Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

277 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      89
    • No
      114
    • Maybe
      74
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      49
    • No
      113
    • Indifferent
      44


Recommended Posts

yes it is

this thread is about a presidential campaign that consists of both of them

how is hillary less trustworthy than trump

Because Trump speaks out against 'P.C. culture' and 'tells it like it is' is what I imagine the answer would be. He did that at the start of his campaign, so I guess he gets a free pass to lie all he wants now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah and he's a businessman so he has to be doing it for a reason that is pure and because he wants to help america, whereas hillary is a politician so she's doing it cause its her job

that's #2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah and he's a businessman so he has to be doing it for a reason that is pure and because he wants to help america, whereas hillary is a politician so she's doing it cause its her jobthat's #2

Did Trump compromise an embassy? Did Trump leave a trail of bodies that turned up "suicide"? Do I hate Trump? Of course I do. But all I see in Hillary Clinton is a police state and a disarmed populace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Trump compromise an embassy?

no

Did Trump leave a trail of bodies that turned up "suicide"?

what

But all I see in Hillary Clinton is a police state and a disarmed populace.

[citation needed]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Trump compromise an embassy? Did Trump leave a trail of bodies that turned up "suicide"? Do I hate Trump? Of course I do. But all I see in Hillary Clinton is a police state and a disarmed populace.

u fukin' wot m8?

Seriously though, what are you referring to? This is news to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember reading something about it but it sounded like a "you can't really prove she didn't do it, it's just suspicious" kind of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

92dJpNZ.png (source)

The fact that Clinton is suddenly hemorrhaging black voter support is certainly something "new", by my reckoning. It needs to be watched to see if it's just a blip or the start of a trend, obviously though.

Oh, these graphs are FASCINATING! This presidential election looks more like an income class war TBH, with Trump/Clinton as the mouthpieces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[citation needed]

Hillary's reaction to Heller vs. DC is a great starting place.

Am I the only person who actually bothered to read the dissenting opinions?

Raven, we're getting tired of your shtick. We get that you hate Trump. In fact, give me a list of things you don't like about Trump and I can play the same game as you (making snarky little comments like "wut" and [citation required]). It's not cute or funny anymore especially since we still treat you with respect.

The vast majority of your arguments have been character attacks or "this is too stupid to even respond thoughtfully" style answers. You purposely continue to miss the general point of anything anyone says just so that you can attack arguments out of context.

Let's take birtherism. People in general now see it as "well Hillary has been saying for years that nobody in her campaign had anything to do with it and now suddenly someone in her campaign did have something to do with it, that makes her a liar". Maybe not you because you know everything but you are one person (who I think is very misguided because you hate Trump so much that you're willing to justify Hillary's trangressions, which I don't do). That was clearly the context of that argument since CNN (which is Hitler) has been talking about it non-stop and she is getting lambasted on Twitter. I watched it happen in real time.

My point is, stop being snarky and start showing some of the respect that we give you.

Edited by Deplorable Pepe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i haven't really been interested in the "she did it first!" birther shenanigans mostly because i can clearly see the difference in degree between campaign adviser suggesting that they consider using birtherism against obama versus using it exhaustively to catapult your political career. and no it's still not factually accurate to say she started it to begin with but i can't see that mattering.

if one deserves more shame than the other, it is pretty clear who it should be. you don't have to go to great lengths to justify it.

My point is, stop being snarky and start showing some of the respect that we give you.

troll level: exalted overlord

edit: i literally just typed "birther" in the factcheck.org search engine with 100% confidence that they probably touched on it and read only the first paragraphs of each article lol

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm not even sure who "we" is in Life's post, I also don't know why I have to restate most of my opinions that he is asking me for when I've done it so clearly and in much more detail earlier in this thread. if your justification is that you're on mobile and things move too fast or something, then that shouldn't be my problem.

I also don't see the point in really saying anything when the majority of it will be ignored or taken into a strange context, or if a response is gonna be bringing something up without explaining its relevance. excuse me for not wanting to put effort towards something that the person i am responding to will not pay attention to or care about except for the somewhat irreverent bits, nor do i need to justify myself to someone who is also intent on ignoring other relevant points to the stuff he said

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We" refers to anyone with an opposing position to you.

And no, you deliberately take things out of context as I just pointed out why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But all I see in Hillary Clinton is a police state and a disarmed populace.

in 4 years you see america becoming a "police state" with a disarmed populace. in a candidate that runs on a campaign that wants the opposite, at least with the right to guns.

this topic needs to be closed tbh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in 4 years you see america becoming a "police state" with a disarmed populace. in a candidate that runs on a campaign that wants the opposite, at least with the right to guns.

this topic needs to be closed tbh

Do you trust Hillary Clinton to stick to her guns concerning our guns if Wall Street wants them gone? Also, that sounds like trying to curb free speech, which is something else she wants to do. Stop drinking Kool-Ade, it could kill you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you trust Hillary Clinton to stick to her guns concerning our guns if Wall Street wants them gone?

What is your source on this? This is nothing but hearsay, but this is not rooted in fact.

Also, that sounds like trying to curb free speech, which is something else she wants to do. Stop drinking Kool-Ade, it could kill you.

This is pretty rich, considering the other candidate wants to expand libel laws beyond what they current are. This is potential to curb free speech so he can be free of criticism. He has also responded constantly with "I hate critics, they're a bunch of idiots."

Meanwhile Hillary Clinton says shit like "that's your opinion" to people who say some nasty stuff like "you bitch you're the reason my son is dead."

I don't know where you're getting your facts from, but they sound nothing like facts. Besides, free speech means you can't be arrested or taken to court for saying certain things, it has nothing to do with wanting a shitty thread locked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in 4 years you see america becoming a "police state" with a disarmed populace. in a candidate that runs on a campaign that wants the opposite, at least with the right to guns.

this topic needs to be closed tbh

We can't close this topic until the election is over. It's literally called "Race to the White House".

What is worrying me though is that both campaigns have begun to use "Yeah, X is bad, but Y is 1000x worse, so you should pick X" as their main selling point.

Edited by UNLEASH IT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is your source on this? This is nothing but hearsay, but this is not rooted in fact.

I admit i'm probably paranoid to think this, but the potential is still there. Remember what her husband did in the 90s, and she's even worse than he is.

This is pretty rich, considering the other candidate wants to expand libel laws beyond what they current are. This is potential to curb free speech so he can be free of criticism. He has also responded constantly with "I hate critics, they're a bunch of idiots."

Meanwhile Hillary Clinton says shit like "that's your opinion" to people who say some nasty stuff like "you bitch you're the reason my son is dead."

I don't know where you're getting your facts from, but they sound nothing like facts. Besides, free speech means you can't be arrested or taken to court for saying certain things, it has nothing to do with wanting a shitty thread locked.

I'm not supporting Trump. He could push the button if a world leader looked at him funny. I'm just saying that Hillary would subdue as many rights as she could get away with for her Wall Street associates. She sells out, and it seems Phoenix sells out to her. He also wants to cut off one of the few avenues of political views that don't involve one-sided bias, as everybody gets to share their opinion, no matter how shitty it is. Once the POTUS is announced, let it be cast into the Forum Graveyard and locked. But until then, I don't want Phoenix calling for the end of political discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit i'm probably paranoid to think this, but the potential is still there. Remember what her husband did in the 90s, and she's even worse than he is.

So this is unsourced and not actually based in fact. Got it.

No president would ever outlaw guns and the second amendment especially if they want re-election. The very worst case scenario is that Congress will outright veto it. The president isn't the end-all, be-all.

I'm not supporting Trump. He could push the button if a world leader looked at him funny. I'm just saying that Hillary would subdue as many rights as she could get away with for her Wall Street associates. She sells out, and it seems Phoenix sells out to her. He also wants to cut off one of the few avenues of political views that don't involve one-sided bias, as everybody gets to share their opinion, no matter how shitty it is. Once the POTUS is announced, let it be cast into the Forum Graveyard and locked. But until then, I don't want Phoenix calling for the end of political discussion.

You're personally attacking Phoenix because he believes this thread should be locked on account of being a bad thread. It has nothing to do with silencing free speech. What's happened here hasn't been political discussion, especially since the majority of the users in this thread (yes, myself included) cherry pick tiny points the other person makes and tries to end all political discussion, and a few users are intent on sharing things they feel without any sense of fact. You're extrapolating something from nothing.

The rest is paranoia that is again not grounded in fact, and the anecdotal evidence points more towards Trump wanting to restrict the first amendment more than Hillary.

I don't understand how anything Hillary Clinton has said or done includes wanting to run a dictatorship in the US and strip us of our rights. There are things Donald Trump has done that indicates this when it comes to freedom of press; there are also indications that Donald Trump is far from the person he says he is, and I'll just link this video again because old people don't change their views that radically over the course of ~6-7 years without ulterior motives, which I'm not saying are stripping people of their rights (except freedom of press) but end up having more of an anti-first amendment implication.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you trust Hillary Clinton to stick to her guns concerning our guns if Wall Street wants them gone? Also, that sounds like trying to curb free speech, which is something else she wants to do. Stop drinking Kool-Ade, it could kill you.

how much power do you think the presidency has? if wall street wants guns gone, they buy out congress, not the president.

your paranoia is not my problem.

We can't close this topic until the election is over. It's literally called "Race to the White House".

What is worrying me though is that both campaigns have begun to use "Yeah, X is bad, but Y is 1000x worse, so you should pick X" as their main selling point.

yeah, but pretty much every post is not good.

I admit i'm probably paranoid to think this, but the potential is still there. Remember what her husband did in the 90s, and she's even worse than he is.

I'm not supporting Trump. He could push the button if a world leader looked at him funny. I'm just saying that Hillary would subdue as many rights as she could get away with for her Wall Street associates. She sells out, and it seems Phoenix sells out to her. He also wants to cut off one of the few avenues of political views that don't involve one-sided bias, as everybody gets to share their opinion, no matter how shitty it is. Once the POTUS is announced, let it be cast into the Forum Graveyard and locked. But until then, I don't want Phoenix calling for the end of political discussion.

lol you really are paranoid if you think i'm a supporter of clinton in any fashion and that because there exists dissenting opinion from it that i think the topic should be closed. touting that the united states is going to become a police state, calling for the ban of muslim immigrants, etc., that's not very conducive to discussion imo. it's just blatant ignorance.

(btw, when i said that it was a joke/vent post, not to be taken literally, but whatever.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

defending clinton because the arguments against her versus trump are objectively unsound =/= thinking she's a good candidate in her own right

shouldn't be difficult to comprehend when there are people who state they don't like trump but think he's a more viable candidate

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Skittles are trending.

Seriously, that's actually a pretty good metaphor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's not. It was a shitty metaphor when those stoking the rape culture frenzy compared men to poisoned m&ms, and it's a shitty metaphor with skittles and syrians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Skittles are candy. Refugees are people. We don’t feel it’s an appropriate analogy..."

a president needed to be reminded that people shouldn't be likened to candy.

also, even if we're following that argument, the skittles analogy still fails statistically. you have a better chance of being struck by lightning than being killed by a terrorist. there are roughly 60 pieces per standard skittles pouch. that is much higher than the probability of being struck by lightning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...