Anacybele Posted July 19, 2016 Author Share Posted July 19, 2016 Uh, wouldn't that involve the university, not Trump himself? If Trump himself was literally the mastermind of whatever was going on there, then we'll talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crysta Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 Does he literally need to be teaching classes there for you to be moved to hold him accountable for the companies he so clearly espouses and puts his name on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NobodiePichu Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 (edited) Uh, wouldn't that involve the university, not Trump himself? If Trump himself was literally the mastermind of whatever was going on there, then we'll talk. yes he was. His lawyers claim otherwise but he was responsible for the whole debacle. cause ya know. Totally not corrupt or anything. [spoiler=super secret omg reveal]he is corrupt. very very corrupt. Edited July 19, 2016 by NobodiePichu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vashiane Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 And this is why the Republican Party really needs to reconsider what it's doing right now. Appealing to White Christians and the upper class is still a workable idea if done right, but they've gone to such a ridiculous extreme that they're now associated nearly entirely with hatred of anyone who isn't a straight white person, never-mind the fact that smart conservatives (the kind who like fiscally Conservative policy and the free market) are being damned by association. Exactly! I actually do understand and agree with the conservative viewpoint from a fiscal sense, but on everything else... no. Because on everything else, a lot of those hot topic issues directly affect people who aren't straight, white, able-bodied, and cis in a negative way. We're not "others" because we don't fit in that category, we're just as human and just as worthy of consideration, safety, and respect as anyone else. Believe me, I'm disgusted that Trump has followers that act like that. I'm disgusted that I support the same person that they do. I don't blame Trump for their actions though. I blame them for their actions. You know that Trump has black supporters, right? They're afraid to admit it, though, because of the kind of followers you mentioned. Sangyul: Fair enough. I highly doubt Trump means that he supports the idea of just outright attacking others. He probably means "feel free to defend yourself if you're attacked." Which is most certainly reasonable. No sane person would encourage someone to just go attacking others for any reason. I know he has black supporters. I'm... kind of baffled by the fact that he does, considering how many of Trump's followers are white supremacists or were/are actively involved in hate crimes (the KKK's still around, even if people like to pretend it's not). It's disgusting, and it doesn't just apply to race. You can't choose your skin color, your gender, your sexuality and yet there are people out there, supporters of him, that willingly discriminate against people on these factors alone. And Trump supports /them/ in turn. Which is why I can't and could never choose to put him in office. That kind of discrimination and allowance of said discrimination is something I can't condone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anacybele Posted July 19, 2016 Author Share Posted July 19, 2016 (edited) No, of course not. But even if you own the place, some things can happen that are out of your control. Would you blame the owner of a hotel if lightning struck it and took out the elevator, trapping some people inside it? I don't know what happened at that university, but if it was out of Trump's control, he couldn't do anything about it. EDIT: My bad, people posted right before I did. Edited July 19, 2016 by Anacybele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBM Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 Ana are you like living in a different world than us? I don't agree with supporting trump but at least I can see the perspectives of some people who do. But how can you expect Trump to be a less radical person than Obama? This dude is so controversial that people from his own party literally created a large movement to deny him the nomination. How can you get surprised that there is a person somewhere out there in the world who does not like Trump? Do you think people get elected 100-0? Hillary has done some dumb stuff. The fact is that she's been in politics for so long, in such high-profile positions, that her mistakes are pretty well-known. Yeah, she's lied about stuff. Politicians as liars is literally the oldest and most common stereotype about politicians- she wasn't the first politician to lie and she won't be the last. She mishandled emails and should have shown better judgement than to use her personal email account for important stuff. You're right that that's a crime. But it's such a ridiculously irrelevant thing. This stuff (not counting Benghazi) is so dumb; how can anyone even compare it to some of the things that Trump has proposed? Deporting over 10 million!!! people? Bombing countless civilians to get to terrorists hiding there? And if you think those are all jokes- on what basis are you supporting him if you think half of his platform is just jokes? If you want to focus on stuff he's actually done- what about hiring illegal immigrants and not paying them? This is something he was judged guilty of by a federal judge by the way, although it was ultimately settled out of court. Not paying contractors and small businesses (the average hard-working American!) hundreds of thousands of dollars and causing them to go out of business because of it? His LAWYERS sued him after representing him because he wouldn't pay their fees- but sure, he just drives a hard bargain. Hillary messed up in Benghazi, but you know what? She took the blame. Has Trump ever taken the blame for any of his mistakes? Also- when you're the owner or head of a company or organization, if they screw up, that means you screwed up. Your companies are you- the fact that you share the blame in their screwups goes along with you being able to take credit in their victories. The Volkswagen CEO resigned after that emissions scandal happened- it didn't matter whether or not he knew about how his engineers were rigging the tests (although he probably did). He got fat bonuses when Volkswagen did well even though technically speaking it was the people working for him who were creating the good times. The lightning analogy is a bad one. The owner isn't responsible for the lightning- Trump is responsible for his associates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time the Crestfallen Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 Exactly! I actually do understand and agree with the conservative viewpoint from a fiscal sense, but on everything else... no. Because on everything else, a lot of those hot topic issues directly affect people who aren't straight, white, able-bodied, and cis in a negative way. We're not "others" because we don't fit in that category, we're just as human and just as worthy of consideration, safety, and respect as anyone else. I'm honestly surprised that anyone could take the Republican Party seriously anymore after the current crop of Presidential candidates. Anyone remember when Rick Santorum said that rape babies were gifts from God? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NobodiePichu Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 (edited) No, of course not. But even if you own the place, some things can happen that are out of your control. Would you blame the owner of a hotel if lightning struck it and took out the elevator, trapping some people inside it? I don't know what happened at that university, but if it was out of Trump's control, he couldn't do anything about it. EDIT: My bad, people posted right before I did. ... are you fucking serious? Hes not a god damn hotel owners he is a presidential candidate he should be taking responsibility, hes suppose to be a leader. And even if he was a hotel owner i would still expect him to take some form of responsibility and do something, not nothing like trump is perfectly content to do and build his god damn base from. Edited July 19, 2016 by NobodiePichu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anacybele Posted July 19, 2016 Author Share Posted July 19, 2016 ... are you fucking serious? Hes not a god damn hotel owners he is a presidential candidate he should be taking responsibility, hes suppose to be a leader. And even if he was a hotel owner i would still expect him to take some form of responsibility and do something, not nothing like trump is perfectly content to do and build his god damn base from. Uh, excuse me, but that was a little thing called an analogy, I never said he was literally a hotel owner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carefreejules Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 (edited) Uh, excuse me, but that was a little thing called an analogy, I never said he was literally a hotel owner. ...We know you didn't call him a hotel owner but the fact is, that comparison doesn't really make any sense to begin with, hence why they said he's not a hotel owner. Being and President and a Hotel Owner are not the same and cannot be compared with with the same level of problems and issues. Edited July 19, 2016 by carefreejules Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkDestr0yer61 Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 You gotta remember that just because someone prefers Clinton over Trump doesn't mean that they actually like her. Some people might, but I sure as hell don't. But I'd prefer her over Trump any day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NobodiePichu Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 Uh, excuse me, but that was a little thing called an analogy, I never said he was literally a hotel owner. That was not the point. The point was that Trump has a responsibility as a fucking human being let alone a presidential candidate to do something about that violence as opposed to simply sit back and do nothing because of the position he is in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jave Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 ...We know you didn't call him a hotel owner but the fact is, that comparison doesn't really make any sense to begin with, hence why they said he's not a hotel owner. Being and President and a Hotel Owner are not the same and cannot be compared with with the same level of problems and issues. Not to mention she compared a Natural Disaster (Struck by Lightning) with man-made actions (Trump University frauds) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 It's more like how CEOs of BP should be held responsible for the oil spill... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anacybele Posted July 19, 2016 Author Share Posted July 19, 2016 (edited) It's more like how CEOs of BP should be held responsible for the oil spill... Yeah, I guess this is a better comparison, because I wouldn't blame the CEO for the mistake of his employees. Nowhere was I comparing lightning to fraud. I was comparing it to things that are out of a person's control. If fraud was what happened, then that probably does fall on Trump and my point is irrelevant. Edited July 19, 2016 by Anacybele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 (edited) But they should be held responsible! That's the point. They are overseeing things and every mishap comes back to them. This is how leadership works. EDIT: issues like this are almost always a result of issues at the top, especially gigantic oil spills. An employee pissing on a taco is different than an oil spill and high magnitudes of fraud. The CEO is responsible for training and overseeing the proper security measures and what have you. If they are negligent then it is shown when giant mishaps happen. Edited July 19, 2016 by Lord Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anacybele Posted July 19, 2016 Author Share Posted July 19, 2016 But they should be held responsible! That's the point. They are overseeing things and every mishap comes back to them. This is how leadership works. Why should they be held responsible when it was their employees that caused the spill? The CEO trusts those employees to do their job, and when they don't, they should be held accountable. That's where leadership comes in. If the CEO didn't deal the proper discipline, then he/she looks bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 Read my edit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anacybele Posted July 19, 2016 Author Share Posted July 19, 2016 Oh, sorry about that, I didn't see it right away. I kind of do get what you're saying now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terrador Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 Hey Ana, any reason you've ignored BBM's and my posts? If this were a mafia game, that'd paint you as SCUMMY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Refa Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 Nope http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/ You should check this out too, while you're at it. I know it's easy to miss things on your first read through, which is why I'm relinking it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 I know how this all works, you don't have to act like I'm stupid. There is a difference. If I want to do research, I'm going to click links I find right away. I'm not going to spend hours finding a certain article I remembered reading long ago. You're in Serious Discussion. Emphasis on Discussion. If you're not willing to back your side up with sources when asked, you're no longer discussing the issue. In other words, sources when asked or make a blog so you can share your opinions without having to worry about everyone else's concerns. Compared to a woman who honestly believes that she is untouchable when she breaks the law and is morally and monetarily corrupt? Yeah, I don't blame her for supporting Trump I support neither. I will probably not get my way come election time, but at the very least I can say that my vote was not the lesser of two evils. considering I've been trying to take a break from this section of the board and I'm currently ill, I'll just post this great interview and go back to browsing. Looks like the video was taken down. ;/ --- So, the tl;dr is provide sources when asked. I'm seriously tempted to put that in the SD sticky, because this is the second topic in as many days where I had to post something to this effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 Alton Sterling was shot reaching for his gunJamar Clark was shot reaching for the officer's gunPhilando Castille was shot when he did not comply with a Do Not Move order while his gun was visibleetc.Bal, watch the Alton Sterling video again.Sterling was NOT reaching for his gun. He physically couldn't with two cops lying on him. It was buried deep in his pocket and the officer had no reason to fear for his life because he could have shot 100 times (you know, with his gun pressed against Sterling's heart) before Sterling would get a shot off. Like I said. I've done arrests before. This was an execution, not an arrest. The cops here found a reason to kill Sterling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HF Makalov Fanboy Kai Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 welp i suppose the video couldn't stay up forever, i do have another video related to Bal, watch the Alton Sterling video again.Sterling was NOT reaching for his gun. He physically couldn't with two cops lying on him. It was buried deep in his pocket and the officer had no reason to fear for his life because he could have shot 100 times (you know, with his gun pressed against Sterling's heart) before Sterling would get a shot off.Like I said. I've done arrests before. This was an execution, not an arrest. The cops here found a reason to kill Sterling. you can totally shoot from your pocket, you don't even need your hand in your pocket to shoot, just grabbing the trigger on the gun from outside of your pocket will also do the trick. the only reason i can't see someone being able not to shoot from their pocket is if they they are using such a big fire arm that it can't fit inside the pocket in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CyborgZeta Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 Shooting a gun from a pocket is very difficult unless the person is using a revolver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.