Voting against Trump is no excuse for voting for Clinton. They're both evil. Determining which one is more evil is a pointless exercise. Trump has disagreeable moral opinions unacceptable to a majority of Americans. Clinton has a reprehensible record of moral atrocities on a global scale unacceptable to humanity in general. If you people elect either one of these, you have no moral compass.
I don't know about why the GP labels Donald Trump evil, but I would label him evil for his hate speech against illegal aliens and refugees.
I can't forget about last year's interview when he stated that all illegal aliens are rapists and murderers. He then cited a Fusion Article that stated 80% of women coming to the US from Central and South America are raped along the way. When Don Lemon clarified that the article was about women being raped, not about illegal aliens, Trump replied, "Well, somebody's doing the raping, Don! I mean somebody's doing it! Who's doing the raping? Who's doing the raping?"
Trump was trying to stir up hatred against a group of people using half-truths and outright lies in order to gain an advantage in the election. In addition he went on record stating that we should not accept any refugees from Syria because there are terrorists among them. He also stated that we should ban any Muslims from entering the country. Just my opinion, but all that puts him over the 'evil' line in my book.
Well, given that both major party candidates are totally unsuitable for this position, I'm surprised that they still have most of the/. votes in this poll.
Sigh, I guess the two-party delusion runs deep in the US of A. You clowns almost deserve it.
He never said that all of the illegal immigrants are rapists. He said that a lot of them are, and a lot of them are drug dealers and criminals. He's not wrong.
I would like to see some citation to back that up.
Also, are we defining "a lot of them" as an absolute number? Or a large percentage? Or are we leaving it vague so I can claim anywhere from 2% to 98% depending on which position I am defending at the moment?
FoxNews.com examined a patchwork of local, state and federal statistics that revealed a wildly disproportionate number of murderers, rapists and drug dealers are crossing into the U.S. amid the wave of hard-working families seeking a better life.
So they are comparing immigrants, a generally poor group, to the population in general, using a variety of sources that are so good they decided not to publish the raw data, their statistical analysis of it or get it peer reviewed.
We have to scroll half way through the article before they even mention a number, and they never both to compare those numbers to comparable ones from US citizens. They also seem to pick stats out that are unrelated to anything but which sound bad, e..g the number of "foreign born
Oh good grief. Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] Everyone only seems to want to hear what Trump said from Clinton allied sources, or, waits for Clinton minions to explain to them what they just heard Trump say.
"It's only common sense, just common sense.." -Trump
There's way too many people walking around America who will not survive an extended loss of electricity, or know what to do without an "authority" directing your labors and providing your needs.
I would like to see some citation to back that up.
I'd like to see some citation to back that up he said "ALL illegal immigrants are rapists." I'm not voting for the guy, but I see this come up time and again, but nobody can point out a direct quote or piece of writing by Trump where he states it. The things he does & says are bad enough, you don't need to make up anything additional.
It is true that he is careful never to say the word "All", but he definitely implies it. Here is a quote from his presidential candidate announcement in June of 2015.
When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people.
Note that he makes a clarification that he assumes that some are good people, but that the border guards tell him that we are not getting the good people. In addition he implies that even the legal immigrants are bringing drugs and crime.
When I heard Trump make that statement, the impression I got is he was referring predominately toward the criminals that escort the illegals across the border and the gang members who would blend in with them as the infiltrated the US.
Of course it's hard to tell Trump is almost inarticulate, his thought pattern is more squirrelly than most ADHD 13 year olds.
And so we get to the crux of why the Left hates Trump.
Not being in the USA, I am able to inform you that the USA has no left wing!
You have your "right wing", although just how right they are is a separate discussion.
Those who you call "liberal" will certainly pass for liberal away from your 4.5% of humanity. It's just that you seem to have a different definition of what that actually means from most of the planet.
To make it clear. There are three generalisations - Left, Liberal and Right. You have probably rarely even seen someone who says they are left win
To make it clear. There are three generalisations - Left, Liberal and Right.
No, there aren't. Using a "left-right" spectrum is somewhat a false dichotomy. How would you categorize someone who is pro-gay marriage & pro-pot legalization, but also against government entitlements? They don't fit in your simplified generalizations. It makes much more sense to measure political preference on a two-dimensional scale of economic & social positions, as done here: World's Smallest Political Quiz [theadvocates.org]
While it's not exhaustive, I think it does a better job of helping people get a better gr
I called them generalisations because they are not complete descriptions Even calling it a spectrum is a pretty incomplete analysis and the Political Compass website is only an approximation. As long as you are aware that you are using generalisations, they can be a useful tool
I was reacting to a misunderstanding common in your country that "liberal" means "left wing". It means neither left or right. It means in the middle.
Most people do not fit in that one dimensional range - I know I don't. Most pol
I can understand you disliking Trump or whatever positions he's taken but why do you label him "evil"? He's basically a joe sixpack type millionaire.
He's basically a classic robber baron from the 1800s. Take the worst and most embarrassing parts of American history that we'd hoped we were finally starting to work past, put them together in a person, and you come out with Donald Trump. He's an uncomfortable reminder that the values that claimed this country for us are the very same ones that could just as easily destroy it.
Voting against Trump is no excuse for voting for Clinton. They're both evil. Determining which one is more evil is a pointless exercise. Trump has disagreeable moral opinions unacceptable to a majority of Americans. Clinton has a reprehensible record of moral atrocities on a global scale unacceptable to humanity in general. If you people elect either one of these, you have no moral compass.
They may both be evil, but at least Hillary is competent and evil. Still, don't blame me, I'll be voting for Johnson.
you really haven't researched her at all have you? Just look into her performance as Secretary of State, stuff like the NAFTA agreement or any of the wars she started/was involved in.
you really haven't researched her at all have you? Just look into her performance as Secretary of State, stuff like the NAFTA agreement or any of the wars she started/was involved in.
I thought Clinton was SoS from 2009 through 2013, while NAFTA was signed by Bush, Mulroney and Salinas in 1992. I suppose you might blame H Clinton somehow for Bill Clinton adding some labor and enviornmental protection via the NAALC and NAAEC in 93/94, but that seems like an argment FOR Clinton rather than AGAINST. NAFTA was passed by the house and senate with more Republican than Democratic votes (but not overwhelming differences - lots of Democrats voted for it).
> I can't seem to recall or find any wars that "she started",
On October 11, 2002, Clinton joined a strong majority of Democrats, including liberal and left-center Democrats like Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and Joe Biden, in voting in favor of the Resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq.
> I can't seem to recall or find any wars that "she started",
On October 11, 2002, Clinton joined a strong majority of Democrats, including liberal and left-center Democrats like Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and Joe Biden, in voting in favor of the Resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq.
I misunderstood - I thought your phrase was limited to while she was SoS. If we are looking at her time in the Senate, then sure, she's complicit in that resolution.
Clinton hailed TPP as setting "the gold standard in trade agreements" during her time in the Obama administration. Here are some of the words she used to describe TPP: "exciting," "innovative," "ambitious," "groundbreaking," "cutting-edge," "high quality," "high standard" and "gold standard." She supported Chinaâ(TM)s entrance into the World Trade Organizationâ¦. She supported the job-killing trade deal with South Korea. She has supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership." and has yet to revoke
Clinton hailed TPP as setting "the gold standard in trade agreements" during her time in the Obama administration. Here are some of the words she used to describe TPP: "exciting," "innovative," "ambitious," "groundbreaking," "cutting-edge," "high quality," "high standard" and "gold standard." She supported Chinaâ(TM)s entrance into the World Trade Organizationâ¦. She supported the job-killing trade deal with South Korea. She has supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership." and has yet to revoke her support for Chinaâ(TM)s inclusion in the WTO or the deal with South Korea.
OK, but why are you blaming her for NAFTA? Your otherwise clearly thought out position is undermined when you make statements about your disgust with her behaviour seems to be based on factually incorrect statements.
If you vote for someone else, you will get one of them, and are rating them 'equally evil'. First-past-the-post voting systems always pull to two choices, and that is what you have, so: Grow up. If you want better choices, then campaign for a better voting system. For now this is the one you have, and a protest vote is an act of self-harm.
The problem I have with your argument is that the challenges we have with our voting system aren't inherent to the voting system itself, but rather the 2 party system. The States being the ones who elect the electors to the Electoral College and those electors actually being the ones who elect the President and Vice President leaves plenty of opportunity for other outcomes approximating a coalition government in other countries. It's the party system that prevents those outcomes, not the system of voting. T
The problem I have with your argument is that the challenges we have with our voting system aren't inherent to the voting system itself, but rather the 2 party system. The States being the ones who elect the electors to the Electoral College and those electors actually being the ones who elect the President and Vice President leaves plenty of opportunity for other outcomes approximating a coalition government in other countries. It's the party system that prevents those outcomes, not the system of voting. The Founders, particularly the much-beloved George Washington, were very clear on the evil of parties, but no one listened.
Nah, I think you have it backwards. The 2-party-system is a natural result of FPTP. The electoral college is another complication, but essentially is the same thing just at a larger scale.
You can get more than 2 parties but that's often as a result of special cases (eg Scottish nationalists) and even then the system tends to tip over to give one party a majority with only about 35% of the votes.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. My point is you can't have a 2 party system if you have 0 parties to start with. If every candidate stood on their own and presented their own ideas without attribution to a party, things would be more as intended by the Founders. The Electoral College is a form of a runoff, although not recognizable as an inherently democratic runoff. The 1st Amendment allows for free association, so you clearly can't ban political parties, but we were clearly warned against them an
Sure you can. We did start with 0 parties. George Washington was not in a party. And he was the only president who managed to avoid party affiliation. After that, FPTP led to two party systems right up until the present (of course, _which_ two parties has varied, and occasionally an election has happened while one party was moving up past another, but by and large it's been two main parties at any given point in time).
Your statement would be better phrased as "you can't have a two party system if you never
Voting against Trump is no excuse for voting for Clinton. They're both evil.
Trump and Clinton may both be corrupt but Trump worries me more.
Trump holds the constitution in contempt. He is opposed to "non discrimination based on religion sex, gender, national origin, etc". He wants to limit free speech, making it illegal for newspapers to criticize him. He wants to imprison his political rivals. He sees no faults in Putin. The only foreign leaders to endorse him are Putin and Kim Jong Un. He asks his followers to assassinate his rival. He asks foreign powers to hack her.
He sounds more and more like a dictator wannabe by the day. He's a white Robert Mugabe: in temperament, politics and ideals.
What do you think will happen 4 years from now if we have a crisis. Perhaps a war or a terrorist attack? What are the odds a President Trump would allow free elections to occur?
"My fellow Americans, I am postponing the election to preserve the safety of the citizens until such a time it is safe for the population".
Clinton is a corrupt bitch. Trump is a threat to the constitution and democracy. I know which is worse. I know which one would be bad for America and which one would be potentially DEVASTATING for America.
Perhaps a war or a terrorist attack? What are the odds a President Trump would allow free elections to occur?
"My fellow Americans, I am postponing the election to preserve the safety of the citizens until such a time it is safe for the population".
Actually, I wouldn't put it past a President Clinton to do the exact same thing. Why else is she repeatedly blaming Russia for the email hacks and proposing a "no-fly zone" over Syria and Iraq?
I agree that Clinton is a corrupt bitch, but I also think that she would also be potentially DEVASTATING for America.
He is exactly like Robert Mugabe. Do you think Mugabe started out saying "Let's beat up the opposition and form a dictatorship". I think you don't realize how fragile democracy can be in terms of stress. You've lived in a country that has had a long history of democracy and have become complacent. The Mugabes of the world started out just like Trump. They used populism and painting a certain people as the enemy. Hitler had his jewish enemy to unite the people against; Kim has his capitalist enemy; Mug
Do you not remember Hillary's claim of "a vast right wing conspiracy"?
Do you deny that there have been at least 2 people imprisoned by he Obama administration for political speech?
Trump's opposition to freedom of speech and press is vile and evil. Hillary Clinton's participation in the Obama administration's suppression of free speech is worse. "Actions speak louder than words."
I am alarmed... that there is no legal requirement to fair and factual reporting, and that there is no accountability when these corporations profit from deliberate smear campaigns
Here we part company. Outside of political campaigns, the "legal requirement to fair and factual reporting" is embedded in libel laws when financial loss can be proved. In politics, no statement, no matter how untruthful or nasty, is prohibited by law nor should it be. If it were otherwise, freedom of speech and press in the pol
(a) vote for the lesser of two evils (b) vote for the greater of two evils (c) vote third-party, which makes it more likely the greater of two evils will be elected (d) don't vote at all, which makes it more likely the greater of two evils will be elected
Then look at the actual POLICIES each candidate supports. The presidency is about more than just one person: it's about the entire administration. Thousands of jobs change when a president does.
Do you want a candidate that thinks climate change is a hoax, and that renewable energy "doesn't work" but clean coal does? A candidate that explicitly promises a shockingly xenophobic, sexist, and racist administration? A candidate that wants massive tax cuts for the wealthy coupled with deregulation of telecom, banking, and energy industries, among others?
Or perhaps you would prefer a centrist candidate that takes climate change seriously, that takes women's and minorities' rights seriously, that wants to implement a progressive tax code and roughly maintain the status quo on regulations.
Nope.
Anyone who feels it necessary to point anything out as a womens or minorities right (as opposed to a human right) absolutely cannot be taken seriously.
Source: I am a strong independent black woman who don't need no man.
I'd rather have policies that apply to just "people" as a whole instead of "only this one specific subset of people".
Tell you what. The day you can prove to me that your policies that are meant to be applied equally actually really do get applied equally in all major regions, I'll stop requesting policies that counteract discrimination and bias.
You're both fighting over the wrong thing, though.
We'll never have things perfectly even. And your suggestion simply helps create new prejudice rather than doing anything to actually fix the existing harmful prejudices. Victimizing new people is not the way to settle old grudges.
The correct way to help people is to help all disadvantaged persons. This can (and should) provide disproportionate help to those who have been systematically victimized. But, more importantly, it's a neutral way to help people.
Sure they were, just as there was also human sacrifice. Until recently slavery was seen as the norm pretty much everywhere you had enough people to have a slave economy.
Then look at the actual POLICIES each candidate supports. The presidency is about more than just one person: it's about the entire administration. Thousands of jobs change when a president does.
Do you want a candidate that thinks climate change is a hoax, and that renewable energy "doesn't work" but clean coal does? A candidate that explicitly promises a shockingly xenophobic, sexist, and racist administration? A candidate that wants massive tax cuts for the wealthy coupled with deregulation of telecom, banking, and energy industries, among others?
Or perhaps you would prefer a centrist candidate that takes climate change seriously, that takes women's and minorities' rights seriously, that wants to implement a progressive tax code and roughly maintain the status quo on regulations.
Since you can't accurately cite the candidates actual policies, your opinion is irrelevant. But no, I don't want a president who wants to implement a more progressive tax code or maintain the status quo on regulations. That is what is killing this country's economy and needs to change. That alone disqualifies both women running and makes any other candidate better.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Thursday October 27, 2016 @03:02AM (#53159687)
Citing opinion pieces as fact is flat wrong. There is no editorial review or fact checking, just people writing whatever they feel, regardless of how far from reality that is.
Indeed, for example "The Gateway Pundit" claims that she "fudged" climate change data to show that climate change is real. Even Trump has since renounced his climate change denial. It's also based on a single email, which seems to be simply describing a change due to some unstated factor, not deliberate fudging.
I really don't love Trump, he's an idiot, I'm actually solidly in the "Anyone but Hillary" camp. Why? because corruption is BY FAR the biggest problem in US government and it affects everyone living in the US every day of our lives. There is an avalanche of information out there showng how the Clinton dynasty is completely corrupt, and Hilary is the queen fucking bitch of it, yet most of all the self-important geni-asses here are clearly doing everything they can to keep their minds closed so they can keep li
You played all the usual baseless and hyperbolic adjectives, but left out bigoted. I hope CTR doesn't dock your pay. Good job on the usual FUD bullet points, though, and letting us know what Clinton's 'public' opinion is, positions she only adopted because Sanders proved them to be popular amongst his base.
A few quick observations from this election cycle:
- campaign finance fraud and electioneering that forced the DNC chair to resign
- a secretive conspiracy of paid protestors, agitators and rioters that led to the shutdown of a political event, interfering with free speech and the right for citizens to peacefully assemble
- A compromised attorney general that refused to recuse after a secretive tarmac meeting with a person related to an active investigation
- An FBI refusing to recommend any indictments were SAP level confidential information is leaked during the course of violating federal record keeping laws, where evidence was destroyed, perjury committed, and case for obstruction of justice could easily be made.
- leaked emails that provide substantial evidence of pay-for-play access to the secretary of state and millions of dollars in bribes
A vote for Clinton is one for the double standard where justice is not applied equally under the law, and critical organs of government cannot be relied upon to perform their function impartially in order to serve as checks and balances. Rules for thee, not for me. A Trump administration sees Trey Gowdy as attorney general, who systematically dismantled Clinton's lies. I do not believe any Gowdy would cover for Trump, neither would the FBI.
Phrasing it eloquently doesn't actually make any of those things true though. For instance, there was nothing for the AD to recuse herself from - the FBI said there was no case to be made. The theory that the FBI was some how corrupted is pretty empty too, when you consider that Comes is not only widely respected for his integrity, but I'd also a registered Republican that was a Republican appointee. Additionally, Comey was pulled in front of Congress multiple times to explain the exact legal rationale,
Did you watch the same 3 hour hearing I did, where congressmen used the FBI's own reports to make Director 'Dont Call Us Weasels' Comey look like a fool? Where they proved that Mills lied about knowing about the server? Where they listed all the devices that the FBI couldn't search, because they had been purposefully destroyed and or wiped after the preserve order for the records was issued?
No, I understand. You base your understanding on propaganda from the Washington post and all the other DNC surrogates who have all but broken their neck looking the other way on how the FBI investigation was conducted. Thanks to the Podesta email leak, we find out there was an active effort to 'clean up' the emails sent by President Obama himself, who also falsely claimed ignorance of HRC's email setup. Then you wonder why the immunity agreement for Mill's laptop had the stipulation that they could not consider as evidence emails after the date the records preservation order was issued, and why the laptop was destroyed afterwards. But, no intent! *facepalm*
Don't you even fucking dare compare the HRC email scandal to Patreas when we have no idea what the content of those top secret SAP emails were. For all we know, HRC's self-serving desire to avoid public scrutiny from lawful FOIA requests may have cost intelligence assets their lives, perhaps even ambassador Stevens himself and those around him.
It sucks living in a country where the majority would rather get their talking points from the MSM boobtube newsbites and extrapolate opinion from there, rather than invest some time and effort to research and analyze evidence to find the truth. We're going to pay a heavy price for allowing the federal government to intrude and take over our education system.
Even the WashingtonPost, who HATES HATES HATES Trump admits he is to the left of clinton on economics, trade, and foreign policy. Hard to believe but if you listen to what he says about cutting military spending by closing bases and dropping weapon systems, getting out of foreign alliances, ending trade deals, increasing tarrifs, and going after crony capitalism you would swear you were listening to Bernie Sanders and not the Republican cannidate for president.
Trump has also claimed he wanted to usurp part of the wealth of the wealthy and distribute it to the middle class. Is he left of Hillary? Yes ! Is he right of Hillary? Yes! He is a mindless idiot with beliefs scattered in every direction as well as with zero ability to actually achieve any of his goals. What sane person would vote for a man on his third marriage following his sixth bankruptcy? He has unstable stamped all over his forehead.
Even the WashingtonPost, who HATES HATES HATES Trump admits he is to the left of clinton on economics, trade, and foreign policy. Hard to believe but if you listen to what he says about cutting military spending by closing bases and dropping weapon systems, getting out of foreign alliances, ending trade deals, increasing tarrifs, and going after crony capitalism you would swear you were listening to Bernie Sanders and not the Republican cannidate for president.
It is called populism, and it very common almost a defining characteristic in far right candidates. They rarely fullfill any of the promises though.
Populism is the close relative of rabble-rousing, a Democrat exclusive. Populism is comparatively rare among Republicans.
I think you live in a different reality than I do. Bernie Sanders was certainly a populist, but he wasn't considered mainstream in the Democratic party and didn't win the nomination. Trump is all populism and no republican policies at all....
I understand why people distrust Trump on "Women's Rights", what I don't understand is why HRC gets a free pass, at best she's a serial enabler to her Husband's sexual predations, at worst Bill fucked them physically and Hillary fucked them psychologically.
At least Trump doesn't blame the victims like Hillary does.
Hillary did what any woman would have done? Bull f*ing sh*t! Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, you're out the door with your possessions strewn all over the front lawn. In the rain. Your car sent to the crusher, as well as your reputation in the neighborhood.
Doesn't the fantasy land he lives in worry you at all? Yesterday he claimed that 650 million immigrants could come to the US in one week under Clinton. He lives in his own little world.
> Then look at the actual POLICIES each candidate supports.
No, look at the actions they use in carrying out those policies. Particularly the actions of the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative. Go read Podesta's emails on r/wikileaks to get a sense of what they're planning. It's not good.
The short answer is they're plotting more wars and to enrich themselves by selling all kinds of things to people who are especially deplorable.
Then look at the actual POLICIES each candidate supports.
I did that and then decided to vote Libertarian or Green. The Democrat/Republican policies (which, in terms of the policies that actually matter as opposed to irrelevant wedge issues, are both the same) are way too authoritarian.
The Greens are tyrannical. The Libertarians are erratic. Johnson is a particularly bad example of a libertarian, drug-addled and taking many anti-freedom positions.
This is the first election, where I am 100% convinced that policy positions don't matter at all, because I have 0 confidence that either candidate has any loyalty to their past positions. Hillary Clinton will do and say whatever is necessary to get elected or re-elected. If public opinion changes, then Hillary will change to match it. Donald Trump is a child. His policy positions are based on whatever feels right to him in the moment. I don't think he's ever come up with a policy position prior to gett
Candidates all lie so aren't you kind of a gigantic buffon for buying into the lies of the "platform they support".
In particular, Hillary has not only VERBALLY been against every single thing she supposedly is for now, she's on record for voting or acting against things like gay marriage and even the black population in general.
So voting for Hillary you are not voting for a "platform" but for whatever she decides to do in the future, which it utterly unknowable and not dictated by her "platform".
Then look at the actual POLICIES each candidate supports. The presidency is about more than just one person: it's about the entire administration. Thousands of jobs change when a president does.
Do you want a candidate that thinks climate change is a hoax, and that renewable energy "doesn't work" but clean coal does? A candidate that explicitly promises a shockingly xenophobic, sexist, and racist administration? A candidate that wants massive tax cuts for the wealthy coupled with deregulation of telecom, banking, and energy industries, among others?
Or perhaps you would prefer a centrist candidate that takes climate change seriously, that takes women's and minorities' rights seriously, that wants to implement a progressive tax code and roughly maintain the status quo on regulations.
To be fair Trump may think climate change is serious, and wants women's and minority rights, plus a progressive tax code but he sure isn't saying this.
Shilling for Hillary is a full time job these days.
Ha! Telling people to look at policies of the candidates has become "shilling for Hillary" these days. Sort of how 'conspiring against Trump" consists of actually printing the things he says and does. (Johnson voter here.)
I'm completely comfortable with a presidential candidate having very little to say about Aleppo, though I'd much prefer the silence be an active choice instead of simple ignorance.
Look... as long as there are two people left alive in this world, they will fight. We cannot stop that; it's just human nature. It shouldn't be Team America World Police to the rescue every time there's a dust-up in the Middle East. And it REALLY shouldn't be our responsibility to help arm the rebels against the big bad govern
Left wingers, since they are property rights deniers, will automatically steal from each other, which will lead to fighting. Right wingers respect property rights.
He neither named a world leader nor said that there were none that he respected. The only one that he mentioned, though not by name, is not a current world leader.
He followed it up the next day with a tweet "It's been 24 hours and I still can't come up with one I respect!"
I would have said Justin Trudeau, he's about as boring and uncontroversial as it gets, and a US President hopeful should at least be able to know the neighbors. An unconventional choice would have been Queen Elizabeth II. Most others come to mind because they're either bad or polarizing. Maybe the King of the Netherlands, is he a chill dude?
Someone who can't pass a very basic test to show awareness of one of the most troubled areas of the planet is unfit to get the job of a major international statesman. Sorry.
Yes, I was aware of the situation in Aleppo and Syria at large... because I read the news. I can absolutely find Aleppo on a map. I'm not running for office, I know these things, and I'm sure as shit going to discount a presidential candidate for not being immediately aware of one of the more significant global current events.
Not that this speaks volumes for anyone else. I doubt Trump knew much more about Syria, but fortunately for him he can just say meaningless drivel like "Whatever it is, we're goin
I wish I had moderator points today to give to you. This (along with nearly everything that Johnson says when he opens his mouth) is why I can't vote for him. Or Stein for that matter. an ocean of rotten choices this election season.
It's a matter of public record. Hillary Clinton voluntarily defended the man who so viciously raped a 12-year-old girl that she became unable to bear children. This man, who should have been executed, got off with only 1 year in jail. Hillary bragged about her role in this case.
It's funny how all the criticisms levelled at Trump get mirrored back at Clinton by his supporters.
He claims to stand for the common man, but is obviously part of the 1% and has been seen to screw his employees and customers every opportunity he gets. What Clinton said to Wall Street is just normal politician stuff.
Trump lies about everything, constantly. How many videos have we seen of him lying, followed immediately by archive footage of him contradicting himself? His entire campaign is post-factual, so far beyond truth that lying doesn't even matter any more. And like a child, he accuses everyone else of the same and threatens to sue them (but never follows through).
And yes, when Trump gets caught it's always someone else's fault. He claimed that he hand picked staff at Trump University, but when the scam became obvious suddenly he had no hand in the day to day operation or hiring process. Same with his racist property rental companies, they had his personal touch to ensure that they were the best apartments in the best locations right up until it became clear that they were not available to coloured people.
The argument that Trump hasn't broke any national security rules is bogus too. He hasn't had the chance. If he is careless enough to talk about grabbing women by their genitals to a journalist, what do you think he will let slip when he's President? Turns out his own email servers, the ones run by "the best people", are a joke security wise too.
REally? You're trying to compare Clintons crimes to Trump's admittedly stupid ass grabbing? Remind me the last time that Trump had their own FBI investigation, or sold out the US?
Remind me the last time that Trump had their own FBI investigation
It wasn't for something as dangerous as maintaining an email server, but the FBI has investigated Trump for bribery and racketeering. There were the Mafia kickbacks he paid while building Trump Tower (mostly to get beneficial union treatment and ensure the unions didn't complain about his illegal workers.). There was the former mafia lieutenant and drug runner he gave exclusive helicopter charter rights to his casinos to (and a free apartment in Trump Tower). There were the times he direct business with the heads of two New York families.
Attorney Kenneth McCallion was one of the federal prosecutors involved in that investigation. He says there appeared to be a sweetheart deal between the Teamsters Local 282 and Trump, where Trump would get a promise of cooperation from organized laborâ"including breaking up any strikes by minority workersâ"in exchange for no-show jobs, a lucrative concrete contract and a luxury apartment for the union president's girlfriend.
As for selling out the US, I don't even know where to begin. I don't know what "selling out the US" (or a moral equivalent) would be to someone with no government job, but I think working with the Mafia counts some (foreign organization that disrespects rule of law.) Using illegal immigrents to undercut Americans? Perpetuating financial scams on the American people?
There is ample evidence that Clinton engaged in pay for play.
We don't have evidence of that for Trump. He most likely is not for sale, but we know that Clinton is. I don't want to live in a 3rd world corrupt banana republic.
Hillary Clinton claimed they were broke when they left the White House. Now they have a net worth in excess of $100 million, obtained from giving speeches and being given phony-bologna honorary "jobs". Getting over $100,000 for a short speech is evidence bordering on proof of bribery.
They're so corrupt that their daughter instigated an investigation of their practices, and that investigation found evidence of gross wrongdoing. That is unprecedented in US politics.
We don't know who owns Trump because he is being very secretive with his tax returns and business dealings. If he wins you might get a nasty shock when the Russians start calling in his debts.
You had mail, but the super-user read it, and deleted it!
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Donald Trump is evil (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't forget about last year's interview when he stated that all illegal aliens are rapists and murderers. He then cited a Fusion Article that stated 80% of women coming to the US from Central and South America are raped along the way. When Don Lemon clarified that the article was about women being raped, not about illegal aliens, Trump replied, "Well, somebody's doing the raping, Don! I mean somebody's doing it! Who's doing the raping? Who's doing the raping?"
Trump was trying to stir up hatred against a group of people using half-truths and outright lies in order to gain an advantage in the election. In addition he went on record stating that we should not accept any refugees from Syria because there are terrorists among them. He also stated that we should ban any Muslims from entering the country. Just my opinion, but all that puts him over the 'evil' line in my book.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, given that both major party candidates are totally unsuitable for this position, I'm surprised that they still have most of the /. votes in this poll.
Sigh, I guess the two-party delusion runs deep in the US of A. You clowns almost deserve it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
He never said that all of the illegal immigrants are rapists. He said that a lot of them are, and a lot of them are drug dealers and criminals. He's not wrong.
I would like to see some citation to back that up.
Also, are we defining "a lot of them" as an absolute number? Or a large percentage? Or are we leaving it vague so I can claim anywhere from 2% to 98% depending on which position I am defending at the moment?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> I would like to see some citation to back that up.
Here ya go:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015... [foxnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
FoxNews.com examined a patchwork of local, state and federal statistics that revealed a wildly disproportionate number of murderers, rapists and drug dealers are crossing into the U.S. amid the wave of hard-working families seeking a better life.
So they are comparing immigrants, a generally poor group, to the population in general, using a variety of sources that are so good they decided not to publish the raw data, their statistical analysis of it or get it peer reviewed.
We have to scroll half way through the article before they even mention a number, and they never both to compare those numbers to comparable ones from US citizens. They also seem to pick stats out that are unrelated to anything but which sound bad, e..g the number of "foreign born
Re: (Score:2)
Yep I'm sure it will all work out if we all just keep finding more lame peecee excuses to live in complete denial.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh good grief. Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] Everyone only seems to want to hear what Trump said from Clinton allied sources, or, waits for Clinton minions to explain to them what they just heard Trump say.
"It's only common sense, just common sense.." -Trump
There's way too many people walking around America who will not survive an extended loss of electricity, or know what to do without an "authority" directing your labors and providing your needs.
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to see some citation to back that up.
I'd like to see some citation to back that up he said "ALL illegal immigrants are rapists." I'm not voting for the guy, but I see this come up time and again, but nobody can point out a direct quote or piece of writing by Trump where he states it. The things he does & says are bad enough, you don't need to make up anything additional.
Re:Donald Trump is evil (Score:4, Informative)
When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people.
Note that he makes a clarification that he assumes that some are good people, but that the border guards tell him that we are not getting the good people. In addition he implies that even the legal immigrants are bringing drugs and crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I heard Trump make that statement, the impression I got is he was referring predominately toward the criminals that escort the illegals across the border and the gang members who would blend in with them as the infiltrated the US.
Of course it's hard to tell Trump is almost inarticulate, his thought pattern is more squirrelly than most ADHD 13 year olds.
Re: (Score:2)
...so why are you choosing to totally ignore all the VERY much worse things that Hillary has done?
Who said I was ignoring her evil acts? Do you jump to conclusions often? Is that an Olympic sport where you are from?
Where did I state that Clinton wasn't evil? I stated why I thought Trump was evil, but this is not an either-or situation.
Just because I believe that Trump is evil, does not mean that I am pro-Clinton.
Re: (Score:3)
And so we get to the crux of why the Left hates Trump.
Not being in the USA, I am able to inform you that the USA has no left wing!
You have your "right wing", although just how right they are is a separate discussion.
Those who you call "liberal" will certainly pass for liberal away from your 4.5% of humanity. It's just that you seem to have a different definition of what that actually means from most of the planet.
To make it clear. There are three generalisations - Left, Liberal and Right. You have probably rarely even seen someone who says they are left win
Re: (Score:2)
To make it clear. There are three generalisations - Left, Liberal and Right.
No, there aren't. Using a "left-right" spectrum is somewhat a false dichotomy. How would you categorize someone who is pro-gay marriage & pro-pot legalization, but also against government entitlements? They don't fit in your simplified generalizations. It makes much more sense to measure political preference on a two-dimensional scale of economic & social positions, as done here: World's Smallest Political Quiz [theadvocates.org]
While it's not exhaustive, I think it does a better job of helping people get a better gr
Re: (Score:2)
No, there aren't...
I called them generalisations because they are not complete descriptions Even calling it a spectrum is a pretty incomplete analysis and the Political Compass website is only an approximation. As long as you are aware that you are using generalisations, they can be a useful tool
I was reacting to a misunderstanding common in your country that "liberal" means "left wing". It means neither left or right. It means in the middle.
Most people do not fit in that one dimensional range - I know I don't. Most pol
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I can understand you disliking Trump or whatever positions he's taken but why do you label him "evil"? He's basically a joe sixpack type millionaire.
He's basically a classic robber baron from the 1800s. Take the worst and most embarrassing parts of American history that we'd hoped we were finally starting to work past, put them together in a person, and you come out with Donald Trump. He's an uncomfortable reminder that the values that claimed this country for us are the very same ones that could just as easily destroy it.
Re: (Score:2)
Voting against Trump is no excuse for voting for Clinton. They're both evil. Determining which one is more evil is a pointless exercise. Trump has disagreeable moral opinions unacceptable to a majority of Americans. Clinton has a reprehensible record of moral atrocities on a global scale unacceptable to humanity in general. If you people elect either one of these, you have no moral compass.
They may both be evil, but at least Hillary is competent and evil. Still, don't blame me, I'll be voting for Johnson.
Re: (Score:2)
>> but at least Hillary is competent and evil.
you really haven't researched her at all have you?
Just look into her performance as Secretary of State, stuff like the NAFTA agreement or any of the wars she started/was involved in.
Re: (Score:2)
>> but at least Hillary is competent and evil.
you really haven't researched her at all have you?
Just look into her performance as Secretary of State, stuff like the NAFTA agreement or any of the wars she started/was involved in.
I thought Clinton was SoS from 2009 through 2013, while NAFTA was signed by Bush, Mulroney and Salinas in 1992. I suppose you might blame H Clinton somehow for Bill Clinton adding some labor and enviornmental protection via the NAALC and NAAEC in 93/94, but that seems like an argment FOR Clinton rather than AGAINST. NAFTA was passed by the house and senate with more Republican than Democratic votes (but not overwhelming differences - lots of Democrats voted for it).
I'm not really sure how one could pin trou
Re: (Score:2)
> I can't seem to recall or find any wars that "she started",
On October 11, 2002, Clinton joined a strong majority of Democrats, including liberal and left-center Democrats like Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and Joe Biden, in voting in favor of the Resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq.
Re: (Score:2)
> I can't seem to recall or find any wars that "she started",
On October 11, 2002, Clinton joined a strong majority of Democrats, including liberal and left-center Democrats like Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and Joe Biden, in voting in favor of the Resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq.
I misunderstood - I thought your phrase was limited to while she was SoS. If we are looking at her time in the Senate, then sure, she's complicit in that resolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Clinton hailed TPP as setting "the gold standard in trade agreements" during her time in the Obama administration. Here are some of the words she used to describe TPP: "exciting," "innovative," "ambitious," "groundbreaking," "cutting-edge," "high quality," "high standard" and "gold standard."
She supported Chinaâ(TM)s entrance into the World Trade Organizationâ¦. She supported the job-killing trade deal with South Korea. She has supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership." and has yet to revoke
Re: (Score:2)
Clinton hailed TPP as setting "the gold standard in trade agreements" during her time in the Obama administration. Here are some of the words she used to describe TPP: "exciting," "innovative," "ambitious," "groundbreaking," "cutting-edge," "high quality," "high standard" and "gold standard."
She supported Chinaâ(TM)s entrance into the World Trade Organizationâ¦. She supported the job-killing trade deal with South Korea. She has supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership." and has yet to revoke her support for Chinaâ(TM)s inclusion in the WTO or the deal with South Korea.
OK, but why are you blaming her for NAFTA? Your otherwise clearly thought out position is undermined when you make statements about your disgust with her behaviour seems to be based on factually incorrect statements.
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you vote for someone else, you will get one of them, and are rating them 'equally evil'. First-past-the-post voting systems always pull to two choices, and that is what you have, so: Grow up. If you want better choices, then campaign for a better voting system. For now this is the one you have, and a protest vote is an act of self-harm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No. (Score:4, Informative)
The problem I have with your argument is that the challenges we have with our voting system aren't inherent to the voting system itself, but rather the 2 party system. The States being the ones who elect the electors to the Electoral College and those electors actually being the ones who elect the President and Vice President leaves plenty of opportunity for other outcomes approximating a coalition government in other countries. It's the party system that prevents those outcomes, not the system of voting. The Founders, particularly the much-beloved George Washington, were very clear on the evil of parties, but no one listened.
Nah, I think you have it backwards. The 2-party-system is a natural result of FPTP. The electoral college is another complication, but essentially is the same thing just at a larger scale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You can get more than 2 parties but that's often as a result of special cases (eg Scottish nationalists) and even then the system tends to tip over to give one party a majority with only about 35% of the votes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can. We did start with 0 parties. George Washington was not in a party. And he was the only president who managed to avoid party affiliation. After that, FPTP led to two party systems right up until the present (of course, _which_ two parties has varied, and occasionally an election has happened while one party was moving up past another, but by and large it's been two main parties at any given point in time).
Your statement would be better phrased as "you can't have a two party system if you never
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Voting against Trump is no excuse for voting for Clinton. They're both evil.
Trump and Clinton may both be corrupt but Trump worries me more.
Trump holds the constitution in contempt. He is opposed to "non discrimination based on religion sex, gender, national origin, etc". He wants to limit free speech, making it illegal for newspapers to criticize him. He wants to imprison his political rivals. He sees no faults in Putin. The only foreign leaders to endorse him are Putin and Kim Jong Un. He asks his followers to assassinate his rival. He asks foreign powers to hack her.
He sounds more and more like a dictator wannabe by the day. He's a white Robert Mugabe: in temperament, politics and ideals.
What do you think will happen 4 years from now if we have a crisis. Perhaps a war or a terrorist attack? What are the odds a President Trump would allow free elections to occur?
"My fellow Americans, I am postponing the election to preserve the safety of the citizens until such a time it is safe for the population".
Clinton is a corrupt bitch. Trump is a threat to the constitution and democracy. I know which is worse. I know which one would be bad for America and which one would be potentially DEVASTATING for America.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps a war or a terrorist attack? What are the odds a President Trump would allow free elections to occur?
"My fellow Americans, I am postponing the election to preserve the safety of the citizens until such a time it is safe for the population".
Actually, I wouldn't put it past a President Clinton to do the exact same thing. Why else is she repeatedly blaming Russia for the email hacks and proposing a "no-fly zone" over Syria and Iraq?
I agree that Clinton is a corrupt bitch, but I also think that she would also be potentially DEVASTATING for America.
Re: (Score:2)
He is exactly like Robert Mugabe. Do you think Mugabe started out saying "Let's beat up the opposition and form a dictatorship". I think you don't realize how fragile democracy can be in terms of stress. You've lived in a country that has had a long history of democracy and have become complacent. The Mugabes of the world started out just like Trump. They used populism and painting a certain people as the enemy. Hitler had his jewish enemy to unite the people against; Kim has his capitalist enemy; Mug
Re: (Score:2)
Do you not remember Hillary's claim of "a vast right wing conspiracy"?
Do you deny that there have been at least 2 people imprisoned by he Obama administration for political speech?
Trump's opposition to freedom of speech and press is vile and evil. Hillary Clinton's participation in the Obama administration's suppression of free speech is worse. "Actions speak louder than words."
Re: (Score:2)
Here we part company. Outside of political campaigns, the "legal requirement to fair and factual reporting" is embedded in libel laws when financial loss can be proved. In politics, no statement, no matter how untruthful or nasty, is prohibited by law nor should it be. If it were otherwise, freedom of speech and press in the pol
The most moral thing to do... (Score:2)
If your only choices are
(a) vote for the lesser of two evils
(b) vote for the greater of two evils
(c) vote third-party, which makes it more likely the greater of two evils will be elected
(d) don't vote at all, which makes it more likely the greater of two evils will be elected
the most moral thing to do is (a).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then look at the actual POLICIES each candidate supports. The presidency is about more than just one person: it's about the entire administration. Thousands of jobs change when a president does.
Do you want a candidate that thinks climate change is a hoax, and that renewable energy "doesn't work" but clean coal does? A candidate that explicitly promises a shockingly xenophobic, sexist, and racist administration? A candidate that wants massive tax cuts for the wealthy coupled with deregulation of telecom, banking, and energy industries, among others?
Or perhaps you would prefer a centrist candidate that takes climate change seriously, that takes women's and minorities' rights seriously, that wants to implement a progressive tax code and roughly maintain the status quo on regulations.
Nope.
Anyone who feels it necessary to point anything out as a womens or minorities right (as opposed to a human right) absolutely cannot be taken seriously.
Source: I am a strong independent black woman who don't need no man.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Call me crazy
Done and done. You are crazy.
I'd rather have policies that apply to just "people" as a whole instead of "only this one specific subset of people".
Tell you what. The day you can prove to me that your policies that are meant to be applied equally actually really do get applied equally in all major regions, I'll stop requesting policies that counteract discrimination and bias.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that the same day you stop claiming your treasured victimhood?
Re: (Score:2)
You're both fighting over the wrong thing, though.
We'll never have things perfectly even. And your suggestion simply helps create new prejudice rather than doing anything to actually fix the existing harmful prejudices. Victimizing new people is not the way to settle old grudges.
The correct way to help people is to help all disadvantaged persons. This can (and should) provide disproportionate help to those who have been systematically victimized. But, more importantly, it's a neutral way to help people.
Re: (Score:2)
Equality does not exist in nature. It requires effort and energy to enforce.
So, kind of like the rest of civilization?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then look at the actual POLICIES each candidate supports. The presidency is about more than just one person: it's about the entire administration. Thousands of jobs change when a president does.
Do you want a candidate that thinks climate change is a hoax, and that renewable energy "doesn't work" but clean coal does? A candidate that explicitly promises a shockingly xenophobic, sexist, and racist administration? A candidate that wants massive tax cuts for the wealthy coupled with deregulation of telecom, banking, and energy industries, among others?
Or perhaps you would prefer a centrist candidate that takes climate change seriously, that takes women's and minorities' rights seriously, that wants to implement a progressive tax code and roughly maintain the status quo on regulations.
Since you can't accurately cite the candidates actual policies, your opinion is irrelevant. But no, I don't want a president who wants to implement a more progressive tax code or maintain the status quo on regulations. That is what is killing this country's economy and needs to change. That alone disqualifies both women running and makes any other candidate better.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>> Or perhaps you would prefer a centrist candidate
https://www.commentarymagazine... [commentarymagazine.com]
>> that takes climate change seriously,
http://www.thegatewaypundit.co... [thegatewaypundit.com]
>> that takes women's and minorities' rights seriously,
http://www.nationalreview.com/... [nationalreview.com]
>> that wants to implement a progressive tax code
http://www.realclearpolitics.c... [realclearpolitics.com]
>> and roughly maintain the status quo on regulations.
http://drrichswier.com/2016/09... [drrichswier.com]
Keep drinking the Hiliary koolaid dude.
Re: No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Citing opinion pieces as fact is flat wrong. There is no editorial review or fact checking, just people writing whatever they feel, regardless of how far from reality that is.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, for example "The Gateway Pundit" claims that she "fudged" climate change data to show that climate change is real. Even Trump has since renounced his climate change denial. It's also based on a single email, which seems to be simply describing a change due to some unstated factor, not deliberate fudging.
Re: (Score:2)
Wikileaks is an opinion piece? whatever dude.
Re: No. (Score:2)
No, we just don't like fuckwits
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't love Trump, he's an idiot, I'm actually solidly in the "Anyone but Hillary" camp.
Why? because corruption is BY FAR the biggest problem in US government and it affects everyone living in the US every day of our lives.
There is an avalanche of information out there showng how the Clinton dynasty is completely corrupt, and Hilary is the queen fucking bitch of it, yet most of all the self-important geni-asses here are clearly doing everything they can to keep their minds closed so they can keep li
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
A few quick observations from this election cycle:
- campaign finance fraud and electioneering that forced the DNC chair to resign
- a secretive conspiracy of paid protestors, agitators and rioters that led to the shutdown of a political event, interfering with free speech and the right for citizens to peacefully assemble
- A compromised attorney general that refused to recuse after a secretive tarmac meeting with a person related to an active investigation
- An FBI refusing to recommend any indictments were SAP level confidential information is leaked during the course of violating federal record keeping laws, where evidence was destroyed, perjury committed, and case for obstruction of justice could easily be made.
- leaked emails that provide substantial evidence of pay-for-play access to the secretary of state and millions of dollars in bribes
A vote for Clinton is one for the double standard where justice is not applied equally under the law, and critical organs of government cannot be relied upon to perform their function impartially in order to serve as checks and balances. Rules for thee, not for me. A Trump administration sees Trey Gowdy as attorney general, who systematically dismantled Clinton's lies. I do not believe any Gowdy would cover for Trump, neither would the FBI.
Re: No. (Score:3, Insightful)
Phrasing it eloquently doesn't actually make any of those things true though. For instance, there was nothing for the AD to recuse herself from - the FBI said there was no case to be made. The theory that the FBI was some how corrupted is pretty empty too, when you consider that Comes is not only widely respected for his integrity, but I'd also a registered Republican that was a Republican appointee. Additionally, Comey was pulled in front of Congress multiple times to explain the exact legal rationale,
Re: No. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I understand. You base your understanding on propaganda from the Washington post and all the other DNC surrogates who have all but broken their neck looking the other way on how the FBI investigation was conducted. Thanks to the Podesta email leak, we find out there was an active effort to 'clean up' the emails sent by President Obama himself, who also falsely claimed ignorance of HRC's email setup. Then you wonder why the immunity agreement for Mill's laptop had the stipulation that they could not consider as evidence emails after the date the records preservation order was issued, and why the laptop was destroyed afterwards. But, no intent! *facepalm*
Don't you even fucking dare compare the HRC email scandal to Patreas when we have no idea what the content of those top secret SAP emails were. For all we know, HRC's self-serving desire to avoid public scrutiny from lawful FOIA requests may have cost intelligence assets their lives, perhaps even ambassador Stevens himself and those around him.
Re: (Score:2)
It sucks living in a country where the majority would rather get their talking points from the MSM boobtube newsbites and extrapolate opinion from there, rather than invest some time and effort to research and analyze evidence to find the truth. We're going to pay a heavy price for allowing the federal government to intrude and take over our education system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but which particular third party candidate is that? Because it sure as hell isn't the Democrat nor Republican nominees.
Trump is to the left of clinton (Score:5, Interesting)
Even the WashingtonPost, who HATES HATES HATES Trump admits he is to the left of clinton on economics, trade, and foreign policy. Hard to believe but if you listen to what he says about cutting military spending by closing bases and dropping weapon systems, getting out of foreign alliances, ending trade deals, increasing tarrifs, and going after crony capitalism you would swear you were listening to Bernie Sanders and not the Republican cannidate for president.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Even the WashingtonPost, who HATES HATES HATES Trump admits he is to the left of clinton on economics, trade, and foreign policy. Hard to believe but if you listen to what he says about cutting military spending by closing bases and dropping weapon systems, getting out of foreign alliances, ending trade deals, increasing tarrifs, and going after crony capitalism you would swear you were listening to Bernie Sanders and not the Republican cannidate for president.
It is called populism, and it very common almost a defining characteristic in far right candidates. They rarely fullfill any of the promises though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Populism is the close relative of rabble-rousing, a Democrat exclusive. Populism is comparatively rare among Republicans.
I think you live in a different reality than I do. Bernie Sanders was certainly a populist, but he wasn't considered mainstream in the Democratic party and didn't win the nomination. Trump is all populism and no republican policies at all....
Re: (Score:3)
I understand why people distrust Trump on "Women's Rights", what I don't understand is why HRC gets a free pass, at best she's a serial enabler to her Husband's sexual predations, at worst Bill fucked them physically and Hillary fucked them psychologically.
At least Trump doesn't blame the victims like Hillary does.
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary did what any woman would have done? Bull f*ing sh*t! Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, you're out the door with your possessions strewn all over the front lawn. In the rain. Your car sent to the crusher, as well as your reputation in the neighborhood.
And don't call me. Ever.
Re: (Score:3)
Go ask the Haitians what the Clintons take seriously....
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/p... [donaldjtrump.com] I've looked him over, makes more sense than anything I've heard from Hillary.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't the fantasy land he lives in worry you at all? Yesterday he claimed that 650 million immigrants could come to the US in one week under Clinton. He lives in his own little world.
Re: (Score:2)
> Then look at the actual POLICIES each candidate supports.
No, look at the actions they use in carrying out those policies. Particularly the actions of the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative. Go read Podesta's emails on r/wikileaks to get a sense of what they're planning. It's not good.
The short answer is they're plotting more wars and to enrich themselves by selling all kinds of things to people who are especially deplorable.
Re: (Score:2)
I did that and then decided to vote Libertarian or Green. The Democrat/Republican policies (which, in terms of the policies that actually matter as opposed to irrelevant wedge issues, are both the same) are way too authoritarian.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is a super-dumb approach (Score:2)
Candidates all lie so aren't you kind of a gigantic buffon for buying into the lies of the "platform they support".
In particular, Hillary has not only VERBALLY been against every single thing she supposedly is for now, she's on record for voting or acting against things like gay marriage and even the black population in general.
So voting for Hillary you are not voting for a "platform" but for whatever she decides to do in the future, which it utterly unknowable and not dictated by her "platform".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then look at the actual POLICIES each candidate supports. The presidency is about more than just one person: it's about the entire administration. Thousands of jobs change when a president does.
Do you want a candidate that thinks climate change is a hoax, and that renewable energy "doesn't work" but clean coal does? A candidate that explicitly promises a shockingly xenophobic, sexist, and racist administration? A candidate that wants massive tax cuts for the wealthy coupled with deregulation of telecom, banking, and energy industries, among others?
Or perhaps you would prefer a centrist candidate that takes climate change seriously, that takes women's and minorities' rights seriously, that wants to implement a progressive tax code and roughly maintain the status quo on regulations.
To be fair Trump may think climate change is serious, and wants women's and minority rights, plus a progressive tax code but he sure isn't saying this.
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Shilling for Hillary is a full time job these days.
Ha! Telling people to look at policies of the candidates has become "shilling for Hillary" these days. Sort of how 'conspiring against Trump" consists of actually printing the things he says and does. (Johnson voter here.)
Re: (Score:2)
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Can you tell me about Aleppo?
It's a pepper.
Re: (Score:3)
Can you tell me about Aleppo?
It's a pepper.
It's someone with a disease called lep'osy
Re: (Score:2)
I'm completely comfortable with a presidential candidate having very little to say about Aleppo, though I'd much prefer the silence be an active choice instead of simple ignorance.
Look ... as long as there are two people left alive in this world, they will fight. We cannot stop that; it's just human nature. It shouldn't be Team America World Police to the rescue every time there's a dust-up in the Middle East. And it REALLY shouldn't be our responsibility to help arm the rebels against the big bad govern
Re: (Score:2)
>as long as there are two people left alive in this world, they will fight.
if they are right-wingers, they will.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you tell me which country Mosul borders?
Re: (Score:2)
How about because he is unable to name current world leaders or because he doesn't take the election seriously?
Re: (Score:2)
You misrepresent the question he was asked. Johnson was unable to name current world leaders that he respected.
That said, Johnson is certainly not an ideal candidate... but in this bullshit farce of a race that boils down to "who's the least-worst?," he wins!
Re: (Score:2)
He neither named a world leader nor said that there were none that he respected. The only one that he mentioned, though not by name, is not a current world leader.
Re: (Score:2)
He followed it up the next day with a tweet "It's been 24 hours and I still can't come up with one I respect!"
I would have said Justin Trudeau, he's about as boring and uncontroversial as it gets, and a US President hopeful should at least be able to know the neighbors. An unconventional choice would have been Queen Elizabeth II. Most others come to mind because they're either bad or polarizing. Maybe the King of the Netherlands, is he a chill dude?
Re: (Score:2)
... can't pass a middle eastern geography lesson.
Someone who can't pass a very basic test to show awareness of one of the most troubled areas of the planet is unfit to get the job of a major international statesman. Sorry.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And what is Aleppo?
Isn't that a dog food?
Re: (Score:2)
The correct question is: What's a leppo?
A leprous leopard that has lost its tail to the disease.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No. (Score:4, Informative)
It's funny how all the criticisms levelled at Trump get mirrored back at Clinton by his supporters.
He claims to stand for the common man, but is obviously part of the 1% and has been seen to screw his employees and customers every opportunity he gets. What Clinton said to Wall Street is just normal politician stuff.
Trump lies about everything, constantly. How many videos have we seen of him lying, followed immediately by archive footage of him contradicting himself? His entire campaign is post-factual, so far beyond truth that lying doesn't even matter any more. And like a child, he accuses everyone else of the same and threatens to sue them (but never follows through).
And yes, when Trump gets caught it's always someone else's fault. He claimed that he hand picked staff at Trump University, but when the scam became obvious suddenly he had no hand in the day to day operation or hiring process. Same with his racist property rental companies, they had his personal touch to ensure that they were the best apartments in the best locations right up until it became clear that they were not available to coloured people.
The argument that Trump hasn't broke any national security rules is bogus too. He hasn't had the chance. If he is careless enough to talk about grabbing women by their genitals to a journalist, what do you think he will let slip when he's President? Turns out his own email servers, the ones run by "the best people", are a joke security wise too.
Re: (Score:2)
REally?
You're trying to compare Clintons crimes to Trump's admittedly stupid ass grabbing?
Remind me the last time that Trump had their own FBI investigation, or sold out the US?
Re: (Score:2)
Grabbing someone's genitals without their permission is a crime
Re: (Score:2)
yes but hardly on the same scale as Clintons global-scale corruption.
Re:No. (Score:4, Informative)
It wasn't for something as dangerous as maintaining an email server, but the FBI has investigated Trump for bribery and racketeering. There were the Mafia kickbacks he paid while building Trump Tower (mostly to get beneficial union treatment and ensure the unions didn't complain about his illegal workers.). There was the former mafia lieutenant and drug runner he gave exclusive helicopter charter rights to his casinos to (and a free apartment in Trump Tower). There were the times he direct business with the heads of two New York families.
Here's a source [wnyc.org] for one:
As for selling out the US, I don't even know where to begin. I don't know what "selling out the US" (or a moral equivalent) would be to someone with no government job, but I think working with the Mafia counts some (foreign organization that disrespects rule of law.) Using illegal immigrents to undercut Americans? Perpetuating financial scams on the American people?
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
There is ample evidence that Clinton engaged in pay for play.
We don't have evidence of that for Trump. He most likely is not for sale, but we know that Clinton is. I don't want to live in a 3rd world corrupt banana republic.
Re: (Score:2)
There is ample evidence that Clinton engaged in pay for play.
You forgot to cite the evidence. (An no, right-wing fantasies do not count as evidence.)
Re: (Score:2)
'Well that was convenient.'
Thats how best to explain Clinton's Pay to Play. Over and over and over and over again. Sooner or later...
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary Clinton claimed they were broke when they left the White House. Now they have a net worth in excess of $100 million, obtained from giving speeches and being given phony-bologna honorary "jobs". Getting over $100,000 for a short speech is evidence bordering on proof of bribery.
They're so corrupt that their daughter instigated an investigation of their practices, and that investigation found evidence of gross wrongdoing. That is unprecedented in US politics.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't know who owns Trump because he is being very secretive with his tax returns and business dealings. If he wins you might get a nasty shock when the Russians start calling in his debts.