United States Presidential Election, 2016

[Dmitri]

Yeah, she basically said she'll nuke Russia instead.
.

Show me the evidence. One that isn't a verbal comment by Trump

 

[Prudence]

Well I do suppose I'm quite late to this thread, (roughly 30 pages late), sorry. I had to get some supplies. I skimmed through the past page, so I think I'll be dropping into this thread with my opinions now.

So allow us to get this straight: Every option in this presidential election is bad. The third parties aren't so bad, but if I choose one of the main candidates (I'm not even sure who I'll be voting for anymore), I will definitely feel like I'm slicing away a small large portion of my soul and feeding it into the ballot box.

Trump:

He's a truly disgusting candidate with absolutely no respect for women whatsoever. But i mean, that isn't really saying much because he doesn't respect blacks, mexicans, disabled people, war veterans, homosexuals or Jews, and he invaded poland sorry wrong person. He refuses to really back down off of anything he says wrong. And even when he 'apologized' for the recent tapes that were released, you could see it on his face that he didn't regret it, and then he immediately began to talk about how it was still better than Hillary. Better than that, he has also tried to dismiss it several times as okay. He's perverted, inexperienced, narcissistic, and completely unfit for duty. Oh and the fact that there is literally a new case every week out against him for raping a teenager or a younger woman.
​

Hillary:

She's also a completely terrible candidate. She's got a whole host of scandals under her belt: Benghazi, the emails, harassing and threatening bill's victims, and the fact that people pop up dead when they pose a threat to Hillary (yeah it seems kinda conspiracyish but where there's smoke there's fire right?) She is most certainly owned by big corporation and corrupt. The sheer manner of how she was elected with the super delegates is just sketchy. I think she would do a poor job as president too, and lead the nation into scandals and conspiracies.
​

Now Q&A:

Hillary Clinton has been essentially calling for WW3.

Source please?

denounces and rejects the useless wars supported by Clinton and others.

Source please?

Plus, there is the elephant in the room: the fact that Hillary is intending to start WW3.

Source please?

Trump has stated he wants to avoid it, while Hillary is going all for it.

Source please?

And so what if he idolizes a strong leader who who cares about his country, restored it from the brink of collapse, and has no qualms going up against enemies to defend it's interests, while carefully balancing the usage of diplomacy and military force to prevent all-out war? And not to mention that even polling organizations critical of him admit that his approval rating is around 80-90% among the people (far higher than any Western politician, or US Congress's dismal 9%). A Putin-type leader is exactly what America needs right now.

Wat? But.. no. Putin is a very bad person. He is extremely against basic human rights for homosexuals, extensively corrupt, war mongering, need I go on?

And the old "Trump is LITERALLY Hitler" argument again. Patriotism and strong leadership are not synonymous with fascism.

You're right. I too sometimes get "hate mongering, fear mongering, rampant racism, rampant homophobia, rampant misogynistic opinions, and a lack of respect for disabled individuals and war heros" for "strong leadership and patriotism". I see where you're getting tripped up there.

Anyways, that's all the time we have for questions. Thanks for tuning in!

 

[Jason Vaiken]

Also, let's be perfectly clear here. Tsar Putin has spent his whole tenure systematically crushing the lawfully elected opposition, assassinating political opponents and detractors, and crushing the freedom of speech and expression that any proper democracy should have. If you think that this is the qualities of a good leader, I have nothing to say to you. Putin rules with an iron fist and he uses constitutional loopholes to ensure that he remains in power. I do not want a Vladimir Putin as the President of the United States of America.

We don't need a society built on divisive words. We have enough problems as is without having a Putin at the helm of a real first world nation.

 

[Logan]

Well I do suppose I'm quite late to this thread, (roughly 30 pages late), sorry. I had to get some supplies. I skimmed through the past page, so I think I'll be dropping into this thread with my opinions now.

So allow us to get this straight: Every option in this presidential election is bad. The third parties aren't so bad, but if I choose one of the main candidates (I'm not even sure who I'll be voting for anymore), I will definitely feel like I'm slicing away a small large portion of my soul and feeding it into the ballot box.

Trump:

He's a truly disgusting candidate with absolutely no respect for women whatsoever. But i mean, that isn't really saying much because he doesn't respect blacks, mexicans, disabled people, war veterans, homosexuals or Jews, and he invaded poland sorry wrong person. He refuses to really back down off of anything he says wrong. And even when he 'apologized' for the recent tapes that were released, you could see it on his face that he didn't regret it, and then he immediately began to talk about how it was still better than Hillary. Better than that, he has also tried to dismiss it several times as okay. He's perverted, inexperienced, narcissistic, and completely unfit for duty. Oh and the fact that there is literally a new case every week out against him for raping a teenager or a younger woman.
​

Hillary:

She's also a completely terrible candidate. She's got a whole host of scandals under her belt: Benghazi, the emails, harassing and threatening bill's victims, and the fact that people pop up dead when they pose a threat to Hillary (yeah it seems kinda conspiracyish but where there's smoke there's fire right?) She is most certainly owned by big corporation and corrupt. The sheer manner of how she was elected with the super delegates is just sketchy. I think she would do a poor job as president too, and lead the nation into scandals and conspiracies.
​

Now Q&A:


Source please?


Source please?


Source please?

Source please?


Wat? But.. no. Putin is a very bad person. He is extremely against basic human rights for homosexuals, extensively corrupt, war mongering, need I go on?

You're right. I too sometimes get "hate mongering, fear mongering, rampant racism, rampant homophobia, rampant misogynistic opinions, and a lack of respect for disabled individuals and war heros" for "strong leadership and patriotism". I see where you're getting tripped up there.

Anyways, that's all the time we have for questions. Thanks for tuning in!

 

[Prudence]

Didn't want to edit this in because some people would miss it, but I am going to respond to a few more of the arguments from the previous page.

Better to just say it as rhetoric than not say it and then actually do it (Hillary).

Ok please cite me a source of when Hillary has nuked Europe.

Yeah, she basically said she'll nuke Russia instead.

Source?

It's well documented to the point of being writing on the wall.

What is well documented?

Facts are facts, do with them as you will.

You cannot just say something and then say "facts are facts" you need to cite sources

As for gay rights, I am against them.

Personal choice that perhaps you will one day amend.

Thanks for clarifying.

Often times an authoritarian system is what is necessary, such as in the current situation.

Ask anyone around September 1st 1939 and I promise they'll disagree with you.

@Aleksandr: where do you get your information? Not a single thing youve said aligns with reality.

quoted for truth.

 

[TWD26]

I can't wait for this whole thing to end.

 

[Tom]

OH.
MY.
GOD.

WHY THE HELL DIDN'T ANY OF YOU TELL ME THIS EXISTED?!

This is already my favorite website, so why the hell haven't you spread the word that you talk about politics damnit? Jesus, had I known this existed, I'd have had 400 posts by now!

Alright. So, I might as well put down what I believe.

This will take a while.

BEHOLD. ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL MY POLITICAL BELIEFS.

On socialism: screw it.

On fascism: screw it.

On communism: royally screw it in the butt.

On capitalism:... screw it... a little.

Internet feminists: KILL IT WITH FIRE.

The wage gap: lies.

Gay rights: oh lord.

I support the right to like the same sex. Especially for women. Cus that crap be hot. What I do not support is flaunting one's sexuality around like a crazy person, behaving like a horny rainbow.

President obama: He stopped a pipeline.

Killed Bin Laden.

Brought us out of the great recession, which prevented me from being put on the streets when I was 10.

Led the battle for people with the same amount of chromosones to get married.

Supported women's rights.

And did a crap ton of awesome stuff. At this point, I wouldn't care if he turned out to be from Kenya and was muslim. He did a good job.

Better than bush.

ON TRUMP:...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

WHAT WERE YOU THINKING AMERICA?!!!! What were you thinking?!

This man has no political experience, he is a crap business man, he has destroyed companies, had 3 wives, and had to take a 14 million dollar loan from his dad to build his business!

Are you legit considering this as an option? Do you truely think that he is fit to lead us? Do you actually think that he will be able to maintain smooth, diplomatic and good relations with other countries? DO YOU THINK HE'LL BE ABLE TO KEEP HIS HAND OFF THE BUTTON? Do you think he can do that?

Lets break it down.

THE WALL: Did you ever realize that the wall will only stop 60% of people from crossing the border?

40% come here by planes.

And guess what? Most illegals are just people who outstayed their visas. You heard me. It's not that they hopped a fence. It's that they hopped the fence, told us, we let them stay for a bit, and now they're crashing out back.

And did you realize, the construction of the wall will cost billions? Between watch towers, guns, concrete, steel, barbed wire, building 20 feet underground to make sure there won't be tunnels, guards, and the fact that it will never go away, which means that you, yes, you, that nerd who's typing in front of a computer right now, will have to pay for it.

All of it. And than your children will pay for it. Your grandchildren will pay for it. And all your descendants will pay for it.

"This was my great grandpa's pay check. He used it to pay for the wall, just as his father did, and his son did, and I did. And now, you will." The wall will permanently increase taxes.

"B-but mexico will pay-"

WRONG.

Even if they do, do you really want to make them poor again? You know, bring them back to the state they were in in the 80's? I don't think so.

LACK OF POLITICAL EXPERIENCE:

How is this good? Sure, you may say that our current politicians are what got us into this mess, but for the love of god, this is how we've done things since the beginning! The beginning! You really want a man who has no idea what he's doing to be put in power?"

HE SUCKS AT BUSINESS:

You will probs say that we need change, we need a business man, because he will fix our economy. Okay, first of all, what is there to fix? We may have 20 trillion in debt, but we've always had debt. What does it matter if it gets higher? We won't turn into greece people.

The thing is, trump is a crap businessman. He bankrupted twice.

Twice.

ITs not worth it peeps. Not worth it.

Im to lazy to do Hitlarry Corrupton tonight. Night.

 

[Roen]

 

[Green Ranger]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that most people who think that both candidates are equally bad generally aren't all that interested in politics, or at least haven't actually done any real exploration of policy platforms, economic plans and so forth.

There is one very very capable candidate and one very very incompetent one, and it's really not hard to figure out which is which. And I'm not even American.

 

[Jabonicus]

I will be voting Third Party this election, as always.

However, since, no matter who I vote for, we're getting the Bigoted Oompa Loompa or Grandma Nixon, I'd prefer a liar over a bigot, simply to preserve my own ideals and self interest.

 

[Jabonicus]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that most people who think that both candidates are equally bad generally aren't all that interested in politics, or at least haven't actually done any real exploration of policy platforms, economic plans and so forth.

There is one very very capable candidate and one very very incompetent one, and it's really not hard to figure out which is which. And I'm not even American.

The issue isn't that one is capable. The issue is that we look at the two choices we have (Which is a design not written into our constitution, so I'm not even sure why we follow such a shitty design), and people are realizing: "This is the best America has to offer? How shameful."

 

[TWD26]

I'm voting Johnson, wish the libs would have had a stronger candidate. I'm hoping Clinton will win over Trump though, I rather have a liar and 4 more years of status quo over "Make America White Again."

 

[Jason Vaiken]

If you want HRC to win you can't vote third party. If you do that, you'll just weaken the democratic vote.

 

[Jabonicus]

If you want HRC to win you can't vote third party. If you do that, you'll just weaken the democratic vote.

I vote for who I feel is best suited to hold the presidential office. If I vote for neither, I weaken both sides.

 

[Roen]

Voting for Trump.

 

[Green Ranger]

The issue isn't that one is capable. The issue is that we look at the two choices we have (Which is a design not written into our constitution, so I'm not even sure why we follow such a shitty design), and people are realizing: "This is the best America has to offer? How shameful."

Except as far as political candidates go, Clinton's one of the most experienced in modern history. It's another one of those cute little foibles of the US presidential system - that it's evolved to a point where someone with minimal experience is equally preferable to someone with massive amounts of experience - because that large amount of experience means the candidate has probably stumbled once or twice in their public careers before the campaign.

In any other country, having a candidate with decades of experience working within the system, sitting within cabinet, being a part of major reforms under previous administrations - these are markers of political competency. In any other democratic country, Clinton would have an incredibly strong resume to put behind her campaign that most people would be impressed by.

But not so in the US, where inexperience is now preferential for candidates. Look at Obama. Look at Trump. Even candidates like Ted Cruz and Mitt Romney have had had relatively short political resumes when compared to internationally counterparts. Career politicians like Clinton and Sanders are relative anomalies in the US presidential system - which is doubly weird if you consider that despite all the anti-establishment rhetoric around the US, most candidates have been around politics, sure, but very few have much real experience in politics.

I mean, generally speaking, your whole system is abysmally broken anyway, but in terms of working within the structure of what you have in order to determine a capable candidate, the whole attitude of 'woah we've reached the bottom of the barrel if these two are the best we have to offer' is patently ludicrous, because one of them is in fact a very good candidate by anyone else's measure but your own.

 

[Jabonicus]

Except as far as political candidates go, Clinton's one of the most experienced in modern history. It's another one of those cute little foibles of the US presidential system - that it's evolved to a point where someone with minimal experience is equally preferable to someone with massive amounts of experience - because that large amount of experience means the candidate has probably stumbled once or twice in their public careers before the campaign.

In any other country, having a candidate with decades of experience working within the system, sitting within cabinet, being a part of major reforms under previous administrations - these are markers of political competency. In any other democratic country, Clinton would have an incredibly strong resume to put behind her campaign that most people would be impressed by.

But not so in the US, where inexperience is now preferential for candidates. Look at Obama. Look at Trump. Even candidates like Ted Cruz and Mitt Romney have had had relatively short political resumes when compared to internationally counterparts. Career politicians like Clinton and Sanders are relative anomalies in the US presidential system - which is doubly weird if you consider that despite all the anti-establishment rhetoric around the US, most candidates have been around politics, sure, but very few have much real experience in politics.

I mean, generally speaking, your whole system is abysmally broken anyway, but in terms of working within the structure of what you have in order to determine a capable candidate, the whole attitude of 'woah we've reached the bottom of the barrel if these two are the best we have to offer' is patently ludicrous, because one of them is in fact a very good candidate by anyone else's measure but your own.

The media has turned to presidential election from 'who runs our country' to 'watch what these wacky people say next!' Hell, half the damn reporters would sell their soul if it meant they'd be the ones covering the Apocalypse live as it happened.

We are force fed little information than "These two suck" Because that gets the most views. It's not about who's the better president in our media, it's about "What gets us the most views/money?"

 

[Green Ranger]

The media has turned to presidential election from 'who runs our country' to 'watch what these wacky people say next!' Hell, half the damn reporters would sell their soul if it meant they'd be the ones covering the Apocalypse live as it happened.

We are force fed little information than "These two suck" Because that gets the most views. It's not about who's the better president in our media, it's about "What gets us the most views/money?"

The media's absolutely got to bear part of the blame, but lack of voter interest is a big factor as well (the more people switch off, the more the media has to turn the race into a cartoon to get people to show any interest), but ultimately the majority of it does boil down to the system being used by the Us being increasingly broken and unable to cope with modern standards of democracy. It's very difficult to go from restricting votes to white men of privilege and education to full suffrage without some major overhauls taking place, and unfortunately the US still retains a lot of relics from a voting system that simply doesn't exist anymore (electoral college, I'm looking squarely at you right now).

Plus it's been cool to be anti-establishment since the 60's, so y'know. Them darn kids.

But as far as broader population attitudes go, voter disenfranchisement due to the media isn't not a bad excuse, but you can't really use it a personal excuse. There's plenty of resources, studies, investigations etc. out there on both candidates that are actually trying to keep the system honest. And as a voter, yeah, it's your responsibility to do some research and look beyond the gotcha moments and eight second sound bites that the media give you. Most networks (minus the well-known and exceptionally biased networks we all know and loathe) simply don't have the time to dedicate to (or such segments don't get the viewers required to justify) extended, thorough analysis.

I think larger than all the other problems combined is that the average voter, both in the US and elsewhere across the world, kind of expects to be told who to vote for these days, because god forbid we take a genuine interest in politics.

 

[FinnSimmons]

Regarding the comments that authoritarian leadership would in any way be good or worth striving for:
That's a pretty dangerous statement. Do you really want one person's convoluted ideas to rule supreme? Above the mediating influence of a legislative body to take the idiot out of his stupid? The democraticly ellected leader of a coutry isn't there to do as he/she pleases but to abide by the respective constitution and other laws, work his ideas through the legislative body and listen to the will of the people. That does not mean he will get rid of your obligation to pay taxes just because you don't like to pay them but it does for example mean that everyone has to get the same rights and its a leaders job to make sure they get them. Even against the oposition of some.

First it were women that got the equal rights, then it were people of colour and now it is LG-people. This might not all be the same level of opression but all of it was/is wrong.
And if you personally need LG-people to be unable to marry so that you can sleep at night then there is something wrong with you.

And that by the way goes for people with 46 cromosomes as well as those with more or less cromosomes. For starters men and women both have 46 cromosomes and you would be disabled in some way if you had less or more cromosomes but you would still have the same human and (mostly all) civil rights that everybody else has, too. For rights are given to humans and thank god we are not making any distinctions on the grounds of skin colour, cultural or religious background, mental or bodily health any more. I live in a country where we once did and let me tell you it wasn't anythong that we or the rest of the world ever want to see again.

 

[Kaeb]

Gay people are selfish for being gay together is the stupidest thing that has ever been said on this forum.

And that's saying a lot.

One time, Mullins said opinions can't be wrong.

And this is stupider than that.