|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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. |
On July 27 2016 20:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 20:27 Gorsameth wrote:On July 27 2016 20:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2016 19:58 Dan HH wrote:On July 27 2016 19:02 GreenHorizons wrote:lol pointing at all the negative spin articles that came out much later, ignores that it wasn't even mentioned on any of the live coverage, that they bused people in to fill the seats, or the countless other stuff. One article points to some verified twitter accounts with maybe ~100k followers between them. People were talking about none of the major news networks saying a peep as they watched it happen. It's obvious what they were trying to do and it's getting Orwellian with how hard people on both sides are covering for their candidate. Ah yes, there's nothing more Orwellian than verifiying claims made here instead of taking them at face value. As for spin, I included some of the most biased known sources at the bottom to show that even those aren't hiding this story as zeo claimed. In the more respectable sources there's several articles about this, not just the ones I linked and not from 'much later'. The conventions are television events, where are the links to the television coverage last night? Again, wtf did you expect would happen? No the dems are not going to broadcast the walkout. especially not when you don't do it while the camera's are on you... Are you intentionally calling the major "news" networks "the dems"?
I seem to recall you posting tweets of how the press was kept away from the walkout with closed doors and stuff.
If the rest of the press was kept away then there is no live footage.
And again, the walked out while there was nothing really going on right? End of the roll call, small break. If they wanted media attention why did they not walk while the camera's were rolling and on them
|
On July 27 2016 20:27 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 20:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2016 19:58 Dan HH wrote:On July 27 2016 19:02 GreenHorizons wrote:lol pointing at all the negative spin articles that came out much later, ignores that it wasn't even mentioned on any of the live coverage, that they bused people in to fill the seats, or the countless other stuff. One article points to some verified twitter accounts with maybe ~100k followers between them. People were talking about none of the major news networks saying a peep as they watched it happen. It's obvious what they were trying to do and it's getting Orwellian with how hard people on both sides are covering for their candidate. Ah yes, there's nothing more Orwellian than verifiying claims made here instead of taking them at face value. As for spin, I included some of the most biased known sources at the bottom to show that even those aren't hiding this story as zeo claimed. In the more respectable sources there's several articles about this, not just the ones I linked and not from 'much later'. The conventions are television events, where are the links to the television coverage last night? Again, wtf did you expect would happen? No the dems are not going to broadcast the walkout. especially not when you don't do it while the camera's are on you...
So we're naive idiots because we thought this happened according to Dan HH.
And we're naive idiots because we didn't think it would happen according to Gorsameth.
Sounds like there are two world views clashing there. You probably should have a discussion about that.
|
Funny enough, the longer i follow the election, the more i feel like trump isn't actually the worse of two evils. I still think he'd be a terrible, terrible president, but especially with the future in mind (ie, the next election), he might be the better one to vote for. Let's be honest: this election will not improve the US, regardless of who wins. Hillary won't change anything. Trump at least might try.
In the end, my spin on this is, you people already lost. You can just hope for better choices in 4 years - in which case trump would be the better president, because A: if he fcks up, democrats just walk it home with a candidate that is less of a crook (hopefully) - and if he doesn't, well.. That's not a bad thing.
Disclaimer: i am not exposed to US media.
|
On July 27 2016 21:01 m4ini wrote:
Funny enough, the longer i follow the election, the more i feel like trump isn't actually the worse of two evils. I still think he'd be a terrible, terrible president, but especially with the future in mind (ie, the next election), he might be the better one to vote for. Let's be honest: this election will not improve the US, regardless of who wins. Hillary won't change anything. Trump at least might try.
In the end, my spin on this is, you people already lost. You can just hope for better choices in 4 years - in which case trump would be the better president, because A: if he fcks up, democrats just walk it home with a candidate that is less of a crook (hopefully) - and if he doesn't, well.. That's not a bad thing.
Disclaimer: i am not exposed to US media.
I can't subscribe to that perspective. Four years is a fucking long time for climate change, and the diplomatic situation of the world is already volatile enough. I'm reticent to have someone like Clinton run foreign policy but it certainly trumps Trump.
It would help me win a whole ton of debates online though. Oh yeah, there's a problem with muslim culture, they support terrorism too much? Didn't you just elect that one candidate who said we should voluntarily target the families of terrorists?
|
On July 27 2016 21:01 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 20:27 Gorsameth wrote:On July 27 2016 20:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2016 19:58 Dan HH wrote:On July 27 2016 19:02 GreenHorizons wrote:lol pointing at all the negative spin articles that came out much later, ignores that it wasn't even mentioned on any of the live coverage, that they bused people in to fill the seats, or the countless other stuff. One article points to some verified twitter accounts with maybe ~100k followers between them. People were talking about none of the major news networks saying a peep as they watched it happen. It's obvious what they were trying to do and it's getting Orwellian with how hard people on both sides are covering for their candidate. Ah yes, there's nothing more Orwellian than verifiying claims made here instead of taking them at face value. As for spin, I included some of the most biased known sources at the bottom to show that even those aren't hiding this story as zeo claimed. In the more respectable sources there's several articles about this, not just the ones I linked and not from 'much later'. The conventions are television events, where are the links to the television coverage last night? Again, wtf did you expect would happen? No the dems are not going to broadcast the walkout. especially not when you don't do it while the camera's are on you... So we're naive idiots because we thought this happened according to Dan HH. And we're naive idiots because we didn't think it would happen according to Gorsameth. Sounds like there are two world views clashing there. You probably should have a discussion about that.
Someone claimed that mainstream media is hiding this. I checked almost every single site of US mainstream media and they all mention it. How is that calling you a naive idiot? You weren't even the one to claim that.
As for live on television, they don't film their own versions. From what I'm finding they all receive the same feed we see on youtube/twitch. Whether they mentioned the walkout in the commentary they presumably add between speeches is something I'm curious about but can't personally verify. I don't know of any place that uploads that.
|
On July 27 2016 21:10 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 21:01 m4ini wrote:
Funny enough, the longer i follow the election, the more i feel like trump isn't actually the worse of two evils. I still think he'd be a terrible, terrible president, but especially with the future in mind (ie, the next election), he might be the better one to vote for. Let's be honest: this election will not improve the US, regardless of who wins. Hillary won't change anything. Trump at least might try.
In the end, my spin on this is, you people already lost. You can just hope for better choices in 4 years - in which case trump would be the better president, because A: if he fcks up, democrats just walk it home with a candidate that is less of a crook (hopefully) - and if he doesn't, well.. That's not a bad thing.
Disclaimer: i am not exposed to US media. I can't subscribe to that perspective. Four years is a fucking long time for climate change, and the diplomatic situation of the world is already volatile enough. I'm reticent to have someone like Clinton run foreign policy but it certainly trumps Trump. It would help me win a whole ton of debates online though. Oh yeah, there's a problem with muslim culture, they support terrorism too much? Didn't you just elect that one candidate who said we should voluntarily target the families of terrorists?
The question is not what he's saying, but what he realistically can do. Yeah he's an idiot. So is Boris Johnson, yet he's now the minister for foreign politics and hasn't screwed it up (yet). In fact, i was positively surprised. So might trump.
edit: but you obviously don't need to "subscribe to that perspective" - it's mine.
|
On July 27 2016 21:20 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 21:10 Nebuchad wrote:On July 27 2016 21:01 m4ini wrote:
Funny enough, the longer i follow the election, the more i feel like trump isn't actually the worse of two evils. I still think he'd be a terrible, terrible president, but especially with the future in mind (ie, the next election), he might be the better one to vote for. Let's be honest: this election will not improve the US, regardless of who wins. Hillary won't change anything. Trump at least might try.
In the end, my spin on this is, you people already lost. You can just hope for better choices in 4 years - in which case trump would be the better president, because A: if he fcks up, democrats just walk it home with a candidate that is less of a crook (hopefully) - and if he doesn't, well.. That's not a bad thing.
Disclaimer: i am not exposed to US media. I can't subscribe to that perspective. Four years is a fucking long time for climate change, and the diplomatic situation of the world is already volatile enough. I'm reticent to have someone like Clinton run foreign policy but it certainly trumps Trump. It would help me win a whole ton of debates online though. Oh yeah, there's a problem with muslim culture, they support terrorism too much? Didn't you just elect that one candidate who said we should voluntarily target the families of terrorists? The question is not what he's saying, but what he realistically can do. Yeah he's an idiot. So is Boris Johnson, yet he's now the minister for foreign politics and hasn't screwed it up (yet). In fact, i was positively surprised. So might trump.
Read up on what Trump's proposed tax agenda is, as well as what his proposed Supreme Court nominees plan to do should they be appointed. Dude can do a lot of damage in a way politicians like BJ can't in the UK.
|
Can you guys stop trying to be impressive with your cynicism? Hillary's main faults pretty much come from being involved in the political game too long. This is a big minus on a personal level, don't get me wrong, but there is so much more at stake.
We can endlessly debate which opinions Trump really has or not but it won't really matter if he gets to select the next two supreme court justices, where he has indicated to follow the standard conservative choices, just as an example. Moreover, the way he manages his campaign in particular the way he fills his positions should make you very vary of a Trump presidency just under the aspect of basic competency (and no Hillary is not as incompetent, she has already proven to be able to do politics in Washington even if her campaign is not stellar).
Someone compared Trump with rolling a dice but it will be more like rolling a dice thousands of times with the dice being slanted towards bad results (because of basic incompetency), while from time to time an unexpectedly good result can happen. Hillary is constant mediocre results with some bad and some good mixed in.
I know that I won't change any minds but the constant refrain of "Hillary being as bad as Trump" is just bonkers if you see yourself as even slightly progressive (if you don't then whatever) and the general very lazy tendency to just say "everything is bad anyway" without qualitative and quantitative nuance is a pet peeve of mine.
|
On July 27 2016 21:20 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 21:10 Nebuchad wrote:On July 27 2016 21:01 m4ini wrote:
Funny enough, the longer i follow the election, the more i feel like trump isn't actually the worse of two evils. I still think he'd be a terrible, terrible president, but especially with the future in mind (ie, the next election), he might be the better one to vote for. Let's be honest: this election will not improve the US, regardless of who wins. Hillary won't change anything. Trump at least might try.
In the end, my spin on this is, you people already lost. You can just hope for better choices in 4 years - in which case trump would be the better president, because A: if he fcks up, democrats just walk it home with a candidate that is less of a crook (hopefully) - and if he doesn't, well.. That's not a bad thing.
Disclaimer: i am not exposed to US media. I can't subscribe to that perspective. Four years is a fucking long time for climate change, and the diplomatic situation of the world is already volatile enough. I'm reticent to have someone like Clinton run foreign policy but it certainly trumps Trump. It would help me win a whole ton of debates online though. Oh yeah, there's a problem with muslim culture, they support terrorism too much? Didn't you just elect that one candidate who said we should voluntarily target the families of terrorists? The question is not what he's saying, but what he realistically can do. Yeah he's an idiot. So is Boris Johnson, yet he's now the minister for foreign politics and hasn't screwed it up (yet). In fact, i was positively surprised. So might trump. edit: but you obviously don't need to "subscribe to that perspective" - it's mine.
When it comes to climate change I think there's plenty enough time. It doesn't exist, so we won't follow up on Paris and we won't do anything. That's four more years of not doing anything that I don't know we can afford.
It's possible that you're right though, I don't really know how much he can "not do" about climate change either, I should probably research that.
|
On July 27 2016 21:24 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 21:20 m4ini wrote:On July 27 2016 21:10 Nebuchad wrote:On July 27 2016 21:01 m4ini wrote:
Funny enough, the longer i follow the election, the more i feel like trump isn't actually the worse of two evils. I still think he'd be a terrible, terrible president, but especially with the future in mind (ie, the next election), he might be the better one to vote for. Let's be honest: this election will not improve the US, regardless of who wins. Hillary won't change anything. Trump at least might try.
In the end, my spin on this is, you people already lost. You can just hope for better choices in 4 years - in which case trump would be the better president, because A: if he fcks up, democrats just walk it home with a candidate that is less of a crook (hopefully) - and if he doesn't, well.. That's not a bad thing.
Disclaimer: i am not exposed to US media. I can't subscribe to that perspective. Four years is a fucking long time for climate change, and the diplomatic situation of the world is already volatile enough. I'm reticent to have someone like Clinton run foreign policy but it certainly trumps Trump. It would help me win a whole ton of debates online though. Oh yeah, there's a problem with muslim culture, they support terrorism too much? Didn't you just elect that one candidate who said we should voluntarily target the families of terrorists? The question is not what he's saying, but what he realistically can do. Yeah he's an idiot. So is Boris Johnson, yet he's now the minister for foreign politics and hasn't screwed it up (yet). In fact, i was positively surprised. So might trump. edit: but you obviously don't need to "subscribe to that perspective" - it's mine. When it comes to climate change I think there's plenty enough time. It doesn't exist, so we won't follow up on Paris and we won't do anything. That's four more years of not doing anything that I don't know we can afford. It's possible that you're right though, I don't really know how much he can "not do" about climate change either, I should probably research that.
Given that the president has broad power to shape and direct the EPA's agenda, I think you'll find that the answer is a lot.
|
On July 27 2016 21:22 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 21:20 m4ini wrote:On July 27 2016 21:10 Nebuchad wrote:On July 27 2016 21:01 m4ini wrote:
Funny enough, the longer i follow the election, the more i feel like trump isn't actually the worse of two evils. I still think he'd be a terrible, terrible president, but especially with the future in mind (ie, the next election), he might be the better one to vote for. Let's be honest: this election will not improve the US, regardless of who wins. Hillary won't change anything. Trump at least might try.
In the end, my spin on this is, you people already lost. You can just hope for better choices in 4 years - in which case trump would be the better president, because A: if he fcks up, democrats just walk it home with a candidate that is less of a crook (hopefully) - and if he doesn't, well.. That's not a bad thing.
Disclaimer: i am not exposed to US media. I can't subscribe to that perspective. Four years is a fucking long time for climate change, and the diplomatic situation of the world is already volatile enough. I'm reticent to have someone like Clinton run foreign policy but it certainly trumps Trump. It would help me win a whole ton of debates online though. Oh yeah, there's a problem with muslim culture, they support terrorism too much? Didn't you just elect that one candidate who said we should voluntarily target the families of terrorists? The question is not what he's saying, but what he realistically can do. Yeah he's an idiot. So is Boris Johnson, yet he's now the minister for foreign politics and hasn't screwed it up (yet). In fact, i was positively surprised. So might trump. Read up on what Trump's proposed tax agenda is, as well as what his proposed Supreme Court nominees plan to do should they be appointed. Dude can do a lot of damage in a way politicians like BJ can't in the UK.
I know his tax "plans" suck. But he's at least up front with it, or do you actually believe that Hillary will do considerably better? You got a point with the surpreme court nominee, that potentially can do a lot of damage. That just shows that a "judge for life" is, in the end, an incredibly stupid thing - as we see right now. But again: you got that point, Hillary would more likely appoint someone more liberal.
That being said, Hillary is also more likely to stick her fingers into the middle east (again), than trump.
|
On July 27 2016 21:30 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 21:22 farvacola wrote:On July 27 2016 21:20 m4ini wrote:On July 27 2016 21:10 Nebuchad wrote:On July 27 2016 21:01 m4ini wrote:
Funny enough, the longer i follow the election, the more i feel like trump isn't actually the worse of two evils. I still think he'd be a terrible, terrible president, but especially with the future in mind (ie, the next election), he might be the better one to vote for. Let's be honest: this election will not improve the US, regardless of who wins. Hillary won't change anything. Trump at least might try.
In the end, my spin on this is, you people already lost. You can just hope for better choices in 4 years - in which case trump would be the better president, because A: if he fcks up, democrats just walk it home with a candidate that is less of a crook (hopefully) - and if he doesn't, well.. That's not a bad thing.
Disclaimer: i am not exposed to US media. I can't subscribe to that perspective. Four years is a fucking long time for climate change, and the diplomatic situation of the world is already volatile enough. I'm reticent to have someone like Clinton run foreign policy but it certainly trumps Trump. It would help me win a whole ton of debates online though. Oh yeah, there's a problem with muslim culture, they support terrorism too much? Didn't you just elect that one candidate who said we should voluntarily target the families of terrorists? The question is not what he's saying, but what he realistically can do. Yeah he's an idiot. So is Boris Johnson, yet he's now the minister for foreign politics and hasn't screwed it up (yet). In fact, i was positively surprised. So might trump. Read up on what Trump's proposed tax agenda is, as well as what his proposed Supreme Court nominees plan to do should they be appointed. Dude can do a lot of damage in a way politicians like BJ can't in the UK. I know his tax "plans" suck. But he's at least up front with it, or do you actually believe that Hillary will do considerably better? You got a point with the surpreme court nominee, that potentially can do a lot of damage. That just shows that a "judge for life" is, in the end, an incredibly stupid thing - as we see right now. But again: you got that point, Hillary would more likely appoint someone more liberal. That being said, Hillary is also more likely to stick her fingers into the middle east (again), than trump.
From the perspective of someone who thinks effective taxes are progressive taxes, Hillary will definitely do considerably better. Trump's proposed cuts, cuts he could almost certainly get through Congress if elected, would both disproportionately benefit the wealthy and require massive reductions in federal programs that almost entirely benefit the poor/elderly, like Medicare and food assistance.
|
On July 27 2016 20:52 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 20:44 a_flayer wrote:On July 27 2016 19:02 imBLIND wrote:
As a Bernie supporter, it's clear to me that you have to vote for the lesser evil in order to prevent the greater evil from getting more power.
It's unfortunate that during a time of internal strife and differing opinions within the Democratic Party, there's a neo-Hitler who has received the Republican nomination. If I had to choose between Neo-Hitler/possibly starting WW3 and corrupt politician, I think you pick the one who is not neo-Hitler.... It is a frightening notion that this almost sounds like perfectly rational thinking. But I agree that you can be a Bernie supporter, out there protesting the process at the DNC and still vote for the corporate shell that received the nomination in order to... help prevent/delay world war 3 Can you people make up your minds already? Is Trump BFF's with Putin or will he go to nuclear war with Russia? You can't have it both ways. 'Putin wants Trump in power because its going to bring us closer to WW3'. How does that even make sense?
I'm pretty sure nobody claimed the third world war would be against Russia. The problem lies in that the combined factors of 1. Trump wanting to remove the US' unconditional support of NATO and 2. Trump wanting a better relationship with Russia, leaves Europe in a tough spot. Putin has already shown his eagerness in expanding his borders with the Crimea push. Without the world community through NATO including the US as a disencouraging factor, further Russian expansion is highly likely.
|
On July 27 2016 21:30 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 21:22 farvacola wrote:On July 27 2016 21:20 m4ini wrote:On July 27 2016 21:10 Nebuchad wrote:On July 27 2016 21:01 m4ini wrote:
Funny enough, the longer i follow the election, the more i feel like trump isn't actually the worse of two evils. I still think he'd be a terrible, terrible president, but especially with the future in mind (ie, the next election), he might be the better one to vote for. Let's be honest: this election will not improve the US, regardless of who wins. Hillary won't change anything. Trump at least might try.
In the end, my spin on this is, you people already lost. You can just hope for better choices in 4 years - in which case trump would be the better president, because A: if he fcks up, democrats just walk it home with a candidate that is less of a crook (hopefully) - and if he doesn't, well.. That's not a bad thing.
Disclaimer: i am not exposed to US media. I can't subscribe to that perspective. Four years is a fucking long time for climate change, and the diplomatic situation of the world is already volatile enough. I'm reticent to have someone like Clinton run foreign policy but it certainly trumps Trump. It would help me win a whole ton of debates online though. Oh yeah, there's a problem with muslim culture, they support terrorism too much? Didn't you just elect that one candidate who said we should voluntarily target the families of terrorists? The question is not what he's saying, but what he realistically can do. Yeah he's an idiot. So is Boris Johnson, yet he's now the minister for foreign politics and hasn't screwed it up (yet). In fact, i was positively surprised. So might trump. Read up on what Trump's proposed tax agenda is, as well as what his proposed Supreme Court nominees plan to do should they be appointed. Dude can do a lot of damage in a way politicians like BJ can't in the UK. I know his tax "plans" suck. But he's at least up front with it, or do you actually believe that Hillary will do considerably better? You got a point with the surpreme court nominee, that potentially can do a lot of damage. That just shows that a "judge for life" is, in the end, an incredibly stupid thing - as we see right now. But again: you got that point, Hillary would more likely appoint someone more liberal. That being said, Hillary is also more likely to stick her fingers into the middle east (again), than trump.
Being "up front" about crappy plans doesn't make them any better or less likely to cause damage, especially when you're probably going to have control of the House and Senate and they're one of the few things the party under you agrees with you about wholeheartedly.
|
On July 27 2016 21:33 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 21:30 m4ini wrote:On July 27 2016 21:22 farvacola wrote:On July 27 2016 21:20 m4ini wrote:On July 27 2016 21:10 Nebuchad wrote:On July 27 2016 21:01 m4ini wrote:
Funny enough, the longer i follow the election, the more i feel like trump isn't actually the worse of two evils. I still think he'd be a terrible, terrible president, but especially with the future in mind (ie, the next election), he might be the better one to vote for. Let's be honest: this election will not improve the US, regardless of who wins. Hillary won't change anything. Trump at least might try.
In the end, my spin on this is, you people already lost. You can just hope for better choices in 4 years - in which case trump would be the better president, because A: if he fcks up, democrats just walk it home with a candidate that is less of a crook (hopefully) - and if he doesn't, well.. That's not a bad thing.
Disclaimer: i am not exposed to US media. I can't subscribe to that perspective. Four years is a fucking long time for climate change, and the diplomatic situation of the world is already volatile enough. I'm reticent to have someone like Clinton run foreign policy but it certainly trumps Trump. It would help me win a whole ton of debates online though. Oh yeah, there's a problem with muslim culture, they support terrorism too much? Didn't you just elect that one candidate who said we should voluntarily target the families of terrorists? The question is not what he's saying, but what he realistically can do. Yeah he's an idiot. So is Boris Johnson, yet he's now the minister for foreign politics and hasn't screwed it up (yet). In fact, i was positively surprised. So might trump. Read up on what Trump's proposed tax agenda is, as well as what his proposed Supreme Court nominees plan to do should they be appointed. Dude can do a lot of damage in a way politicians like BJ can't in the UK. I know his tax "plans" suck. But he's at least up front with it, or do you actually believe that Hillary will do considerably better? You got a point with the surpreme court nominee, that potentially can do a lot of damage. That just shows that a "judge for life" is, in the end, an incredibly stupid thing - as we see right now. But again: you got that point, Hillary would more likely appoint someone more liberal. That being said, Hillary is also more likely to stick her fingers into the middle east (again), than trump. From the perspective of someone who thinks effective taxes are progressive taxes, Hillary will definitely do considerably better. Trump's proposed cuts, cuts he could almost certainly get through Congress if elected, would both disproportionately benefit the wealthy and require massive reductions in federal programs that almost entirely benefit the poor/elderly, like Medicare and food assistance.
Again: i said his tax plans suck if he actually intends to go through with it. But there's more to presidency than taxes.
I think, the one thing that makes me slowly lean towards trump (i'm liberal btw), is that you kinda know what to get/expect. With Hillary and her pandering to literally everything and everyone, there's no clear line. Trump is doing it for personal gain, from my perspective. He doesn't give a shit in regards to many things. Hillary on the other hand, what's her spin? What's her actual stance on Wall Street (and i don't mean "what she's saying")?
Hard to explain what i mean.
edit: neither one will start WW3. That's just an idiotic notion. Mainly because it's not entirely up to the president to just "decide" we go to war. Relationships might tank, but if you actually think either candidate would be likely (or even able) to start WW3 with russia.. Wake up.
Putin has already shown his eagerness in expanding his borders with the Crimea push. Without the world community through NATO including the US as a disencouraging factor, further Russian expansion is highly likely.
If you disregard pretty much every opinion of experts on that topic, then yes. Further russian expansion is "highly likely". Sidenote: it actually doesn't even work the way you describe it. The US has military bases in plenty of european countries. If you think that they just "leave" there, .. Hehe. Right.
|
I don't even...
You can look at Hillary's political career, her voting record, her advocacy and so on to get a good idea about what she will do. You can't do anything similar with Trump.
|
On July 27 2016 21:38 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 21:33 farvacola wrote:On July 27 2016 21:30 m4ini wrote:On July 27 2016 21:22 farvacola wrote:On July 27 2016 21:20 m4ini wrote:On July 27 2016 21:10 Nebuchad wrote:On July 27 2016 21:01 m4ini wrote:
Funny enough, the longer i follow the election, the more i feel like trump isn't actually the worse of two evils. I still think he'd be a terrible, terrible president, but especially with the future in mind (ie, the next election), he might be the better one to vote for. Let's be honest: this election will not improve the US, regardless of who wins. Hillary won't change anything. Trump at least might try.
In the end, my spin on this is, you people already lost. You can just hope for better choices in 4 years - in which case trump would be the better president, because A: if he fcks up, democrats just walk it home with a candidate that is less of a crook (hopefully) - and if he doesn't, well.. That's not a bad thing.
Disclaimer: i am not exposed to US media. I can't subscribe to that perspective. Four years is a fucking long time for climate change, and the diplomatic situation of the world is already volatile enough. I'm reticent to have someone like Clinton run foreign policy but it certainly trumps Trump. It would help me win a whole ton of debates online though. Oh yeah, there's a problem with muslim culture, they support terrorism too much? Didn't you just elect that one candidate who said we should voluntarily target the families of terrorists? The question is not what he's saying, but what he realistically can do. Yeah he's an idiot. So is Boris Johnson, yet he's now the minister for foreign politics and hasn't screwed it up (yet). In fact, i was positively surprised. So might trump. Read up on what Trump's proposed tax agenda is, as well as what his proposed Supreme Court nominees plan to do should they be appointed. Dude can do a lot of damage in a way politicians like BJ can't in the UK. I know his tax "plans" suck. But he's at least up front with it, or do you actually believe that Hillary will do considerably better? You got a point with the surpreme court nominee, that potentially can do a lot of damage. That just shows that a "judge for life" is, in the end, an incredibly stupid thing - as we see right now. But again: you got that point, Hillary would more likely appoint someone more liberal. That being said, Hillary is also more likely to stick her fingers into the middle east (again), than trump. From the perspective of someone who thinks effective taxes are progressive taxes, Hillary will definitely do considerably better. Trump's proposed cuts, cuts he could almost certainly get through Congress if elected, would both disproportionately benefit the wealthy and require massive reductions in federal programs that almost entirely benefit the poor/elderly, like Medicare and food assistance. Again: i said his tax plans suck if he actually intends to go through with it. But there's more to presidency than taxes. I think, the one thing that makes me slowly lean towards trump (i'm liberal btw), is that you kinda know what to get/expect. With Hillary and her pandering to literally everything and everyone, there's no clear line. Trump is doing it for personal gain, from my perspective. He doesn't give a shit in regards to many things. Hillary on the other hand, what's her spin? What's her actual stance on Wall Street (and i don't mean "what she's saying")? Hard to explain what i mean.
Hillary has been in politics for decades, she was a senator for 8 years.
How do you not know what your getting with Hillary?
Its all there if you but look.
|
On July 27 2016 21:43 silynxer wrote:
I don't even...
You can look at Hillary's political career, her voting record, her advocacy and so on to get a good idea about what she will do. You can't do anything similar with Trump.
Yeah, true. But that idea isn't actually at all appealing.
|
On July 27 2016 21:44 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 21:43 silynxer wrote:
I don't even...
You can look at Hillary's political career, her voting record, her advocacy and so on to get a good idea about what she will do. You can't do anything similar with Trump. Yeah, true. But that idea isn't actually at all appealing.
Do you even read what your saying?
Trump is shit but atleast you know he is shit.
Hillary has done good but you don't know if she will keep doing that.
Therefor I am starting to lean Trump.
You know how weird that sounds?
|
Hillary won't balance the budget on the backs of the poor and she won't nominate SC justices who'll do things like try and overturn Roe v. Wade. That's all I really need, and believe me, there's plenty more, particularly with regards to federal agency direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
