United States Presidential Election, 2016

[Green Ranger]

Just because she wasn't officially a criminal, doesn't negate her illegal actions. A killer is still a killer even if they never get caught. Not getting caught doesn't make someone less a criminal.

Whatever happened to innocent till proven guilty? Yeesh. No charges were laid, therefore not a criminal. You calling her one doesn't make it so.

 

[Arian Korzak]

Whatever happened to innocent till proven guilty? Yeesh. No charges were laid, therefore not a criminal. You calling her one doesn't make it so.

I have never believed that. If that were true, a killer is innocent until they are proven guilty. It also means an innocent person can become guilty be being proven to be guilty.

 

[Green Ranger]

I have never believed that. If that were true, a killer is innocent until they are proven guilty. It also means an innocent person can become guilty be being proven to be guilty.

Welcome to the legal system. This is how it works. Your opinion is kind of irrelevant in the matter. She's not a criminal.

 

[Arian Korzak]

Welcome to the legal system. This is how it works. Your opinion is kind of irrelevant in the matter. She's not a criminal.

Actually opinions are what form the legal system, without opinions everyone would merely die because they have no opinion on if they should get up to even eat or not. Welcome to reality.

 

[Green Ranger]

That's entirely irrelevant to the point I made, so I accept your surrender.

 

[Arian Korzak]

That's entirely irrelevant to the point I made, so I accept your surrender.

I do not believe "Your opinion is irrelivent" is a point. It's a statement. For instance if I say "Unicorns control everyones concioussness" I did not make a point, I made a statement.

 

[Jason Vaiken]

This is the crux of the debate, the FBI ruled that there is no crime to prosecute in regards to her emails. While one can claim negligence with Benghazi, she already expressed regret and unfortunately in the world of politics and command people make mistakes. An overlooked mistake in the world of American Politics is a mission in Lebanon that the Great Ronald Reagan ordered. He handcuffed the Marines so badly that they couldn't fire their guns even though a truck came barreling loaded with explosives that detonated into their base and killed 242 Americans and 58 French soldiers, Source. It is easy to pass judgement on people if you don't have to go through all of the horrible decisions that come with being in any real position of power.

Jimmy Carter enabled the Shah to collapse and allow the Islamic Republic of Iran to come over. Every US President has supported numerous military coups, dictators, and banana republics. Every single person to hold the Presidency since FDR has had to make decisions to ensure that America remains the dominant super power, these decisions are awful and always terrible in both human rights cases and usually does not factor the regards of what the people want, only what the US wants. To maintain a superpower status, you have to get your hands dirty, you have to be willing to make tough and awful decisions that may backfire. I would feel much more comfortable knowing that I have someone in the Presidency who has seen someone make those decisions and already has lived through many many bad decisions. Which is why I am going to vote for Hillary.

That's my ten cents and I'll gladly respond to people who want to debate with me in a respectful manner.

 

[Arian Korzak]

This is the crux of the debate, the FBI ruled that there is no crime to prosecute in regards to her emails. While one can claim negligence with Benghazi, she already expressed regret and unfortunately in the world of politics and command people make mistakes. An overlooked mistake in the world of American Politics is a mission in Lebanon that the Great Ronald Reagan ordered. He handcuffed the Marines so badly that they couldn't fire their guns even though a truck came barreling into their base and killed 242 Americans and 58 French soldiers, Source. It is easy to pass judgement on people if you don't have to go through all of the horrible decisions that come with being in any real position of power.

Jimmy Carter enabled the Shah to collapse and allow the Islamic Republic of Iran to come over. Every US President has supported numerous military coups, dictators, and banana republics. Every single person to hold the Presidency since FDR has had to make decisions to ensure that America remains the dominant super power, these decisions are awful and always terrible in both human rights cases and usually does not factor the regards of what the people want, only what the US wants. To maintain a superpower status, you have to get your hands dirty, you have to be willing to make tough and awful decisions that may backfire. I would feel much more comfortable knowing that I have someone in the Presidency who has seen someone make those decisions and already has lived through many many bad decisions. Which is why I am going to vote for Hillary.

That's my ten cents and I'll gladly respond to people who want to debate with me in a respectful manner.

Making bad decisions is one thing, enough of them or bad enough ones prove they are in the wrong position, denying these makes them worse. Also, I actually haven't seen a president I can fully agree with, just some that are worse than others and some that are theoretically good.


Making bad decisions and seeing people make bad decisions doesn't necessarily increase someones skills. It all depends on their actions taken to prevent them. A person could just as easily make a worse mistake attempting to avoid the first one.

Yes, there are a lot of hard decisions to make in those positions. But they're also expected to be intelligent enough to make those decisions if they are trying to get into that position. A lot of people don't fit that category.

Unrelated question: Where does the ten cents thing come from? If you know that is. I always wondered.

 

[Kaane]

I know a lot of people here want to vote for Hillary judging by the stuff in here and that's fine. But I would like to offer a different perspective for a sec.

I would like to mention that the no fly zone Hillary Clinton is proposing over Syria WILL cause war with Russia. We've sanctioned them greatly, their economy is based on a single commodity, and they are getting quite desperate. They know their choices lie between dying slowly or fighting til their last breath, and knowing the incomparable nationalistic spirit most Russians possess, they will undoubtedly do the latter. Plus, we haven't seen threats of this magnitude from Russia since the Cold War, and yet we keep on rolling trying to push them into a corner. They're in Syria right now because we're challenging their sphere of influence. They want Assad in power, we don't because they didn't acquiesce to our government's demands. And Hillary wants an adamant stance towards screwing Russia farther. Say what you will about Hillary's experience, but she is a terrible diplomat regardless. As someone has already admitted here, her negligence and lies at Benghazi was definitely a thing. And it was the rule, not the exception.

Trump may be conciliatory towards Russia, but his stance towards China is no better, and he has literally planned on increasing military funding greatly, a la super Reaganomics. Not only will he tank our national debt but once again precipitate a massive conflict.

Overall, both candidates will fuck up and start WWIII. If China goes to war, so will Russia, and vice versa. And considering China has by far the largest standing army in the world, in terms of sheer manpower, tenacity, and fanaticism we are completely outnumbered. Not to mention nukes. And our nuclear defense systems can't protect against short range nukes fired from subs as far as I know.

We need a third party candidate more than ever at this point, one that doesn't want to take the world to hell in a handbasket.

And as for the previous discussion concerning gay rights, I won't try and blow it up again but I have to give my two cents since I'm something like 75 - 65% gay.

The way I see it, the only reason anyone in modern times has opposed gay rights besides religious fanaticism, is the "traditional family" argument, saying that society is failing because the familial unit is breaking apart, it has no meaning anymore. While I would tend to agree with this sentiment in other cases, it has nothing to do with gay families. Though I'm not the greatest researcher in the world, I've seen examples of studies that have shown that gay males and females will attempt to emulate their traditional gender roles regardless of their sexuality, due to societal pressures and learned habits. No adopted child is going to think that men should act feminine if they have two fathers. Even regardless of that, as long as some form of structure within a family is maintained and a child grows up with loving parents, it really shouldn't matter. There are plenty of more dangerous cases of familial breakdown caused by unhappy marriages that refuse to break apart, leaving children in much worse, hate-filled environments than being raised by two dads or two moms.

If anyone wants me to show what studies i'm talking about, I have it in a book involving the subject. Can photocopy and send a PDF, just request here or PM.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

WW3 is pretty much impossible so long as we all have nuclear weapons, so that's really not something to lose any sleep over.

 

[Outlander]

WW3 is pretty much impossible so long as we all have nuclear weapons, so that's really not something to lose any sleep over.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

As long as Nuclear Weapons exists, the threat exists.

 

[Jabonicus]

A "traditional" family holds no meaning to me. As in, it holds no purpose, no reason for us to obsess over. The structure of family is not something we should force upon each other, and how can we blame societal problems on such a vague, often meaningless subject such as "traditional family."?

 

[Logan]

A "traditional" family holds no meaning to me. As in, it holds no purpose, no reason for us to obsess over. The structure of family is not something we should force upon each other, and how can we blame societal problems on such a vague, often meaningless subject such as "traditional family."?

It stems almost entirely from a religious footing in the argument. It has no basis in reality or any real meaning, just like where the idea originates from.

 

[Arian Korzak]

I know a lot of people here want to vote for Hillary judging by the stuff in here and that's fine. But I would like to offer a different perspective for a sec.

I would like to mention that the no fly zone Hillary Clinton is proposing over Syria WILL cause war with Russia. We've sanctioned them greatly, their economy is based on a single commodity, and they are getting quite desperate. They know their choices lie between dying slowly or fighting til their last breath, and knowing the incomparable nationalistic spirit most Russians possess, they will undoubtedly do the latter. Plus, we haven't seen threats of this magnitude from Russia since the Cold War, and yet we keep on rolling trying to push them into a corner. They're in Syria right now because we're challenging their sphere of influence. They want Assad in power, we don't because they didn't acquiesce to our government's demands. And Hillary wants an adamant stance towards screwing Russia farther. Say what you will about Hillary's experience, but she is a terrible diplomat regardless. As someone has already admitted here, her negligence and lies at Benghazi was definitely a thing. And it was the rule, not the exception.

Trump may be conciliatory towards Russia, but his stance towards China is no better, and he has literally planned on increasing military funding greatly, a la super Reaganomics. Not only will he tank our national debt but once again precipitate a massive conflict.

Overall, both candidates will **** up and start WWIII. If China goes to war, so will Russia, and vice versa. And considering China has by far the largest standing army in the world, in terms of sheer manpower, tenacity, and fanaticism we are completely outnumbered. Not to mention nukes. And our nuclear defense systems can't protect against short range nukes fired from subs as far as I know.

We need a third party candidate more than ever at this point, one that doesn't want to take the world to hell in a handbasket.

And as for the previous discussion concerning gay rights, I won't try and blow it up again but I have to give my two cents since I'm something like 75 - 65% gay.

The way I see it, the only reason anyone in modern times has opposed gay rights besides religious fanaticism, is the "traditional family" argument, saying that society is failing because the familial unit is breaking apart, it has no meaning anymore. While I would tend to agree with this sentiment in other cases, it has nothing to do with gay families. Though I'm not the greatest researcher in the world, I've seen examples of studies that have shown that gay males and females will attempt to emulate their traditional gender roles regardless of their sexuality, due to societal pressures and learned habits. No adopted child is going to think that men should act feminine if they have two fathers. Even regardless of that, as long as some form of structure within a family is maintained and a child grows up with loving parents, it really shouldn't matter. There are plenty of more dangerous cases of familial breakdown caused by unhappy marriages that refuse to break apart, leaving children in much worse, hate-filled environments than being raised by two dads or two moms.

If anyone wants me to show what studies i'm talking about, I have it in a book involving the subject. Can photocopy and send a PDF, just request here or PM.

Pretty much agree with you on the presidential candidates. There MIGHT be hope with a the constitutionalist party but few people know about them.

I do however disagree on gay marriage, and on the use of the word fanatacism. A fanatic is someone who goes overboard with someone, in religion a fanatic more likely than not is unintenionally breaking rules of their own religios rules.

Take into acount the fact that in many religions, or at least Catholics, consider marriage to have a purpose aside from merely "Loving them". Gay marriage is an action of purely selfish basis, it has no lasting good effects, just like divorce. While a modern normal family that doesn't like each other and is without religion, or without certain religions, may have internal conflict that continues to get worse, a religious family (Like a Catholic one, or certain other christianities/religions that value marriage) would learn how to deal with it and get along not merely fight or seperate. Also, saying something else is worse than gay marriage doesn't actually make it any better. Mass murder is worse than murdering a few, but they are both terrible. I would suggest not using that method as a defense, it is easily breached.

 

[Jabonicus]

Pretty much agree with you on the presidential candidates. There MIGHT be hope with a the constitutionalist party but few people know about them.

I do however disagree on gay marriage, and on the use of the word fanatacism. A fanatic is someone who goes overboard with someone, in religion a fanatic more likely than not is unintenionally breaking rules of their own religios rules.

Take into acount the fact that in many religions, or at least Catholics, consider marriage to have a purpose aside from merely "Loving them". Gay marriage is an action of purely selfish basis, it has no lasting good effects, just like divorce. While a modern normal family that doesn't like each other and is without religion, or without certain religions, may have internal conflict that continues to get worse, a religious family (Like a Catholic one, or certain other christianities/religions that value marriage) would learn how to deal with it and get along not merely fight or seperate. Also, saying something else is worse than gay marriage doesn't actually make it any better. Mass murder is worse than murdering a few, but they are both terrible. I would suggest not using that method as a defense, it is easily breached.

In what way is gay marriage even remotely selfish? Guess I'm selfish for wanting to marry the guy I love.

 

[Logan]

Gay marriage is an action of purely selfish basis, it has no lasting good effects, just like divorce. While a modern normal family that doesn't like each other and is without religion, or without certain religions, may have internal conflict that continues to get worse, a religious family (Like a Catholic one, or certain other christianities/religions that value marriage) would learn how to deal with it and get along not merely fight or seperate. Also, saying something else is worse than gay marriage doesn't actually make it any better. Mass murder is worse than murdering a few, but they are both terrible. I would suggest not using that method as a defense, it is easily breached.

You are so wrong I don't even know where to begin. How in the fuck is two gay people who love each other getting married a purely selfish act? How does that statement have any validity whatsoever? How does it have only bad outcomes? You are just posturing ridiculous religious ideologies onto people. Another person's right to get married shouldn't' be based on your interpretation of a book written by men who didn't even understand why the sun rose and set, that the earth wasn't flat or a million other things that makes modern day humans infinitely more intelligent than the ones who's words your (or most) religions are based on. Thinking that it does means you are a fanatic. You think your personal imaginary friend should dictate how all others live their lives. It's ridiculous and your opinion on gay marriage has very little merit.

Also, I lol'd so hard at your assertation that religious families learn how to deal with it and get along and not get divorced. That's just a downright lie. I grew up in a Catholic town. I knew people who got divorced all of the time.

 

[Arian Korzak]

In what way is gay marriage even remotely selfish? Guess I'm selfish for wanting to marry the guy I love.

It is a physical love only, like loving ice cream or sex, it produces no permanent good fruits but is a long lasting event that effects numerous people. I have yet to see gay marriage actually produce any good fruits. Therefor, selfish.

 

[Logan]

It is a physical love only, like loving ice cream or sex, it produces no permanent good fruits but is a long lasting event that effects numerous people. I have yet to see gay marriage actually produce any good fruits. Therefor, selfish.

My wife's parents are gay. They raised 2 kids who both grew up to be wonderful adults. This statement is infinitely insulting, and frankly, incredibly stupid.

 

[Kaeb]

Arian fuckin hell.

 

[Arian Korzak]

You are so wrong I don't even know where to begin. How in the **** is two gay people who love each other getting married a purely selfish act? How does that statement have any validity whatsoever? How does it have only bad outcomes? You are just posturing ridiculous religious ideologies onto people. Another person's right to get married shouldn't' be based on your interpretation of a book written by men who didn't even understand why the sun rose and set, that the earth wasn't flat or a million other things that makes modern day humans infinitely more intelligent than the ones who's words your (or most) religions are based on. Thinking that it does means you are a fanatic. You think your personal imaginary friend should dictate how all others live their lives. It's ridiculous and your opinion on gay marriage has very little merit.

Also, I lol'd so hard at your assertation that religious families learn how to deal with it and get along and not get divorced. That's just a downright lie. I grew up in a Catholic town. I knew people who got divorced all of the time.

For your last statement, those are Catholic in name only. They break catholic rules on a consistant basis and call it fine. In simpler terms, they are liars.

And I would request you do not get emotional about this, emotions like that typically cause reasoning to become vague and difficult. Also, you claim I should not tell people what I believe, and yet you just did exactly that in a much more dramatized fashion. And you seem to believe scientific knowledge of the time alone makes someone intelligent, did you know these people you believe are so smart today still haven't accomplished everything a man decades ago (Nikolai Tesla) invented? Did you know that the original idea for a helicopter design was made by someone who was in this "Time where they didn't know why the sun rose or set." Please explain why you trusting these people today being more intelligent is a realistic belief? Are none of these people Catholic in your mind? You claim I am saying these things based on my interpretation of the bible, but I never actually made any references to the bible. Being a Catholic I am not limited to just the bible, tradition and numerous other sources are completely acceptable. Can these "infinitely more intelligent people" please explain the exact details of the brain? They cannot. Despite how much you think of them they do not know all, are not infinitely intelligent, and are not infallible. And even a superhuman intellectual can be wrong, and they are hardly that far.