General US Politics

[Person123]

I won't be surprised if Trump talks circles around Hillary, but then she'll make one good point or insult and the media will claim that she 'dominated' the debate.

People are starting to see through the double standard perpetuated by mainstream media outlets, the emails leaked from wikileaks detailing collusion between the DNC and various media outlets will only will help worsen public perception of how trustworthy the media is.

[Thinks Their Own Way]

This election really shows how much of a joke American politics really is.

[BBM]

Hillary's campaign is a trainwreck. Hell, half the time when her twitter account tweets something about Trump it's like she's campaigning for him.

My favorite example: https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/731107990514880512

...I think you totally missed the point of this tweet. Trump is saying that women would make the same amount of money as men if they did as good a job. However, because women don't make the same money as men, Hillary is pointing out that what he's really saying is that women don't make as much money as men because they don't do as good a job as men.

The debates will prove absolutely nothing and convince absolutely nobody? Trump is a terrible debater by all conventional methods of measurement. He frequently digresses from the points being argued to make ad hominem attacks and rarely speaks about what he's actually realistically going to do, to name just a few flaws. But none of his supporters care about that stuff; they care about his ability to be entertaining and "not be politically correct". His supporters are going to take him making fun of Hillary as proof that he's capable of being President, and his detractors will say he's an immature idiot. The people on the fence who are probably trying to decide who they dislike less will see an immature idiot attacking a possibly corrupt alleged criminal and bang their heads on the table.

@CyborgZeta- lol seriously. Trump's stance on Iraq is hypocritical as fuck because he's willing to brush under the rug the fact that his VP (and, let's be real, most of his voter base too) was also for Iraq at the time, but is villifying Hillary for it. Trump's stance on Syria is MORE violent than Hillary's, because he's advocated carpet bombing there and advocated deliberately targeting the families of terrorists, which will a) spread terrorism more than anything else and b) is a war crime. Nobody really knows what his stance on Libya is because he's flip-flopped, but IIRC his latest stance was that he would have been pro-intervention too.

Hillary might be "crooked" and might even be more corrupt than Trump, but if you seriously think she's more likely to cause a war than Trump, I don't know what to say.

[CyborgZeta]

Hillary might be "crooked" and might even be more corrupt than Trump, but if you seriously think she's more likely to cause a war than Trump, I don't know what to say.

Nowhere did I say she was more likely to cause a war than Trump.

I don't know what Trump will do, but I do know what Hillary has done (and will do).

[BBM]

The statement you said "wasn't wrong" was clearly implying that she was more likely to do those things than Trump, or there would be no point in singling her out for it.

Trump has actually been relatively consistent about his stance on combating terrorism (burn ISIS to the ground), if not his stance on the Middle East, so if you don't know what he's going to do, you're either not paying attention or don't believe he'll actually carry out what he's promising. In that case I ask- what do you think he'll do?

[CyborgZeta]

The statement you said "wasn't wrong" was clearly implying that she was more likely to do those things than Trump, or there would be no point in singling her out for it.

I said he wasn't wrong in that I agreed that Clinton would plunge the US into more wars. Whether she would get the US involved in more (or less) conflicts than Trump remains to be seen; but her history and attitude shows she is very pro-intervention.

Trump has actually been relatively consistent about his stance on combating terrorism (burn ISIS to the ground), if not his stance on the Middle East, so if you don't know what he's going to do, you're either not paying attention or don't believe he'll actually carry out what he's promising. In that case I ask- what do you think he'll do?

He wants to get rid of ISIS, but he throws out a bunch of ideas. Will we get more actively involved in Iraq than we already are? He wants to work together with Russia on Syria, but to what extent? The only thing I've seen him be consistent on is bombing/air strikes on ISIS targets; with the possible addition of the families of terrorists (he says this to sound tough, but I doubt he'd actually order it done).

Edited July 27, 2016 by CyborgZeta

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

as much as i'd rather have the US not get involved in any more wars, i think it looks like we still have one foot planted in the middle east and now its chained to the middle east, until we manage to wipe out the current branch of terrorism that's currently killing people across Europe and on our shores.

I know of the Hydra of the middle east, but its America's fault for going over there in the first place and causing shit over there because of "weapons of mass destruction" that weren't even there 15 years ago, so its America's job to fix its own mistake.

http://redpanels.com/125/

but in all honestly we really shouldn't have killed saddam if this was going to be the result, but i feel like i am getting off topic so i apologize.

Thanks Bush.

[Time the Crestfallen]

as much as i'd rather have the US not get involved in any more wars, i think it looks like we still have one foot planted in the middle east and now its chained to the middle east, until we manage to wipe out the current branch of terrorism that's currently killing people across Europe and on our shores.

I know of the Hydra of the middle east, but its America's fault for going over there in the first place and causing shit over there because of "weapons of mass destruction" that weren't even there 15 years ago, so its America's job to fix its own mistake.

http://redpanels.com/125/

but in all honestly we really shouldn't have killed saddam if this was going to be the result, but i feel like i am getting off topic so i apologize.

Thanks Bush.

I doubt it. Even if they do eradicate ISIS (last I checked, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are still running), there'll just be a knew one to take their place and keep American troops in the Middle East.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Phillius

[tuvarkz]

@CyborgZeta- lol seriously. Trump's stance on Iraq is hypocritical as fuck because he's willing to brush under the rug the fact that his VP (and, let's be real, most of his voter base too) was also for Iraq at the time, but is villifying Hillary for it. Trump's stance on Syria is MORE violent than Hillary's, because he's advocated carpet bombing there and advocated deliberately targeting the families of terrorists, which will a) spread terrorism more than anything else and b) is a war crime. Nobody really knows what his stance on Libya is because he's flip-flopped, but IIRC his latest stance was that he would have been pro-intervention too.

Hillary might be "crooked" and might even be more corrupt than Trump, but if you seriously think she's more likely to cause a war than Trump, I don't know what to say.

War against who? Hillary will be actively opposing Russia and more than likely trying to provoke it into one, but instead with Trump, USA-Russia being on friendly terms would actively discourage a war, as no individual country would have a reasonable chance against them. Trump will go all out on Syria until ISIS and its supporters are purged from the face of the Earth, but afterwards we'll see little else happen.

[BBM]

Hillary isn't going to fight Russia. >_> They're not close to each other geographically other than Alaska and both sides have nukes. There's nothing either side gains from fighting each other directly.

A war with Mexico if Trump gets elected is much more likely than a war with Russia if Hillary gets elected. Neither is likely though. "Going all out on Syria until ISIS is purged" isn't going to be easy, especially as they'll have a very easy time recruiting if Trump starts killing civilians left and right.

[tuvarkz]

Hillary isn't going to fight Russia. >_> They're not close to each other geographically other than Alaska and both sides have nukes. There's nothing either side gains from fighting each other directly.

A war with Mexico if Trump gets elected is much more likely than a war with Russia if Hillary gets elected. Neither is likely though. "Going all out on Syria until ISIS is purged" isn't going to be easy, especially as they'll have a very easy time recruiting if Trump starts killing civilians left and right.

Of course, it wouldn't be a direct war unless things got really out of control. Indirect fighting could still be quite likely to happen, however.

Mexico would find itself in a hopeless situation if it declared war on the US. Lesser in numbers, training, equipment, likely morale-it would almost be asking for an annexation, if it wasn't obvious that annexing a post-war Mexico would be a terrible idea.

EDIT: Hillary has potential corporate interests behind her, Trump has little particular care about warmongering.

ISIS won't have an easier time recruiting. They already have aplenty of people that are ideologically aligned to them or supporting them in passive roles. Straining them for resources and communication would make their job harder, not easier. Worst case scenario would be the muslim migrants in europe causing massive riots, but that would be ultimately beneficial as it would prove that multiculturalism was always something doomed to failure, with a correspondent resurgence in nationalism.

Edited July 27, 2016 by tuvarkz

[Time the Crestfallen]

Of course, it wouldn't be a direct war unless things got really out of control. Indirect fighting could still be quite likely to happen, however.

Mexico would find itself in a hopeless situation if it declared war on the US. Lesser in numbers, training, equipment, likely morale-it would almost be asking for an annexation, if it wasn't obvious that annexing a post-war Mexico would be a terrible idea.

EDIT: Hillary has potential corporate interests behind her, Trump has little particular care about warmongering.

ISIS won't have an easier time recruiting. They already have aplenty of people that are ideologically aligned to them or supporting them in passive roles. Straining them for resources and communication would make their job harder, not easier. Worst case scenario would be the muslim migrants in europe causing massive riots, but that would be ultimately beneficial as it would prove that multiculturalism was always something doomed to failure, with a correspondent resurgence in nationalism.

I think that would be a failure on the current immigration policies as opposed to a failure of multiculturalism. Germany has accepted somewhere in the ballpark of 1.1 million migrants and I think that while culture will be a factor, the sheer numbers ensure consequences.

[Alertcircuit]

Yes, DWS will serve as chair on Hillary's campaign.

Honorary chair. Which means she wasn't hired for anything. It's a courtesy title.

DWS will be spending the next few months instead trying to salvage her House re-election bid, which considering these leaks, won't be easy at all.

@CyborgZeta- lol seriously. Trump's stance on Iraq is hypocritical as fuck because he's willing to brush under the rug the fact that his VP (and, let's be real, most of his voter base too) was also for Iraq at the time, but is villifying Hillary for it. Trump's stance on Syria is MORE violent than Hillary's, because he's advocated carpet bombing there and advocated deliberately targeting the families of terrorists, which will a) spread terrorism more than anything else and b) is a war crime. Nobody really knows what his stance on Libya is because he's flip-flopped, but IIRC his latest stance was that he would have been pro-intervention too.

This is the thing that's worrisome. If my neighbors or entire hometown got bombed by the U.S., I would probably not like the U.S. very much.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

I doubt it. Even if they do eradicate ISIS (last I checked, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are still running), there'll just be a knew one to take their place and keep American troops in the Middle East.

yeah i'm aware of the Hydra problem, i just don't know what else do to.

i mean people on our shores and others keep getting attacked, so maybe just keep wiping them out until we get a group that doesn't try this and keep to themselves? I wanna say the middle east doesn't affect us, but when we have daily terrorist attacks in europe, and the San Bernaridno and Orando Pulse indicates that happen, i think we are kinda stuck, not by choice these days, but chained down by the past.

i dunno, America should've never played World Police when 9/11 happened, and now we're stuck with the aftermath of Bush's horrible run.

Edited July 27, 2016 by HF Makalov Fanboy Kai

[Tryhard]

I am a Clinton supporter

Is that really the case, though? Seems more like 'forced Clinton voter' then 'Clinton supporter' to your credit.

The debates will prove absolutely nothing and convince absolutely nobody? Trump is a terrible debater by all conventional methods of measurement. He frequently digresses from the points being argued to make ad hominem attacks and rarely speaks about what he's actually realistically going to do, to name just a few flaws. But none of his supporters care about that stuff; they care about his ability to be entertaining and "not be politically correct". His supporters are going to take him making fun of Hillary as proof that he's capable of being President, and his detractors will say he's an immature idiot. The people on the fence who are probably trying to decide who they dislike less will see an immature idiot attacking a possibly corrupt alleged criminal and bang their heads on the table.

Even Donald Trump can exploit Hillary's many weaknesses, even if he does it in an immature way - no-one is really expecting anything different of him. The fact that she so far hasn't even attempted to defend herself when Trump refers to her as 'crooked Hillary' shows that he's going to set the narrative, something like 56% of Americans believe she should be indicted (Washington Post). When people regard her as untrustworthy, you think Americans aren't going to rally behind the vitriol Trump will spew, even with nothing to back it up really? Edited July 27, 2016 by Tryhard

[Tryhard]

edit: internet please

Edited July 27, 2016 by Tryhard

[Augestein]

This is the thing that's worrisome. If my neighbors or entire hometown got bombed by the U.S., I would probably not like the U.S. very much.

Indeed. And if you fought back at that point, it'd hardly count as terrorism at that point.

[blah the Prussian]

Indeed. And if you fought back at that point, it'd hardly count as terrorism at that point.

Well, yes, it totally would. Maybe if you attacked the airbases or something, but the fact is that the terrorists aren't attacking soldiers, they're attacking innocent civilians, and deliberately, unlike the Americans (in most cases). They are terrorists, plain and simple.

[Ansem]

Is that really the case, though? Seems more like 'forced Clinton voter' then 'Clinton supporter' to your credit.

Yeah this is probably accurate. I was also thinking about not voting, I did vote the last two election cycles so I can miss one and not be registered inactive.

[Person123]

Yeah this is probably accurate. I was also thinking about not voting, I did vote the last two election cycles so I can miss one and not be registered inactive.

Even if you don't like the Presidential candidates it's always a good idea to still vote down ballot.

[BBM]

Is that really the case, though? Seems more like 'forced Clinton voter' then 'Clinton supporter' to your credit.

Even Donald Trump can exploit Hillary's many weaknesses, even if he does it in an immature way - no-one is really expecting anything different of him. The fact that she so far hasn't even attempted to defend herself when Trump refers to her as 'crooked Hillary' shows that he's going to set the narrative, something like 56% of Americans believe she should be indicted (Washington Post). When people regard her as untrustworthy, you think Americans aren't going to rally behind the vitriol Trump will spew, even with nothing to back it up really?

I wasn't aware logic was something that appealed to people considering Trump tbh.

I guess it differs on person to person but personally I think not stooping to Trump's level is a better look for Hillary.

I'm probably coming off as a massive Hillary homer here when I'm not. Nothing much about Hillary as president excites me other than that a female POTUS would be cool. I just think the bad things about her get shockingly over-exaggerated and everything that qualifies her gets taken for granted, whereas the opposite is true for Trump. And somehow it's led to a point in time where the US is willing to renounce decades of progress in global relations and multiculturalism because Hillary is boring? Do people in the States want everyone to hate them? Do they think they're so great that other countries' opinions of them just don't matter?

[Tryhard]

I wasn't aware logic was something that appealed to people considering Trump tbh.

I guess it differs on person to person but personally I think not stooping to Trump's level is a better look for Hillary.

I'm probably coming off as a massive Hillary homer here when I'm not. Nothing much about Hillary as president excites me other than that a female POTUS would be cool. I just think the bad things about her get shockingly over-exaggerated and everything that qualifies her gets taken for granted, whereas the opposite is true for Trump. And somehow it's led to a point in time where the US is willing to renounce decades of progress in global relations and multiculturalism because Hillary is boring? Do people in the States want everyone to hate them? Do they think they're so great that other countries' opinions of them just don't matter?

I don't know, I still think you would want to actually tackle their arguments, no matter how low they are, in case more would follow them. She doesn't need to resort to name calling, but has she actually even tried to bother refuting the implications that she's corrupt or bought and sold?

I clearly have a worse opinion of Hillary than you do, because it seems to me if anything the media is biased to underrepresent Hilary's faults and corruption allegations, but to the last two questions, I've pretty much got a low opinion of the United States already, I wouldn't be surprised if both are 'yes'.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Tryhard

[CyborgZeta]

Wikileaks released some DNC voice mail recordings.

Not much. Possibly just a warning shot of more to come.

[Magical CC]

I don't know, I still think you would want to actually tackle their arguments, no matter how low they are, in case more would follow them. She doesn't need to resort to name calling, but has she actually even tried to bother refuting the implications that she's corrupt or bought and sold?

One of the best ways to deal with a bad situation you have no ability to solve is to stay away from it and never mention it. The more you talk about it, the worse it will be. The other best way is to shift the blame onto the other and paint yourself as victim. It seems like Hilary, a veteran of politic game, is using both of them.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Magical CC

[tuvarkz]

I wasn't aware logic was something that appealed to people considering Trump tbh.

I guess it differs on person to person but personally I think not stooping to Trump's level is a better look for Hillary.

I'm probably coming off as a massive Hillary homer here when I'm not. Nothing much about Hillary as president excites me other than that a female POTUS would be cool. I just think the bad things about her get shockingly over-exaggerated and everything that qualifies her gets taken for granted, whereas the opposite is true for Trump. And somehow it's led to a point in time where the US is willing to renounce decades of progress in global relations and multiculturalism because Hillary is boring? Do people in the States want everyone to hate them? Do they think they're so great that other countries' opinions of them just don't matter?

Honestly, given how strongly Trump and Hillary's plans diverge (And how much I consider it important that Trump wins), I believe that if resorting to namecalling is working quite effectively, I don't see why a change in Trump's strategy is needed.

I don't believe in representation, particularly because I think that the first female POTUS shouldn't be a figure filled with clear corruption and negligence issues. Oh, please-the mainstream media outside of Fox News has been extremely pro-Clinton of recent, it's just that the email server issue is so huge that you can't just exxagerate how bad it is, due to both the action and the implications of the FBI's decision. Multiculturalism, as is, needs to crash and burn; particularly because while Western cultures are fairly similar to each other, there's a clear cut when it comes to Middle East/North African ones, which makes them fairly uncompatible, particularly due to the heavy favoring of religious law (Sharia law being barbaric) amongst Muslim-majority countries (I've brought the Pew studies more than a few times).

Other countries' opinions shouldn't matter. The job of the US administration is to put the US and it's people first, not to care for the poor people in the rest of the world-Increasing the amount of refugees accepted into the US by 500% while there's still quite a few issues in the country is definitively a bad idea.

Oh, and it seems Bernie Sanders is quitting the DNC. (Couldn't find a major news outlet reporting it yet, but I'm glad the man has a shred of political coherence remaining)

Edited July 28, 2016 by tuvarkz