First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Trump catches up to Clinton Aug. 26 to Sept. 1
608 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/5/16

KennethKenstar wrote:

You sure are posting a lot about not wanting to post about stuff

Like, uh I don't have time to talk about politics nor the energy, but I will go on and on about my excuses all day.


I never said I wouldn't discuss anything at all. I said I wasn't going to discuss Trump and Clinton at length. I also never said I didn't have time for such things. I thought it was made quite clear I had an abundance of time. Perhaps you should read what was said again a bit slower.
1408 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Virginia, USA
Offline
Posted 9/5/16
Okay, I'm sorry, you are right. I just thought it was funny to post.
51229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 9/5/16
It's not that Trump is catching up. It's Hillary who is falling down to Trump's level. Trump's poll numbers have been more or less consistent throughout the last two months in which he's done a lot to help sink his own campaign. Now it's Hillary's turn to drop. It's really sad how a candidate is LEADING with barely 40% of the vote in a two-way race. It shows how many people are so upset with the major candidates that they're either voting third-party or at the very least choosing not to vote for either of the two clowns.
11702 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 9/5/16
14916 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / San Francisco
Offline
Posted 9/5/16
I wouldn't put so much faith in polls. A lot can change between now and November 8.
35033 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/6/16 , edited 9/6/16
Compressed for mobile users.


Punk_Mela wrote:

This is a huge, huge, huge, huge, cannot be understated how large, leap. Firstly and most obviously is the fact that she nor Trump nor anyone with any level of sanity would take a cyberattack as "an act of war" at this point in time, it is just plain stupid when wikileaks has brought so clearly into the light of day our OWN cyberattacks on foreign nations enemies and allies alike to then turn around and say "but when Russia does it, it is now grounds on the international stage for military action". No reasonable person would enhance tensions over cyber warfare when they themselves are one of, if not the the greatest perpetrators (and more importantly, perpetrators who have been CAUGHT in the act very recently) , that is a recipe for armed conflict.


5318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 9/6/16


That's a very, very big wall of text that introduces very little.

Paragraph one, again, assuming she is not lying as she frequently does, this supposed increase in cybersecurity isn't an actual plan. She hasn't proposed innovative technical strategy and she won't because she isn't any type of expert on it. The plain and simple is that if she wants to increase cyber security she has to increase spending on security agencies and the DoD which she will not do.Believe me, I am not against increasing cyber security but the budget cuts Obama has made to NASA and the DoD both will only be continued in a Clinton administration. And no, she didn't directly call for war but she clearly insinuated military action that could easily result in an armed conflict even if it is not a war.

Paragraph two, My point about Obama's sanctions were to say that sanctions on Russia aren't likely no matter who they come from. Clinton flip flopped on this issue as I recall and only condemned Obama's actions when the backlash became to strong. But her background in foreign relations shows a weak hand, I stand by my statement that she would not impose sanctions either for the reasons I posted before.

Paragraph three, what response outside of sanctions or military intervention specifically do you think she would use? I again disagree with your comments about a background that suggests anything about those being her likely actions.

It's 3 am and I've lost track of paragraphs but the fact is Clinton has flip flopped on far to many issues to suggest we know anything about what she is going to do, I. It really depends on what GoldmanSacchs or WellsFargo or whoever asks her really.

Final paragraph on Trump, when Trump makes these outlandish statements he is appealing to a voting demographic who feels undermined, it is as absurd and nonesensical as when HC lies about being attacked by snipers, or her daughter being at ground zero, or even the origins of her name. Stooping to this level is immoral and wrong, but not worse than any other politician only more provocative. Let's do a list of all the actions and scandals that can be confirmed or presented against either candidate with at least some level of guilt already verified. I can assure HC is both longer and more heinous. Between, Emails, Benghazi, WhiteWater, Pay-to-Play, the Clinton Foundation's very questionable (to be nice) operations, her racist and anti-Semitic comments which equal anything trump has ever said, her condemnation of the gay community, the DNC corruption, her threats to Monica L. and threats to other alleged victims of Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct, her absolutely inexcusable treatment of the 12 year old rape victim. etc. and I do mean etc, because this only breaks the tip of it with stuff we know about. You would be extremely hard pressed to match even Trump up to that.





16095 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Lake Elsinore, CA
Offline
Posted 9/6/16
35033 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/6/16

Punk_Mela wrote:

That's a very, very big wall of text that introduces very little.

Paragraph one, again, assuming she is not lying as she frequently does, this supposed increase in cybersecurity isn't an actual plan. She hasn't proposed innovative technical strategy and she won't because she isn't any type of expert on it. The plain and simple is that if she wants to increase cyber security she has to increase spending on security agencies and the DoD which she will not do.Believe me, I am not against increasing cyber security but the budget cuts Obama has made to NASA and the DoD both will only be continued in a Clinton administration. And no, she didn't directly call for war but she clearly insinuated military action that could easily result in an armed conflict even if it is not a war.


Whether the proposals she did make, for whatever reason one might assume she made them, are credible or prudent is beside the point I was arguing in the post you objected to, which was that she did not threaten Russia with war. Whether Clinton's proposals would make armed conflicts more likely is an appreciably different argument than the one I was addressing, which was that Clinton had threatened war with Russia. I'm not critical of the idea that Clinton was bluffing; she may well have been. I'm not critical of the idea that Clinton's hawkishness is imprudent and would only make the geopolitical situation more complicated; it almost certainly is and almost certainly would. I'm not defending Clinton's statements as a coherent plan, because it isn't and probably wasn't intended to be.

We're not advancing because we've been talking around each other. Hopefully this resolves that.


Paragraph two, My point about Obama's sanctions were to say that sanctions on Russia aren't likely no matter who they come from. Clinton flip flopped on this issue as I recall and only condemned Obama's actions when the backlash became to strong. But her background in foreign relations shows a weak hand, I stand by my statement that she would not impose sanctions either for the reasons I posted before.

Paragraph three, what response outside of sanctions or military intervention specifically do you think she would use? I again disagree with your comments about a background that suggests anything about those being her likely actions.

It's 3 am and I've lost track of paragraphs but the fact is Clinton has flip flopped on far to many issues to suggest we know anything about what she is going to do, I. It really depends on what GoldmanSacchs or WellsFargo or whoever asks her really.


We're getting nowhere fast and mutually satisfied with our respective cases, so I do believe we've reached an impasse. Nevertheless, the Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs jab did amuse.


Final paragraph on Trump, when Trump makes these outlandish statements he is appealing to a voting demographic who feels undermined, it is as absurd and nonesensical as when HC lies about being attacked by snipers, or her daughter being at ground zero, or even the origins of her name. Stooping to this level is immoral and wrong, but not worse than any other politician only more provocative. Let's do a list of all the actions and scandals that can be confirmed or presented against either candidate with at least some level of guilt already verified. I can assure HC is both longer and more heinous. Between, Emails, Benghazi, WhiteWater, Pay-to-Play, the Clinton Foundation's very questionable (to be nice) operations, her racist and anti-Semitic comments which equal anything trump has ever said, her condemnation of the gay community, the DNC corruption, her threats to Monica L. and threats to other alleged victims of Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct, her absolutely inexcusable treatment of the 12 year old rape victim. etc. and I do mean etc, because this only breaks the tip of it with stuff we know about. You would be extremely hard pressed to match even Trump up to that.


Lying about coming under sniper fire, while abhorrent, is hardly promising to commit war crimes. Lying about one's daughter's whereabouts, while abhorrent, is hardly proposing to torture people even if one knows doing so will produce no actionable information whatsoever. Lying about the origins of one's name, while abhorrent, is hardly promising to deny US citizens due process or praising crackdowns by repressive regimes as "strength". Some of the scandals you've mentioned bear substance (such as the e-mail server scandal and the Clinton Foundation scandal, which is the same thing as the "Pay-to-Play" scandal) while others do not (such as Benghazi). I could bring up Trump University, I could point to Trump's having been repeatedly bailed out by a Saudi prince, I could point to the multiple instances where Trump exhibited zero understanding of important subjects he'd been asked about, I could point to Trump's mafia ties, and I could just keep going with him as readily as you could with Clinton, but frankly this exercise feels completely futile. You're convinced that Trump is the lesser evil, I'm convinced Clinton is, and that's that.

What a terrible election year that the evils to filter in search of the lesser between them should both be so evil.
16095 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Lake Elsinore, CA
Offline
Posted 9/6/16
5318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 9/6/16 , edited 9/6/16



Final paragraph on Trump, when Trump makes these outlandish statements he is appealing to a voting demographic who feels undermined, it is as absurd and nonesensical as when HC lies about being attacked by snipers, or her daughter being at ground zero, or even the origins of her name. Stooping to this level is immoral and wrong, but not worse than any other politician only more provocative. Let's do a list of all the actions and scandals that can be confirmed or presented against either candidate with at least some level of guilt already verified. I can assure HC is both longer and more heinous. Between, Emails, Benghazi, WhiteWater, Pay-to-Play, the Clinton Foundation's very questionable (to be nice) operations, her racist and anti-Semitic comments which equal anything trump has ever said, her condemnation of the gay community, the DNC corruption, her threats to Monica L. and threats to other alleged victims of Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct, her absolutely inexcusable treatment of the 12 year old rape victim. etc. and I do mean etc, because this only breaks the tip of it with stuff we know about. You would be extremely hard pressed to match even Trump up to that.




I think you are right about an impasse on those other things, so i'll stick to the bottom paragraph.

The 3 inconsequential lies (relatively) about sniper fire, and her name, and daughter were to point out both a tendency for pathological lying about things that bear no consequence. I.E. the root of her name, and to akin it to these ridiculous statements Trump has made and I do feel you have taken out of context, they are similar that they are move for voters and to create an image to appeal to a target voting demographic, they have little to no real baring on where the candidates stand policy-wise, they are a show equally immoral and equally untelling. The email scandal doesn't bear substance, by her own confession she committed this crime, destroy evidence and lied out right to the american people about committing these crimes. Many Americans have been prosecuted for this in the last couple of years alone, and this in itself should be more than enough to disqualify her from holding office. She is also by her own admission at least partially responsible for Benghazi as was shown by her hearing with Rep. Trey Gowdy, it has gotten quite popular if you haven't seen it. Whether you can blame her for the deaths directly may be debatable but it is not up for debate that she is at least partially and significantly responsible for the final outcome. Clinton Foundation has so many scandals, I put that in there separately to encompass them all. There is also her stealing thousands of dollars of tax payer money from the white house via furniture.

But here is what things boil down to; Clinton has a greater quantity and more negative consequences related to her scandals but more importantly they have significant evidence and confessions behind them all. Trump University is bad, but like Benghazi Trump's degree of blame is debatable. Bailed out by a Saudi Prince doesn't actually mean anything either without more information on his dealings with said prince. And then his scandals devolve; Trump "not understanding important subjects" is not a scandal, that is a policy debate and opinion, not relevant to morals or corruption. Mafia ties are just that, "ties". They are not confirmation or even especially indicative of any crime, reason for investigation maybe, but you can't hold knowing someone against them any more than you can hold HC's relationship with Byrd against her. And unlike what you did I have answered every scandal (though those last 2 aren't actually scandals by definition) you mentioned. I can bring you a whole plethora of verified and about an eternity of unverified scandals that we know about already (don't forget wikileaks has promised a whole new batch in October on HC) for HC if you get around to answering, HC's treatment of a child rape victim, white-water, racist comments, or theft of thousands of dollars of government property.

We can debate policy but in actual consequence and quantity HC is the more corrupt. I would stand by this and provide reasoning for this argument that I am confident could not be reasonably disputed.
Banned
6934 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
In a basket of de...
Offline
Posted 9/6/16
havn't heard form old Bernie lately, I wonder how much money he made from the campaign
5318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 9/6/16

Xxanthar wrote:

havn't heard form old Bernie lately, I wonder how much money he made from the campaign


Enough that he bought his 3rd summer home not long ago. But you know, he fights for the common man right?
35033 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/6/16 , edited 9/6/16

Punk_Mela wrote:

I think you are right about an impasse on those other things, so i'll stick to the bottom paragraph.

The 3 inconsequential lies (relatively) about sniper fire, and her name, and daughter were to point out both a tendency for pathological lying about things that bear no consequence. I.E. the root of her name, and to akin it to these ridiculous statements Trump has made and I do feel you have taken out of context, they are similar that they are move for voters and to create an image to appeal to a target voting demographic, they have little to no real baring on where the candidates stand policy-wise, they are a show equally immoral and equally untelling.


Nope. Straight from the horse's mouth:


This morning they asked me a question: 'Would you approve waterboarding?" Would I approve waterboarding? Would I approve waterboarding? And I said 'Well, let me ask you a question: on the other side they chop off our young peoples' heads and they put them on a stick. On the other side they build these iron cages that they'll put twenty people in them, and they drop them in the ocean for fifteen minutes and they pull them up fifteen minutes later. Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your arse I would. You bet your arse. In a heartbeat. In a heartbeat. And I would approve more than that [waterboarding]. Don't kid yourself, folks: it works, okay? It works. Only a stupid person would say it doesn't work. It works. They're all saying 'Oh, it has no effect. It has no effect.' I know people, that are very, very important people, and they want to be politically correct. And I see some people talking on television about 'Well, I don't know if it worked', and they tell me later on 'It works.' It works. Believe me, it works. And you know what? If it doesn't work they deserve it anyway for what they're doing. They deserve it. It works.

~Donald Trump, Bluffton, SC Feb. 2016



I would do my best, absolute best, I mean one of the problems that we have and one of the reasons we're so ineffective is they're trying to, they're using them [civilians] as shields. It's a horrible thing. They're using them as shields. But we're fighting a very politically correct war. And the other thing is with the terrorists you have to take out their families. When you get these terrorists you have to take out their families. They, they care about their lives. Don't kid yourselves. They say they don't care about their lives. You have to take out their families.

~Donald Trump, Fox News, Dec. 2016


If you're wondering what he means by "go after" and "take out" their families, he spoke to Face the Nation and said he'd "leave that to our imaginations" and that he doesn't believe people who say they didn't know their relatives were plotting terrorist activities.


We have a problem. The World Trade Centre came down. And by the way, speaking of coming down they [the people responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks] put their families on aeroplanes a couple of days before, sent them to Saudi Arabia for the most part. Those wives knew exactly what was going to happen, and those wives went home to watch their husbands knock down the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon, and wherever the third plane was going, except we had some very, very brave passengers, wherever that third plane was going. Those wives knew exactly what was happening.

[Trump is asked what "going after the families" means]

Well, I would go after, well, at least I would certainly go after the wives, who absolutely knew what was happening. And I guess your definition of what I'd do? I'm going to leave that to your imagination, but I will tell you I would be very tough on families, because the families know what's happening. Even in this last instance [the 2015 San Bernardino attack] I see everybody knew, so many people knew, they thought that this man [Syed Rizwan Farook] and this woman [Tashfeen Malik], you know whether he was radicalised or how he became, they thought something was going on. Why don't these people report it to the police? Why wouldn't they report it to the police? Now, they said it was profiling. They didn't want to profile. Can you believe this? They didn't want to profile even though they thought something very bad was going on.

[Trump is told that Farook's sister [both Saira and Eba] denies any knowledge of a terrorist plot and has expressed sympathy for the victims]

I probably don't believe the sister.

[Trump is asked if he'd "go after" her]

I would go after a lot of people, and I'd find out whether or not they knew. I'd be able to find out. Because I don't believe the sister.


See how the first statement is a declaration of confidence in torture's effectiveness without evidence, citations, or even a name drop, with a nice little bonus statement that even if torture doesn't produce actionable information it should be used as a form of punishment? See how the second is a promise to do the best he can to avoid civilian casualties immediately followed by insistence that the US should target civilians as an intimidation tactic against terrorists and fits neatly with Trump's comments about international law preventing such action being problematic? See how in both cases Trump frames avoiding human rights abuses and war crimes like torture and targeting civilians as "political correctness"? See how casually he says he'd have "gone after" people who weren't even charged with anything in ways he wouldn't even clarify and "left to the imagination"? See how we can fill in the blanks Trump previously left "to our imagination" now that he's had time to clarify his stances on torture and due process?

Now, those were all answers to questions and statements Trump has made about policy under his administration. They do not stop being policy proposals simply because he's assuming the stances he thinks will be popular with his target constituency. There is no guarantee he wouldn't try to fulfill those policies just because you don't think he would. Finally, taken in their context his stances are reflective of unmitigated barbarism. Donald Trump would seek to defeat ISIL by becoming ISIL. By trying to one-up their "strength" with his own. There's no denying it.




The email scandal doesn't bear substance, by her own confession she committed this crime, destroy evidence and lied out right to the american people about committing these crimes. Many Americans have been prosecuted for this in the last couple of years alone, and this in itself should be more than enough to disqualify her from holding office.


*ahem*


Some of the scandals you've mentioned bear substance (such as the e-mail server scandal and the Clinton Foundation scandal, which is the same thing as the "Pay-to-Play" scandal) while others do not (such as Benghazi).

~Blue Oni, Sept. 2016


That sure looks like I said the e-mail server scandal was substantial. I weigh the things I discussed about Trump above more heavily than this, but it is a legitimate scandal.


She is also by her own admission at least partially responsible for Benghazi as was shown by her hearing with Rep. Trey Gowdy, it has gotten quite popular if you haven't seen it. Whether you can blame her for the deaths directly may be debatable but it is not up for debate that she is at least partially and significantly responsible for the final outcome.


None of those hearings have produced the conclusion that Clinton was guilty of dereliction of duty or engaged in professional misconduct. Also, as long as we're exchanging videos you might want to check out Kevin McCarthy spilling the beans about the Benghazi hearings serving as a political tool. That was pretty popular, too.


Clinton Foundation has so many scandals, I put that in there separately to encompass them all. There is also her stealing thousands of dollars of tax payer money from the white house via furniture.


If you're referring to the furniture the Clintons publicly declared as gifts, later voluntarily returned alongside a cash payment, and were never accused of criminal wrongdoing for initially taking by the House Committee on Government Reform while it was investigating the matter then I'm afraid I can't see how that's a scandal. The conclusion of that mess was that the rules surrounding gifts to the White House and the First Family were too complicated and that independent assessment of gifts was needed.


But here is what things boil down to; Clinton has a greater quantity and more negative consequences related to her scandals but more importantly they have significant evidence and confessions behind them all. Trump University is bad, but like Benghazi Trump's degree of blame is debatable. Bailed out by a Saudi Prince doesn't actually mean anything either without more information on his dealings with said prince. And then his scandals devolve; Trump "not understanding important subjects" is not a scandal, that is a policy debate and opinion, not relevant to morals or corruption. Mafia ties are just that, "ties". They are not confirmation or even especially indicative of any crime, reason for investigation maybe, but you can't hold knowing someone against them any more than you can hold HC's relationship with Byrd against her. And unlike what you did I have answered every scandal (though those last 2 aren't actually scandals by definition) you mentioned. I can bring you a whole plethora of verified and about an eternity of unverified scandals that we know about already (don't forget wikileaks has promised a whole new batch in October on HC) for HC if you get around to answering, HC's treatment of a child rape victim, white-water, racist comments, or theft of thousands of dollars of government property.

We can debate policy but in actual consequence and quantity HC is the more corrupt. I would stand by this and provide reasoning for this argument that I am confident could not be reasonably disputed.


It's a scandal that Hillary and Bill Clinton took items they thought were gifts to them and voluntarily returned them alongside a payment for items they decided to keep in total absence of even mere accusations of criminal wrongdoing, but neither Donald Trump having no idea who the leadership of the terrorist groups he's been lambasting and declaring only he can defeat nor a federal investigation concluding that Trump Plaza likely benefited from racketeering are scandals. It's fine to discuss policy differences between the two candidates, but any policy proposals Donald Trump makes that relate to torture, due process, international accords concerning civilians, and so on are off limits and don't count.

Yeah, I think I've had enough of this.
952 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 9/6/16
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.