In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Your vision is so naïve oneofthem... Voting for a president is not only about "policy and facts", it's also about institutional questions. That you want it or not, institutions are not perfect, and you are forced to give power to individuals ; you don't exactly vote for a set of policies, you mainly vote for the people who will conduct those policies (in flesh and blood) and who will obtain/distribute the important places in public institutions. At those position, elected (directly or indirectly) representatives will deal with thousands of various topics that cannot be exactly adressed in a policy proposal during the campaign. That's how it is, the presidential election is not a simple and "rational" discussion between a peope and a project/a set of policies, it's also a meeting between the people and a man/woman, a meeting that has a lot to do with feelings, like trust.
Here is what money/power can do for you in the Clinton familly :
Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff.
The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later.
Copies of dozens of internal emails were provided to ABC News by the conservative political group Citizens United, which obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act after more the two years of litigation with the government.
A prolific fundraiser for Democratic candidates and contributor to the Clinton Foundation, who later traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa, Rajiv K. Fernando’s only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how. The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues.
"It has been widely speculated, if not proven, that donors to the Clinton Foundation who over the years have transferred hundreds of millions of dollars to the "charitable organization", bought political favors with the Clintons in exchange for their generosity. That has now been confirmed thanks to a stunning ABC report which reveals how a major foundation donor - one who previously had practically no experience on intellgience matters - mysteriously ended up as a nuclear weapons advisor to Hillary during her tenure as Secretary of State.
Worse, the person in question Rajiv K. Fernando, had been the head of a high frequency trading company, Chopper Trading (recently acquired by HFT powerhouse DRW), which may explain the unprecedented pull of the HFT lobby throughout all ranks of the US political apparatus. In other words, Fernando bought a seat to not only have advance knowledge of all US foreign policy, but to directly shape it, something he could then parlay in the forms of massive policy frontrunning profits thanks to his trading company.
In other words, the appointment qualified Fernando, a trader in the public markets, for one of the highest levels of top secret access.
Just as shocking was the aggressive retaliation with which the State Department tried to cover up the cronyism that literally "bought" Fernando's seat as one of Hillary's closest political advisors, and how - as a result of ongoing media pressure - Fernando just as mysteriously resigned only days after his appointment was announced when the State Department was unable to come up with a legitimate reason for him to stay on."
On June 11 2016 05:26 biology]major wrote: Well I'm not just voting for trump because of his personality or character lol, I agree with his positions on immigration, trade and terrorism. My point is I would outright reject a candidate who I feel is not trust worthy, doesn't matter what they say why should I believe them?
Don't you just love the contortions that Hillary supporters have to go through to whitewash her past and explain away her duplicitous nature?
Also, don't underestimate the significance of the bolded part above. Those are the key Trump issues. He has scored a ton of points with them throughout his campaign, and he's going to continue to score points with them against Hillary.
but ti's no match for the contortions used by the trump supporters!
I think most Trump supporters know exactly what they are voting for and are honest about his warts. They just care more about other things.
On June 11 2016 06:51 WhiteDog wrote: Your vision is so naïve oneofthem... Voting for a president is not only about "policy and facts", it's also about institutional questions. That you want it or not, institutions are not perfect, and you are forced to give power to individuals ; you don't exactly for a set of policies, you also vote for the people who will obtain/distribute the important places in public institutions. At those position, elected (directly or indirectly) representatives will deal with thousands of various topics that cannot be exactly adressed in a policy proposal during the campaign. That's how it is, the presidential election is not a simple and "rational" discussion between a peope and a project/a set of policies, it's also a meeting between the people and a man/woman, a meeting that has a lot to do with feelings, like trust.
Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff.
The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later.
Copies of dozens of internal emails were provided to ABC News by the conservative political group Citizens United, which obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act after more the two years of litigation with the government.
A prolific fundraiser for Democratic candidates and contributor to the Clinton Foundation, who later traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa, Rajiv K. Fernando’s only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how. The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues.
"It has been widely speculated, if not proven, that donors to the Clinton Foundation who over the years have transferred hundreds of millions of dollars to the "charitable organization", bought political favors with the Clintons in exchange for their generosity. That has now been confirmed thanks to a stunning ABC report which reveals how a major foundation donor - one who previously had practically no experience on intellgience matters - mysteriously ended up as a nuclear weapons advisor to Hillary during her tenure as Secretary of State.
Worse, the person in question Rajiv K. Fernando, had been the head of a high frequency trading company, Chopper Trading (recently acquired by HFT powerhouse DRW), which may explain the unprecedented pull of the HFT lobby throughout all ranks of the US political apparatus. In other words, Fernando bought a seat to not only have advance knowledge of all US foreign policy, but to directly shape it, something he could then parlay in the forms of massive policy frontrunning profits thanks to his trading company.
In other words, the appointment qualified Fernando, a trader in the public markets, for one of the highest levels of top secret access.
Just as shocking was the aggressive retaliation with which the State Department tried to cover up the cronyism that literally "bought" Fernando's seat as one of Hillary's closest political advisors, and how - as a result of ongoing media pressure - Fernando just as mysteriously resigned only days after his appointment was announced when the State Department was unable to come up with a legitimate reason for him to stay on."
i've said as much in other posts but it's more complicated than that. there was that chinese missile case which was pretty egregious lack of vetting by the clintons in the 90's.
this rajiv guy is probably an indian favor. it's certainly a problem with the clintons but for me the bigger problems are systemic, and hillary's always been committed to democracy and liberty values through the exercise of u.s. power. this broad direction is more important to me than these individual cases of influence peddling, although they should really cut it out when she comes into office. diplomatic appointments is a classic 'payoff' for campaign donations, and this is not really limited to the clintons.
there is also the possibility that some people from the private sector want to do good things. anti-corruption advocate sarah chayes is such an example. i do think the clintons are too naive on some of these appointments though.
edit: that second article talking about HFT frontrunning geopolitics, eh that's not how HFT works lol.
On June 11 2016 05:26 biology]major wrote: Well I'm not just voting for trump because of his personality or character lol, I agree with his positions on immigration, trade and terrorism. My point is I would outright reject a candidate who I feel is not trust worthy, doesn't matter what they say why should I believe them?
Don't you just love the contortions that Hillary supporters have to go through to whitewash her past and explain away her duplicitous nature?
Also, don't underestimate the significance of the bolded part above. Those are the key Trump issues. He has scored a ton of points with them throughout his campaign, and he's going to continue to score points with them against Hillary.
but ti's no match for the contortions used by the trump supporters!
I think most Trump supporters know exactly what they are voting for and are honest about his warts. They just care more about other things.
I'd contend that while they may know what they are voting for, they don't know what they are voting for, if that makes sense. I would expect that many of Trump's supporters buy into it because they like the sound of the wall and battling political correctness. The rest of his platform, they are happy to be blissfully ignorant about, i.e. most of the things that are actually important.
My father-in-law has indicated he plans to vote for Trump, and from what I can tell it is solely because he is a "political outsider," which isn't even true. But he's a busy man, and doesn't make the time to actually get to know any of these candidates, which is a shame.
On June 11 2016 06:51 WhiteDog wrote: Your vision is so naïve oneofthem... Voting for a president is not only about "policy and facts", it's also about institutional questions. That you want it or not, institutions are not perfect, and you are forced to give power to individuals ; you don't exactly for a set of policies, you also vote for the people who will obtain/distribute the important places in public institutions. At those position, elected (directly or indirectly) representatives will deal with thousands of various topics that cannot be exactly adressed in a policy proposal during the campaign. That's how it is, the presidential election is not a simple and "rational" discussion between a peope and a project/a set of policies, it's also a meeting between the people and a man/woman, a meeting that has a lot to do with feelings, like trust.
Here is what money/power can do for you :
Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff.
The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later.
Copies of dozens of internal emails were provided to ABC News by the conservative political group Citizens United, which obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act after more the two years of litigation with the government.
A prolific fundraiser for Democratic candidates and contributor to the Clinton Foundation, who later traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa, Rajiv K. Fernando’s only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how. The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues.
"It has been widely speculated, if not proven, that donors to the Clinton Foundation who over the years have transferred hundreds of millions of dollars to the "charitable organization", bought political favors with the Clintons in exchange for their generosity. That has now been confirmed thanks to a stunning ABC report which reveals how a major foundation donor - one who previously had practically no experience on intellgience matters - mysteriously ended up as a nuclear weapons advisor to Hillary during her tenure as Secretary of State.
Worse, the person in question Rajiv K. Fernando, had been the head of a high frequency trading company, Chopper Trading (recently acquired by HFT powerhouse DRW), which may explain the unprecedented pull of the HFT lobby throughout all ranks of the US political apparatus. In other words, Fernando bought a seat to not only have advance knowledge of all US foreign policy, but to directly shape it, something he could then parlay in the forms of massive policy frontrunning profits thanks to his trading company.
In other words, the appointment qualified Fernando, a trader in the public markets, for one of the highest levels of top secret access.
Just as shocking was the aggressive retaliation with which the State Department tried to cover up the cronyism that literally "bought" Fernando's seat as one of Hillary's closest political advisors, and how - as a result of ongoing media pressure - Fernando just as mysteriously resigned only days after his appointment was announced when the State Department was unable to come up with a legitimate reason for him to stay on."
i've said as much in other posts but it's more complicated than that. there was that chinese missile case which was pretty egregious lack of vetting by the clintons in the 90's.
this rajiv guy is probably an indian favor. it's certainly a problem with the clintons but for me the bigger problems are systemic, and hillary's always been committed to democracy and liberty values through the exercise of u.s. power. this broad direction is more important to me than these individual cases of influence peddling, although they should really cut it out when she comes into office.
edit: that second article talking about HFT frontrunning geopolitics, eh that's not how HFT works lol.
You prove right here that you trust Hillary, that is your judgement on the person, not entirely based on fact but also personnal experience / feelings : you are willing to believe she will do what is right when the times come. Some people do not feel like you, do not want to believe in her as you do : they're not clueless, nor irrationnal.
On June 11 2016 06:51 WhiteDog wrote: Your vision is so naïve oneofthem... Voting for a president is not only about "policy and facts", it's also about institutional questions. That you want it or not, institutions are not perfect, and you are forced to give power to individuals ; you don't exactly for a set of policies, you also vote for the people who will obtain/distribute the important places in public institutions. At those position, elected (directly or indirectly) representatives will deal with thousands of various topics that cannot be exactly adressed in a policy proposal during the campaign. That's how it is, the presidential election is not a simple and "rational" discussion between a peope and a project/a set of policies, it's also a meeting between the people and a man/woman, a meeting that has a lot to do with feelings, like trust.
Here is what money/power can do for you :
Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff.
The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later.
Copies of dozens of internal emails were provided to ABC News by the conservative political group Citizens United, which obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act after more the two years of litigation with the government.
A prolific fundraiser for Democratic candidates and contributor to the Clinton Foundation, who later traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa, Rajiv K. Fernando’s only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how. The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues.
"It has been widely speculated, if not proven, that donors to the Clinton Foundation who over the years have transferred hundreds of millions of dollars to the "charitable organization", bought political favors with the Clintons in exchange for their generosity. That has now been confirmed thanks to a stunning ABC report which reveals how a major foundation donor - one who previously had practically no experience on intellgience matters - mysteriously ended up as a nuclear weapons advisor to Hillary during her tenure as Secretary of State.
Worse, the person in question Rajiv K. Fernando, had been the head of a high frequency trading company, Chopper Trading (recently acquired by HFT powerhouse DRW), which may explain the unprecedented pull of the HFT lobby throughout all ranks of the US political apparatus. In other words, Fernando bought a seat to not only have advance knowledge of all US foreign policy, but to directly shape it, something he could then parlay in the forms of massive policy frontrunning profits thanks to his trading company.
In other words, the appointment qualified Fernando, a trader in the public markets, for one of the highest levels of top secret access.
Just as shocking was the aggressive retaliation with which the State Department tried to cover up the cronyism that literally "bought" Fernando's seat as one of Hillary's closest political advisors, and how - as a result of ongoing media pressure - Fernando just as mysteriously resigned only days after his appointment was announced when the State Department was unable to come up with a legitimate reason for him to stay on."
i've said as much in other posts but it's more complicated than that. there was that chinese missile case which was pretty egregious lack of vetting by the clintons in the 90's.
this rajiv guy is probably an indian favor. it's certainly a problem with the clintons but for me the bigger problems are systemic, and hillary's always been committed to democracy and liberty values through the exercise of u.s. power. this broad direction is more important to me than these individual cases of influence peddling, although they should really cut it out when she comes into office.
edit: that second article talking about HFT frontrunning geopolitics, eh that's not how HFT works lol.
You prove right here that you trust Hillary, that is your judgement on the person, not entirely based on fact but also personnal experience / feelings. Some people do not feel like you, they're not clueless, nor irrationnal.
i formed this judgment by looking at the facts,, including some of these emails. the typical lobbying is some clinton insider pitching a project or person along the lines of shared values etc. it's like a glorified college application almost.
it's more like an easily manipulated process rather than corruption.
the part about her policy history is obviously based on the public record. not a persona judgment.
On June 11 2016 03:15 Mohdoo wrote: Europeans are better informed on American politics than Americans
Look at it from the good side, everyone is taking interest in what happens in your country (on a slightly more cynical note, maybe people around the globe are just shit scared of having that orange clown anywhere near the nuclear button.)
Yea because the 'she's often forgetful' crook voting for NAFTA and the Iraq war and the Libyan crisis (leading to the rise of ISIL) is better judgment and safer around nuclear codes.
If you want to just flame the candidate you don't support like it's an obvious choice this works both ways.
You really think Trump has as good a judgment as Hillary on foreign politics? We talk of a guy who boast about carpet bombing the middle east, torturing prisoners and killing civilian if they are on the family of a bad guy.
I don't like Clinton hawkish positions, just as I don't like Obama's drone war and the way he has dealt with pretty much everything on foreign affairs. But that's America, and that won't change. There is a continuity in American foreign policies since the Vietnam war (again, with the exception of Bush, for the worst, he was a special case). Reagan, Bush father, Clinton, Obama, all have basically be on the same line when it comes to foreign affairs, and Hillary will carry on.
I don't like it, it really sucks. But Clinton is not a lunatic, and yeah, I don't mind her having the nuclear button close. I really do mind in the case of The Donald.
And I repeat myself: back up with facts that Hillary is a crook, thanks. Unless you want to transform that debate into schoolboy taunts, as Trump is currently doing.
I suggest you actually look at his foreign policies instead of believing facebook clickbait articles are what he plans to actually do because none of what you just said is a fair representation of the opposition.
Maybe watch his foreign policy press conference if you want a more accurate view of his positions (Hillary hasn't had a press conference in over half a year, probably because she's often forgetful)
Thank you I did.
It's not facebook click bait, it's stuff he did say, in his campaign. And being "unpredictable" and "getting better deals" is not a foreign policy agenda. It's a fucking joke.
On a side note, watch that wonderful video. It's just amazing, he talks for 50 minutes and say absolutely NOTHING (the fact he has no idea and no experience about foreign relations maybe a beginning of an explanation).
If that's all you take away from it then you just aren't being fair to the opposition.
It's similar to reducing Hillary's entire campaign to 'she flip flops on every issue throughout her career so you can't trust anything she says she's just a liar'
On June 11 2016 04:24 Plansix wrote: I love that Trumps policies fall into this mythical vision area where people can’t question them. And when they do, they are just pissed off because they are so good. Like the people saying that his wall is the dumbest plan ever just can’t see the beauty of it. And that we are going to hinder ourselves by developing new energy means, even though experts say it could be the next industry for the US.
Just put forth terrible plans and then tell everyone who disagrees with you that they are stupid over and over. And get sued 3500 times for your previous terrible plans.
On June 11 2016 05:26 biology]major wrote: Well I'm not just voting for trump because of his personality or character lol, I agree with his positions on immigration, trade and terrorism. My point is I would outright reject a candidate who I feel is not trust worthy, doesn't matter what they say why should I believe them?
Don't you just love the contortions that Hillary supporters have to go through to whitewash her past and explain away her duplicitous nature?
It is pretty funny. Like how Kwiz links an article about how "honest" she is but it doesn't even mention Bosnia which was the clear and blatant fabrication that I used as reference. Meanwhile others use the talking point about "right wing conspiracy" to refute the foreign policy point I made which again is where folks on the right like her hawkish nature even if they would still call her ineffective at best.
As for her apologies, they are textbook BS apologies. She either doesn't say she's sorry/ I apologize or she does crap like this:
"I am sorry that this has been confusing to people and has raised a lot of questions, but there are answers to all these questions,”
She's not apologizing for what she did, she's apologizing that people don't understand why her decisions were acceptable.
I mean Trump supporters are jumping through their fair share of hoops to make him seem like a reasonable candidate, but from a right leaning perspective, it's easy for me to see how in a "lesser of two evils" contest, he beats her.
On June 11 2016 04:24 Plansix wrote: I love that Trumps policies fall into this mythical vision area where people can’t question them. And when they do, they are just pissed off because they are so good. Like the people saying that his wall is the dumbest plan ever just can’t see the beauty of it. And that we are going to hinder ourselves by developing new energy means, even though experts say it could be the next industry for the US.
Just put forth terrible plans and then tell everyone who disagrees with you that they are stupid over and over. And get sued 3500 times for your previous terrible plans.
You aren't even trying to be fair at this point.
I am the fairest. I have the best judgment on what if fair. People love how fair I am. They talk about it all the time. I make the best decisions on fairness.
On June 11 2016 04:32 Mohdoo wrote: Why should any of us care about what people along the border want? If we listened to what rural areas wanted, we wouldn't have national parks. They don't matter. We've ignored them forever and I don't anticipate we have a reason to stop that now. The Bundy idiots here in Oregon didn't know how to use the land.
"Screw the people affected by this issue the most they don't matter. What matters is my opinion when I'm completely unaffected by it"
On June 11 2016 04:24 Plansix wrote: I love that Trumps policies fall into this mythical vision area where people can’t question them. And when they do, they are just pissed off because they are so good. Like the people saying that his wall is the dumbest plan ever just can’t see the beauty of it. And that we are going to hinder ourselves by developing new energy means, even though experts say it could be the next industry for the US.
Just put forth terrible plans and then tell everyone who disagrees with you that they are stupid over and over. And get sued 3500 times for your previous terrible plans.
At least people know Trump's policies, I'm sure 90% of Hillary supporters have no clue whats going on except for 'Trump is wrong, Clinton is right'.
I hear 87% of Trump supporters use strawman arguments at least 63% of the time.
On June 11 2016 04:24 Plansix wrote: I love that Trumps policies fall into this mythical vision area where people can’t question them. And when they do, they are just pissed off because they are so good. Like the people saying that his wall is the dumbest plan ever just can’t see the beauty of it. And that we are going to hinder ourselves by developing new energy means, even though experts say it could be the next industry for the US.
Just put forth terrible plans and then tell everyone who disagrees with you that they are stupid over and over. And get sued 3500 times for your previous terrible plans.
Among those cases with a clear resolution, Trump's side was the apparent victor in 451 and the loser in 38. In about 500 cases, judges dismissed plaintiffs' claims against Trump.
Take away the reality distortion lens and it reads like "Famous rich person often goes to court, usually wins."
Ooooh burned. Cant wait for Plansix's response.
Trump is a racist asshole that defrauds the poor by offering them fake degrees and tells them to put the charges on their credit card?
That number was inflated, but Trump is a flaming pile of garbage.
I'm going to work with you here.
I will agree with you that he is an asshole.
See who said our sides can't come together and agree on things?
The rest of it is utter garbage and I don't know why all you do is slander him and his policies here with ad hominem attacks. At least quote some his policies and say why they're shit so it's got some substance to it.
On June 11 2016 04:32 Mohdoo wrote: Why should any of us care about what people along the border want? If we listened to what rural areas wanted, we wouldn't have national parks. They don't matter. We've ignored them forever and I don't anticipate we have a reason to stop that now. The Bundy idiots here in Oregon didn't know how to use the land.
"Screw the people affected by this issue the most they don't matter. What matters is my opinion when I'm completely unaffected by it"
can't make this shit up folks
A wall would be a federal program which would impact the country. Living next to am extremely important area dies not entitle you to the decisions regarding the area.
On June 11 2016 04:24 Plansix wrote: I love that Trumps policies fall into this mythical vision area where people can’t question them. And when they do, they are just pissed off because they are so good. Like the people saying that his wall is the dumbest plan ever just can’t see the beauty of it. And that we are going to hinder ourselves by developing new energy means, even though experts say it could be the next industry for the US.
Just put forth terrible plans and then tell everyone who disagrees with you that they are stupid over and over. And get sued 3500 times for your previous terrible plans.
You aren't even trying to be fair at this point.
I am the fairest. I have the best judgment on what if fair. People love how fair I am. They talk about it all the time. I make the best decisions on fairness.
On June 11 2016 04:24 Plansix wrote: I love that Trumps policies fall into this mythical vision area where people can’t question them. And when they do, they are just pissed off because they are so good. Like the people saying that his wall is the dumbest plan ever just can’t see the beauty of it. And that we are going to hinder ourselves by developing new energy means, even though experts say it could be the next industry for the US.
Just put forth terrible plans and then tell everyone who disagrees with you that they are stupid over and over. And get sued 3500 times for your previous terrible plans.
At least people know Trump's policies, I'm sure 90% of Hillary supporters have no clue whats going on except for 'Trump is wrong, Clinton is right'.
I hear 87% of Trump supporters use strawman arguments at least 63% of the time.
You have no idea what her policies are without google-ing them. And I'm not sure google could help you find them anyway.
Ask anyone on the street what Trump's policies are and you'll get: Build a wall (immigration), trade (economy), make deals not enemies (foreign policy)
Ask them about Clinton and what will they answer that doesn't include Trumps name? 'Idk, whatever Obama is doing'
You think being able to sum your policies up in a tweet is a good thing? "make deals not enemies" wtf does this even mean?
Simple and honest is better than complicated bs.
One of the most important character traits in any leader is integrity. The person who is what they say/think/feel. HRC has been shown to flip flop, to lie, and obfuscate truths to further her agenda: which I doubt has anything to do with a vision for the country but rather instead to become the first woman president of the USA. Her massive ego (Just look at the number of time's she says 'I' any time she speaks vs 'we') and duplicitous nature makes me reject any of her policies or notions outright. It does not matter what she says, a person without character cannot be trusted. So when you guys go into these lengthy discussions on her specific policies or stances, I fail to the see the point of even going that far and analyzing it because I have 0 understanding of her true intentions.
Trump may say outlandish/brutish and say incoherent things a lot, but at least it seems that he is what we see. He is himself, very similar to Bernie. So I will always take a candidate I trust who may not be ideal vs someone who is just an empty shell running to be the first woman president.
This right here is how W. Bush got elected. A simple man who didn’t cover complicate issues with complex ideas. You knew what you were getting and could understand him.
All terrible traits for a President, it turned out.
Ironically Hillary voted for many of Bush's propositions and Trump openly opposed them.
On June 11 2016 07:03 farvacola wrote: Getting oneofthem to identify his person as a constituent element of his political views is a feat in itself, so kudos whitedog
On June 11 2016 05:26 biology]major wrote: Well I'm not just voting for trump because of his personality or character lol, I agree with his positions on immigration, trade and terrorism. My point is I would outright reject a candidate who I feel is not trust worthy, doesn't matter what they say why should I believe them?
What are his current positions? I have so much trouble keeping track of which week it is, and with his foot in his mouth every other day I have trouble hearing what he says.
I know that his view on terrorism is to purposely kill innocent people and relatives. Sounds really nice. I guess you don't have to worry about collateral damage when you're actually aiming for everyone, terrorist or not!
You're literally taking the worst possible interpretation of what he says. How do you think this is a fair way to discuss politics?
EPT
