone else it would be much better received.
not gonna work.

man-made and artificial, yes - just like the society they're supposed to protect from invaders (you know, the one that keeps you alive and well-insulated from the forces of nature). but go be my guest out in the wild wilderness hunting mammoths with a throwing spear, if that floats your boat.
Wait what? Sorry, confused about this part.

they literally jump a figurative border?
I just said they didn't? They don't hop fences, was what I was originally implying.

if it's the case that President Trump will be a lame duck his whole term then why are you worried about police states and taxes on poors?

I'm not lol, I'm just worried for the people that legitimately support him.

SeansLittleBro
October 3rd, 2016, 09:23 PM
Oh Phuck, are you trying to indoctrinate the new members again :rolleyes:. Not again... :lol:


Not intimidated by this type of follower. He has his right to support what he believes is right and so do I. As far as voting with my dick? Where did that come from? Trump's bigotry is well documented.

phuckphace
October 3rd, 2016, 11:10 PM
not gonna work.

Not Trump: We should lower taxes and offer a one-time tax-free transfer of cash held by firms in foreign banks back to the US for investment. It'll create jobs!
Economists: totally agree, and that's because firms are acting in rational self-interest when they return to the US to reap the benefits of a lowered tax burden, just as they originally did when they fled the country to avoid the high tax burden!

Trump: We should lower taxes and offer a one-time tax-free transfer of cash held by firms in foreign banks back to the US for investment. It'll create jobs!
Economists: NOT GONNA WORK! Check out this sophistry-laden New York Times article on why Trump literally wants all poor people to starve to death!

Wait what? Sorry, confused about this part.

I know. my point was that the society you live in is...erm...a social construct, a literal one, that doesn't exist in nature anymore than "invisible lines" between nations, so it's a pointless and dumb objection - you obviously enjoy living in ordered civilization (although I'd hesitate to put NEW YAWK in that category) and border controls are part of what holds it together. I don't think you've thought very hard about what would happen if humanity erased all borders and other geopolitical distinctions - first up: permanent blackout in NEW YAWK on Day 2.

I'm also assuming you support the concept of personal property (you wouldn't want some random person walking in off the street and moving their couch into your bedroom) and the collective property of the nation is an extension of that. all humanity has a place on Earth, but not all places on Earth.

I'm not lol, I'm just worried for the people that legitimately support him.

this year has been a blast, fam. I'd only worry that we may not ever get an election this fun ever again, tbh

Vlerchan
October 4th, 2016, 02:51 AM
not gonna work.
I am interested in what you think will happen.

but a lot of economists don't like it because it has Trump's name on it and they're paid to shill for the status quo.
The majority of economists believe - CeterusParibas - that Trump's plan would be investment- and growth-enducing. Sure - the media can find some hack from the Equitable Growth Society or whatever who can be made to call out dubious propositions about damning second-order effects or some shit - but most publishing academic economists have no issue with the fundamentals. What has been pointed out is that Trump's plan is deficit-inducing which has fiscal consequences which are just not going to be good (I outlined them above).

Scott Sumner (http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31962) also dpointed out that the Trump plan will place a higher tax burden on middle-class people - in a sort-of defence of Mar's opening claim - though never questioned the logic outlined above.

Where Economists disagree with Trump is on issues such as Trade and monetary-economics and that's because - on those issues - he has no idea what he's talking about. His tax plan is recognised as being better than Clinton's though - at least up until the point one realises he has no means of funding it.

if it's the case that President Trump will be a lame duck his whole term then why are you worried about police states and taxes on poors?
Foreign affairs can shift a lot in one term. Though odds are he will have to do foreign affairs stuff regardless and that terrifies me.

Kahn
October 4th, 2016, 02:05 PM
http://i68.tinypic.com/2k1vux.jpg

phKO2T2pMjM

Sad!

njss0777
October 4th, 2016, 02:47 PM
trump


i don't like Clinton





Clinton because it is rigged.

Porpoise101
October 4th, 2016, 04:45 PM
who's being investigated by the FBI and who isn't?

Being investigated doesn't point to guilt. Also Trump is being investigated by the AG of New York, so he isn't much better honestly. And for his investigation, the AG has already mailed him a letter to cease his actions. Comey and Lynch haven't even found a reason to prosecute Clinton.

who transmitted state secrets on an unsecured server and then lied about it a million times?

The lying thing I take issue with, good point. Trump hasn't lied under oath and that is the one thing that I believe that he has on her.

who used her influence and connections to send death threats to women testifying against Bill Clinton?

Can you give more details? I only have found conspiracy theory sites and I don't want to get the wrong story either.

I've noticed how when the Right talks demographics it's "identity politics" but when the Left talks gay rights it's presented as some kind of transcendental natural law that the bigots haven't come to terms with yet. intredasting.
Well, the difference between catering exclusively to a specific group and making something more inclusive for all is how I differentiate 'identity politics' from 'equality of opportunity'.

PlasmaHam
October 4th, 2016, 07:16 PM
Well, the difference between catering exclusively to a specific group and making something more inclusive for all is how I differentiate 'identity politics' from 'equality of opportunity'.

You are blaming the Republicans for catering exclusively to specific groups, while claiming the Democrats do no such thing? I'm sorry for laughing but that sounds absurd. If you actually open your eyes you will see that this "equality of opportunity" you talk of, is only towards the groups Democrats supports.

Uniquemind
October 5th, 2016, 12:31 AM
You are blaming the Republicans for catering exclusively to specific groups, while claiming the Democrats do no such thing? I'm sorry for laughing but that sounds absurd. If you actually open your eyes you will see that this "equality of opportunity" you talk of, is only towards the groups Democrats supports.

Well that's because a lot of support both idealistically and monetarily come from groups who hold bigoted or uneducated opinions on policy when it comes to specifics.

Specifics on math in budget, specifically.

Flapjack
October 5th, 2016, 12:36 PM
Well I have been gone a while but now I have returned I thought I would share some stuffs hoping to open the eyes of some people.
0g1pFw6aWcE
6XJUFXbig8E
KI41gpy-SXY
FPBRV6R4EGc
MUxi17HshTw

Porpoise101
October 5th, 2016, 03:51 PM
You are blaming the Republicans for catering exclusively to specific groups, while claiming the Democrats do no such thing?

No, I did not. I said that there was a difference between two concepts. I even admitted to catering to specific groups

I'm sorry for laughing but that sounds absurd. If you actually open your eyes you will see that this "equality of opportunity" you talk of, is only towards the groups Democrats supports.

Is that bad? If it creates a more equal system then I am for it. If it is catering to a certain group to raise them above others I am against it.

Flapjack
October 5th, 2016, 04:17 PM
"equality of opportunity" you talk of, is only towards the groups Democrats supports.
Do you mean groups that support the Democratic Party or groups that the Democratic Party support?

The Byrd
October 5th, 2016, 04:49 PM
Okay, can we all agree that that debate last night was fucking AWFUL? They both looked like absolute clowns (no, that's not a topical pun.)

Flapjack
October 6th, 2016, 01:13 AM
sa76Akcwv04

mattsmith48
October 6th, 2016, 09:17 AM
sa76Akcwv04

Atlease he didnt do coke before the debate like Trump did last week. This is what he sign for when he accepted the job of Trump's vice-fuhrer and if he wins for next 4 years every Republican who supported him will have to do the exact same thing, try to defend him and justify every stupid things he's gonna do. If he didn't believe climate change was a hoax and the US didn't had nuclear weapons, seen from the outside this would be really fun.

Porpoise101
October 6th, 2016, 09:10 PM
Petty Meat Peddler Trump should go back to franchising steak. He seems happier this way.
LyONt_ZH_aw

I can relate this in a relevant way. Here's an important question for Trump supporters: How do you think Trump will act without having a conflict of interest? Trump has many business connections worldwide. How can this not interfere in his foreign and domestic policy? So far he has said he will just pass it to his kids. But is this satisfactory? I would say no.

Mars
October 6th, 2016, 10:11 PM
I am interested in what you think will happen.
Completely forgot to reply, sorry bout that. As far as what I think will happen... we'll i think he won't become president, so the if's of that situation are unlikely. However, if he is to become president, what he says he'll do is lower taxes on the rich and on businesses in order for them to distribute money back into the economy on their own. This simply isn't going to happen. Due to selfishness, coorporate greed, and just the fact that it's money, means it won't happen. And because of that the poor and dwindling middle class would have to suffer from higher taxes

Though odds are he will have to do foreign affairs stuff regardless and that terrifies me.

lol, agreed tho

PlasmaHam
October 7th, 2016, 12:59 PM
I can relate this in a relevant way. Here's an important question for Trump supporters: How do you think Trump will act without having a conflict of interest? Trump has many business connections worldwide. How can this not interfere in his foreign and domestic policy? So far he has said he will just pass it to his kids. But is this satisfactory? I would say no.
Clinton has already proven that she can't do foreign policy without conflict of interest. I really don't think that Trump will base his foreign policy around advancing his own business. If he was really that obsessed over his business, he wouldn't of ran for president. He has lost millions and millions directly and indirectly due to his campaign. So no, I don't see Donald Trump being worse than Hillary when it comes to foreign policy interests.

phuckphace
October 7th, 2016, 01:12 PM
"Trump 2016"

"TRUMP UNIVERSITY, CHECKMATE"

"Well shit guess I'd better vote for the Saudi-connected Davos candidate who leaked state secrets instead"

mattsmith48
October 7th, 2016, 01:16 PM
Clinton has already proven that she can't do foreign policy without conflict of interest. I really don't think that Trump will base his foreign policy around advancing his own business. If he was really that obsessed over his business, he wouldn't of ran for president. He has lost millions and millions directly and indirectly due to his campaign. So no, I don't see Donald Trump being worse than Hillary when it comes to foreign policy interests.

What conflict of interest Clinton as that could affect her foreign policies?

Flapjack
October 7th, 2016, 03:14 PM
Clinton has already proven that she can't do foreign policy without conflict of interest.
When has this been proven?
I really don't think that Trump will base his foreign policy around advancing his own business.
Yess because that is where he draws the line? Racism? Fine! Sexism? Fine! Scamming people? Fine! Not paying taxes? Fine! Basing foreign policy to advice his own business? Nope that's too far!

I personally believe that the fact that no US bank is stupid enough to lend that idiot money so he has to hop over to Russia explains why he is so pro Russia and Putin.
If he was really that obsessed over his business, he wouldn't of ran for president. He has lost millions and millions directly and indirectly due to his campaign.
Lost millions? That would be something if he gave the money to his campaign and not loaned it...
xQPtJ7cgA7Y
So no, I don't see Donald Trump being worse than Hillary when it comes to foreign policy interests.
Clinton is corrupt but Trump is on a whole other level. Now when you come to the substance of their polices, I disagree with Clinton on a lot of it but I can respect her viewpoints, Trumps policies, or lack-of would be disastrous.

Porpoise101
October 7th, 2016, 03:19 PM
Clinton has already proven that she can't do foreign policy without conflict of interest. I really don't think that Trump will base his foreign policy around advancing his own business.

"X has shown that X can't, therefore Y can"
Doesn't seem to be logical to me, but I could be wrong.

If he was really that obsessed over his business, he wouldn't of ran for president. He has lost millions and millions directly and indirectly due to his campaign. So no, I don't see Donald Trump being worse than Hillary when it comes to foreign policy interests.

To give you a different view:
If he was really that obsessed over his business, why wouldn't run for President? He would stand to gain billions of dollars by directly negotiating policy related to finances, trade, and international relations. His campaign is only a drop in the potential bucket, especially when you consider that much of it is donated.

Also how do you see Trump as not worse in terms of foreign policy? Hillary has more skill right off the bat. I would at least give her credit in this regard.

Paraxiom
October 7th, 2016, 08:10 PM
So I happenstance found these today, though I wasn't looking for them:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/28/in-1927-donald-trumps-father-was-arrested-after-a-klan-riot-in-queens/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/28/trump-declines-to-assess-white-supremacy-groups-including-kkk-without-first-doing-research/

and a picture of him apparently posing with his parents:

http://www.snopes.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/trump-parents.jpg


I'm tired of this overclocked drone of noise that is this election race, but by all means react/pontificate about this in whatever way you want. I might respond.

Flapjack
October 8th, 2016, 05:06 AM
-wH-50peybg

Vlerchan
October 8th, 2016, 11:48 AM
He talks to her in a flirty way. She looks like she’s heard every line before. That's it. The reality is that Trump’s bravado camouflages inadequacy. He probably doesn’t have as much money as he says. He almost certainly doesn’t have a plan to beat the Islamists in Syria. He can’t string a coherent thought together.

He has raised some good, necessary issues that affect the working-class. But by behaving like a parody, he has turned them into a parody, too.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/08/donald-trump-has-self-immolated--and-hell-take-the-entire-conser/

No comment required.

Flapjack
October 8th, 2016, 12:23 PM
kZsKEHwBld0
I love how Trumps words alone can be used to show how stupid he is xD

Vlerchan
October 8th, 2016, 12:36 PM
Oh and apologies I forgot about this. I can also expand as required but at the moment I'm at a loss for time.

... in order for them to distribute money back into the economy on their own. This simply isn't going to happen. Due to selfishness, coorporate greed, and just the fact that it's money, means it won't happen.
I figure the main issue here is a misunderstanding of what's intended with tax cuts. No-one pretends it's all going to be all distributed through charities - etc. - but rather invested into productive economic engagements which results in higher employment, higher industrial output and in the end up, higher wages.

This happens. I have posted time and time again that corporation taxation harms labour before all else: in the manner through which the incidence of taxation is spread (i.e. wage suppression occurs) and reductions in capital deepening. There is no defence for it. You'll also find that richer people invest and save - in other words: enable others to invest - at much higher rates than middle-class and working-class people.

---

I don't support the tax cuts for reasons outlined but that's no reason to ignore their cetirus paribus effect.

Flapjack
October 8th, 2016, 02:52 PM
For the few that aren't already convinced Trump is a terrible person:
su-Rt4QJZ08
w1QKEagjSeU

GpcUIbhl68k
sJa-3wjz3ls

Vlerchan
October 9th, 2016, 08:10 PM
Trump is snuffling again!

Update: Sniffling read bad.

mattsmith48
October 9th, 2016, 09:10 PM
Trump is snuffling again!

Update: Sniffling read bad.

Why did no one tell him ''Don't do coke before a presidential debate.''

Flapjack
October 10th, 2016, 05:55 AM
Omfg that debate was awkward as fuckkk xD
UKFy9mLCkIA
That ending though xD

Vlerchan
October 10th, 2016, 06:38 AM
Whilst one could reasonably call it a draw after a shambolic opening for Trump. Clinton seemed off her game, more than it was a good night for him.. The three moments that stick out for me, though, all pose him, or his campaign, in a bad light.

Trump claiming he will have a special prosecutor look into Clinton's situation, and he seemed to make it more than clear what the outcome would be. That eschews basic democratic norms, you don't intend to have your opponent locked up after they lose the election. And frankly, it was disgusting.
Trump's response to the Trump Tape's controversy, which was very obviously appalling.
Trump throwing Pence under the bus on Syria, and seeming to do so with immediate confidence. What made it worse is that it is clear that Trump doesn't have a Syria strategy and under pressure from the moderators, he only attempted to change topic. That moment on Russia right afterwards was similarly enlightening of his complete lack of competence, but at least he didn't publicly put down his vice president.
His persistent bickering with the moderators also made him look like a bully. This probably wasn't helped by his awkward posturing behind Clinton whenever she was speaking. For the record though, he had more than a full minute of extra speaking time versus Clinton, when such is counted up over the course of the debate.

Porpoise101
October 10th, 2016, 03:49 PM
We all hear about these undecided voters that the debates are supposed to be showing. Yet, how does someone not know what these people are for? How can you not pick a side already?

Also, it is a pretty big deal that 50+ GOP officials have ditched Trump completely, not counting the fact that Mike Pence and Paul Ryan are having some public disagreements with Trump as well. Seems like his campaign is collapsing with a month until election day.

Kory123
October 10th, 2016, 10:51 PM
This YouTube video explains everything. Please watch and let me know your opinions

http://tinyurl.com/GovClassified-file002839-837

phuckphace
October 10th, 2016, 11:30 PM
- Trump claiming he will have a special prosecutor look into Clinton's situation, and he seemed to make it more than clear what the outcome would be. That eschews basic democratic norms, you don't intend to have your opponent locked up after they lose the election. And frankly, it was disgusting.

I thought it was funny and so did a lot of other people. I think normies interpreted it as "Clinton's documented crimes will be justly prosecuted and she will be found guilty and serve time" in obvious contrast to what Obama would/will do by pardoning her. of course the fashy brigade thought it was an appealingly Hitlerian quip, and really only people who hate Trump anyway are going to care about this. quite frankly this obsessiveness (not including you) is because motherfuckers are way too humorless and over-literal with this stuff.

Vlerchan
October 11th, 2016, 03:58 AM
I think normies interpreted it as "Clinton's documented crimes will be justly prosecuted and she will be found guilty and serve time" in obvious contrast to what Obama would/will do by pardoning her.
It's worth noting that Obama wouldn't investigate the Bush administration for what amounted to sanctioning torture and the Bush administration wouldn't investigate Bill Clinton for what was well documented perjury. The idea of sanctioning the losers is antithetical to the idea of competitive democratic government.

I found our afterwards that it would be impossible for him to appoint a special prosecutor under the current institutional arrangement - though I don't think he was joking.

mattsmith48
October 11th, 2016, 11:58 AM
It's worth noting that Obama wouldn't investigate the Bush administration for what amounted to sanctioning torture and the Bush administration wouldn't investigate Bill Clinton for what was well documented perjury. The idea of sanctioning the losers is antithetical to the idea of competitive democratic government.

In the case of Bush and Bill Clinton it wouldn't be sanctioning the losers, they didn't lose, also its not the job of the president decide to investigate perjury cases and it would look bad if Obama would investigate the war crimes and terrorism committed by Bush since Obama is also committing war crimes and terrorism.

Vlerchan
October 11th, 2016, 02:52 PM
In the case of Bush and Bill Clinton it wouldn't be sanctioning the losers, they didn't lose[.]
Their party-allies lost, which is effectively the same thing, since politics is the occupation of groups and factions.

[...] also its not the job of the president decide to investigate perjury cases [...]
The president wouldn't be investigating it - just ensuring that it was investigated.

[...] and it would look bad if Obama would investigate the war crimes and terrorism committed by Bush since Obama is also committing war crimes and terrorism.
Notwithstanding the war crimes and terrorism claims would be destroyed in court, Obama hadn't committed anything of the sort on his first day in office.

---

Ergo, prosecuting your political opposition is still highly unusual in competitive democratic politics.

mattsmith48
October 11th, 2016, 03:07 PM
Their party-allies lost, which is effectively the same thing, since politics is the occupation of groups and factions.

Ergo, prosecuting your political opposition is still highly unusual in competitive democratic politics.

True but the person who commited the crimes is no longer a politician and can not run anymore, if they did something illegal it should at lease be investigated the problem here is they won't order an investigation of people from their own parties. You won't see Obama order an investigation for Bill Clinton's purgery, even if it was someone else then Bill Clinton it still wouldn't do it, just like anyone in the Republican party who would eventually become president, if that ever happens again after the Trump thing, they would never investigate Bush's war crime and terrorism.

The president wouldn't be investigating it - just ensuring that it was investigated.

That's what I meet still not his job.

Notwithstanding the war crimes and terrorism claims would be destroyed in court, Obama hadn't committed anything of the sort on his first day in office.

He order it just like Bush ordered to torture people its the same thing and its still a crime.

Vlerchan
October 11th, 2016, 03:13 PM
True but the person who commited the crimes is no longer a politician and can not run anymore, if they did something illegal it should at lease be investigated the problem here is they won't order an investigation of people from their own parties.
I amn't claiming it shouldn't be investigated, I am claiming that a president going out of his way to investigate a political opponent is outside the democrat norm.

You won't see Obama order an investigation for Bill Clinton's purgery, even if it was someone else then Bill Clinton it still wouldn't do it, just like anyone in the Republican party who would eventually become president, if that ever happens again after the Trump thing, they would never investigate Bush's war crime and terrorism.
Well, yes, but I am referring to them specifically targeting political enemies.

That's what I meet still not his job.
What Clinton did was a really big deal politically back when it did occur.

He order it just like Bush ordered to torture people its the same thing and its still a crime.
Without derailing the thread with discussion of the outgoing president's policies, the point I made that Obama could have had the Bush administration investigated on a whim at the start of his time in office, still stands.

Flapjack
October 12th, 2016, 04:39 PM
Rix8sBPMTj0
This is why I loveeee Russell Brand xD

Paraxiom
October 13th, 2016, 03:09 PM
Trump is snuffling again!

Update: Sniffling read bad.

What about both? :P


It's worth noting that Obama wouldn't investigate the Bush administration for what amounted to sanctioning torture and the Bush administration wouldn't investigate Bill Clinton for what was well documented perjury. The idea of sanctioning the losers is antithetical to the idea of competitive democratic government.

I found our afterwards that it would be impossible for him to appoint a special prosecutor under the current institutional arrangement - though I don't think he was joking.

Are Trump's actions here legally permitted on the grounds of free speech? (Just wondering.)

Vlerchan
October 13th, 2016, 03:28 PM
Are Trump's actions here legally permitted on the grounds of free speech? (Just wondering.)
Yes - is the understanding I have (Though I shouldn't be taken as a trusted source of United States speech laws it follows from weaker Irish decisions). His claims with regards to Bill could be deemed libelous - though I doubt Bill is going to want to go through the whole process - which in all likelihood would be quite gruelling for him.

Paraxiom
October 13th, 2016, 05:24 PM
Yes - is the understanding I have (Though I shouldn't be taken as a trusted source of United States speech laws it follows from weaker Irish decisions). His claims with regards to Bill could be deemed libelous - though I doubt Bill is going to want to go through the whole process - which in all likelihood would be quite gruelling for him.

I can imagine Bill smiling silently and screaming inside, actually (it works as an image for me anyway :D).

Vlerchan
October 14th, 2016, 02:51 PM
Carson also launched into a tirade about economic instability, saying that the U.S. should “throw the economists out” and instead use common sense.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ben-carson-donald-trump-accusations_us_5800dc49e4b0162c043b6063
Idiot.

[his full comment was in response to claims about Trump's plan inflating the deficit, and he just reletavised the entire issue. The problem is that most Republicans are going to pretty willingly abdicate small-state principals and toe that line because #crookedhillary. That Ryan, et al., seem fine to go along with it demonstrates a sickening abdication of principal in favor of political expedience.]

phuckphace
October 14th, 2016, 09:03 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ben-carson-donald-trump-accusations_us_5800dc49e4b0162c043b6063

Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.

:D

imagine being a """"journalist"""" at the Huffy Shitpost and having a TRUMP brand stick up your ass in addition to the giant black dildo that's attached to the seat of every swivel chair in the office.

[his full comment was in response to claims about Trump's plan inflating the deficit, and he just relativized the entire issue. The problem is that most Republicans are going to pretty willingly abdicate small-state principals and toe that line because #crookedhillary. That Ryan, et al., seem fine to go along with it demonstrates a sickening abdication of principal in favor of political expedience.]

Ryan is one of the slimier pseudocons - his "principles", such as they were, were shaky and terrible anyway.

he'd be a better fit in Clinton's administration - watch him defect if Clinton wins.

Porpoise101
October 15th, 2016, 12:24 PM
Ryan is one of the slimier pseudocons - his "principles", such as they were, were shaky and terrible anyway.

he'd be a better fit in Clinton's administration - watch him defect if Clinton wins.
It's weird seeing Ryan getting chewed up by the extremist wing of his party. He started as a TEA Party congressman and apparently got twisted into the establishment if you listen to that narrative. I disagree though, he may be opportunistic but he was shooed into his position by the most Trump-like members of the House (Freedom Caucus).

Ryan is an interesting guy. Moderates/Never Trump types have made him into a 'normal choice' while the pro-Trump camp has made him into 'establishment elite'. To me, he is neither of those things; he is a seasoned, more extreme member of Congress following the party line.

Paraxiom
October 15th, 2016, 03:22 PM
I'm (strangely enough, maybe) leaning toward Trump more than Clinton now with how I expect Trump to have better relations with Russia and not (intending to) doing as much war in general, than Clinton. Now this goes along with Trump's better ability to be entertaining.

It's still a mess and I hate both candidates as always. Good luck for the other four candidates...

Flapjack
October 15th, 2016, 04:16 PM
I'm (strangely enough, maybe) leaning toward Trump more than Clinton now with how I expect Trump to have better relations with Russia and not (intending to) doing as much war in general, than Clinton. Now this goes along with Trump's better ability to be entertaining.

It's still a mess and I hate both candidates as always. Good luck for the other four candidates...
I do see why you think that and I agree Trump clearly has a very good relationship with the Russians but I can't imagine either candidate starting a war with Russia and I fear Putin would manipulate Trump into not supporting NATO countries in Eastern-Europe etc etc and I believe Trump is fat more likely to start a war in the Middle-East.

But yeah it is a mess xD

Paraxiom
October 15th, 2016, 04:29 PM
I do see why you think that and I agree Trump clearly has a very good relationship with the Russians but I can't imagine either candidate starting a war with Russia and I fear Putin would manipulate Trump into not supporting NATO countries in Eastern-Europe etc etc and I believe Trump is fat more likely to start a war in the Middle-East.

But yeah it is a mess xD

Remember that it is more than Trump/Clinton who is behind the helms of the US military. The US has already done arguably more than its fair share of verbal attacks at Russia in the past few months, recently especially with the Syrian War, and Russia is very not pleased, taking its recent responses and actions. It's not great that both sides are putting up defences/etc at the other too.

I'd prefer US (continuing in) going to war in the ME than with Russia (which says what a mess this whole situation is).

MaeFae
October 15th, 2016, 05:09 PM
I just want to say that I think both of the candidates are subpar picks for President. That being said, I would rather Clinton win over Trump because: she has more experience than him with politics, she already has experience in the White House, and she can always get advice from Bill if need be.

Putting aside the frankly disgusting things Trump has said in the past and looking at who would do the better job, Clinton would actually get things done that would benefit the country. Trump has failed consistently in business ventures, foreign affairs, and in the public eye. Though he is probably still going to win.

Stronk Serb
October 15th, 2016, 05:14 PM
Well, I am rooting for Trump because his election and the toppling of established order has two outcomes:

a) He rights some wrongs about the US and it enters a Golden Age of prosperity and economic welfare, jobs return, poverty drops, crime decreases due to dropping of poverty, legislation get's better etc.

b) He shoves the US into the shitter, but is the trigger to popular demand for reform of the entire system which in turn would try to accomplish what a) suggests.

Either way it's a win-win for the Amerikanische Volk.

Paraxiom
October 15th, 2016, 05:15 PM
Well, I am rooting for Trump because his election and the toppling of established order has two outcomes:

a) He rights some wrongs about the US and it enters a Golden Age of prosperity and economic welfare, jobs return, poverty drops, crime decreases due to dropping of poverty, legislation get's better etc.

b) He shoves the US into the shitter, but is the trigger to popular demand for reform of the entire system which in turn would try to accomplish what a) suggests.

Outcome b would be nicer, really. :D

mattsmith48
October 15th, 2016, 05:50 PM
http://22i18l42a516x0glw28vyk8x4k.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/10-13-16.jpg

Saw this on Twitter I thought its the best way to ask the question why after all he did and said over the past year why is this the line for Trump voters?

PlasmaHam
October 15th, 2016, 09:03 PM
image (http://22i18l42a516x0glw28vyk8x4k.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/10-13-16.jpg)

http://liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/14670652_10202302349596609_4772445566583535819_n.jpg
So, punishing people who've broke the law is something a president shouldn't do? And you think that Clinton supporters are so tolerant and peaceful, so unlike Trump supporters? Think again. (http://louderwithcrowder.com/watch-bro-holds-rapist-sign-hillarys-rally/)

I guess Clinton doesn't care about the First amendment as well as the Second.

mattsmith48
October 15th, 2016, 10:19 PM
image (http://liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/14670652_10202302349596609_4772445566583535819_n.jpg)
So, punishing people who've broke the law is something a president shouldn't do? And you think that Clinton supporters are so tolerant and peaceful, so unlike Trump supporters? Think again. (http://louderwithcrowder.com/watch-bro-holds-rapist-sign-hillarys-rally/)

I guess Clinton doesn't care about the First amendment as well as the Second.

Im not saying he did what these women say he did, I wouldn't be surprise if its true but its what Im pointing out here. Im just asking a simple question. Why his this the one thing that make is suporter abandon him, after all the crazy shit he said and did?

-Calling mexicans are rapist
-Wanting to deporting 11 millions people
-Muslim ban (Talking about people who don't care about the First Amendment)
-Starting the birther movement
-Wanting to kill the familly of terrorist
-Wanting go back to torturing people
-Wanting to give nukes to Saudi Arabia
-Wanting to punish women for getting an abortion
-Having a dick measuring contest during a presidential debate
-Starting a fake university
-Telling his supporter to murder his political opponents
-Asking Russia to hack in his opponent's Emails
-Praising Putin and saying he's a great leader
-Making fun of a disable reporter
-Wanting to fuck his own daughter
-Saying climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese
-The 6 bankruptcies
-Not paying taxes for 20 years
-Calling a juge a mexican and saying he give a fair jugement in the Trump -University case because of his mexican heritage
-The feud with the Khan family
-Saying the election is rigged
-Kicking out a baby out of one of his rallies
-Taking cocaine before two debates
-Slut shaming former miss universe on Twitter in the middle of the night
-Saying veterans who got capture aren't war heros
-Not giving money he promessed to charity
-Insulting every single minority
-Retweeting KKK leaders

After all this and more why is this the one thing that might stop this monster?

Stronk Serb
October 16th, 2016, 04:58 AM
Outcome b would be nicer, really. :D

Either way the American people win. Clinton would maintain the status quo. Whichever way Trump's presidency goes, it cannot be bad as the current situation.

Porpoise101
October 16th, 2016, 02:57 PM
Clinton would maintain the status quo.
The status quo isn't that bad. Sure, there are issues in the world and in the country. But we've been through worse and the nation as a whole is doing decently.

Now would Clinton make things worse than they already are? I am not sure.

Microcosm
October 16th, 2016, 03:19 PM
It is unfortunate that "None" is not a choice in this poll.

I "support" basically no one in the race, although I am admittedly not much aware of third-party candidates. This is obviously because I believe they have no chance of winning anyways and will be forgotten right after the election.

If I had to vote, I'd go Clinton. My moral disagreements with Trump's behavior and views on women, Muslims, gays, etc. are simply too strong.

Vlerchan
October 16th, 2016, 03:19 PM
PlasmaHam: In 1997 there was a lawsuit brought against Trump alleging that he had sexually assaulted the filer of said lawsuit. This was described in similar terms to what Trump himself had claimed in the Trump Tape's and what the women that have come forward in the last week have also described. It further alleged that he had sexually assaulted other women that had stayed at his resort. It was dropped when Trump settled a concurrent lawsuit, alleging breach of contract, outside of court.

In other words, this isn't the first claim. Though, I explained in a previous post why it might have been difficult for women who had been victim to him, to step forward and file legal complaints.

b) He shoves the US into the shitter, but is the trigger to popular demand for reform of the entire system which in turn would try to accomplish what a) suggests.
I have no idea why you think that strapping national-populism to the mast of a burning ship - i.e. the Trump administration - is going to make it any more popular when it goes down with the captain.

Flapjack
October 16th, 2016, 03:50 PM
Some more stuff for those that have still not jumped off the sinking Trump ship
aMZxZjo3DqI
3yZ42L86KK0
jSTnzqMewJI

mattsmith48
October 16th, 2016, 05:58 PM
Some more stuff for those that have still not jumped off the sinking Trump ship
aMZxZjo3DqI
3yZ42L86KK0
jSTnzqMewJI

Whats next Bill Cosby joining the Trump campaign. Why is there still anyone supporting him?

Stronk Serb
October 17th, 2016, 02:04 AM
The status quo isn't that bad. Sure, there are issues in the world and in the country. But we've been through worse and the nation as a whole is doing decently.

Now would Clinton make things worse than they already are? I am not sure.

Not sure what the situation is, but the elections were never so polarized. I just saw an article how someone firebombed the republican HQ in Orange County, North Carolina. This polarization means change must happen in the eyes of the people. The only way I see this happening is if Trump wins and either fucks up the country so much that you have a 5th October style revolution like we did or he actually does something good.

PlasmaHam: In 1997 there was a lawsuit brought against Trump alleging that he had sexually assaulted the filer of said lawsuit. This was described in similar terms to what Trump himself had claimed in the Trump Tape's and what the women that have come forward in the last week have also described. It further alleged that he had sexually assaulted other women that had stayed at his resort. It was dropped when Trump settled a concurrent lawsuit, alleging breach of contract, outside of court.

In other words, this isn't the first claim. Though, I explained in a previous post why it might have been difficult for women who had been victim to him, to step forward and file legal complaints.


I have no idea why you think that strapping national-populism to the mast of a burning ship - i.e. the Trump administration - is going to make it any more popular when it goes down with the captain.

The US is polarized. Just like Serbia was in the nineties, there were pro-socialists and pro-democrats. The democrat suporters weren't there to blindly support the party ideals, they wanted to see the socialists out. The whole resistance culminated on the 5th of October when pro-democrat protesters stormed the national assembly and sacked half of Belgrade. then changes happened but that PM was assasinated so we are now trending towards the same shitter like the nineties were.

Flapjack
October 17th, 2016, 11:08 AM
Whats next Bill Cosby joining the Trump campaign. Why is there still anyone supporting him?
Well Roger Ailes was fast to be hired by the Trump campaign after he was exposed as being a sexual predator so I wouldn't be surprised xD

Paraxiom
October 17th, 2016, 04:32 PM
My cautioned prediction that riots/etc will happen after the results of election day (or even during it) are kinda still holding; the general Trump-Clinton battle is getting more bitter every day practically, and how Trump's statements are (firstly) being said at all, and (secondly) that his supporters love and agree with it, keeps adding onto that.

In a break of 'tradition' for me almost, I searched for a video on what T has been up to as of late. Turns out there was a live feed of another rally he happened to just walk onto the stage for as I started watching. How blessed I am.

phuckphace
October 17th, 2016, 05:54 PM
Molotov cocktails, anyone? (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article108627627.html)

Gov. Pat McCrory Sunday called the weekend firebombing of a North Carolina Republican headquarters “an attack on our democracy,” while one GOP official called it an act of “political terrorism.”

Hillsborough police said somebody threw a bottle of flammable liquid through the window of Orange County’s GOP headquarters, setting campaign signs, supplies and furniture ablaze before burning itself out.
A swastika and “Nazi Republicans get out of town or else” were spray painted on the side of an adjacent building. No damage estimates were available.

stay classy, Hillary supporters :D

In a tweet, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump blamed “Animals representing Hillary Clinton and Dems in North Carolina.”

FACT CHECK: ISOLATED INCIDENT, PROBABLY FALSE FLAG

ThisBougieLife
October 17th, 2016, 07:25 PM
stay classy, Hillary supporters :D


What a bunch of deplorables :P

Porpoise101
October 17th, 2016, 07:52 PM
To be fair, Clinton did condemn the attack.

The funniest thing to come out of it though, was the left's response. Numerous leftists actually donated to the rebuilding efforts to seem morally justified. Then other leftists used their hive-mind and came to one conclusion which was "don't donate to bigoted institutions." And thus, the offenders were purged.

mattsmith48
October 18th, 2016, 10:47 AM
My cautioned prediction that riots/etc will happen after the results of election day (or even during it) are kinda still holding; the general Trump-Clinton battle is getting more bitter every day practically, and how Trump's statements are (firstly) being said at all, and (secondly) that his supporters love and agree with it, keeps adding onto that.

In a break of 'tradition' for me almost, I searched for a video on what T has been up to as of late. Turns out there was a live feed of another rally he happened to just walk onto the stage for as I started watching. How blessed I am.

Well if Trump keeps saying the election is rigged it's almost a certainty that there will be riots or some sort of violence after Clinton wins.

Flapjack
October 18th, 2016, 10:48 AM
How Trump responded to the firebombing was alarming, blaming a whole group of people based on the actions of a few people when their involvement in that group has not even been confirmed. Even if it is confirmed, the whole group should not be judged based on the actions of a few.

I want to shout out the democrats that donated money to repair the damages, passing the $10k goal in only 4 hours.

My guess was that the attack was actually Trump supporter that wanted it to look like a Hilary supporter had done it as I see no motivation for a Hilary supporter (who's side is winning and would likely know firebombing would harm the campaign) whereas the Trump supporter would obviously have motivation.

It should be notied Trump has made manyyy enemies, not just Hilary supporters.

mattsmith48
October 18th, 2016, 11:01 AM
How Trump responded to the firebombing was alarming, blaming a whole group of people based on the actions of a few people when their involvement in that group has not even been confirmed. Even if it is confirmed, the whole group should not be judged based on the actions of a few.

Why is it alarming he's doing that all the time?

phuckphace
October 18th, 2016, 11:03 AM
I'm 100% certain Hillary had nothing to do with the Molotov cocktail (suicide by multiple gunshots to the back of the head is more her style) but the story is running exactly how I knew it would.

Trump supporters: LOCK HER UP!
The Left: WOW JUST WOW TYPICAL TRUMPKINS, STAY CLASSY
*firebombing*
The Left: FALSE FLAG, LOOK AT THESE 20 DEMS WHO DONATED, CLEARLY NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF DEMS AT ALL, UNLIKE THAT WOMAN WHO GAVE THE HITLER SALUTE AT THE TRUMP RALLY, WHICH IS 100000000% OF ALL TRUMPKINS

Flapjack - your bias is egregious.

ThisBougieLife
October 18th, 2016, 11:13 AM
Yeah at least be consistent in blaming the entire group for the actions of a few. That is literally all everyone on either side does 24/7 ;)

Flapjack
October 18th, 2016, 11:39 AM
(suicide by multiple gunshots to the back of the head is more her style) but the story is running exactly how I knew it would.
Usual conspiracy theories from you

Trump supporters: LOCK HER UP!
The Left: WOW JUST WOW TYPICAL TRUMPKINS, STAY CLASSY
*firebombing*
The Left: FALSE FLAG, LOOK AT THESE 20 DEMS WHO DONATED, CLEARLY NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF DEMS AT ALL, UNLIKE THAT WOMAN WHO GAVE THE HITLER SALUTE AT THE TRUMP RALLY, WHICH IS 100000000% OF ALL TRUMPKINS.
I am loving how you use a few Trump supporters to judge all Trump supporters and you do the same with Hilary supporters? No a few people doing stuff from Hitler salutes to firebombs does not represent everyone that supports the same candidate!


@Flapjack (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=122060) - your bias is egregious.
Evidence and explanation to why you think that?

[QUOTE=phuckphace;3446671]
The Left: FALSE FLAG, LOOK AT THESE 20 DEMS WHO DONATED, CLEARLY NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF DEMS AT ALL,/QUOTE]
I am assuming that is a reference to me to which I say
1. I do not represent everyone on the left
2. I said my guess would be it was a 'false flag' not that it was a false flag whereas Trump said it was Clinton supporters and used that to judge everyone who supports Clinton.

Vlerchan
October 18th, 2016, 12:41 PM
The Left: WOW JUST WOW TYPICAL TRUMPKINS, STAY CLASSY
I am The Left (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3445379&postcount=62). Fear me for I am inevitable.

mattsmith48
October 18th, 2016, 07:14 PM
I'm 100% certain Hillary had nothing to do with the Molotov cocktail (suicide by multiple gunshots to the back of the head is more her style) but the story is running exactly how I knew it would.

Trump supporters: LOCK HER UP!
The Left: WOW JUST WOW TYPICAL TRUMPKINS, STAY CLASSY
*firebombing*
The Left: FALSE FLAG, LOOK AT THESE 20 DEMS WHO DONATED, CLEARLY NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF DEMS AT ALL, UNLIKE THAT WOMAN WHO GAVE THE HITLER SALUTE AT THE TRUMP RALLY, WHICH IS 100000000% OF ALL TRUMPKINS

We still don't know who did this could be Gary Johnson supporters or Jill Stein's or the Amish, could be anyone. We should all know by now that Trump and his supporters are champions when it comes jumping to early to conclusions and bringing false accusations on Hillary Clinton.

phuckphace
October 19th, 2016, 12:19 AM
let it be known that this will be my final arduous, grueling, tiresome attempt at engaging the holmes here, and henchforth any cringeworthy zero-effort shitpost will be responded to in kind with a counter-shitpost. not least because of having absolutely no grasp of subtlety as can be seen below.

also, obtusely refusing to believe facts about a country you've never visited from someone who tries to educate you from a native's perspective. such as the real goings-on with gun ownership and gun violence, but you absolutely refuse to budge on your cartoonish perception of mass-shootings happening virtually everywhere at the hands of crazed gun nuts. if I were immortal I might be able to drag out enough info on the demographics of gun crime and how this affects statistics to convince you - it seems that's off the table, tho. I will live long enough however to point out that the number of mass shootings such as those that occur at schools is actually really, really low compared to what you would expect factoring in the total number of guns Americans own. SO MANY GUNS EVERYWHERE and yet, life goes on more or less normally (decreasingly so) outside the ghetto.

Usual conspiracy theories from you

you could always dictionary the word "facetious", what you find may surprise you

I am loving how you use a few Trump supporters to judge all Trump supporters and you do the same with Hilary supporters?

I was baiting with that post and you bit it, fam. I'm doing a scientific study on how Orwellian the media bias actually is, to the point where there is at or around 100% alignment of media/press and The Powers That Be, a situation where if the country in question were Russia it would be ugh repressive Putin censorship.

No a few people doing stuff from Hitler salutes to firebombs does not represent everyone that supports the same candidate!

I highly doubt you really believe this, given the number of sweeping generalizations you've made before on Trump supporters, gun owners, etc.

Evidence and explanation to why you think that?

see above

I am assuming that is a reference to me to which I say...

FACT CHECK: Partially true.

1. I do not represent everyone on the left

bruh you're like the Millennial type-specimen. it's a close overlap but not entirely so, I will concede

I said my guess would be it was a 'false flag'

bait status: bitten again. this wasn't through actual guessing that you arrived at this conclusion, but through being 10000% automatically against everything Trump does no matter what. you're overly, adamantly certain that Trump will lose, while I can manage to make the concession that Hillary could legitimately win. and note that when I say you're too certain it's because you are using predictors of past elections to judge a very atypical one, amongst other things. anything could really happen at this point - the polls are variably accurate but aren't the whole story.

not that it was a false flag whereas Trump said it was Clinton supporters and used that to judge everyone who supports Clinton.

it's funny because Trump being certain that the vandals were Hillary supporters is less conspiratorial than assuming it was a false flag. maybe next you'll suggest that a significant number of the people who end up with smashed vehicles for their TRUMP stickers just rekt their own cars for the insurance payout. in such a highly polarized election cycle, I would expect even more Molotovs and smashed cars than we've seen yet.

Flapjack
October 19th, 2016, 01:26 AM
bait status: bitten again.
See this is why I never get if you're trying to be funny or serious, if you just want to 'bait' people and not post your real opinions then you can debate someone else that's willing to deal with you.