News 2016 U.S. Presidential election - the highs and lows

beancounter said:
I dislike both candidates. I've said that much before, and that's why I'm posting this video.

Fair warning, it is NSFW. The guy speaking is blunt and crude, and swears a lot.
Click to expand...
Ugh.

You do cite the most interesting "sources" for your ideas.

Hint: if this is the type of source you need to cite, it's time for some reevaluation of your core beliefs.
 
Yes, I understand his position on SJW's will bother many people here, but it has no bearing on his view on how Trump and the Clintons aren't so different.

Questioning my core beliefs is a diversion tactic. It appears that you are afraid to address the reality that many people in politics and/or wealthy/influential are cut from the same cloth.

This thread isn't about me. I don't want to derail it, so I'll be brief. My core beliefs are a conglomeration of multiple schools of thought that make sense to me. I refuse to blindly follow all of the tenets of one particular movement. You may view me as some sort of conservative, but what I find amusing is that on some conservative sites, I'm viewed as a flaming Commie Pinko liberal.

Just so you know, I was planning on posting a video of a Trump supporting conspiracy theorist, so we could all have a good laugh. (Because his theory was so blatantly false, it was ridiculous)

Oh, what's a poor moderate to do on an internet full of extremists :p
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: shyvas
beancounter said:
Yes, I understand his position on SJW's will bother many people here, but it has no bearing on his view on how Trump and the Clintons aren't so different.

Questioning my core beliefs is a diversion tactic. It appears that you are afraid to address the reality that many people in politics and/or wealthy/influential are cut from the same cloth.

This thread isn't about me. I don't want to derail it, so I'll be brief. My core beliefs are a conglomeration of multiple schools of thought that make sense to me. I refuse to blindly follow all of the tenets of one particular movement. You may view me as some sort of conservative, but what I find amusing is that on some conservative sites, I'm viewed as a flaming Commie Pinko liberal.

Just so you know, I was planning on posting a video of a Trump supporting conspiracy theorist, so we could all have a good laugh. (Because his theory was so blatantly false, it was ridiculous)

Oh, what's a poor moderate to do on an internet full of extremists :p
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about what this idiot has done other than this video. (I didn't know about that until I read Spang's posts.)

I based my opinion on the first few seconds of the video itself. His language and demeanor on the video is such that it's obvious what he is. I couldn't watch much of the video, just as I can't stand to watch ranting racists. They don't inform. They just spew hate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amy SF
beancounter said:
Questioning my core beliefs is a diversion tactic. It appears that you are afraid to address the reality that many people in politics and/or wealthy/influential are cut from the same cloth.
Click to expand...
I think that a lot of people are cut from the same cloth, across lines of wealth, influence, etc., not just within certain "classes."

For example, there are rich racists and poor racists, highly educated racists and uneducated racists, racists on the right of the political spectrum and racists on the left of the political spectrum.

The same holds true of misogynists, conspiracy theorists, and other categories of thinking that I do not hold in high regard.

If you ever want to have an actual conversation about issues, you would be wise to not choose your "spokespeople" from among those who dwell in emotional/ethical/intellectual sewers.
 
If you really can't tell the difference between Hillary and Donald, then I'm happy to start that conversation:

1. Trump stokes racial, ethnic and religious hatreds by advocating the building of his big, beautiful wall (which he will somehow force Mexico to pay for), bringing the birther conspiracy theory into the mainstream, advocating for a ban on all Muslim immigrants, questioning the loyalties not only of immigrants, but also of first and second generation Americans (unless they happen to be white, of course), etc.

2. Trump says that climate change is a fiction created by China.

3. Trump says that women must be punished for having abortions.

4. Trump openly admires despotic leadership. This applies not only to Putin. For example, he has spoken approvingly of how China dealt with the Tienanmen Square protests.

5. He embraces the NRA's positions wholeheartedly, but is not particularly concerned about the rest of the Constitution. (See, for example, his religious test for immigration mentioned in #1 above, as well as his statements that he will ensure that libel laws are expanded so that he can sue newspapers which print unfavorable stories about him.)

That's just for starters.
 
Speaking for myself, the first thing I ask myself is will the candidate work at achieving and/or continuing the agendas that matter to me? Everything else is kind of secondary. That being said, I can understand how some Republicans don't care what a piece of **** Trump is, just like if I'm honest I don't really care if Clinton is a corrupt mega ***** or not as long as she's in it to further and keep the momentum going on the agendas that matter.

I don't care what she did with her e-mail (Nevermind the fact she likely did the American people a FAVOR... No, I will not and can not elaborate on why this is so, it just is.), who gave her money, who her mentor was, who she had lunch with that one time, who she defended as a lawyer, nor do I care what her opinion was in 2004. I don't even care where Bill put his cigars :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amy SF
beancounter said:
Yes, I understand his position on SJW's will bother many people here, but it has no bearing on his view on how Trump and the Clintons aren't so different.
Click to expand...
Being critical of the voice you choose to amplify is absolutely relevant to the discussion. The scumbag in question has a laundry list of deplorable opinions. That you would share one of his YouTube videos speaks volumes.
 
I keep reading that people seem to be comparing what Bill Clinton did to what DT said. Uh, isn't it Hillary Clinton who is running for president? As far as I'm aware she has never been accused of groping men and I've never heard her making crude sexual comments about men either.:rolleyes:

There was an American couple on the news today, the man supported Trump and his wife supported HC. The man was saying that he didn't like HC as she seemed like an evil schoolteacher and she was too old and fat. The man was grey-haired with a fat belly himself. Ridiculous.:p
 
Guilt by association is a very popular and powerful method of political attack on one's opponents. It affects voters' emotions by appealing to their moral outrage, which works better than trying to differentiate between the two candidates' policy platforms, which bores a lot of people. If Bill Clinton didn't have a reputation as a horndog, Trump would have to invent it. He has actually questioned Hillary's loyalty to Bill, but he'd do that even if there was no evidence that Bill fooled around for even a second.

It will be interesting to see how Trump attacks Hillary during the third debate, which is scheduled for October 19th. Maybe he'll drag out the discredited "Hillary murdered Vince Foster" nonsense because nothing else seems to be working for him.
 
It seems we're back to square one. Instead of saying why Clinton is qualified to be president, all I read is that she's not Trump.

For example, some above listed what ideas Trump supports, but said nothing about what Clinton supports.

Just because she doesn't support Trump's crazy ideas doesn't mean her own ideas are valid by default. It's a big mistake and intellectually lazy to give her a free pass.

It's not a matter of he also did it. The issue is that people are willing to ignore her failings. Just like Trump supporters are willing to ignore his failings. That's the real issue. The willingness to compromise because you believe she represents your interest.

Like Trump, she represents her own interest. She just has a better presentation, and many people here are falling for it.

If that's the only qualification she needs, then I think we've stooped to a new low as a society.

Clinton will be elected, and after the euphoria diminishes, there is going to be some buyer's remorse.

Be careful what you wish for.
 
Last edited:
  • Disagree
Reactions: silva, Amy SF and Andy_T
beancounter said:
It seems we're back to square one. Instead of saying why Clinton is qualified to be president, all I read is that she's not Trump.

It's not a matter of he also did it. The issue is that people are willing to ignore her failings. Just like Trump supporters are willing to ignore his failings. That's the real issue. The willingness to compromise because you believe she represents your interest.

Like Trump, she represents her own interest. She just has a better presentation, and many people here are falling for it.

If that's the only qualification she needs, then I think we've stopped to a new low as a society.

Be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...

Never assume that a politician is selfless and working for us. None of them are, they're all out for their own interests. Anyone who actually thinks otherwise are kidding themselves. Most politicians change with the popular opinion of their target demographic, and that is how things work out getting the change and the continuation of what we want. Obama wasn't a fan of same sex marriage either until analysis indicated that more than 60% of the people had no issue with it.

This is a year of flawed candidates, they all have their shortcomings and yes failings. I really don't think anyone is claiming otherwise. But c'mon as far as why Clinton is qualified to be president in contrast to Trump shouldn't even be up for debate. Trump doesn't have the qualifications to shine Obama's shoes. Had any of the other Republicans in the running had been chosen it would be a whole different ballgame right now (with the exception of Fiorina).

The one thing that is abundantly clear is that the ideological divide of the parties is well defined. When your parties are so polarized in a time when you have Evangelical Christian ideals being fought for on one side, and we're a bunch of moral deggerates (I say that with great pride, affection, maybe a little jest :) ) on the other. And hey, there are Justices to be appointed, the Clinton (or Trump) contraversies seem to matter a whole hell of a lot less with that in mind.
 
beancounter said:
It seems we're back to square one. Instead of saying why Clinton is qualified to be president, all I read is that she's not Trump.

It's not a matter of he also did it. The issue is that people are willing to ignore her failings. Just like Trump supporters are willing to ignore his failings. That's the real issue. The willingness to compromise because you believe she represents your interest.

Like Trump, she represents her own interest. She just has a better presentation, and many people here are falling for it.

If that's the only qualification she needs, then I think we've stopped to a new low as a society.

Be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...

Well, I doubt you were directing that to me as I live in England, but I will respond anyway.:D I do think that HC has failings, she comes with an awful lot of negative baggage from her marriage to Bill Clinton, she is part of the establishment/political elite and there is a lot of mistrust towards that group in your society. Not just your society obviously, there is a similar wave of anti-establishment feeling in many countries. She is hawkish in foreign policy. As a woman I would like to see the first woman president in the US, but I just wish that it didn't have to be the woman who was married to a former president.

I am almost certain at this point that DT isn't being serious in his attempt to be president so I can't really be bothered to say much about him. If his aim was to bring himself publicity as well as mess up the Republican party, then he was extremely successful.:p If I'm wrong and he is being serious I suppose the most anyone could say about him if he did become president is that there would be a change to politics and you won't have the status quo. IMO he doesn't have any clear policies and seems to ramble incoherently or spout worthless slogans.
 
Spang said:
Being critical of the voice you choose to amplify is absolutely relevant to the discussion. The scumbag in question has a laundry list of deplorable opinions. That you would share one of his YouTube videos speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

I gave you an opportunity to attack the content, but instead you chose to (passively aggressively) attack my character. You've been here long enough to know the rules. "attack the idea, not the person"

I think that speaks volumes as well....
 
Here's a challenge that will be excruciatingly painful for some of you:

Come up with 5 substantive concerns you have about Hillary. (and avoid those "a weakness that's really a strength" type answers)
 
Last edited:
Amy SF said:
Maybe he'll drag out the discredited "Hillary murdered Vince Foster" nonsense because nothing else seems to be working for him.
Click to expand...

I don't think I have heard about that before.

beancounter said:
Here's a challenge that will be excruciatingly painful for some of you:

Come up with 5 substantive concerns you have about Hillary. (and avoid those "a weakness that's really a strength" type answers)
Click to expand...

I did share my concerns about HC's weaknesses, maybe you didn't read my post.:rolleyes: If you have more why don't you share them with us.:D

ETA - I don't really understand the conflict on this thread as most of us seem to have the same views and would have preferred Sanders in an ideal world, but would settle for HC.:confused:
 
I have no problem to come up with a number of things I do not like about Hilary Clinton.

But still, out of the available candidates, she would still get my vote if I was allowed to vote (Grudgingly, as I would really like to vote for Bernie Sanders, however, he is not an option).
 
Andy_T said:
I have no problem to come up with a number of things I do not like about Hilary Clinton.

But still, out of the available candidates, she would still get my vote if I was allowed to vote (Grudgingly, as I would really like to vote for Bernie Sanders, however, he is not an option).
Click to expand...

No, thanks to the Clinton camp.
 
Top Bottom