US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5244

On September 29 2016 03:23 RealityIsKing wrote:
Okay so basically Hillary and Trump comes from two different philosophical standpoint on how the country's economy should function.

Hillary advocate for decreasing taxes for the middle class, increase minimum wage and increasing taxes for the upper class to balance out the income classes.

Trump advocate for lessening restrictions for companies so that companies can expand more and thus creating more jobs for people to take instead of forcing domestic companies to sell/produce in developing countries.

On September 29 2016 03:24 zlefin wrote:

while those statements aren't exactly false; they present a rather biased and inaccurate picture of it all, especially on the trump side.

On September 29 2016 03:29 RealityIsKing wrote:


Y'know what we should be doing?

We should get the job done in Middle East.

We should insert a puppet government in those countries that have to obey the law that they should not raise arms against us.

And we should be able to utilize their oil refineries at will.

That's what we should be doing.

Then with the energy gained from the Middle East, we should be turning those energy into scientific research such as rocket ships that can collect minerals from the space.

We should be developing unused land across the country into modern cities where trains can reach there and businesses can flourish.

We should be developing the next generation of automated robots so that our domestic companies can have more autonomy from the other countries.

We should be upgrading our nuclear plants to make them safer.

This is what we should be doing.

On September 28 2016 23:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:

Not really. She is described as the most scandal rigged candidate in modern history.

We are talking about those scandals :

Benghazi. Which was in fact not a scandal at all.
The Clinton foundation. That is not a scandal at all either, since it appears she hasn't done anything remotely wrong.
The email server, that was, according to the FBI, simply very careless and certainly not criminal.

Now, against that, we are talking of a man whose list of REAL scandals would be longer than this thread. We are talking of robbing people, crooking vulnerable students, crooking shareholders, using for his own lawsuits the money given to his foundation in which he doesn't put a penny (now THAT is a scandal, spot the difference?), lying all the fucking time in the most outrageous manner, etc etc etc etc.

Read this thread and you hear bright people like GH say that Clinton is "a serial liar", because, yep, she apparently makes 13% of false statements according to Politico, but Trump is ok, because his bullshit'o'meter is only 53% and he says a blatant lie only once every 3 minutes. GH will certainly never call Trump a serial liar. He exaggerates a little bit that's all. (Ok, GH is not a good example, because he is the political equivalent of a lemming, really trying hard to make sure that the ideals he fought for will be buried for good.)

Anyway, my point is that the public thinks that Hillary is the untrustworthy one. Which is pathetic. That's one hell of a media fail.

On September 29 2016 01:47 Mohdoo wrote:


I don't take the perspective that Trump can't be president. I take the perspective that a Clinton presidency would have a non-zero benefit over a Trump presidency. So long as one side is better than the other, everything else is irrelevant to me, so long as only 2 options exist.

On September 29 2016 03:29 RealityIsKing wrote:


Y'know what we should be doing?

We should get the job done in Middle East.

We should insert a puppet government in those countries that have to obey the law that they should not raise arms against us.

And we should be able to utilize their oil refineries at will.

That's what we should be doing.

Then with the energy gained from the Middle East, we should be turning those energy into scientific research such as rocket ships that can collect minerals from the space.

We should be developing unused land across the country into modern cities where trains can reach there and businesses can flourish.

We should be developing the next generation of automated robots so that our domestic companies can have more autonomy from the other countries.

We should be upgrading our nuclear plants to make them safer.

This is what we should be doing.

On September 29 2016 03:31 Plansix wrote:
Imperialism had its day, its flaws are known. We are not going back to that flaws plan to be prosperous.

On September 29 2016 03:20 farvacola wrote:

That's a helpful list because I think it demonstrates that "American Left=European Right" is only useful in the most utterly general sense; any level of granular comparison starts to show that international political dynamics are more scattered than the prior equivocation would suggest.

On September 29 2016 03:31 zlefin wrote:

some of those are good ideas; some are already being done; some are fundamentally unsound ideas; some are just not possible.
do you want a response on which are which, and the reasons thereof?

what we should be doing is using entirely sound ideas; and maek those decisions with an actual understanding of the topics sufficient to determine that.

Donald Trump deputy campaign manager David Bossie said “clearly Mr. Trump held his tongue” at Monday night’s presidential debate when Hillary Clinton raised the Manhattan billionaire’s history of derogatory remarks about women.

Towards the end of the debate Monday night, Clinton managed to squeeze in a line of attack against Trump, labeling him as “a man who has called women pigs, slobs and dogs.” Almost immediately following the debate, Trump insinuated that he had considered responding by raising Bill Clinton’s history of marital infidelities but opted against it because the couple’s daughter, Chelsea Clinton, was in the debate hall.

That Trump had considered such an attack was more fully fleshed out by his surrogates and by the candidate himself in an array of TV news interviews Tuesday morning. The GOP nominee told Fox News that “I really eased up because I didn't want to hurt anybody's feelings” in Monday night’s debate, and that “I may hit her harder in certain ways” in future debates.

“I think that if you look at Hillary Clinton's background and if you look at her being an enabler, really, in the '90s and really attacking these women, it goes against everything that she now tries to spout as a candidate for president,” Bossie said on Fox News’s “Fox and Friends” Wednesday morning. “She'll say and do anything. Those are Barack Obama's words, not mine. She'll say and do anything to become president of the United States. And I think we're seeing that now.”

On September 29 2016 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
And this why I have little hope for the Democratic party long term.

And on who won the debate, yes by every scholastic measure Hillary won, but as Zel and others have pointed out, that's not what matters, what matters is how it impacted the electorate.

Someone else said "he sounds like a typical drunk blabbering at the bar" (paraphrased), well guess who's vote he was trying to get that night?

On September 29 2016 03:39 RealityIsKing wrote:


I'm talking about the ideal direction for America if everybody in the country worked toward those goals without any form of disruption and where everybody in the country is collaborating for sake of Americans.

The Senate voted Wednesday to give families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks the right to sue the Saudi Arabian government, overriding President Obama's veto for the first time.

The vote was lopsided, with 97 senators voting in favor of the override, well above the two-thirds majority needed to overcome the president's objection. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid cast the lone "no" vote. Sens. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., did not vote.

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) would, among other things, give families of Sept. 11 victims the right to sue Saudi Arabia over claims it aided or financed the terrorism attacks.

The House is likely to consider its own veto override later today. The House initially passed the measure on a voice vote earlier this month, two days before the 15th anniversary of the deadly terrorist attacks.

The Saudi government denies any role in those attacks, and the 9/11 Commission found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials were involved. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, though. And there have long been suspicions that some of the hijackers received support during their time in the U.S. from individuals with possible connections to the Saudi Kingdom.

Supporters of the veto override say those suspicions should be explored in a U.S. court of law.

The Obama administration says it's sympathetic to victims' families, but concerned that allowing such lawsuits would open the door to legal challenges against American officials in other countries.

On September 29 2016 03:45 WolfintheSheep wrote:

Yeah, the last time a country tried something something like this it was called World War II.

Here's a tip: the rest of the world doesn't like when one nation tries to take control of others for their own betterment.

On September 29 2016 03:23 RealityIsKing wrote:
Okay so basically Hillary and Trump comes from two different philosophical standpoint on how the country's economy should function.

Hillary advocates for decreasing taxes for the middle class, increase minimum wage and increasing taxes for the upper class to balance out the income classes.

Trump advocates for lessening restrictions for companies so that companies can expand more and thus creating more jobs for people to take instead of forcing domestic companies to sell/produce in developing countries.