US Elections 2016 Part II: The Debates & General Election

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Harbinger

She could be running against an elementary school student and still not be 50 points ahead. In fact, that elementary school student might be leading... assuming, of course, that this kid is from one of the big party.

Stop being ridiculous. No way that Hillary will lose if she has to run against a random elementary student

How can a racist, sexist, misogynist elementary school student, with suspicious connection with the KKK, Russia and China can be trusted? I say we need to see his tax return, and health record first to even decide whether he will fit the job.

What were you hiding in those lunchboxes!!

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Stop being ridiculous. No way that Hillary will lose if she has to run against a random elementary student

How can a racist, sexist, misogynist elementary school student, with suspicious connection with the KKK, Russia and China can be trusted? I say we need to see his tax return, and health record first to even decide whether he will fit the job.

What were you hiding in those lunchboxes!!

Trump himself was the one who advocated that presidential nominees need to show their tax returns.

The fact that he didn't cook the books first ahead of his own nomination boggles the mind, and showed how incompetent he is that he couldn't even hide his own problematic tax numbers ahead of time.

[Dauerlutscher]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFQhw3VVToQ

Man, this is so good.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

I didn't say that Trump was the best. I say Trump is the best person right now to do it. Based on US politic climate and Democrats tendency to retreat at the first sign of trouble. When comes to pushing something progressive

Whether he can or will do it, has to need him to be elected and wait 4-8 years for it. Same thing for Hillary. Maybe her senator record would have meant something if only she is not the most dishonest candidate in American history next to Trump

While I don't agree with it, I think I see how you arrived at your conclusion. If I'm not mistaken, you're basically looking at it as "expanding the government = progressive", right? Not sure if this is a cultural difference, but that's not what progressive means in the US. In the US, it means things like rights for minorities/women/etc, less income inequality, combating global warming, etc.

The GOP, and especially the alt-right and their poster boy Trump, are against all of those things, if not outright denying they even exist. And actions speak louder than words, and voting record is an action. It's THE political action that shows a politician's stance on policies. I don't see how you can just have-wave that when talking about her policies because she lies.

Honestly, I don't know why she doesn't parade her voting record around more to get the Bernie supporters who don't trust her to at least give her a chance. Guess she's still in that really stupid phase of thinking his supporters will all just fall in line so she needs to focus on centrist/disgruntled republicans and doesn't want to seem "too liberal" for them.

[James Rye]

Originally Posted by monir

TWITTER WAR!!!

Trump-Bush Sr. twitter war when Trump learned Bush Sr. is voting for Hilary:

Trump: Bush 41's mind is shot! That's why he's voting for Crooked Hilary.
Bush Sr: Hey, Donald Trump, if you were any more mentally ill, Texas would execute you.

Trump: If I want any shit from you, I'll look in your adult diaper.
Bush: I'm rubber. You're glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and get stuck in your hair. #BadWeave

Trump: I like presidents who DON'T throw up on the Prime Minister of Japan.
Bush: I couldn't help it. He was wearing one of your ties.

Trump: I don't know which of your sons is worse: low energy or low I.Q.
Bush: Your sons look like the bad guys in Miami Vice.

Trump: Too bad you won't be alive to see a President Trump!
Bush: If there's a President Trump, NO ONE will be alive.

Trump: My wife's a 10. Yours is a 1910.
Bush: At least I didn't pick mine out a of a catalog.

Trump: "Bush Library": sounds like an adult bookstore.
Bush: Where do you put your foot when you need your mouth to blow Vladimir Putin? #MicDrop

Credit: Bill Maher

That didn't really happen, did it?

[Eisdrache]

Look up the name in the credits

[SaintessHeart]

https://worldwide.vote/hillary-vs-trump/#/results

[Brother Coa]

Even the majority of the world wants Trump as president.

[Eisdrache]

I'm pretty sure ~41k/7.4billion doesn't represent a majority.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by GDB

While I don't agree with it, I think I see how you arrived at your conclusion. If I'm not mistaken, you're basically looking at it as "expanding the government = progressive", right? Not sure if this is a cultural difference, but that's not what progressive means in the US. In the US, it means things like rights for minorities/women/etc, less income inequality, combating global warming, etc.

The GOP, and especially the alt-right and their poster boy Trump, are against all of those things, if not outright denying they even exist. And actions speak louder than words, and voting record is an action. It's THE political action that shows a politician's stance on policies. I don't see how you can just have-wave that when talking about her policies because she lies.

Honestly, I don't know why she doesn't parade her voting record around more to get the Bernie supporters who don't trust her to at least give her a chance. Guess she's still in that really stupid phase of thinking his supporters will all just fall in line so she needs to focus on centrist/disgruntled republicans and doesn't want to seem "too liberal" for them.

Progressive, well in my definition is to progress society, move forward... etc... so in oppose with conservative which promotes conserving or standing still/ remaining the same(and regressive , which is moving backward).

Government if want to push on progressive agenda only could do it through a) get the heck out of the way of progress movement (e.g civil rights movement and gay marriage), or b) push for it themselves, which most of the time require money and public or government spending. So new government spending is definitely a sign of progressive.

But increase government spending also can means regressive or conservative, if it is used to maintain status-quo (Wall Street bailout, tougher immigration control to reduce Mexican immigrants, increase campaign funding for only 2 major parties, etc).


On your points about actions speak louder than words. Agree that, Hillary should have gotten more benefited from her past positive actions. But Trump should have that as well. The election would have been very different if it was the race between an experienced government office lady, and a successful business man. Instead of a lying bigotry bitch , and a racist xenophobic bastard.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

On your points about actions speak louder than words. Agree that, Hillary should have gotten more benefited from her past positive actions. But Trump should have that as well. The election would have been very different if it was the race between an experienced government office lady, and a successful business man. Instead of a lying bigotry bitch , and a racist xenophobic bastard.

A election with a choice ''between an experienced government office lady, and a successful business man'' would bad been a good thing but that's not what we got now. While Hillary do have lot of experience in government, what she did while in office was questionable ( both when elected and a appointed) so one can find plenty of negative on that. And Trump as a successful business man is pretty much a image with little ground to reality with a career full of Bankruptcy, failed ventures, not paying workers and contractors and even some scams with Trump University and his foundation.

With both major party nominating horrible candidates and the 3th/4th party having kind of wacko one as well, whoever get elected it will be bad, the difference will be how much.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

A election with a choice ''between an experienced government office lady, and a successful business man'' would bad been a good thing but that's not what we got now. While Hillary do have lot of experience in government, what she did while in office was questionable ( both when elected and a appointed) so one can find plenty of negative on that. And Trump as a successful business man is pretty much a image with little ground to reality with a career full of Bankruptcy, failed ventures, not paying workers and contractors and even some scams with Trump University and his foundation.

With both major party nominating horrible candidates and the 3th/4th party having kind of wacko one as well, whoever get elected it will be bad, the difference will be how much.

But that mindset is the one which will elect an elementary student into office. For example, Hillary has horrible record on backing up the wrong things, but few know how many times she did it right. Similarly, Trump declared his company bankrupt several times, but how many times did he get other companies to run successfully? If you only look on the negative side and ignore all the positive, some inexperienced kid with 0 public exposure will beat one with 50 years of experiences every time.

Of course does not excuse for the two horrible candidates through

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

But that mindset is the one which will elect an elementary student into office. For example, Hillary has horrible record on backing up the wrong things, but few know how many times she did it right. Similarly, Trump declared his company bankrupt several times, but how many times did he get other companies to run successfully? If you only look on the negative side and ignore all the positive, some inexperienced kid with 0 public exposure will beat one with 50 years of experiences every time.

Of course does not excuse for the two horrible candidates through

On the ''right thing'' on Hillary side, she is know to support woman and children cause as well as supporting many individuals than crossed her path over the years. Do it upweight her actions on banking I can't tell but one thing than someone should tell her is than she do not have to show up how woman can be militaristic, Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher already did.

As for Trump his best success so far might be his golf courses, some real estates deals, The Apprentice ( this one might be debatable) and managing to create the image of him pretty much out of thin air and money from his dad.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

On the ''right thing'' on Hillary side, she is know to support woman and children cause as well as supporting many individuals than crossed her path over the years. Do it upweight her actions on banking I can't tell but one thing than someone should tell her is than she do not have to show up how woman can be militaristic, Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher already did.

As for Trump his best success so far might be his golf courses, some real estates deals, The Apprentice ( this one might be debatable) and managing to create the image of him pretty much out of thin air and money from his dad.

I will give the two more credits than what you have.

Hillary for example, managed to create a concentrated power of government establishments, big cooperation (banking industries, fossil fuels, media, insurance companies, you name it), and unions, environmental and civil movements to back her for POTUS despite clear conflict-of-interest between all stake holders. If Trump was a neo-fascist candidate, Hillary's push for presidency have many signs of 1940 fascism coming to power. As in, if Hillary burn down the Reichstag and blame the Russian for it, I'm sure it will be echoed by MSM. And top 100 CEOs and civil right leaders in America will endorse her Russian invasion plan because "it's good for US economy" and "it will liberate Russia off a brutal communist authoritarian regime that is about to carrying genocide against its people".

Trump, if he was really successful and have 10 billions as claimed. Showed his talent. If he managed to make that up and have 90% of population believes in, well that would be some even more extraordinary talent. And show everything that (i think) Jimmy Carter warned us about, about how people in American society now are judged and praised over what they own (or appear to own) instead of their deeds.

His presidency run also another extraordinary achievement you missed. As he basically showed that a lying (ask any of his supporters, and they will tell you, they not always take his words literally) , inexperienced, with unachievable promises could do a job as good as any modern US politicians. Because that's what all of them do nowadays

[Brother Coa]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

I'm pretty sure ~41k/7.4billion doesn't represent a majority.

Election system never does as you will never have 100% of a nation coming out to vote. So rather than overall majority the majority is selected from those who actually voted while the rest is disregarded.

The system is simple - if you didn't vote you don't have a say in it.

[GDB]

You won't have 0.0000055% of a nation voting either. You clearly missed the point of the post.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Brother Coa

Election system never does as you will never have 100% of a nation coming out to vote. So rather than overall majority the majority is selected from those who actually voted while the rest is disregarded.

The system is simple - if you didn't vote you don't have a say in it.

Nah that election/poll is skewed for sure. Could be accurate for netizens through

Not to mention the possibility that the world just hate American guts, and believe Trump will do all of us justice by screwing America

[Brother Coa]

I understood the point, I just do not agree with it.

Those 41.000 truly do not represent the rest 7.4 billion humans but they are the only ones that voted and as such only their votes matter, the rest can just sit down and swallow the results - even if they do not agree with it.

That's democracy for you.

You do not need majority of voters to come out and vote for something to pass, only those who actually come will be more than enough. That's the point.

[GDB]

But those votes DON'T matter. Like, not in a conspiracy or dejected way. They literally don't matter. It's not democracy, it's people being bored and congregating to be bored together.

[frivolity]

Debate's tonight guys, will be interesting

Originally Posted by GDB

While I don't agree with it, I think I see how you arrived at your conclusion. If I'm not mistaken, you're basically looking at it as "expanding the government = progressive", right? Not sure if this is a cultural difference, but that's not what progressive means in the US. In the US, it means things like rights for minorities/women/etc, less income inequality, combating global warming, etc.

The GOP, and especially the alt-right and their poster boy Trump, are against all of those things, if not outright denying they even exist. And actions speak louder than words, and voting record is an action. It's THE political action that shows a politician's stance on policies. I don't see how you can just have-wave that when talking about her policies because she lies.

Honestly, I don't know why she doesn't parade her voting record around more to get the Bernie supporters who don't trust her to at least give her a chance. Guess she's still in that really stupid phase of thinking his supporters will all just fall in line so she needs to focus on centrist/disgruntled republicans and doesn't want to seem "too liberal" for them.

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Progressive, well in my definition is to progress society, move forward... etc... so in oppose with conservative which promotes conserving or standing still/ remaining the same(and regressive , which is moving backward).

Government if want to push on progressive agenda only could do it through a) get the heck out of the way of progress movement (e.g civil rights movement and gay marriage), or b) push for it themselves, which most of the time require money and public or government spending. So new government spending is definitely a sign of progressive.

But increase government spending also can means regressive or conservative, if it is used to maintain status-quo (Wall Street bailout, tougher immigration control to reduce Mexican immigrants, increase campaign funding for only 2 major parties, etc).


On your points about actions speak louder than words. Agree that, Hillary should have gotten more benefited from her past positive actions. But Trump should have that as well. The election would have been very different if it was the race between an experienced government office lady, and a successful business man. Instead of a lying bigotry bitch , and a racist xenophobic bastard.

The way I see it, the link between progressivism and big government is that the only way to implement the progressive changes in an expedient way is for government to use force in order to compel the people to obey. Conservatism, as I see it, isn't necessarily about rejecting change, but about letting the changes come naturally instead of through government action. This is why conservatives are very strict about the constitution and sticking to the processes embalmed in it.

As Lincoln famously said:

But you say you are conservative—eminently conservative—while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live"