General US Politics

[Time the Crestfallen]

megabump

Why are democrats comparing Clinton to Trump in terms of how terrible they are? I hear this mostly from independents and Sander's supporters. I didn't vote for Clinton in the primary, but the only crime Clinton has committed is being an establishment politician and taking money from superpacs and wallstreets. Trump inciting violence against different ethnic groups and the poor judge borders on prosecutable, but the American justice system doesn't pursue affluent white Americans. He also has many other skeletons in his closets that are probably illegal. Clinton had a committee grill her about her emails which was bullshit, and Kevin Mcarthy even admitted the committee was set up to undermine her run for president, so there really is no "email scandal."

Also my question is directed at liberals/democrats that are not exactly fond of Clinton. Trump supporters can respond to my question but I probably won't respond to them.

The only people who I've seen propose that Hillary would be as bad as Trump are hardcore Sanders supporters, people who are anti-establishment (to who Hillary as the establishment candidate this time around is basically Satan) and MRAs who believe (rightfully or wrongfully) that a number of her policies are misandrist and that her presidency will be very hostile towards men. Everyone outside those two groups only acknowledges her as the lesser of two evils when compared to Trump. But then, I'm Australian so take what I've said with a grain of salt.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Phillius

[Tryhard]

Clinton, from what I've seen, flipflops on issues like Mitt Romney when it is convenient for the majority to agree with them. That doesn't exactly instill confidence in whatever her convictions may be.

As well as Clinton has done some pretty shit things in the past, while Trump has only said things that are crazy... so far.

Honestly don't like her but at the same time a part of me thinks America deserves four years of Trump fuckery.

[tuvarkz]

Why are democrats comparing Clinton to Trump in terms of how terrible they are? I hear this mostly from independents and Sander's supporters. I didn't vote for Clinton in the primary, but the only crime Clinton has committed is being an establishment politician and taking money from superpacs and wallstreets. Trump inciting violence against different ethnic groups and the poor judge borders on prosecutable, but the American justice system doesn't pursue affluent white Americans. He also has many other skeletons in his closets that are probably illegal. Clinton had a committee grill her about her emails which was bullshit, and Kevin Mcarthy even admitted the committee was set up to undermine her run for president, so there really is no "email scandal."

Also my question is directed at liberals/democrats that are not exactly fond of Clinton. Trump supporters can respond to my question but I probably won't respond to them.

Inciting to violence? Eh, that's a very loose claim. The most violence Trump supporters have ever really done has been a few protesters getting a punch in the face, and one of them was someone dressed as a KKK member getting punched by a black man. Doesn't help that the media always reports that whenever it's anti-Trump protestors initiating the violence and Trump supporters not giving back as "A clash between pro-Trump and anti-Trump" groups as if both had their part in the violence, but when there's even one Trump supporter that fights back, the media places the whole blame on the Trump supporters. And skeletons in his closet? They've brought up bankrupcy filings (Which only were technical bankrupcies, they were effectively restructurings of the company, at most Trump had to lose some share of the ownership and sell some assets), allegedly having Mein Kampf on the bedtable, allegedly not paying the gathered money to the vets (And funny thing, the Clinton foundation gives them even less in a year than what Trump just gave them given that effectively they only give 2-3% of what they gather every year in actual donations), Trump U, etc. They've tried to bring out all skeletons in the closet that may have been, and none has proven effective. They cannot stump the Trump.

Hillary Clinton, otoh? An enabler in Bill Clinton's sexual harassment/rape situations, is on record laughing while talking about defending a child rapist in court and having him get freed on a technicality; has received multiple donations from Saudi Arabia and other nearby countries into her foundation, the whole private server situation, has flipflopped on abortion/gay marriage/borders as soon as the narrative changed. (Heck, one recent video of her admitting to having supported a 'barrier' (aka a Wall) being built on the Mexican border), has a PAC literally dedicated to internet shilling; and has the media so hard in her pockets that "Delete your account" is being publicized as a "sick burn" of sorts when it seems more like a scream of impotent rage. Oh, and she wants to take the Second Amendment away from most Americans (Funnily enough, all able bodied males ages 17 to 45 are part of the reserve militia and would still qualify for gun ownership; although this would mean taking guns away from women, old people and the disabled.)

Some data on Clinton and her corrupt foundation

Receiving considerable amount of money from Saudi Arabia/Arab Emirates

Edited June 13, 2016 by tuvarkz

[blah the Prussian]

megabump

Why are democrats comparing Clinton to Trump in terms of how terrible they are? I hear this mostly from independents and Sander's supporters. I didn't vote for Clinton in the primary, but the only crime Clinton has committed is being an establishment politician and taking money from superpacs and wallstreets. Trump inciting violence against different ethnic groups and the poor judge borders on prosecutable, but the American justice system doesn't pursue affluent white Americans. He also has many other skeletons in his closets that are probably illegal. Clinton had a committee grill her about her emails which was bullshit, and Kevin Mcarthy even admitted the committee was set up to undermine her run for president, so there really is no "email scandal."

Also my question is directed at liberals/democrats that are not exactly fond of Clinton. Trump supporters can respond to my question but I probably won't respond to them.

Right then. I think Clinton is the better candidate. The problem with her as I see it is that America at this stage really needs to address the rise of Trump and take steps to address some of the concerns of his supporters by improving the employment prospects for his power base (and their prospects do legitimately need to be improved). I don't see Clinton doing that. I see Sanders doing that. That's why I'm voting for Clinton only grudgingly, because I know that even if she wins I'll have to vote against Trump again in four more years, and he'll only have gotten stronger.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Right then. I think Clinton is the better candidate. The problem with her as I see it is that America at this stage really needs to address the rise of Trump and take steps to address some of the concerns of his supporters by improving the employment prospects for his power base (and their prospects do legitimately need to be improved). I don't see Clinton doing that. I see Sanders doing that. That's why I'm voting for Clinton only grudgingly, because I know that even if she wins I'll have to vote against Trump again in four more years, and he'll only have gotten stronger.

That's my biggest fear of a Clinton presidency. It seems to me like a big part of Trump's popularity comes from frustration with the established system for whatever reason and I personally can't see Clinton as being anything other than 'more of the same, now with extra X Chromosome' and considering how much steam Trump gained this election, I can only imagine how bad it'll be if Clinton turns out to be anything less than the best President ever.

[The DanMan]

Honestly, is it possible that the Libertarians will get a boost out of this? As said above, a lot of people aren't fans of either candidate.

[X-Naut]

Clinton has a lot of controversy surrounding her, but another glaring issue is the Democratic Party itself. Voter fraud in multiple states and the outright Clinton bias behind their policies tell me that they're just as disconnected and establishment-rooted as the Republican Party. I and many others feel that voting Clinton would be an acceptance of this disgusting behavior.

[PeaceRibbon]

Honestly, is it possible that the Libertarians will get a boost out of this? As said above, a lot of people aren't fans of either candidate.

That's what I'm thinking. With a lot of people viewing our first party candidates as unfit, it's my guess that if a third party candidate doesn't win, they will have put up a fight.

Though honestly I wonder if the election will go to the novelty the people like best, since every outcome can appeal in that way. Do the people want to say they elected the first woman president? A once in a blue moon third party president? A TV star president? It's pretty scary to think that people might put storytelling ahead of what they want from the country. Meh, I'm probably just overreacting as usual.

[blah the Prussian]

Well, this election WILL make a fascinating history book.

[Augestein]

That's what I'm thinking. With a lot of people viewing our first party candidates as unfit, it's my guess that if a third party candidate doesn't win, they will have put up a fight.

Though honestly I wonder if the election will go to the novelty the people like best, since every outcome can appeal in that way. Do the people want to say they elected the first woman president? A once in a blue moon third party president? A TV star president? It's pretty scary to think that people might put storytelling ahead of what they want from the country. Meh, I'm probably just overreacting as usual.

No matter which person you vote for this time around, history will be made, which may not necessarily be a good thing. Primarily because it doesn't really seem like either are particularly fit to do anything. I'd imagine Congress doing a lot to stop them from really doing anything.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Augestein

[tuvarkz]

That's what I'm thinking. With a lot of people viewing our first party candidates as unfit, it's my guess that if a third party candidate doesn't win, they will have put up a fight.

Though honestly I wonder if the election will go to the novelty the people like best, since every outcome can appeal in that way. Do the people want to say they elected the first woman president? A once in a blue moon third party president? A TV star president? It's pretty scary to think that people might put storytelling ahead of what they want from the country. Meh, I'm probably just overreacting as usual.

Is there even a chance for a third party candidate rallying enough people to count? The NeverTrump's choice immediately stepped down within a couple days, and Sanders going third party would only ensure a Trump win. Considering the high loyalty rating of Trump's supporters, I don't see how a third party candidate can gather enough votes at all.

Edited June 13, 2016 by tuvarkz

[PeaceRibbon]

Is there even a chance for a third party candidate rallying enough people to count? The NeverTrump's choice immediately stepped down within a couple days, and Sanders going third party would only ensure a Trump win. Considering the high loyalty rating of Trump's supporters, I don't see how a third party candidate can gather enough votes at all.

Sure his supporters are loyal, but don't equate that to quantity. It's not hard to see Trump's got a fanclub, but who knows. Maybe the only reason the numbers seem so massive is because the media makes it look that way. He's popular, but primaries and caucuses don't account for the whole country, just the respective political party and some independents. And I guess a tiny number of democrats if you live in one of those weird states where you can vote in any primary you want but I digress.

Bottom line is I say let the real election do the talking.

[Alertcircuit]

No matter which person you vote for this time around, history will be made, which may not necessarily be a good thing. Primarily because it doesn't really seem like either are particularly fit to do anything. I'd imagine Congress doing a lot to stop them from really doing anything.

This current congress doesn't have a strong liking for either, yes. We'll see if that changes.

Is there even a chance for a third party candidate rallying enough people to count? The NeverTrump's choice immediately stepped down within a couple days, and Sanders going third party would only ensure a Trump win. Considering the high loyalty rating of Trump's supporters, I don't see how a third party candidate can gather enough votes at all.

I can see quite a few of the NeverTrumpers voting Libertarian if Romney wholeheartedly endorses. These two candidates are really disliked.

[-Cynthia-]

I think I've seen about 6% for Gary Johnson in some polls, which it not insignificant though he takes pretty equally from both major candidates.

Edited June 15, 2016 by -Cynthia-

[Duff Ostrich]

It's nice to see this thread still going strong in spite of the horrors of the last few months.

I can see quite a few of the NeverTrumpers voting Libertarian if Romney wholeheartedly endorses. These two candidates are really disliked.

I voted Libertarian when Romney and McCain were the candidates, and even then I'd give my left arm to replace Trump with McCain. Johnson it is.

[Water Mage]

There's something I've been to ask.

Today, I just heard that Trump went overseas, to open a golf course.

I know Trump is a businessman, but this feels...wrong. It gives the impression that the elections are just a pet project to him.

I'm not an american, so I don't know everything about american politics and I may be completely wrong, but is it normal, during the year of elections, for candidates to travel overseas for reasons completely unrelated to politics?

I mean, if it is, I'll won't say anything, but it feels so wrong to me.

[Tryhard]

He mentions his business constantly where it is irrelevant or inappropriate, are you surprised?

It is a pet project to him, probably one where he didn't put any stock into doing well in other than a publicity stunt originally, and he was able to convince people that he's not a politician... while he is running as a politician. If nothing else, I'm not sure how that works.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Tryhard

[Water Mage]

Trump is a businessman first, politican second, I know that.

But it still strikes me as irresponsible to do that, when the elections are just months away.

Also, another thing I just heard, is that when questioned about about Brexit situation, Trump apparently knew almost nothing about it, and the interviewer had to explain it to him.

[Tryhard]

He gave some half-baked answer about leaving the EU because it restricted his business procedures previously but I can't really blame him any more than the people actually here that don't understand the situation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-after-orlando-racial-profiling-not-the-worst-thing-to-do/

I did find this, though. Even for Trump, openly supporting racial profiling seems a bit extreme.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Tryhard

[Water Mage]

He gave some half-baked answer about leaving the EU because it restricted his business procedures previously but I can't really blame him any more than the people actually here that don't understand the situation.

Yes, the common person might not know the situation well, but I would expect a presidential canditate to be at least well-informed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-after-orlando-racial-profiling-not-the-worst-thing-to-do/I did find this, though. Even for Trump, openly supporting racial profiling seems a bit extreme.

That's....extreme, even for Trump, as you said.

Speaking of racial issues, I've heard that Trump said that a judge, Gonzalo P. Curiel I believe, was unable to give a fair ruling because of his Mexican heritage.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Water Mage

[tuvarkz]

Yes, the common person might not know the situation well, but I would expect a presidential canditate to be at least well-informed.

That's....extreme, even for Trump, as you said.

Speaking of racial issues, I've heard that Trump said that a judge, Gonzalo P. Curiel I believe, was unable to give a fair ruling because of his Mexican heritage.

Well, for precision, said judge belongs to the "La Raza Lawyers" ('La Raza' being spanish for 'The Race', take it as you will) firm, which has as it's third article:

Purpose and Goals

The purpose and goal of this Association is to promote the interests of the Latino communities throughout the state and the professional interests of the membership.

Latino communities having illegals amongst their groups, it is clear that there is a conflict of interest. Also, regarding racial profiling, the statistics seem to back it up.

[Tryhard]

Also, regarding racial profiling, the statistics seem to back it up.

How? It directly states: "In 2014, 69.4 percent of all individuals arrested were white, 27.8 percent were black, and 2.8 percent were of other races." As expected, with the majority population being white, but does that mean we should profile white people? By all accounts, they are the most likely to be suspects by what you've just shown us.

Are you in favor of racial profiling?

Edited June 23, 2016 by Tryhard

[Water Mage]

Well, for precision, said judge belongs to the "La Raza Lawyers" ('La Raza' being spanish for 'The Race', take it as you will) firm, which has as it's third article:

Purpose and Goals

The purpose and goal of this Association is to promote the interests of the Latino communities throughout the state and the professional interests of the membership.

I was researching this, and I was about to post this, however, while he might have a point, he could have worded that much better.

[tuvarkz]

How? It directly states: "In 2014, 69.4 percent of all individuals arrested were white, 27.8 percent were black, and 2.8 percent were of other races." As expected, with the majority population being white, but does that mean we should profile white people? By all accounts, they are the most likely to be suspects by what you've just shown us.

Are you in favor of racial profiling?

Indeed, that is if you look at the total. However, look in detail. It's not a roughly 70/30 distribution (And then US has around 70% white population and only around 15% black population) for all crimes. Whites have an overtly large number in arrests for Driving Under Influence, Liquor Laws, and Drunkenness (Around 80% in each case); while Blacks have a whopping 51% of Murders, 56% of Robberies, 37% of Violent Crime, amongst others. There's a noticeable difference in which crimes break the total percentage.

I was researching this, and I was about to post this, however, while he might have a point, he could have worded that much better.

Indeed, Trump often miswords things.

Edited June 23, 2016 by tuvarkz

[Sunwoo]

Imo, a person who consistently "miswords" things and is so frequently "misunderstood" should not be president in the first place.