|
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. |
Man, this election was so winnable.
|
Stuff like NATO, he's 100% right on it
You're joking.
|
On July 29 2016 12:23 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 12:21 Slaughter wrote:On July 29 2016 12:08 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 29 2016 12:04 LegalLord wrote:On July 29 2016 12:03 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 29 2016 12:01 Luolis wrote:On July 29 2016 11:59 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 29 2016 11:57 Luolis wrote:On July 29 2016 11:56 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 29 2016 11:54 Luolis wrote:I still can't, for the life of me, understand why there are people who actually want Trump to be their president. I guess america is just weird or something  Well roughly half of the voters right now want Trump, so there's plenty of people to ask S: Yeah, i guess we go with "america is just weird" choice then :D That or you don't believe what Hillary and the establishment says. And they are not addressing the issues that you think are important. And Trump addresses issues then? From what i've seen, he says whatever spit brings to his mouth (often times talking absolute bs) and talks over his previous statements so much that i'm not sure if even he knows what he really wants. To me it just seems like a sort of a dumb protest vote (kinda like Brexit) that might just result in shittier things for Americans. Luckily for me, i don't live in america, so it probably wont be that big of an effect on me. Immigration and protectionism are the two big ones imo. I think Brexit is a good choice btw, it'll just be costly short term. Hillary has jumped around on so many issues as well. Hillary changes her opinion to track public opinion on most issues. Yes, that's why everything that Hillary says is empty words to me. Trump on the other hand gets asked about something he hasn't thought about enough, and gives some silly answer, but then sometimes goes back on it because he had time to reflect on it, and makes his new opinion clear. At least that's my perspective on it. His perspective on immigration, trade, social security, gun rights, ISIS, and tax reform has been consistent throughout. Trump also struggles as being a moderate on social policy, while his party is right, so he needs to balance that on stuff like abortion, even though he's pro-choice himself. Shouldn't a politician change to reflect the will of the people though in a lot of cases? Clinton goes with the changing times. Sure it benefits her but as someone serving in office its a duty to serve what the people want. Politicians do need to be more flexible in that way (you can argue she is too flexible I guess). We have to many people in congress right now "set in their ways" and refuse to change even though the public is highly against them on whatever issue it is. Well.. What's the point in voting a representative then? If i vote someone, i don't care if his position changes. I voted for someone because he saw things as i saw them. Suddenly the guy that i voted for doesn't represent me anymore, because.. reasons. Why vote in the first place, and not just randomly chose a guy that follows what the loudest part of the country is shouting?
Because the public change their minds, you aren't static. If you were once against gay marriage and you voted in someone who felt the same...If you and a lot of your fellow constituents changed their mind and supported it would you want your candidate to stay against it?
|
On July 29 2016 12:23 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 12:21 FiWiFaKi wrote:
3000-4500 people die from non-drug/crime/gang related firearm deaths every year.
40,000 people use firearms to commit suicide a year. It's 12,000 homicides by gun, 20,000 suicides by gun, 400,000 violent actions by gun, and 50,000-3,000,000 self defense actions by gun.
12,000 is all homicides, your numbers are wrong.
Not going to bother checking the others, since I know that 12,000 as a fact, and if one is wrong, I don't have faith in the others.
edit: It's 9000 by firearm, and from that 50-67% are crime related according to different studies.
|
Um someone cue the music ffs...
|
On July 29 2016 12:27 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 12:23 Slaughter wrote:On July 29 2016 12:21 GoTuNk! wrote:On July 29 2016 12:04 Slaughter wrote:
Do women not vote in huge numbers? I just can't see Trump winning with just a good chunk of the white male vote and maaaybe slightly higher minority vote in some demos. Women seem to be so against him it's over before it started if they vote in large numbers. Then add in his large disadvantage with minorities and of course a good chunk of white males and I don't see him winning. "Hillary Clinton is a disgrace to women: Clings to the coattails of a serial philanderer, who has cheated on her over and over again, because he has been her ticket to her ambitions. She even publicly diminished and demeaned them along the way. Through the Clinton Foundation, sold favors to governments that condone abuse of women and the notion that women should hide themselves under yards of cloth, veils and robes. Shame on her. No intelligent woman can possibly condone this behavior and voter for her. From a Woman." You can find plenty of worse quotes from women about Trump. Your point? Most women despise Trump even if they don't like Clinton. I was simply giving you the position of why women would vote from Trump instead of Hillary. I honestly have no clue about the real woman voting numbers, but the assumption "woman candidate=woman vote" is simply not true, specially with Hillarys´s behavior.
I didn't say that, I said women hate Trump and they do in very large numbers.
|
Hillary talked about Trump more than Trump talked about Hillary.
|
Canada8991 Posts
On July 29 2016 12:25 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 12:23 Mohdoo wrote:
What incentive do Democrats have to go after guns? What a ridiculous issue to hound on. You don't gain votes that way. It's pure pandering to people who would never vote for trump The Democrats no longer need white male voters to reach the White House. And millennials (who are relatively gun rights friendly) tend to not vote and don't matter.
What? Of course they need white male voter, maybe not a majority of them, but still a huge part of them. I don't realy know the stats about the opinion on gun control, but I wouldn't be surprise that a lot of white male (especially independent) are for it.
|
On July 29 2016 12:27 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 12:23 m4ini wrote:On July 29 2016 12:21 Slaughter wrote:On July 29 2016 12:08 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 29 2016 12:04 LegalLord wrote:On July 29 2016 12:03 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 29 2016 12:01 Luolis wrote:On July 29 2016 11:59 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 29 2016 11:57 Luolis wrote:On July 29 2016 11:56 FiWiFaKi wrote:
[quote]
Well roughly half of the voters right now want Trump, so there's plenty of people to ask S: Yeah, i guess we go with "america is just weird" choice then :D That or you don't believe what Hillary and the establishment says. And they are not addressing the issues that you think are important. And Trump addresses issues then? From what i've seen, he says whatever spit brings to his mouth (often times talking absolute bs) and talks over his previous statements so much that i'm not sure if even he knows what he really wants. To me it just seems like a sort of a dumb protest vote (kinda like Brexit) that might just result in shittier things for Americans. Luckily for me, i don't live in america, so it probably wont be that big of an effect on me. Immigration and protectionism are the two big ones imo. I think Brexit is a good choice btw, it'll just be costly short term. Hillary has jumped around on so many issues as well. Hillary changes her opinion to track public opinion on most issues. Yes, that's why everything that Hillary says is empty words to me. Trump on the other hand gets asked about something he hasn't thought about enough, and gives some silly answer, but then sometimes goes back on it because he had time to reflect on it, and makes his new opinion clear. At least that's my perspective on it. His perspective on immigration, trade, social security, gun rights, ISIS, and tax reform has been consistent throughout. Trump also struggles as being a moderate on social policy, while his party is right, so he needs to balance that on stuff like abortion, even though he's pro-choice himself. Shouldn't a politician change to reflect the will of the people though in a lot of cases? Clinton goes with the changing times. Sure it benefits her but as someone serving in office its a duty to serve what the people want. Politicians do need to be more flexible in that way (you can argue she is too flexible I guess). We have to many people in congress right now "set in their ways" and refuse to change even though the public is highly against them on whatever issue it is. Well.. What's the point in voting a representative then? If i vote someone, i don't care if his position changes. I voted for someone because he saw things as i saw them. Suddenly the guy that i voted for doesn't represent me anymore, because.. reasons. Why vote in the first place, and not just randomly chose a guy that follows what the loudest part of the country is shouting? Because the public change their minds, you aren't static. If you were once against gay marriage and you voted in someone who felt the same...If you and a lot of your fellow constituents changed their mind and supported it would you want your candidate to stay against it?
.. yes? I'll just vote for someone else at the correct point?
Like, how can you even suggest it's a smart or even good thing to elect literally a populist? Politics is not about pleasing everyone. The right decisions are not always the easy ones. There will be no hard decisions anymore, because you can always say "well that's what the people wanted". There's a reason why so rarely referendums are held: because the general public is even dumber than your average politician.
edit: to be clear though, i have never and would never vote for an anti-gay marriage candidate.
|
Man these debates are gonna get high ratings lol.
|
So apparently the balloons have buried the nominees...
|
Canada8991 Posts
On July 29 2016 12:28 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 12:23 acker wrote:On July 29 2016 12:21 FiWiFaKi wrote:
3000-4500 people die from non-drug/crime/gang related firearm deaths every year.
40,000 people use firearms to commit suicide a year. It's 12,000 homicides by gun, 20,000 suicides by gun, 400,000 violent actions by gun, and 50,000-3,000,000 self defense actions by gun. 12,000 is all homicides, your numbers are wrong. Not going to bother checking the others, since I know that 12,000 as a fact, and if one is wrong, I don't have faith in the others. edit: It's 9000 by firearm, and from that 50-67% are crime related according to different studies.
Don't we have CIA or FBI stat somewhere to cut the debate?
|
On July 29 2016 12:29 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 12:27 Slaughter wrote:On July 29 2016 12:23 m4ini wrote:On July 29 2016 12:21 Slaughter wrote:On July 29 2016 12:08 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 29 2016 12:04 LegalLord wrote:On July 29 2016 12:03 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 29 2016 12:01 Luolis wrote:On July 29 2016 11:59 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 29 2016 11:57 Luolis wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, i guess we go with "america is just weird" choice then :D That or you don't believe what Hillary and the establishment says. And they are not addressing the issues that you think are important. And Trump addresses issues then? From what i've seen, he says whatever spit brings to his mouth (often times talking absolute bs) and talks over his previous statements so much that i'm not sure if even he knows what he really wants. To me it just seems like a sort of a dumb protest vote (kinda like Brexit) that might just result in shittier things for Americans. Luckily for me, i don't live in america, so it probably wont be that big of an effect on me. Immigration and protectionism are the two big ones imo. I think Brexit is a good choice btw, it'll just be costly short term. Hillary has jumped around on so many issues as well. Hillary changes her opinion to track public opinion on most issues. Yes, that's why everything that Hillary says is empty words to me. Trump on the other hand gets asked about something he hasn't thought about enough, and gives some silly answer, but then sometimes goes back on it because he had time to reflect on it, and makes his new opinion clear. At least that's my perspective on it. His perspective on immigration, trade, social security, gun rights, ISIS, and tax reform has been consistent throughout. Trump also struggles as being a moderate on social policy, while his party is right, so he needs to balance that on stuff like abortion, even though he's pro-choice himself. Shouldn't a politician change to reflect the will of the people though in a lot of cases? Clinton goes with the changing times. Sure it benefits her but as someone serving in office its a duty to serve what the people want. Politicians do need to be more flexible in that way (you can argue she is too flexible I guess). We have to many people in congress right now "set in their ways" and refuse to change even though the public is highly against them on whatever issue it is. Well.. What's the point in voting a representative then? If i vote someone, i don't care if his position changes. I voted for someone because he saw things as i saw them. Suddenly the guy that i voted for doesn't represent me anymore, because.. reasons. Why vote in the first place, and not just randomly chose a guy that follows what the loudest part of the country is shouting? Because the public change their minds, you aren't static. If you were once against gay marriage and you voted in someone who felt the same...If you and a lot of your fellow constituents changed their mind and supported it would you want your candidate to stay against it? .. yes? I'll just vote for someone else at the correct point? Like, how can you even suggest it's a smart or even good thing to elect literally a populist? Politics is not about pleasing everyone. The right decisions are not always the easy ones. There will be no hard decisions anymore, because you can always say "well that's what the people wanted". There's a reason why so rarely referendums are held: because the general public is even dumber than your average politician.
Most people aren't single issue voters. See our current congress. Many still stay in despite having large public pressure to change on maybe 1-2 issues but they stay in because either the competition sucks or you still like them overall or some other issue you agree with is bigger for you.
I'm not saying elect a populist, I am saying politicians get pretty married to a concept even when overwhelming public support is against it. They are too slow to change too often.
|
I honestly have no idea how Trump is even supposed to attack her in any debate that features serious discussion of issues. HIs whole isolationist military trash talking is going to go really badly.
|
On July 29 2016 12:26 FiWiFaKi wrote:
But it's things that are seen as long term benefits.
What really pissed me off were the people saying, oh look, the stock market went down after Brexit. Or the people that say, hey, we can't stop bringing in immigrants, or economy and things... Stuff like NATO, he's 100% right on it, sure there might be a small cost for a few years while we work it out, but he's getting people to realize that it's once you get passed that hump it gets better.
He advocates a flat tax on wealth to eliminate the $19 trillion quickly, because and people can see the benefit, because there will be short term pain for that long term gain.
So what about the people who have spent years analyzing the effect of large economic changes and say that it isn't a long-term benefit? If you didn't even start considering the issue until your candidate brought it up, how can you say with such conviction that Trump knows better than them?
|
On July 29 2016 12:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So apparently the balloons have buried the nominees...
Secret Service is prepared with concealed pins and needles.
|
His plan will be the same as hers. Frustrate her that she gets angry.
|
The positivity of this...it would be so grand if Democrats win just by differentiating themselves from Trump. He was well suited to the primaries, but in the end, he was beaten by a direct rejection of himself.
|
On July 29 2016 12:31 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 12:29 m4ini wrote:On July 29 2016 12:27 Slaughter wrote:On July 29 2016 12:23 m4ini wrote:On July 29 2016 12:21 Slaughter wrote:On July 29 2016 12:08 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 29 2016 12:04 LegalLord wrote:On July 29 2016 12:03 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 29 2016 12:01 Luolis wrote:On July 29 2016 11:59 FiWiFaKi wrote:
[quote]
That or you don't believe what Hillary and the establishment says. And they are not addressing the issues that you think are important.
And Trump addresses issues then? From what i've seen, he says whatever spit brings to his mouth (often times talking absolute bs) and talks over his previous statements so much that i'm not sure if even he knows what he really wants. To me it just seems like a sort of a dumb protest vote (kinda like Brexit) that might just result in shittier things for Americans. Luckily for me, i don't live in america, so it probably wont be that big of an effect on me. Immigration and protectionism are the two big ones imo. I think Brexit is a good choice btw, it'll just be costly short term. Hillary has jumped around on so many issues as well. Hillary changes her opinion to track public opinion on most issues. Yes, that's why everything that Hillary says is empty words to me. Trump on the other hand gets asked about something he hasn't thought about enough, and gives some silly answer, but then sometimes goes back on it because he had time to reflect on it, and makes his new opinion clear. At least that's my perspective on it. His perspective on immigration, trade, social security, gun rights, ISIS, and tax reform has been consistent throughout. Trump also struggles as being a moderate on social policy, while his party is right, so he needs to balance that on stuff like abortion, even though he's pro-choice himself. Shouldn't a politician change to reflect the will of the people though in a lot of cases? Clinton goes with the changing times. Sure it benefits her but as someone serving in office its a duty to serve what the people want. Politicians do need to be more flexible in that way (you can argue she is too flexible I guess). We have to many people in congress right now "set in their ways" and refuse to change even though the public is highly against them on whatever issue it is. Well.. What's the point in voting a representative then? If i vote someone, i don't care if his position changes. I voted for someone because he saw things as i saw them. Suddenly the guy that i voted for doesn't represent me anymore, because.. reasons. Why vote in the first place, and not just randomly chose a guy that follows what the loudest part of the country is shouting? Because the public change their minds, you aren't static. If you were once against gay marriage and you voted in someone who felt the same...If you and a lot of your fellow constituents changed their mind and supported it would you want your candidate to stay against it? .. yes? I'll just vote for someone else at the correct point? Like, how can you even suggest it's a smart or even good thing to elect literally a populist? Politics is not about pleasing everyone. The right decisions are not always the easy ones. There will be no hard decisions anymore, because you can always say "well that's what the people wanted". There's a reason why so rarely referendums are held: because the general public is even dumber than your average politician. Most people aren't single issue voters. See our current congress. Many still stay in despite having large public pressure to change on maybe 1-2 issues but they stay in because either the competition sucks or you still like them overall or some other issue you agree with is bigger for you.
And that would change somehow if they change "some issues"? Other people will be pissed off then.
You're literally saying "vote Trump - he doesn't have a clear line, but you can be sure he does whatever the public wants to hear".
|
On July 29 2016 12:28 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 12:23 acker wrote:On July 29 2016 12:21 FiWiFaKi wrote:
3000-4500 people die from non-drug/crime/gang related firearm deaths every year.
40,000 people use firearms to commit suicide a year. It's 12,000 homicides by gun, 20,000 suicides by gun, 400,000 violent actions by gun, and 50,000-3,000,000 self defense actions by gun. 12,000 is all homicides, your numbers are wrong. Not going to bother checking the others, since I know that 12,000 as a fact, and if one is wrong, I don't have faith in the others. edit: It's 9000 by firearm, and from that 50-67% are crime related according to different studies.
The FBI's numbers aren't comprehensive, as their numbers come from voluntary reporting from police departments. Pew Research and the CDC list the number at between 11k-12k homicides by firearm every year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
